(can of worms alert) Globe hasn't warmed in the last 16 years 76

[beej67]

Worth a read. One significance of the article to me is the 'skeptic' isn't a loon, she's the head of the EAS department at Georgia Tech.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[Brad1979]

OHIOMatt,

You would have been 15 right around 1990-1991 which would have been right around when the first IPCC report came out. Here is a graph of the actual temperature vs the 1990 IPCC prediction. The actual warming since 1990 has been 0.15 ± 0.08°C per decade and the 1990 IPCC prediction after correction for the actual amount of greenhouse gases was 0.2 °C per decade. Fast forward to the 1995 IPCC and their prediction was 0.14 °C per decade. So they have been within measurement uncertainty. Here is a good introduction to all the IPCC predictions.

Contrast this to the climate change deniers predictions and you will see how poorly they have done. Here is a graph showing all the IPCC predictions and a number of climate deniers predictions. Lindzen, Easterbrook, Akasofu, and McLean are all climate deniers. You can read an explanation here.

 

[JohnRBaker]

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society."

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States


John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[TGS4]

Brad1979 - please cease and desist the terminology "denier", "climate change denier" or "climate denier". They are not helpful, extremely derogatory, and unbecoming a engineering professional.

But, if you choose to use such terms, please be so kind as to inform me (as I find myself having the same perspective as gentlemen such as Dr. Lindzen), what exactly it is that I am "denying".

And, seriously, you are going to use skepticalscience.com as a reference? While I am sure that many here read wattsupwiththat.com, we're not using it as a reference - we use the actual sources - not someone's "interpretation" of them. The cartoonist that runs skepticalscience.com has a long history of post-facto revisionism that should make any civilized, ethical professional run for the hills. Do you have any better references? Perhaps, since you reference Lindzen, etc, you could link to their actual predictions. Maybe even a direct link to the IPCC predictions would be useful.

 

[Brad1979]

By denier I just mean somebody who disagree the scientific consensus on global warming. I will use a different term if you would like. Any preference?

So you mean you people who disagree the scientific consensus on global warming use actual sources? Like the Daily Mail. And a web page called "Science Shame." And USA Today. Why don't you go back through and look who linked to those sources. Why don't you ask them to link to the actual sources?

Do you have any specific problems with the graphs or links I linked to, other than the url they came from? Seriously if you see something wrong with what I linked to we can discuss it. But you having an issue with the person or people who wrote it is nothing more than ad hominem. The main reason I linked to it is that they've compiled all the info in one place and make it easy to compare. (And I am serious ... if you think something is wrong with those links please let me know.)

I will also point out that if you actually read the links I provided, you'll see they either link directly too each of the sources or they link to another page on their website that in turn links directly to the sources. In either case, though, if anybody eants to look at the sources and can't find them, let me know and I'll try to help.

 

[zdas04]

I am a denier in that I categorically deny that adulterated data and manipulated computer models prove anything at all. Even pristine data and "honest" computer models do not prove anything since every computer model has all of the bias and pre-conceived ideas of its authors, nothing anyone can do will eliminate that.

Is the climate changing? I certainly hope so, it always has and as soon as it stops changing I would think that some super entity had put us in stasis. I deny that we know the cause of any apparent change and I deny that it matters what the cause of the change is. If it is people and so-called greenhouse gases (an hypotheses that I have difficulty accepting) then it is going to rise without bound because the folks in China and India are going to move toward the standard of living that we enjoy in the west and nothing on this earth will stop them.

Next piece of this discussion is "is it bad that temperatures are going up?" Last warming period was responsible for ending the dark ages and starting the Renaissance. Not a bad result. "But we'll lose New Orleans" (or Amsterdam or Venice). So? All of that flooding would happen over a long enough period to allow the people to evacuate and take their stuff. Loosing the architecture would be tragic, but not nearly a tragedy even if it really happened (as my history books say both Venice and Amsterdam were centers of culture during the last warming period).

So to recap: () if 100% of everyone who has ever taken a dime for work done on climate change all agreed that their computer models "prove" that mankind and greenhouse gases are the cause of catastrophic climate change, my response would be "BS, models prove nothing". As a computer modeler myself I can say categorically and without reservation that you need to look elsewhere for proof; (2) I can't see the source of "harm" coming from climate change, if the earth is warming, then it is good for crops, if it is cooling then existing organisms will adapt or die; and (3) It is the height of arrogance to assume that human activities are causing the climate to change.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[2dye4]

""no warming at all in 13-17 years. So, obviously the simulations missed something. ""

I don't agree.

Obviously the models cannot predict every component of the climate, they are not meant to.
Observe the historical temperature records ( from any source ) and note the roller coaster ride
without man made CO2. There is no reason to suspect that whatever the source of this uncertainty
that it is gone today.

Next question is how to categorize and differentiate the two phenomena.
We have some unknown random forces driving climate temps and a hypothetical driving force.

If you observe the rise of the last 100 years ( shape and magnitude ) it appears to be unprecedented
in any of the temperature reconstructions or records.

So if you accept this unprecedented rise and coincidentally a similar rise in CO2 and then consider
that a theory predicting exactly this phenomena has been around since the 1800's then to me
this strongly indicates proof.

Since the experiment is a one off an cannot ever be reproduced we have to accept a statistical
probability of cause and effect.

 

[TenPenny]

(3) It is the height of arrogance to assume that human activities are causing the climate to change.


That statement sums up the problem very nicely.

Allow me to ask a question: does air pollution affect the local environment?

 

[TomDOT]

TenPenny: Absolutely, air pollution does affect the local environment. Witness coal-burning London's (literal) killer smog, and the current air quality issues in places like Beijing and Mexico City.

These are acute, local, temporary effects. London no longer has the killer smog, as they pretty much stopped burning coal for residential heat.

Hopefully a Wikipedia reference won't be frowned upon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog

 

[LionelHutz]

The absolute best that mankind can do is to try to minimize the amount we crap in our own nest (i.e., don't pollute rivers, keep toxic chemicals out of aquifers, minimize the BTEX, VOC, and ash we put into the air).

This touches on something I find hard to comprehend. Billions of dollars have already been spent on studies, and it is now being proposed to spend trillions of dollars more to try and control CO2 release into the environment in the hope it might control climate change. Yet, there are many known toxics being released into the environment every day and controlling these gets little "in your face" time in comparison. Shouldn't we be worried about releasing substances that are known to kill us ahead of being concerned about releasing a substance that might cause some negative effects on the planet?

 

[TomDOT]

Particulates are probably the most under-reported concern for air quality.

 

[GrandpaDave]

TomDOT... Did you forget what happened in Donora, Pennsylvania in October of 1948?

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/killer-smog-claims-elderly-victims

 

[rb1957]

"concensus" is a new (and IMHO not particularly relevent term) for describing how the scientific community agrees on a set of findings. Certainly there is concensus that newton's laws are correct, but no-one ever (in several centuries, to the best of my knowledge) used the term in that context. But Newton's laws make testable predictions (like all "good" science) and so "concensus" is irrelevent ... 'cause no-one disputes it, within the limits described by later scientists (Einstein et al).

environmental science does make predictions, but the testability of these is (very) questionable.

i have little problem with science making predictions that show that increased carbon emissions are irrefutably bad for the human inhabited (infested ?) biosphere. the big problems i have with this position is how we react to it ...

1) we continue to sell petrol products ... if carbon is as bad as people say then the price should be $100 per gallon (US or Imp). we've made small steps (IMHO) towards improving efficiency;

2) we are not discouraging the developing economies from following our carbon based economy. if it is as bad as people say, then the new economies should be encouraged to develop towards a clearer electrical based economy;

3) if it's as bad as people say, then we should be looking towards the future ... Fusion reactor research is a pittance. if we had unlimited power, then we'd be able to accomplish some real good.

4) instead we try to sequester the carbon (like putting the genie back in the bottle). so we spend more (valuable) energy and resources to power these methods to reduce the amount of carbon released.

5) and then there's carbon trading ... please don't get me started on that scam ! sure there's something to be said for carbon emittors paying the full market price of their production, but ...
a) where's the money going ? and
b) why the heck do developing countries have carbon "budgets" that they'll never meet (and so can trade with other carbon producers) ?

6) where's the accounting for water vapour ? (a much more significant GH gas than CO2)

7) what are the predictions if we stop carbon emissions today ? as i understand it, the models predict that the climate will continue to warm for several decades ... which is a double edged sword ... either "then why do anything, it's already too late" or "OMG"

8) what's with all the temperature monitoring stations ? many incorrect, many biased, many "corrected".

i'd've thought that our science should be used to predict the effects of orbital changes and solar influences and try to get ahead of the game. I think it is irrelevent wheter the global has warmed or not over the last 20 years; 20 years is irrelevent to detect climate trends.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[GrandpaDave]

rb1957 [highlight #3465A4]COOL[/highlight]
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati...
When in danger, When in doubt, Run in circles, Scream and shout!
Obama's foreign Policy?

 

[SomptingGuy]

I prefer to use the word "release" rather than "emit". Life on Earth has sucked all the carbon out of the early atmosphere and caused it to be buried underground in huge fossil fuel deposits. Hardly a natural place for it to be. We are simply restoring the natural balance by releasing it back to the atmosphere.

I wonder if the word "emissions" will ever get its old meaning back (i.e. gases and other by-products that are harmful to life).

- Steve

 

[cranky108]

"We have some unknown random forces driving climate temps and a hypothetical driving force."

Gee, maybe we need to define that unknown force before we attempt to try to control the climate results. But my guess is that so called unknown force might be our sun.

It's no doubt there are problems to be solved, and talking about them is a good step. But the seemly rush to a solution, and all the name calling is more of an impedment.

I disagree with your assement, and solutions, and the more you twist my arm, the more I will disagree with you. What do they say in schools today, No Bullying.

So can we find something that we can solve togather? My arm is hurting so.

 

[TenPenny]

"TenPenny: Absolutely, air pollution does affect the local environment. Witness coal-burning London's (literal) killer smog, and the current air quality issues in places like Beijing and Mexico City.

These are acute, local, temporary effects. London no longer has the killer smog, as they pretty much stopped burning coal for residential heat."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, we agree that local pollution affects the local environment.

Why don't people understand that global pollution affects the global environment?

How can it not?

 

[JohnRBaker]

This discussion is like three turtles sitting in a pot of water which is slowly being brought to a boil; if you need unanimity before any action can be taken, even if two of them are convinced that someone needs to at least try turning down the heat, we’re soon going to have ‘turtle soup’ for lunch.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[TGS4]

By denier I just mean somebody who disagree the scientific consensus on global warming. I will use a different term if you would like. Any preference?

How about scientist, fellow engineer, whatever else term you would use when there is genuine disagreement about a scientific/engineering topic?

So you mean you people who disagree the scientific consensus on global warming use actual sources? Like the Daily Mail.

The OP was posting a news article from the Daily Mail. It was a news piece - hence the link to the news article.

Do you have any specific problems with the graphs or links I linked to, other than the url they came from?

That site is run by a fellow that is the epitome of unethical behavior in the blogosphere. And that is most definitely NOT an ad hominem, but a statement of fact. I do not trust anything from there. I'd even consider realclimate.com over that.

But you having an issue with the person or people who wrote it is nothing more than ad hominem.

No, it is not an ad hominem. Calling someone that disagrees with you a "denier" in the exact same context as "holocaust denier" is an ad hominem. Stating that someone has acted unethically in the past an therefore is unworthy of my trust is a judgement call, not argumentum ad hominem.

You seem to have all the answers. So, coming back to my question that I keep asking, yet no one will answer - what divergence between the actual temperature record and the predictions will falsify the hypothesis behind the predictions? In other words, how different do the actual measured temperatures have to be from the predictions that are consistent with the concurrent CO2 levels in order for the hypothesis that anthropogenic releases of CO2 are the sole cause of warming in the earth's atmosphere? A number - temperature, years of divergence, slope of temperature vs time curve, something that defines falsifiability. I'm not saying that such a point has been reached - I just need something that describes when the hypothesis has been falsified.

 

[TGS4]

John, if the hypothesis that humans' release of CO2 were the sole cause of the warming since some arbitrary point were indeed true, then I could see your point. But it is not true (in the Popperian scientific method sense), warming has yet to be concluded as "bad", the projected magnitude of such warming has not been agreed to as "bad", and we still haven't even touched the economic consideration that adapting may be cheaper than "preventing".

Oh - perhaps you are referring to James Hansen's quote about run-away warming and the seas boiling. Um - sure... Because that's happened before when CO2 levels were much higher than today... Do you really want to associate yourself with this?

 

[cranky108]

I think the problem is the noise of all the debates. After all if a TV personality can get people to sign a petion to ban DihydroOxide, then we have a bunch of voices that don't need to be in the discussion.
Not that tose people are not important, they just don't seem to add a lot of valuable solutions, just more noise and name calling.