Arctic melt unnerves experts

[MiccyNarc]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0204-02.htm

Lesson no.1 - don't use Google to fight your battles.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/uoca-ais022806.php

 

[Parrot of doom]

And just skimming that article, look what I found:

> The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment, completed in 2001, predicted the Antarctic ice sheet would gain mass in the 21st century due to increased precipitation in a warming climate. But the new study signals a reduction in the continent's total ice mass, with the bulk of loss occurring in the West Antarctic ice sheet, said Velicogna.


This is the same IPCC that produced a report many people now take as gospel - yet apparently, according to the linked report, they were wrong to predict this?

How could such experts have (apparently) been so completely wrong? Why was the scientific consensus incorrect in this regard?

 

[tibetanpunk]

The sun regulates life on earth, it creates it and it will destroy it...The Mayans understood this and seemingly knew a lot more than us on the subject of things like sunspots and solar cycles than we do today...
They based their whole culture around a calendar that measured the precessional cycle of the earth on its axis which last for about 26000 years, the movement of the stars and sunspot cycles.
Some people have suggested that their form of astrology was based on cycles of solar radiation coming from the sun during different sunspot cycles...Other people have suggested that their calendar was used to actually look back and measure the evolution of the universe right back to the time of the 'big bang'...and subsequently 'look forward' and 'predict' the future...Anyway, a lot of importance was placed on their clanedar system.
We only (re-)discovered the existence of sunspots in the last 30 years or so and it has caused people to look at the early Mayan civilisation and the even earlier Olmec civilisation in a new light.
By the time their culture came to an end, unfortunately they had become sun worshippers and lost all of their seemingly scientific knowledge (which interestingly they claim was given to them by a strange race of beings with white skin and beards that came in 'ships') and instead sacrificed hundreds of thousands of people a year to try and convince the sun to keep shining...Then of course the Spanish came and murdered and enslaved them all in the name of 'God' and they were so deluded that they actually mistook the Spanish as their 'Gods' (White people with beards and ships....)

There is some speculation that the 'end' of the Mayan calendar on December 21st, 2012 A.D, which according to the Mayans marks the end of the 'Fifth age of the sun' will be the time when we notice dramatic rises in the earths sea levels...And not the end of the world as many people speculate...It also signifies the end of the age of pisces and the beginning of the age of aquarius (supposedly a technological age)..
Anyway, interesting subject...Bucket loads of speculation and theories....Some interesting and compelling evidence...

One of the most interesting theories I have heard of is that there is the remains of an advanced civilisation preserved under the ice of the arctic...They know that it was once tropical because they have found tropical vegetation perfectly preserved in the ice there on what would be mountain peaks...Which means it must have been very warm there at some stage.
They have also found perfectly preserved wooly mammoth with half chewed giant butter cups in their mouths...All apparently flash frozen almost instantly...
Time will tell all eh?

 

[tibetanpunk]

As for humans doing more harm than good...Look around
If you look at the world as if it were your own body you could be forgiven for seeing humans as an diseased element gradually eating away at the earth and sucking it dry with no care for the consequences....
What is the human bodies reaction to disease? To shake it off, to heal...To completely rid itself of the disease....
What if nature has a build in survival mechanism that causes it to protect itself against exactly what humans are doing?
Raping the planet of all its resources for personal gain without a thought, ruining all of our soil by over farming, killing rain forests to provide fields for cows so people can have big macs...
It doesn't take a genius to see that our current way of life along with our current rate of population growth is unsustainable and barely functional in many cases...

 

[MiccyNarc]

And just skimming that article, look what I found:

> The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment, completed in 2001, predicted the Antarctic ice sheet would gain mass in the 21st century due to increased precipitation in a warming climate. But the new study signals a reduction in the continent's total ice mass, with the bulk of loss occurring in the West Antarctic ice sheet, said Velicogna.


This is the same IPCC that produced a report many people now take as gospel - yet apparently, according to the linked report, they were wrong to predict this?

How could such experts have (apparently) been so completely wrong? Why was the scientific consensus incorrect in this regard?

Their prediction was wrong? There's a difference between analyzing the future and analyzing the present. You realize this, I hope.

 

[Raziaar]

Want to know a great solution to this problem? Encase the entire planet in a plastic bag, adding another above that.. Now, once that's accomplished(no small feat), tie the innermost bag up, and fill the outermost with ice and salt. Tie it up and give good ol Gaea a vigorous shake.





/crackpot solution

 

[Solaris]

A climate scientist is a climatologist. It is the overwhelming conscientious amongst climatologists that global warming exists and is man made.

 

[Parrot of doom]

We only (re-)discovered the existence of sunspots in the last 30 years or so

The Victorians were observing sunspots.

Then of course the Spanish came and murdered and enslaved them all in the name of 'God' and they were so deluded that they actually mistook the Spanish as their 'Gods' (White people with beards and ships....)

Not true.

One of the most interesting theories I have heard of is that there is the remains of an advanced civilisation preserved under the ice of the arctic...

Really? How do you build a civilisation on water?

 

[spunge]

I read some of it, and I didn't really get the gist of what it was saying. But global warming doesn't exist if that's relevant.

 

[Parrot of doom]

Their prediction was wrong? There's a difference between analyzing the future and analyzing the present. You realize this, I hope.

How can one analyse the future?!

Yes their prediction was wrong. Completely, utterly, entirely wrong.

And you trust our economy to these people?

Do yourself a favour, if you believe in anthropogenic climate change, read the recent paper on the economics of climate change by Nigel Lawson.

 

[Asus]

Check out this article (the 1st picture really)
It shows the amount of ice lower and lower over the past few years when just looking at when it melts. But the reverse (more ice than ever on record) when it freezes. Not sure what that means but just wanted to point it out.

 

[Parrot of doom]

A climate scientist is a climatologist. It is the overwhelming conscientious amongst climatologists that global warming exists and is man made.

What is a climatologist?

If global warming exists, why have temperatures been falling for the last few years, and why are they predicted to continue doing so?

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Source. Now.

 

[Gray Fox]

What a wonderfully ironic statement. I suggest you save that and examine it in a few years, once you (perhaps) get a bit more wisdom under your belt.

Firstly I'd like you to show me any statement by anybody who disagrees with anthropogenic climate change theory, which suggests that climate change is a myth.

What really make you an idiot is the fact you use big words as a substitute to knowledge and reason, like we can't see trough that.
And to top it off you bold the word "theory" like the fact human accelerated climate change is a theory gives any more merit to your position. It reminds me of the evolution debate, and to put it in a better way:

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

 

[Parrot of doom]

What really make you an idiot is the fact you use big words as a substitute to knowledge and reason, like we can't see trough that.
And to top it off you bold the word "theory" like the fact human accelerated climate change is a theory gives any more merit to your position. It reminds me of the evolution debate, and to put it in a better way:



http://www.notjustatheory.com/

Funny you should talk about reason, while you start your post calling me an 'idiot', and then start talking about 'big words'. Which Peter and Jane book are you on right now?

Then you go on to quote verbatim about 'theory', and decide that anthropogenic (learn the word) climate change is 'fact'.


Interesting that you haven't answered a single question I've put to you.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Interesting that you haven't answered a single question I've put to you.

Neither have you. I asked you for sources for the world cooling down, but you haven't given them.

Fact: In southern europe is was so hot in june/july/august that forest fires that lasted weeks sprung up and could not be put out.
Fact: People died from this heatwave
Fact: The artic is melting at an alarming rate
Fact: Both the UK and the US have been afflicted by massive floods.

Cooling cuases heatwaves and melting? K.

 

[Asus]

Fact: chicken poop contains no poop
I back up my facts

 

[Parrot of doom]

Neither have you. I asked you for sources for the world cooling down, but you haven't given them.

Fact: In southern europe is was so hot in june/july/august that forest fires that lasted weeks sprung up and could not be put out.
Fact: People died from this heatwave
Fact: The artic is melting at an alarming rate
Fact: Both the UK and the US have been afflicted by massive floods.

Cooling cuases heatwaves and melting? K.

Global temperature trends January 1998-January 2006
Source: NOAA Satellite and Information Service

Also do a Google on Hadley Centre cooling 1998.



What have forest fires got to do with global temperature trends?
What has the fact that people died in these fires to do with the same?
The quiescent state of the earth is one in which there are no ice caps whatsoever.
The recent flooding has nothing to do with global temperature trends. The US flooding was a failure of sea defences during a hurricane. The UK flooding was a repeat of a regular occurrence, and not aided by poor sewer maintenance and building on floodplains.

Heres a pretty graph for you to ponder. Note the levels of co2 and the global temperatures:

Not forgetting of course that historically temperature change is a driver of co2 levels - not the reverse. There is a very large 800 year time lag between temperatures rising, and co2 rising - not the other way around. This still hasn't been satisfactorily explained, not even by the IPCC.

Heres something published by the IPCC in 1990, based on the famous Mann Hockey Stick graph (a graph that has been debunked).

Can you explain the presence of the Holocene maximum, when mankind was not producing any notable co2 emissions? Can you explain why ice ages occur, and the cyclical nature of the warming since then? Why, 10,000 years ago, did the planet suddenly start warming at a massive rate without any human input?


The only fact is that it isn't fashionable to disagree with the current hysteria on climate change, and you'll certainly get blank looks when you try to separate real climate change from anthropogenic climate change, because most people don't even understand that there is a difference. Mention 'climate change' to most people and they'll instantly assume its a bad thing. Thats because most people are happy to believe what they're told by a compliant media and governments that are happy to find reasons to tax their populace.

When you look at the records over a much wider time period than 100 years, or even 1000 years, you begin to realise that our current climate is not the natural, quiescent one, and that climate change is quite normal and that the only challenge is adapting to it - not trying to prevent it. Read this: http://www.cps.org.uk/cpsfile.asp?id=641

Its the modern guilt-trip. Watch Penn and Teller's excellent documentary on recycling for a demonstration of how lack of education and political dogma are influencing modern attitudes in all the wrong ways.

 

[Escaep]

We are in a natural warming cycle. Its happened numerous times in the history of the world. For example, When the Vikings started to invade Europe
(800 AD) because it was to cold where they came from (Scandinavia, Norway, Finland) to farm and live. But, as several hundred years passed, the climate became warmer and more able to farm due to higher temperatures.

Even if all of the countries in the world were to fully halt their CO2 production, it would only lead to like a .235 impact of the rising temperatures.

 

[SAJ]

About that Holocene maximum illustration, would I be correct in reading from it a change in in temperture of around 1.2/1.3 celcius at its zenith, a little under two thousand years from the start?

Also, if -as you say- the Mann hockey stick has been debunked, then surely all data derivatives (including that graph) would be questionable as well?

 

[clarky003]

To the first post. Climate change obviously isn't bs, but the question is, what quantity of the process is naturally driven and how significantly are we accelerating that process?.

 

[Parrot of doom]

I don't believe its possible to know for certain. But I do believe its perfectly reasonable to spend money preparing for problems, rather than spending even more money in a futile attempt to stop them.

 

[SAJ]

About that Holocene maximum illustration, would I be correct in reading from it a change in in temperture of around 1.2/1.3 celcius at its zenith, a little under two thousand years from the start?

Also, if -as you say- the Mann hockey stick has been debunked, then surely all data derivatives (including that graph) would be questionable as well?

You probably didnt notice but the questions were for you Mr Parrot.
Your input would be appreciated.

 

[Fliko]

Fact: In southern europe is was so hot in june/july/august that forest fires that lasted weeks sprung up and could not be put out.

Rofl what?
Fact: Forests that spring randomly into fire are a natural process that we humans are basically stopping, which is ****ing up the environment.

Maybe Mother Nature is getting pissed off at that and through a natural process the earth is heating up ;P

 

[Warbie]

Climate change obviously isn't bs, but the question is, what quantity of the process is naturally driven and how significantly are we accelerating that process?.

Aye. My parents, both geophysicists, feel that it is arrogance to presume that man could have such an impact on climate change. All their professional lives they've studied the planet - co2 levels, ice ages, various models etc etc.

 

[SAJ]

Global temperature trends January 1998-January 2006
Source: NOAA Satellite and Information Service

An interseting graph, but not very helpful. Interesting in the respect of using a -selectively- short time-frame starting immediately after a record global temperature high (therefore setting an artificially high base-line average), using one data source(again, selectively) and essentially being a misquote (graph is data-mined from NOAA satalite data, not published by www.ncdc.noaa.gov).
The actual source of the graph is http://environmentnc.com , a very differnt body, with a very different (and obvious) agenda.

Here's an actual quote from the official site regarding the latest climate change report... "The June-August summer season ended with a long-lasting heatwave that produced more than 2000 new daily high temperature records across the southern and central U.S., according to scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The record heat helped make this the second warmest August and the 6th warmest summer on record for the contiguous U.S., based on preliminary data. At the end of August drought affected almost half of the contiguous U.S. The global surface temperature was 7th warmest on record for the June-August period." http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/aug/aug07.html

Also do a Google on Hadley Centre cooling 1998.

Why? Why not try "Hadley Centre", or "global average temperature"
To be fair lets see the first result from such a search as you have defined it: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/HCTN/HCTN_20.pdf

We have compared two regression schemes that have been applied in an optimal detection framework to
fingerprints of twentieth century near-surface temperature change calculated by HadCM2. Ordinary least
squares regression is the technique that is currently applied in standard optimal detection methodology
(eg Hasselmann (1993), North and Kim (1995), Tett et al (1999)) whereas total least squares regression
(unlike ols) takes account of noise in model-predicted signals. By means of a perfect model study, we have
shown that ordinary least squares regression exhibits a significant bias towards zero at the signal to noise
levels appropriate to 4-member ensembles of climate change signals in the twentieth century. Total least
squares regression shows no high or low bias and produces results much closer to the expected distribution
than ols regression, although at low signal to noise levels our results indicate that tls may underestimate
uncertainty ranges.
We have examined the robustness of the conclusions of Tett et al (1999) concerning the causes of
twentieth-century temperature change. With tls regression the main conclusions of Tett et al (1999) remain.
We rule out explanations involving natural internal and externally forced natural variability. The
same reasoning as applied by Tett et al (1999) yields the same two explanations for twentieth-century
temperature change involving either greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols in a combination which allows
their relative amplitudes to vary or anthropogenic changes due to both greenhouse gases and sulphate
aerosols in combination with solar changes. In the first combination, the observed warming results from
a greater greenhouse warming and a smaller sulphate cooling than seen in the model and in the second
combination the observed warming results from an enhanced response to solar changes. In the 1946-96
period we still detect greenhouse gases in all combinations except the degenerate four-signal combination
GHG&SUL&Sol&Vol. However the anthropogenic signal, GS, is detected in combination with solar and
volcanic forcings.
The principal attribution results of T99 are therefore robust to taking account of uncertainties in model
signals. However, uncertainty ranges are generally much larger calculated by tls regression and for some
signal amplitudes include unbounded values corresponding to noisy signals where the true underlying
signal is near zero. Reconstructions of the contributions of these signals to observed changes shows a
greater degree of greenhouse warming and sulphate cooling in the latter part of the century than shown by
Tett et al (1999), while the observed changes in the early part of the century might be entirely consistent
with warming solely from a much amplified solar signal.

Its long but I'm sure I would be accused of selective quoting had I cut it down too much.
Doesn't quite support a claim of global cooling does it?

For a more representative view of the satalite data, maybe we should try NASA ;

In the last graph, see the peak at 1998? That was the hottest year on record. See the peak at 2006? Higher? Hardly a global cooling trend is it?

Heres a pretty graph for you to ponder. Note the levels of co2 and the global temperatures:

.

(source http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/global_warming.html )
You're right, it is a pretty graph. Not so sure how useful it is though.
I see that it goes back 600 million years, so its derived from reconstructed paleoclimatology data then?
Interesting, we will come back to it later.
In the meantime here's another pretty graph ;

Source
This graph is taken directly from ice core samples, not reconstructed data.
See how the co2 concentration never gets above 300ppm?
Hands up who knows what is today?

Not forgetting of course that historically temperature change is a driver of co2 levels - not the reverse. There is a very large 800 year time lag between temperatures rising, and co2 rising - not the other way around. This still hasn't been satisfactorily explained, not even by the IPCC.

That is partly correct, it does appear that (historically) there is a lag between co2 and temperature increase. Why this seems to be no one is certain, but the key here is uncertainty. Even if this doesn't turn out to be an artifact of how data is collected, it doesn't change the role of co2 as a greenhouse gas.
Don't forget that the current dumping of co2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels has not historical analogy, it is completely without precedent, so that the previously natural relationship between co2 and temperature is not an indicator of the current situation.

Heres something published by the IPCC in 1990, based on the famous Mann Hockey Stick graph (a graph that has been debunked).

.

About that Mann Hockey stick graph contraversy, let's be honest now, it hasn't actually been "debunked" now has it?
Have a look here those who want to know more.
The contraversy seems to revolve around the methodology used in paleoclimatology itself, not just Mann,Bradley and Hughes. It's an interesting read in itself (if you like that kind of thing) and it begs the question; do you dismiss paleoclimatology itself ( as the critics of MBH wanted) or do you take it on board in its entirety.

Thats the question for you Mr Parrot, how can you use a graph based on Manns data to illustrate one of your points, use another based on reconstructed data to establish a paleoclimatology pattern and claim Mann's "hockey stick" (and, by extension all of paleoclimatology's methods) as "debunked" ?

Can you explain the presence of the Holocene maximum, when mankind was not producing any notable co2 emissions? Can you explain why ice ages occur, and the cyclical nature of the warming since then? Why, 10,000 years ago, did the planet suddenly start warming at a massive rate without any human input?

No, can you? Firstly a change of 1.6 - 0.8 degrees above average, over a two thousand year period (from beginning to peak) is not "warming at a massive rate" when talking about the rate of change since the industrial revolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Climatic_Optimum
Secondly, that graph is dubious at best. Who produced it? Why redraw the graph using only one source and smooth it out?
Here's a better one;

The only fact is that it isn't fashionable to disagree with the current hysteria on climate change, and you'll certainly get blank looks when you try to separate real climate change from anthropogenic climate change, because most people don't even understand that there is a difference. Mention 'climate change' to most people and they'll instantly assume its a bad thing. Thats because most people are happy to believe what they're told by a compliant media and governments that are happy to find reasons to tax their populace.

NEWSFLASH "MEDIA HYPE OBSCURES REAL DEBATE AND FACTUAL SCIENCE" ....film at eleven.

When you look at the records over a much wider time period than 100 years, or even 1000 years, you begin to realise that our current climate is not the natural, quiescent one, and that climate change is quite normal and that the only challenge is adapting to it - not trying to prevent it. Read this: http://www.cps.org.uk/cpsfile.asp?id=641.

Sure, that's one possible reaction, but hardly the most natural one.
As for Nigel Lawson, give me a break, he's a politician and an economist, and here's you arguing the toss with people over who is qualified to claim as a climatologist. Get real, he is not even a scientist of any shade.

Aye. My parents, both geophysicists, feel that it is arrogance to presume that man could have such an impact on climate change. All their professional lives they've studied the planet - co2 levels, ice ages, various models etc etc.

I remember you brought your parents into the discussion last time as well. I asked you then if you would get them involved constructively in the debate.
Without contributions of any kind from them (and I hate to say this) your continued reference to them seems more like an appeal to authority than anything else.

 

[kirovman]

SAJ certainly makes a compelling argument, based on several good sources of evidence, without resorting to cherry picking.

I would also like to make a couple of layperson observations to ponder over:

1) We are burning fossil fuels that have locked a large proportion of carbon out of the atmosphere for millions of years.

2) The last time this locked away carbon was in the atmosphere, the planet was a lot warmer than now.

3) Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

 

[Warbie]

I remember you brought your parents into the discussion last time as well. I asked you then if you would get them involved constructively in the debate.
Without contributions of any kind from them (and I hate to say this) your continued reference to them seems more like an appeal to authority than anything else.

This is a hot topic in my family, something that gets brought up far too often for my liking around the dinner table. I'm simply reiterating what I get drummed into me on a regular basis and that I, having little knowledge on this matter, take atleast some of what they say seriously. tbh i'd rather keep them far away from this forum to prevent them reading my prolongued and geeky posts about video games, but perhaps on another venue.

A forewarning though - any graph that deals in time periods any less than millions of years they tend to scoff at as being inadequate to form any reasonable conclusion. They repeatedly refer to an ice samples they dug up which contained co2 levels 14 times higher than those found in today's atmosphere and have a distinct mistrust in regards to climate models and their accuracy.

 

[Parrot of doom]

You probably didnt notice but the questions were for you Mr Parrot.
Your input would be appreciated.

I'm not an expert. I'm just sick of being given only half the argument.

My point was that too much trust is placed in the IPCC report, when they have consistently revised and changed their conclusions on many aspects of the climate. I don't believe they've yet even isolated any human input from the background.

 

[Parrot of doom]

An interseting graph, but not very helpful. Interesting in the respect of using a -selectively- short time-frame starting immediately after a record global temperature high (therefore setting an artificially high base-line average), using one data source(again, selectively) and essentially being a misquote (graph is data-mined from NOAA satalite data, not published by www.ncdc.noaa.gov).
The actual source of the graph is http://environmentnc.com , a very differnt body, with a very different (and obvious) agenda.

And of course the IPCC has no agenda doesn't it?

Here's an actual quote from the official site regarding the latest climate change report... "The June-August summer season ended with a long-lasting heatwave that produced more than 2000 new daily high temperature records across the southern and central U.S., according to scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The record heat helped make this the second warmest August and the 6th warmest summer on record for the contiguous U.S., based on preliminary data. At the end of August drought affected almost half of the contiguous U.S. The global surface temperature was 7th warmest on record for the June-August period." http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/aug/aug07.html

I would have thought that atmospheric temperatures were a far more important indicator of climate activity than surface temperature - I wonder where the temperature stations were?

Why? Why not try "Hadley Centre", or "global average temperature"
To be fair lets see the first result from such a search as you have defined it: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/HCTN/HCTN_20.pdf Its long but I'm sure I would be accused of selective quoting had I cut it down too much.
Doesn't quite support a claim of global cooling does it?

I think 'quite' is the correct word there.

For a more representative view of the satalite data, maybe we should try NASA ;

In the last graph, see the peak at 1998? That was the hottest year on record. See the peak at 2006? Higher? Hardly a global cooling trend is it?

I can't see any of those images so can't comment. Are you referring to the temperatures in 1998 in the USA?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=70413

(source http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/global_warming.html )
You're right, it is a pretty graph. Not so sure how useful it is though.
I see that it goes back 600 million years, so its derived from reconstructed paleoclimatology data then?
Interesting, we will come back to it later.
In the meantime here's another pretty graph ;

Source
This graph is taken directly from ice core samples, not reconstructed data.
See how the co2 concentration never gets above 300ppm?
Hands up who knows what is today?

I know exactly what it is today. What I also know is that nobody has yet been able to conclusively show that co2 is a driver of global temperature, and also the extent to which it is able to create a warming effect. Just how many degrees C does co2 warm the atmosphere by? And why focus on co2, and our pifflingly small contribution to global concentrations, when its such a minor greenhouse gas?

The answer (IMO) of course is that co2 is related to energy useage, and energy useage is related to wealth - and wealth is something that many groups are opposed to.

That is partly correct, it does appear that (historically) there is a lag between co2 and temperature increase. Why this seems to be no one is certain, but the key here is uncertainty. Even if this doesn't turn out to be an artifact of how data is collected, it doesn't change the role of co2 as a greenhouse gas.

No it doesn't. But its glossed over repeatedly in mainstream reporting, and that fact annoys me intensely.

Don't forget that the current dumping of co2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels has not historical analogy, it is completely without precedent, so that the previously natural relationship between co2 and temperature is not an indicator of the current situation.

Quite true but I do not feel this is something we should be afraid of.

About that Mann Hockey stick graph contraversy, let's be honest now, it hasn't actually been "debunked" now has it?
Have a look here those who want to know more.
The contraversy seems to revolve around the methodology used in paleoclimatology itself, not just Mann,Bradley and Hughes. It's an interesting read in itself (if you like that kind of thing) and it begs the question; do you dismiss paleoclimatology itself ( as the critics of MBH wanted) or do you take it on board in its entirety.

Its a developing science. I'm not an expert on the subject and therefore I cannot dismiss it. But I cannot ignore the controversy surrounding a graph that has been used for political gain for many years, a graph which many have found to be wanting. My other problem with the graph is that it focusses on such a short period in history - climate science should not be based on near-human timescales.

Thats the question for you Mr Parrot, how can you use a graph based on Manns data to illustrate one of your points, use another based on reconstructed data to establish a paleoclimatology pattern and claim Mann's "hockey stick" (and, by extension all of paleoclimatology's methods) as "debunked" ?

I used the graph to illustrate the thin ice the IPCC stands on when it issues reports on data subject to such bitter controversy. The IPCC is not an infallible organisation.

No, can you? Firstly a change of 1.6 - 0.8 degrees above average, over a two thousand year period (from beginning to peak) is not "warming at a massive rate" when talking about the rate of change since the industrial revolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Climatic_Optimum
Secondly, that graph is dubious at best. Who produced it? Why redraw the graph using only one source and smooth it out?
Here's a better one;

Look at the timescale of that graph. Its quite clear that warming (and cooling) has happened before, on an impressive scale. I'm not stating anything equivocally, but I do find it interesting.

Sure, that's one possible reaction, but hardly the most natural one.
As for Nigel Lawson, give me a break, he's a politician and an economist, and here's you arguing the toss with people over who is qualified to claim as a climatologist. Get real, he is not even a scientist of any shade.

Neither is Stern. But which report offers the more realistic and sensible proposition?


Its good to debate with someone who clearly has a similar interest in this field. After all this, I'll be glad if just a few more people reading take time to consider both sides of the argument.

 

[Grandmaontoast]

Whether we did it or nature did it, it's irrelevant. What we should be focusing on is how to counter the climate change.

why should we try and counter it. if it is down to nature then we should just let it take its course and not try and change the world

 

[Sulkdodds]

Thread title fixed, by the way.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Thread title fixed, by the way.

Thanks. :afro:

 

[SAJ]

This is a hot topic in my family, something that gets brought up far too often for my liking around the dinner table. I'm simply reiterating what I get drummed into me on a regular basis and that I, having little knowledge on this matter, take atleast some of what they say seriously. tbh i'd rather keep them far away from this forum to prevent them reading my prolongued and geeky posts about video games, but perhaps on another venue..

Fair enough, I can understand you not wanting to have them turn up here as it were, but I had in mind something more like links to sources that they consider to be useful, or best of all -definitive.

A forewarning though - any graph that deals in time periods any less than millions of years they tend to scoff at as being inadequate to form any reasonable conclusion. They repeatedly refer to an ice samples they dug up which contained co2 levels 14 times higher than those found in today's atmosphere and have a distinct mistrust in regards to climate models and their accuracy.

Please, get them to give you a link to that core-sample evidence, in a debate like this, you can never have too much science.

And of course the IPCC has no agenda doesn't it?

What kind of argument is that? If you have evidence that the IPCC has some kind of secret agenda, show us, alert the world media, it would be huge news.
If, on the other hand you just have no basis for this claim, save it for a more tolerant audience.
Insinuation without foundation is no substitute for substance in a debate.
.... or is it?

You see what I did there? .... or did you?

I doubt that would think this was a suitable response to any of your aguements ..... or would you?

It gets a bit irritating with these circular posed questions ..... or does it?
etc etc ....

I would have thought that atmospheric temperatures were a far more important indicator of climate activity than surface temperature ...

Please explain why you believe that, and what scientific basis -if any- you have for that belief. Without some facts to put before us you're not really saying anything.

... - I wonder where the temperature stations were?

AAAAAAAH! Just bloody stop it now, would ya?
Say something, or don't say something? Don't make the constant mistake of thinking a question is a statement, or even an argument. It doesn't acomplish anything really.
If you believe that the siting of monitoring stations is -for whatever reason- seriously distorting the temperature record data, then say so.
Otherwise move on.

I think 'quite' is the correct word there.

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. You've done nothing but make me think that all you have is a bunch misunderstood second-hand concepts and a load of stalling tactics that have served you well in previous discussions.
Please, show me I'm wrong.

I can't see any of those images so can't comment. Are you referring to the temperatures in 1998 in the USA?.

Sorry about that, I can't see them anymore either. The graphs were of various temperature/time observations, both local and global. But I must own up to an error, they wern't graphs from satelite data (the start date of 1880 should have been a dead giveaway) Link http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

As for your comment about USA in 1998, I take it you mean this :

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Finds+Y2K+Bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm And...

Last Saturday, Steve McIntyre wrote an email to NASA GISS pointing out that for some North American stations in the GISTEMP analysis, there was an odd jump in going from 1999 to 2000. On Monday, the people who work on the temperature analysis (not me), looked into it and found that this coincided with the switch between two sources of US temperature data. There had been a faulty assumption that these two sources matched, but that turned out not to be the case. There were in fact a number of small offsets (of both sign) between the same stations in the two different data sets. The obvious fix was to make an adjustment based on a period of overlap so that these offsets disappear.

This was duly done by Tuesday, an email thanking McIntyre was sent and the data analysis (which had been due in any case for the processing of the July numbers) was updated accordingly along with an acknowledgment to McIntyre and update of the methodology.

The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ?C for the years 2000-2006. There were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years due to the GISTEMP adjustments for rural vs. urban trends. In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area)....
.... More importantly for climate purposes, the longer term US averages have not changed rank. 2002-2006 (at 0.66 ?C) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ?C - the largest value in the early part of the century) (though both are below 1998-2002 at 0.79 ?C). (The previous version - up to 2005 - can be seen here).

In the global mean, 2005 remains the warmest (as in the NCDC analysis). CRU has 1998 as the warmest year but there are differences in methodology, particularly concerning the Arctic (extrapolated in GISTEMP, not included in CRU) which is a big part of recent global warmth. No recent IPCC statements or conclusions are affected in the slightest. ...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/instrumental-record/


Sorry, gotta run I'll try to finish this later.