Climatology: anomalous weather only recently?

[Scott Olson]

1. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is a real phenomena.

2. Global warming research is largely connected to sattelites so the skewing of a couple of ASOS stations next to an air conditioner won't make a difference.

3. All climate models predict a rise in average tempature.

4. Infrared Spectrometers in the last thirty years have observed increases in CH4, CO2, ozone (O3) and CFC 11 and 12.

Im not sure what other smoking gun their could be for this arguement to be settled but as far as the research community is concerned a large majority do believe that global warming is occuring.

-Scott.

 

[Andrew Khan]

What is the 'natural warming cycle'?

 

[Robert Dewey]

Originally posted by Scott Olson
1. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is a real phenomena.

2. Global warming research is largely connected to sattelites so the skewing of a couple of ASOS stations next to an air conditioner won't make a difference.

3. All climate models predict a rise in average tempature.

4. Infrared Spectrometers in the last thirty years have observed increases in CH4, CO2, ozone (O3) and CFC 11 and 12.

Im not sure what other smoking gun their could be for this arguement to be settled but as far as the research community is concerned a large majority do believe that global warming is occuring.

-Scott.

I think over all, most do believe it is occuring... The cause is what's in question. When I hear "global warming", it makes me think of human cause... Versus if someone just said a "warming pattern". I really like Mike Smith's post, as it basically conveys my thoughts.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

Originally posted by Andrew Khan
What is the 'natural warming cycle'?

I was referring to the natural oscillations that have occurred throughout history -- the swings between "ice ages" and warm periods. More often than not, Earth has been quite warm (warmer than now), and many paleoclimatologists believe that the earth has been "warming" for many many centuries. The dispute seem to lie in the fac that the RATE at which the Earth has been warming in the past 100 years is remarkable compared to the centuries past.

Larger versions of the grahpics below can be found at http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics.htm

 

[Mike Smith]

Scott,

If you were replying to my post, I would respectfully suggest you attempt to refute the points I raised...

1. Scientific consensus is often wrong. As "The Wall Street Journal" reported on October 4, the scientific consensus on ulcers 30 years ago was that they were caused by stress. When Dr. Barry Marshall reported that his research indicated ulcers were caused by bacteria his papers were laughed at ("preposterous" said one critic). Dr. Marshall received the Nobel Prize for Medicine earlier this month.

2. I never mentioned ASOS and my comment had nothing to do with ASOS. Read the published literature on the point I raised.

3. So? If they don't work in "pastcast" mode, why do we think they are accurate predicting the future? Elsewhere in "Weather Lab" there are ongoing back and fourth discussions about the varying model solutions at 5 days over the Plains. The models can have huge errors in five day forecasts. Do you really trust a 36,000 day forecast?

4. I agree. But, that hardly refutes my points.

Please read the references cited.

 

[Scott Olson]

Originally posted by Mike Smith
Scott,

If you were replying to my post, I would respectfully suggest you attempt to refute the points I raised...

1. Scientific consensus is often wrong. As \"The Wall Street Journal\" reported on October 4, the scientific consensus on ulcers 30 years ago was that they were caused by stress. When Dr. Barry Marshall reported his that his research indicated ulcers were caused by bacteria his papers were laughed at (\"preposterous\" said one critic). Dr. Marshall received the Nobel Prize for Medicine earlier this month.

2. I never mentioned ASOS and my comment had nothing to do with ASOS. Read the published literature on the point I raised.

3. So? If they don't work in \"pastcast\" mode, why do we think they are accurate predicting the future? Elsewhere in \"Weather Lab\" there are ongoing back and fourth discussions about the varying model solutions at 5 days over the Plains. The models can have huge errors in five day forecasts. Do you really trust a 36,000 day forecast?

4. I agree. But, that hardly refutes my points.

Please read the references cited.

The data really speaks for itself in this case with over 7 million recordings of ocean tempatures, sattelite data, etc. The rate of gain seems to suggest a human influence and not a warming recovering from an ice age. Also, my point was that most of the data is derived not from ground stations so your arguement that ground stations are dramatically skewing the data doesn't hold up IMO. As for the modeling of increasing green house emissions and its effects I hardly think that compares to modeling where an upper level low will be 36,000 days from now.

 

[Mike Smith]

Scott,

Appreciate your comments and your belief, but you have not cited a single reference.

Actually, "global warming" theory is primarily driven by surface temperature readings. Satellite and rawinsonde readings have not confirmed the warming shown by surface thermometers. However, "Science" (March, 2005) has an article by Mears and Wentz attempting to answer why satellite temperature readings have not shown the warming indicated by the surface record. Their theory is that it has to do with the slight orbit degradation of the satellites in between orbital path corrections. However, some have questioned their research. Not being an expert in remote sensing, I don't have an opinion on this one way or another. Rawinsondes do not confirm the rapid rate of warming. That is why problems with surface thermometer exposure (in particular with "baseline" stations) are important.

With regard to the accuracy of the climate models, go to: www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm It is a "scorecard" of the predictions made by the climate models. In sports terms: 3-27-5. Not a very impressive performance.

In the words of Dr. Bill Gray (Sept. 9, 2005), "I am convinced myself that in 15 or 20 years, we’re going to look back on this and see how grossly exaggerated it [global warming] all was. The humans are not that powerful."

Again, please read the scientific articles I have cited and explain where they are wrong.

 

[jaybarnsmith]

There was an article in Scientific American that cast doubt onto a lot of the graphs that Jeff Snyder linked too. Something about the maker refusing to release the raw data that he used to create the graphs. And the fact that going from fuzzy data to real data may naturally force the hockey stick shape to appear in the graphs.

 

[Scott Olson]

Originally posted by Mike Smith
Scott,

Appreciate your comments and your belief, but you have not cited a single reference.

Actually, \"global warming\" theory is primarily driven by surface temperature readings. Satellite and rawinsonde readings have not confirmed the warming shown by surface thermometers. However, \"Science\" (March, 2005) has an article by Mears and Wentz attempting to answer why satellite temperature readings have not shown the warming indicated by the surface record. Their theory is that it has to do with the slight orbit degradation of the satellites in between orbital path corrections. However, some have questioned their research. Not being an expert in remote sensing, I don't have an opinion on this one way or another. Rawinsondes do not confirm the rapid rate of warming. That is why problems with surface thermometer exposure (in particular with \"baseline\" stations) are important.

With regard to the accuracy of the climate models, go to: www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm It is a \"scorecard\" of the predictions made by the climate models. In sports terms: 3-27-5. Not a very impressive performance.

In the words of Dr. Bill Gray (Sept. 9, 2005), \"I am convinced myself that in 15 or 20 years, we’re going to look back on this and see how grossly exaggerated it [global warming] all was. The humans are not that powerful.\"

Again, please read the scientific articles I have cited and explain where they are wrong.

Didn't know citing references was required. But just to make sure that I didn't make it up you can read the articles below.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-...1489955,00.html
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

"The amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons present in the air today are significantly higher than their "pre-industrial" levels--that is, the amount that was present, naturally, before the intensive use of energy that began with the Industrial Revolution about 200 years ago. For example, the amount of carbon dioxide that is measured in the air throughout the world today is about 30 percent greater than that found in years before about 1800, as determined from the chemical analysis of air trapped in well-dated, polar ice cores. Similar findings apply to methane (which has increased by more than 100 percent) and to other greenhouse gases, with the possible exception of water vapor. The increases can be tied directly to human activities that include fossil-fuel burning (as for heating, or in internal combustion engines), the burning of trees to clear land, and certain agricultural and industrial practices." Dr. Brian P. Flannery

I guess to me it is very unlikely that such a spike in global mean tempature and greenhouse gasses which cooreleate quite well with a worldwide boom in fossil fuels. This seems unlikely that they are unreleated.

 

[Scott Olson]

Originally posted by jaybarnsmith
There was an article in Scientific American that cast doubt onto a lot of the graphs that Jeff Snyder linked too. Something about the maker refusing to release the raw data that he used to create the graphs. And the fact that going from fuzzy data to real data may naturally force the hockey stick shape to appear in the graphs.

Even the real data shows a dramatic increase in greenhouse gasses espically in the last twenty years. I don't think its the only research that shows that 'trend' in fact im quite positive. A google search for 'global warming graph' should turn more information up.

 

[Andrew Khan]

I think in about 90 years, there will be MAJOR problems....I read those articles...and it only further makes me confident, about what I think...some people have not yet accepted the 'fact' that Global Warming is real, and does exist, and refuse to believe it for whatever reason.

 

[Mike Smith]

Scott and Andrew,

You keep debating the point I agree with. Yes, human-produced gasses are currently in the atmosphere in greater concentrations in the past. Let me say again, I AGREE.

Page back up to Jeff Synder's post and look at the top graph (IPCC) he posted. Now look at the temperature rise from about 1905 to about 1939. The slope is nearly the same as 1988 to present. What caused that period of warming? It can't be the gasses because they weren't there in the concentrations you cite. What caused the cooling in between? Note that if one extrapolates the warming from 1939 to present, the measured temperature in 2004 would NOT have caught up to the trend line. So, is the real anomaly the warming or the mid-century cooling?

And, yes, "science" is required when trying to refute a scientific case. Andrew, you said,

The Global Warming Phenomenon is real

In order to assert it as an unqualified fact, it is necessary to refute the scientific literature cited. Still waiting.

Respectfully,
Mike

 

[Mike Smith]

As stated earlier, the "Global Warming" theory is based on temperatures measured by surface stations. The paragraph below is available at: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html

"NCDC's long-term mean temperatures for the Earth were calculated by processing data from thousands of world-wide observation sites on land and sea for the entire period of record of the data. Many parts of the globe are inaccessible and therefore have no data. The temperature anomaly time series presented here were calculated in a way that did not require knowing the actual mean temperature of the Earth in these inaccessible areas such as mountain tops and remote parts of the Sahara Desert where there are no regularly reporting weather stations. Using the collected data available, the whole Earth long-term mean temperatures were calculated by interpolating over uninhabited deserts, inaccessible Antarctic mountains, etc. in a manner that takes into account factors such as the decrease in temperature with elevation. By adding the long-term monthly mean temperature for the Earth to each anomaly value, one can create a time series that approximates the temperature of the Earth and how it has been changing through time."


NASA and UN data are also based on surface data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
"The NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) provides a measure of the changing global surface temperature with monthly resolution for the period since 1880, when a reasonably global distribution of meteorological stations was established."


www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#faq
"Over land regions of the world over 3000 monthly station temperature time series are used."

The question is: How reliable is this record? Here is the reference and abstract to the Pielke paper:

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society: Vol. 86, No. 4, pp. 497–504.
Microclimate Exposures of Surface-Based Weather Stations: Implications For The Assessment of Long-Term Temperature Trends

Christopher A. Davey and Roger A. Pielke Sr.
Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado

ABSTRACT
The U.S. Historical Climate Network is a subset of surface weather observation stations selected from the National Weather Service cooperative station network. The criteria used to select these stations do not sufficiently address station exposure characteristics. In addition, the current metadata available for cooperative network stations generally do not describe site exposure characteristics in sufficient detail. This paper focuses on site exposures with respect to air temperature measurements. A total of 57 stations were photographically surveyed in eastern Colorado, comparing existing exposures to the standards endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization. The exposures of most sites surveyed, including U.S. Historical Climate Network sites, were observed to fall short of these standards. This raises a critical question about the use of many Historical Climate Network sites in the development of long-term climate records and the detection of climate trends. Some of these sites clearly have poor exposures and therefore should be considered for removal from the Historical Climate Network. Candidate replacement sites do exist and should be considered for addition into the network to replace the removed sites. Documentation as performed for this study should be conducted worldwide in order to determine the extent of spatially nonrepresentative exposures and possible temperature biases.


Please read the original article. You will be appalled.

 

[Andrew Khan]

Originally posted by Mike Smith
Scott and Andrew,

You keep debating the point I agree with. Yes, human-produced gasses are currently in the atmosphere in greater concentrations in the past. Let me say again, I AGREE.

Page back up to Jeff Synder's post and look at the top graph (IPCC) he posted. Now look at the temperature rise from about 1905 to about 1939. The slope is nearly the same as 1988 to present. What caused that period of warming? It can't be the gasses because they weren't there in the concentrations you cite. What caused the cooling in between? Note that if one extrapolates the warming from 1939 to present, the measured temperature in 2004 would NOT have caught up to the trend line. So, is the real anomaly the warming or the mid-century cooling?

And, yes, \"science\" is required when trying to refute a scientific case. Andrew, you said,

The Global Warming Phenomenon is real

In order to assert it as an unqualified fact, it is necessary to refute the scientific literature cited. Still waiting.

Respectfully,
Mike

At this time Mike, I do not feel it is necessary to cite my sources...my citations are myself, and other pieces of knowledge I have picked up along the way, and that is something that no one can cite. I would actually, quite appreciate it if you would ease up on the ‘Cite it or your definitely wrongâ€￾ attitude…..

 

[nickgrillo]

On a lighter note, just think on the bright side of global warming... It'd now be the time to invest in refridgerators and air conditioners. In addition, polar bears and penguins will be half price at every pet store!