1 year: 1.08 F rise in Arctic ocean temp

[Ivan Seeking]

...Temperatures recorded this year in the upper 500 metres (1,625 feet) of sea in the Fram Strait -- the gap between Greenland and the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen -- were up to 0.6 C (1.08 F) higher than in 2003, they said in a press release received here.

The rise was detectable to a water depth of 2,000 metres (6,500 feet), "representing an exceptionally strong signal by ocean standards," it said. [continued]

http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/040827174145.s71k5at1.html

 

[Tide]

Supporters of the global warming theory got a bit of a chill when researchers announced that Antarctica, long considered a dependable predictor of a global warming trend, is actually getting colder.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa011802a.htm?iam=savvy&terms=+doran++antarctica

 

[chroot]

IMO, no studies with baselines of less than a hundred years could even conceivably offer evidence of global warming. Since we haven't been doing studies on the climate for more than a hundred years, I don't believe anyone can provide any evidence of climate trends yet.

- Warren

 

[Marijn]

I agree, i don't think you can classify this event more than an interesting anomaly.
Should the rise persist in the next decade or something then you can write it of to global warming.
For now, i'd say it no more than unusual.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't try to argue specifics since I'm not an expert. My position is that in lieu of the majority of climate experts who feel that global warming is now certain, and with more and more evidence that human activities are at least partly responsible - consider the recent admission of such by even the Bush administration - we can't afford the luxury of following the guesses of amateurs.

 

[Tide]

I don't try to argue specifics...

Then consider general arguments. The models are called models for a reason - they're sorely lacking in physics. You won't find Navier-Stokes in the models but you'll find substantial choas on time scales that are meaningful in terms of climate change. You will find a "global temperature" but you won't find a basis for it in reality since the concept of temperature makes little sense for a system that is not in thermodynamic equilibrium. You'll get tons of predictions but the input data is far too sparse to instill more than minimal confidence in the results.

Amateurs aren't particularly reliable but the experts should certainly know better - GIGO!

 

[Andre]

following the guesses of amateurs

You may not realize it but you are insulting the top nodge of the physisists here, who happened to have put a lot of effort in exploration of global warming. And besides it's an http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html too. The most used fallacy of the global warmers second to http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html: "there is consensus among the scientists that global warming is a fact..." Forget it, it's not. Nowhere near it. And it's raising my neck hairs.

For the balance:

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/feb102004/383.pdf

There are just hot spots and cold spots. So easy to highlight the hot spots and hide the cold ones.

http://ingrid.ldgo.columbia.edu/SOURCES/.Indices/ensomonitor.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

An appeal to authority is how science works. We listen to the experts; not amateurs with theories of their own. Also, you consistently post information that has nothing to do with the issue - your el-nino link for example. finally, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that one major scientific organization after another, which are composed of genuine experts, do not agree with your claims.

For starters, you reject a most basic source of information: Ice cores. How many scientists back you on this one? Maybe 0.1% or less?

What raises the hair on my neck is that people are willing to risk their children's futures. There is too much at risk to play politics.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You may not realize it but you are insulting the top nodge of the physisists here, who happened to have put a lot of effort in exploration of global warming.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

 

[Andre]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

How many Copernicusses did it take to break the scientific consensus that the Sun moved around the Earth?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

You have no idea what you're talking about. The ice cores refute that CO2 is causing global warming. Not proving it. Moreover we think we understand it all but we have no idea yet what the ice cores are telling us but for sure they are in no way accurate paleo thermometers. How about http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/Laurentian%20ice%20sheet%20on%20greenland.htm for instance.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

BTW A choice to reduce CO2 emision with the sole purpose of trying to mitigate climate changes is double risky for children futures. It may cripple the economy and can be wrong in two instances instead of one, either when global warming is not causing catastrophic climate changes or when the reducing has too little effect.

The skeptics have only one risk of two factors being true simultaneously: both that global warming is catastrophic and that reduction of emission would have worked together. And in this case there is still an economic motor that could mitigate effects directly.

How "counter intuitive" it may seem but the alarmists are much more dangerous to Earth than the skeptics.

 

[Andre]

Just a little bit more information to show that I did do a little bit of research to back up my ideas.

http://www.ofps.ucar.edu/twiki/pub/JOSS/UnderstandingLongTermClimateVariations/4Polyakov.V.pdf shows the high variability of the Arctic sea ice.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/Arctic.jpg computed the real life temperatures of all 14 active high arctic weather stations (over 70 degrees lattitude) from Jan 1900 until Juli 2004. Yes the Arctic is warming just like it did in the nineteen thirties to peak around 1940. Temperatures may have been higher during that spike. Beware for 2030, then the temps will be in the valley again.

Talking about weather stations, http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/econ-persp.pdf discovered the very high inverse correlation between measured temperatures and number of active weather stations.This clearly indicates the highly underestimated effect of the so called "Urban Heat Islands".

 

[Adam]

Does anyone recall the name of the group of researchers who roamed around recording temperatures and such in Europe a couple of centuries ago?

 

[Vance]

Does anyone recall the name of the group of researchers who roamed around recording temperatures and such in Europe a couple of centuries ago?

I also have the same question. Adam, if you know, please let me know 2
Thanks Adam

-Eva666

 

[Andre]

Well Adam and Eva
The records don't go that far back but http://hanserren.cwhoutwijk.nl/co2/ceurvsjghcnupd.gif are some plots of European actual measured temperatures as of 1780.

Note that the long term warming -going through the could ninetheenth century is only 0,02 degrees per decade.

 

[Andre]

Some more http://maconareaonline.com/realtalk/reply.asp?mid=5054&threadid=5043&mPageNo=19 on global warming.

 

[russ_watters]

I realize whenever temperature comes up people instantly jump onto global warming, but this is insanity. Shame on Space Daily for posting such an inflamatory article.

A 1 F temperature rise in 1 year in a tiny section of the ocean is utterly useless for climatology. But the implication of such articles is 'look at how fast its going up!'

By comparison, El Nino and La Nina are surface (down to maybe 150m) phenomena, but they can show year-to-year variations on the order of 10F over large portions of the Pacific Ocean. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/el-nino-story.html

Few scientists really doubt there is global warming - but articles like this don't help pin it down any.

 

[Andre]

Few scientists really doubt there is global warming

An appeal to authority is how science works. We listen to the experts; not amateurs with theories of their own. ... finally, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that one major scientific organization after another, which are composed of genuine experts, do not agree with your claims.

It's great to have a discussion purely of quotes.

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~scranmer/SPD/crichton.html

 

[Phobos]

The ice cores refute that CO2 is causing global warming. Not proving it.

I'd like to see some more discussion/references on this. Separate topic perhaps?

Moreover we think we understand it all but we have no idea yet what the ice cores are telling us but for sure they are in no way accurate paleo thermometers. How about http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/Laurentian%20ice%20sheet%20on%20greenland.htm for instance.

The link claims to "raise some doubt about the usability of isotope ratio proxies as palaeo-temperature indicators" but does not say ice cores are "in no way accurate paleothermometers". (I realize this is just one example you're providing.)

 

[Phobos]

The models are called models for a reason - they're sorely lacking in physics.

Models do have limitations, but they're not useless. They're based on current knowledge and are calibrated on (checked against) actual climate systems.

You won't find Navier-Stokes in the models

Is this true? I'm not too familiar with the actual models, but having taken a Computational Fluid Mechanics course in college, I would think it's possible to do so (or at least approximate it).

You will find a "global temperature" but you won't find a basis for it in reality since the concept of temperature makes little sense for a system that is not in thermodynamic equilibrium.

Can't the models make regional predictions?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How many Copernicusses did it take to break the scientific consensus that the Sun moved around the Earth?

Should we bet the future of the planet and generations to come on mainstream science, or should we bet that Andre is the next Copernicus?

Andre, I think it is great that you work so hard and have learned so much. I don't understand why, since you are not an expert or even degreed in a related subject, you feel compelled argue and prove your point, rather than discuss. If this was a physics subforum instead of Earth sciences, I have no doubt that you would be shuttled off to theory development.

 

[Tide]

Models do have limitations, but they're not useless. They're based on current knowledge and are calibrated on (checked against) actual climate systems.

They are useless when the "calibration" is defective and very incomplete and they are senseless when making minuscule changes to any of the myriad "parameters" leads to very different results. And they are a mockery of science when the "correct" values of the parameters are agreed upon in accordance with what people want the results to be.

Is this true? I'm not too familiar with the actual models, but having taken a Computational Fluid Mechanics course in college, I would think it's possible to do so (or at least approximate it).

It is a shocker isn't it! No, Navier-Stokes is NOT used in climate models. And if you have real experience in CFM then you should realize how doing real simulations on a global scale ranging from the turbulence level (boundary layers) to the full planetary scale with everything in between over a time scale of 100's of years is depressingly futile. The simulations contain NO boundary layer physics, NO major meteorological phenomena (hurricanes etc. which have profound effects on energy transfer), NO real cloud physics, shockingly limited and inadequate oceanic and convective effects, NO biotic interaction, VERY LITTLE in the way of real atmospheric phenomena and on and on.

Can't the models make regional predictions?

Ordinary meteorological modelling replete with heuristics cannot make regional predictions beyond a few days and you expect climate models to do any better (with even less physics) on a time scale of hundreds of years? I don't think so!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Since the beginning of the 20th century, the mean surface temperature of the Earth has increased by about 1.1º F (0.6°Celsius).

Over the last 40 years, which is the period with most reliable data, the temperature increased by about 0.5 º F (0.2-0.3°Celsius).

Warming in the 20th century is greater than at any time during the past 400-600 years.

[offsite Global temperature trend chart]

Seven of the ten warmest years in the 20th century occurred in the 1990s. 1998, with global temperatures spiking due to one of the strongest El Niños on record, was the hottest year since reliable instrumental temperature measurements began.

In addition, changes in the natural environment support the evidence from temperature records:

mountain glaciers the world over are receding;

the Arctic ice pack has lost about 40% of its thickness over the past four decades;

the global sea level is rising about three times faster over the past 100 years compared to the previous 3,000 years; and

there are a growing number of studies that show plants and animals changing their range and behavior in response to shifts in climate.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/index.cfm

 

[Tide]

Should we bet the future of the planet and generations to come on mainstream science, or should we bet that Andre is the next Copernicus?

I think that's a little over the top. Can we make this a little less personal?

With respect to "mainstream science," it's not clear that the mainstream is firmly planted on one side or the other. I believe the "consensus" is that climate is not really all that well understood and that MUCH more research is necessary. The assertion that there is unanimity in the scientific world on climate issues is a political facade.

 

[Tide]

Ivan,

I don't try to argue specifics since I'm not an expert.

What happened since your second post in this thread? :-)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm quoting, not arguing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Since the beginning of the 20th century, the mean surface temperature of the Earth has increased by about 1.1º F (0.6°Celsius).

Over the last 40 years, which is the period with most reliable data, the temperature increased by about 0.5 º F (0.2-0.3°Celsius).

Warming in the 20th century is greater than at any time during the past 400-600 years.

[offsite Global temperature trend chart]

Seven of the ten warmest years in the 20th century occurred in the 1990s. 1998, with global temperatures spiking due to one of the strongest El Niños on record, was the hottest year since reliable instrumental temperature measurements began.

In addition, changes in the natural environment support the evidence from temperature records:

mountain glaciers the world over are receding;

the Arctic ice pack has lost about 40% of its thickness over the past four decades;

the global sea level is rising about three times faster over the past 100 years compared to the previous 3,000 years; and

there are a growing number of studies that show plants and animals changing their range and behavior in response to shifts in climate.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/index.cfm

there.

 

[Tide]

I'm quoting, not arguing.

Oh! Well, in that case, NEVERMIND!

 

[Andre]

Running around in circles I see.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/trend.jpg is how much global temp has increased the last 7 years:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/trends2.JPG is a comparison of the temperature of all and of all of the the -still active- rural weather stations versus the active urban weather stations in a radius of 1000 km around Irkutsk in Siberia. Note the differences in trend. So what about:

Since the beginning of the 20th century, the mean surface temperature of the Earth has increased by about 1.1º F (0.6°Celsius).

The number of urban weather stations far exceed the rural stations and most rural stations have been closed around 1990. So what does that say about the accuracy of that claim?

Why don't weather balloon and satellite data support that warming trend?

What causes the warming? increase in carbon dioxide? Closing of weather stations, variation in solar energy, variation in albedo? increase in water vapor and relaticve humidity? All of them have been argued with variuos substantiation.

The substantiation for carbon dioxide is far inferior. The greenhouse gas properties are exactly known to be very weak. A doubling of carbon dioxide is good for only one degree centigrade increase. So a positive environmental feedback has been invented to aggravate the warming. However this has also been refuted:

On nonstationarity and antipersistency in global temperature series
O. Kärner
Tartu Observatory, Töravere, Estonia

[1] Statistical analysis is carried out for satellite-based global daily tropospheric and stratospheric temperature anomaly and solar irradiance data sets. Behavior of the series appears to be nonstationary with stationary daily increments. Estimating long-range dependence between the increments reveals a remarkable difference between the two temperature series. Global average tropospheric temperature anomaly behaves similarly to the solar irradiance anomaly. Their daily increments show ntipersistency for scales longer than 2 months. The property points at a cumulative negative feedback in the Earth climate system governing the tropospheric variability during the last 22 years. The result emphasizes a dominating role of the solar irradiance variability in variations of the tropospheric temperature and gives no support to the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

continuing

 

[Andre]

Ivan Seeking

Should we bet the future of the planet and generations to come on mainstream science, or should we bet that Andre is the next Copernicus?

Take your pick:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

you feel compelled argue and prove your point, rather than discuss.

But you exclude all dicussion immediately after:

If this was a physics subforum instead of Earth sciences, I have no doubt that you would be shuttled off to theory development.

Which theory devellopment? Global warming is unfounded theory devellopment. I urge you to get a little more constructive. This is no discussion.

 

[Andre]

Phobos,

The ice cores refute that CO2 is causing global warming. Not proving it.

I'd like to see some more discussion/references on this. Separate topic perhaps?

Sure, whenever it's possible to get a discussion on the road without a stream of fallacies. The ice age mechanism is the basis of the current global warming idea as Ivan Seeking has underlined:

For starters, you reject a most basic source of information: Ice cores.

However, I studied them for a couple of years and that little essay is only one of the many aspects that can be picked up from the ice cores. But there are also ocean sediment cores (ODP program) and in situ geologic evidence and those three don't add up. Of course most terrestrial and environmental specialists are happy with the corrolation between OPD and Ice cores but that's exactly the problem too. It is too perfect when analyzed as a higher order response system. It simply can't be.

Another problem is that greenhouse gasses (CO2-CH4) lag the isotope trends that are considered paleo thermometers suggesting that temperature increase is causing a higher biologic activity, not the other way around. Both conclusions may be wrong though.

Much of the 'in situ' geologic evidence is totally disregarding ice age properties, that's why one of the chapters of my concept book is called: "Ice age, now you see it, now you don't". It's worth a thread but I'm not sure if I want to risk more bullying around.

 

[pebrew]

Global warming can neither be proven nor disproven (currently), obviously.
And even if the Earth is warming, we can't prove/disprove anthropogenic causes.
But the greenhouse effect is a well accepted general theory (I'm not specifically talking about CO2 yet) and there is more data to support the idea of a warming trend over the globe rather than a cooling or stationary one.
I think a lot more science has to be done before we will have a good understanding of the Earth's climate and know for certain if it is warming.
But oftentimes we have to move preventatively against a possible threat when we only have preliminary data. That is, if the threat is great enough. This has been done in the past in the case of toxins and diseases.

The predicted ramifications of anthropogenic global warming are severe. Enough so that it would be wise to implement all the relatively inexpensive CO2 reduction schemes there are (yay http://www.biodieselnow.com/).

We're probably not going to have a great idea whether anthropogenic global warming is real or not for a while, but we can take sensible steps now that should reduce the damage if it is.

 

[Andre]

But oftentimes we have to move preventatively against a possible threat when we only have preliminary data. That is, if the threat is great enough.

You are mentioning the Precautionary Principle. But how do we know the threat is big enough? Don't we need at least some undisputed scientific evidence?

The alarmists have taken this principle as cover in case AGW is false according to the principle "heads I win, tails you loose"

This principle seems to be: Fossil fuel use must be banned, either legimate as genuine cure against global warming or via a trick even if it has no significant influence on climate. So, following the Precautionary Principle, we must avoid the risk of increasing CO2 emissions at all cost.

Why has CO2 become such a dangereous pest?There has been several percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere without the world boiling. CO2 was way up during the geologic past without catastrophic climate consequences. We need carbon, that's what live is made of. Fossil fuels just give a new impuls to the carbon cycle. We need it to feed the billions and get the oceans back on good levels of live.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Considering that you post surface water temps in response to deep water data, I see no value in having a discussion. Also, since you lack the education to understand the real science behind climate models, your opinions are moot.

 

[Tide]

Considering that you post surface water temps in response to deep water data, I see no value in having a discussion. Also, since you lack the education to understand the real science behind climate models, your opinions are moot.

Instead of assuming a condescending posture why don't you try to educate rather than insult?

Also, as I have already pointed out, there isn't really as much real science behind climate models as some would have us believe.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I normally allow Andre to present his arguments unchallenged. Since I don't feel that Andre is qualified to discredit global warming arguments, I felt that an objection was in order.

So, let me make sure that I understand your position: You are not only a climate expert, but also a fusion expert.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=41819

Got it.

 

[Tide]

I normally allow Andre to present his arguments unchallenged. Since I don't feel that Andre is qualified to discredit global warming arguments, I felt that an objection was in order.

So, let me make sure that I understand your position: You are not only a climate expert, but also a fusion expert.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=41819

Got it.

I stated my positions and I stand by them. I think it's highly inappropriate and offensive for a mentor to challenge points on the basis of "qualifications" as it sets a very bad example both for members of the forum and for people entering science.

Having said that, I am a physicist and I understand the workings of science. My work was in fusion and anyone should be able to intelligently discuss the merits of global climate change with or without degrees in the sciences. The fact that you posed your "query" as you did indicates that you're less interested in educating and sharing knowledge than you are in posturing. I would suggest that you adopt a less confrontational attitude and elicit views from all rather than stifling discussion.

 

[NileQueen]

Ivan Seeking does seem more into belittlement than mentoring...

 

[pebrew]

CO2 rate of change

You are mentioning the Precautionary Principle. But how do we know the threat is big enough? Don't we need at least some undisputed scientific evidence?

The alarmists have taken this principle as cover in case AGW is false according to the principle "heads I win, tails you loose"

This principle seems to be: Fossil fuel use must be banned, either legimate as genuine cure against global warming or via a trick even if it has no significant influence on climate. So, following the Precautionary Principle, we must avoid the risk of increasing CO2 emissions at all cost.

It's possible to follow the Precautionary Principle to a degree somewhere in line with the quality of scientific evidence. I find the current AGW 'evidence' interesting, but by no means entirely convincing, which is why I mentioned taking relatively inexpensive steps towards reducing CO2 emissions. Not banning fossil fuels, but perhaps implementing biofuels and CO2-free energy where it is not incredibly expensive to do. There are a lot of novel technologies starting to sprout up that, with a moderate amount of government-funded encouragement, could blossom quickly (within 10 or 15 years) into meaningful CO2 reductions as well as other environmental benefits.
Fortunately we don't have to say 'all or nothing' to CO2 right now.

Why has CO2 become such a dangereous pest?There has been several percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere without the world boiling. CO2 was way up during the geologic past without catastrophic climate consequences. We need carbon, that's what live is made of. Fossil fuels just give a new impuls to the carbon cycle. We need it to feed the billions and get the oceans back on good levels of live.

CO2 does affect plant growth immensely, but the increased growth is not enough to counterbalance increased CO2, so if CO2 is bad for some reason, the plants won't be able to suck it all up. Plus, do you want to have to mow your lawn twice as often? Even relatively small increases in plant growth could have unpleasant consequences, or environmentally harmful ones. CO2 also dissolves in the oceans, changing the pH, if only slightly. I'm no expert at oceans, but I think the change (say, at 600ppm atmospheric CO2) could be meaningful to the ocean life from what I've heard before.

Looking at CO2 data for the past (50 years, http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/siple-gr.htm , 1000 years, and 400,000 years) it appears that current CO2 levels are above those for at least 400k years (and I believe the new Vostok cores agree as well). The true peaks in CO2 over the past 400k are undoubtedly higher than those seen in the Vostok data since the resolution is poor. So we don't know for sure how high a CO2 concentration our global environmental system can handle. If we reach 600 or so ppm of CO2 by 2100 (as predicted) we may very well be in unknown territory for our environment.
More importantly (well, at least in my mind), the speed with which CO2 is currently rising is unprecedented if compared to the Vostok records. In the increasing periods, it took about 100kyrs to increase 100ppm CO2. We've already increased it 100ppm in just a century or two. And as we all know from calculus, the rate of change of a value can be more important than the value itself. Obviously, 200 years does not allow for the same evolution in species that 100kyrs would. A couple centuries in the geologic (and atmospheric?) carbon cycle is just a blip, too. If we're relying on the current global environmental system to take care of CO2 with whatever functions have worked in the past (for example, plankton->seacreatures-> dead seacreature on deep ocean floor-> sedimentation) we may be sorely disappointed, as our current output is a jolt of CO2 compared to history.
If a doubling, tripling, etc of historic values of CO2 is essentially meaningless to the system then it doesn't matter, of course. But since CO2 is such a basic, necessary part of so many systems in out environment, I'd be surprised if such a quick increase made little difference.

 

[Bystander]

Siv really needs to get into this discussion --- she's the forum's critical thinker; but, we'll settle for resurrection of the "Sagan Baloney Detection Kit" she brought up in earlier versions of PF

http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html

An excerpt:
"Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from "authority".
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision). "

GHW, AGW, and this discussion reek of these and other logical fallacies.

"Climatology," an "earth science" is a "specialized" area of physics in which normal physical principles do NOT apply? Hardly. Anyone who knows "his" (politically incorrect --- tough) physics, can apply that physics to the global warming/climate change argument/discussion and make informed decisions regarding quality of data, quality of logic trains leading to various consequences, quality of conclusions regarding cause and effect, and what special interests may or may not be driving the various "schools of thought."

Quality of data a reasonable place to start?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I find it interesting that most who argue against global warming also dispute the credibility of the recognized experts. To me this is no different than promoting home grown theories in the physics forums. Since this is supposed to be a site for education and not personal theory development, I feel that my objections and comments are justified. If all of you experts have published papers on global warming, please post them.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I should add that I like and respect Andre and I take no pleasure in being critical. I see no other way to put his arguments in perspective. He is not an expert.

I'm sorry Andre. I hope you're right.

 

[Andre]

If, Ivan Seeking, every now and then, you would have opened one of my links you would have either found that I based my posts on hard data or accepted articles of recognized specialists. On the subject of Antropogenic Global Warming I have nothing home made.

Pebrew, I respect your reflections about carbon dioxide changes. There is a lot more though. Most unfortunately there is no continuous CO2 record from the Greenland ice cores. Instead, however we do have CH4. You may recall that methane in GISPII increased sharply (about doubled) within decades about 21 times the last 50,000 years, directly following the dD Deuterium ratio. The so called Dansgaard Oeschger events. Those have been interpreted as "Ten degrees temperature change within a decade" (Richard Alley - Two Mile Time Machine). The problem however is that geologic/paleonthologic in situ evidence world wide gives no trace of supporting evidence for violent climate changes in the time frame of the D-O events. On the other hand, many ODP ocean sediment cores react simultaneously and as violent as the Dansgaard Oeschger events.So we do have evidence that we are facing a tremenduous puzzle instead of an open shut carbon-dioxide = global warming case.

No time for links for the moment but I can substantiate each and every one of that statement, Ivan Seeking.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

please see late edit. I'll shut up now.

 

[Tide]

“It's humbling to find out how often you're wrong.”

That's what one of the "expert" climate modelers has to say about his own work. After spending $20 MILLION NASA finally figured out that clouds matter! http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=693

 

[Phobos]

Tide - No need to get upset with me, I'm mainly asking for more info. As I mentioned, I am not familiar with the specifics of the climate models. I have heard that they calibrate well, but you are telling me they do not. Looks like I should check into it.

 

[Tide]

Phobos

Tide - No need to get upset with me, I'm mainly asking for more info. As I mentioned, I am not familiar with the specifics of the climate models. I have heard that they calibrate well, but you are telling me they do not. Looks like I should check into it.

I was not upset with you in any way though I think other mentors, who shall remain nameless, ought to be a bit more mindful of manners.

With respect to climate models there's a vast literature on the technical issues but for a laymen's overview of the central issues I recommend a book called "Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming" by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick. It's somewhat biased and they get a little careless in some places but their main points are sound.

Good luck!

 

[Andre]

That's http://www.takenbystorm.info/ .

McKitrick is also the man who discovered the correlation between surface warming and number of (rural) weather stations. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/econ-persp.pdf.

 

[pebrew]

Most unfortunately there is no continuous CO2 record from the Greenland ice cores. Instead, however we do have CH4. You may recall that methane in GISPII increased sharply (about doubled) within decades about 21 times the last 50,000 years, directly following the dD Deuterium ratio. The so called Dansgaard Oeschger events. Those have been interpreted as "Ten degrees temperature change within a decade" (Richard Alley - Two Mile Time Machine). The problem however is that geologic/paleonthologic in situ evidence world wide gives no trace of supporting evidence for violent climate changes in the time frame of the D-O events. On the other hand, many ODP ocean sediment cores react simultaneously and as violent as the Dansgaard Oeschger events.So we do have evidence that we are facing a tremenduous puzzle instead of an open shut carbon-dioxide = global warming case.

No time for links for the moment but I can substantiate each and every one of that statement.

andre, whenever you get the time, could you post some links or book titles as i'd like to read more about this stuff. especially the CO2 record.
thanks.

 

[Andre]

Pebrew, you said "especially the CO2 record". This is how bias starts. If you're really interested I would stop reading books - They always represent scholar consensus New scientific articles are much more interesting. All of them. Books can't keep up with it. Also stop being interested in "especially-this-or-that". All of it is important. And if you're lucky you may discover the general picture, overviewing everything at once.

I'd recommend the "Climate and Clathrate" thread. There will be carbon and ice cores in it. Lots of it. You'll get the idea.

 

[pebrew]

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
iiiicccccceeeeee cooorrrrreeess...