Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates

  1. Aug 14, 2005 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    "Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates"

    http://www.livescience.com/environment/050811_global_warming.html
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 14, 2005 #2
    There are a couple of inconsistencies here (or plain lies if you prefer that)

    Check here for the reality. See that the corrected low troposphere temperatures (black) only differ marginally to give a new trend of about 0,123 degrees per decade (old 0,115). Radiosondes are on 0,114, the surface trend in the same period (1979-2005) at around 0,172.

    So the accurate situation is that the previous slight warming trend of the lower trophosphere has been corrected to be marginally more, but still less than the surface trend. See this

    The correction pertained an artificiality in the tropics when the satelites pass the equator. This also means that the larger local difference on the northern hemisphere is not changed.

    So the suggestion of erroneous cooling in the article is a plain wrong strawman. This is how the public is misinformed continuously.
     
  4. Aug 14, 2005 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Strawman: A weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted.

    These published reports are intended to be easily refuted? Have you considered reading them before dismissing them?
     
  5. Aug 14, 2005 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Why do you mask your links?
     
  6. Aug 14, 2005 #5

    Tide

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Ivan,

    But we all know that global warming causes global cooling! http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/041217_sealevel_rise.html [Broken]

    It's too bad you're into harassing and insulting members rather than in having serious discussions. It could be fun and even illuminating. Oh, well. Good luck.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  7. Aug 14, 2005 #6
    Ivan,

    I'm not aware that "look here" is masking links, I still think it's a error not to allow for the feature, otherwise the graphs would have stared directly in your face, like here:

    unmasked link: [PLAIN]http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=23074&start=1 [Broken]

    where you can follow the discussion about this in detail. With this information it may be clear that ...
    ...is a straw man (masked link).

    Nobody has ever suggested that the lower trophosphere is cooling, although before the big 1998 El Nino the lower troposphere (MSU2 LT) was just about trendless.

    BTW The lower stratosphere (MSU-4) is indeed cooling, which is undisputed by any party, whilst the global warmers love to explain this as caused by enhanced radiation due to more greenhouse gasses. So the reporter is mixing things up to serve his case. Needless to say that the slighter lower warming trend of the lower troposphere still refutes the enhanced greenhouse gas forcing hypothesis.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  8. Aug 14, 2005 #7

    iansmith

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member


    these are the abstract of the article in question. These have been publish in the Science Express of August 11 2005.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/sciencexpress/recent.shtml [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  9. Aug 14, 2005 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It helps everyone to see where the information is coming from. To me it seems misleading considering that the source is everything. When I see a page full of links like this, here, and, as opposed to ****.edu, ***.noaa, ***.gov, etc, it makes me wonder. Frankly, this alone makes me suspicious of the credibility of the links. I would think that you would prefer to be up front with your sources.
     
  10. Aug 14, 2005 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Could you be more specific? I wasn't aware that I had insulted anyone.

    I also see the word "strawman" used improperly as the norm here now.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  11. Aug 14, 2005 #10

    Tide

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Gladly - since you asked!

    You: "Have you considered reading them before dismissing them?"

    That's rude. Posturing yourself in a discussion or debate evades the issues and isn't exactly the pinnacle of professionalism in science.

    You: "Why do you mask your links?"

    In addition to being unwarranted and off-topic it implies deceit on the part of the poster and appears intended to call into question the veracity of the member without addressing the technical issues at hand. Besides, any regular user of the web knows she can plainly see the URL by passing the mouse pointer over the link and does so routinely.

    If you are still unable to discern the offense in your comments then I advise some serious reflection and introspection.

    In my experience, people tend to choose the path of ridicule, ad hominem attack and insult when they have run out of valid and legitimate debating points. Of course, I assume it's simply a momentary lapse in judgment in your case.

    By the way, your lapse caught my attention because of your Oppenheimer quote: "There is no place for dogma in science"

    Robert would have been the last person to stifle debate and adopt a dogmatic posture. This is particularly important with regard to climate change and one should recognize the importance of questioning the validity of the data, models and theory behind it.
     
  12. Aug 15, 2005 #11
    Anyway look at the bottom of the graph.

    http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/jonesmsu52.gif

    Perhaps notice the sources of the data. Unfortunately the predecessor of MSU-2LT, the dataset tltglhmam_5.1 is no longer on the net but I'm sure that Spencer and Christy (S&C) will make it available. You can have my set.

    Unlike the global warmers like Mann and Jones having a hard time to reveal data, methods and dealing with critique, it may be noted that S&C have always given full access to all data, models and algoritms, and upon critique, acknowlegded the error, credited the discoverers and published prompt corrections.
     
  13. Aug 16, 2005 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I did.

    It seemed relevant to me. And I'm not debating anything.

    Well, I see this tactic used by people who are giving misleading information or trying to hide the source, so this always sets off an alarm for me.

    When people who in all likelihood are good and honest scientist are called liars due to their published reports and most likely, highly qualified interpretation of those reports, I consider this a huge lapse in judgement. To call them strawmen is flat out laughable.

    I think the word "lies" pretty much set the tone for dogma. :wink:
     
  14. Aug 16, 2005 #13
    Well, this:
    boldface part is plainly wrong. Period.

    Previous data (MSU 2LT version 5.1) showed warming as well, only a little less. So introducing a wrong statement is an essential first part of the strawman. And what is the difference between a wrong statement and a lie?
     
  15. Aug 16, 2005 #14
    Anyway, for all those who think that global warming is merely a mild dispute, the real war is imminent:

    Newspeak versus science.

    http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/blog/?p=30 [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  16. Aug 16, 2005 #15

    Tide

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Ivan,

    Well, then let's all stoop to their level! ;)
     
  17. Sep 19, 2005 #16

    deckart

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    So, this Global Warming "problem" is really just bolangne? Most people you ask believe it's significant reality.
     
  18. Sep 19, 2005 #17
    I don't think that it is bologna. Are we allowed to quote published journal articles on this website? Or is that a copyright violation? I would be happy to comment on some studies.
     
  19. Sep 19, 2005 #18

    Tide

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    scrappy,

    Please do! :)
     
  20. Sep 20, 2005 #19
    Here we go again. The world is warming so we have to cut our greenhouse emissions

    Remember there are several questions.

    Is the world warming up?

    Is this warming unusual and unprecedent?

    To what extend can that warming be attributed to which causes?

    Can we do anything?

    Must we do anything?
     
  21. Sep 20, 2005 #20

    deckart

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It's interesting. We simply live as humans and therefore (so many suggest) the world has become "off balance", and somehow we are altering nature... as if we aren't "natural" just being human beings. We are not so significant that we can change the earth beyond it's ability to do what it has done for eons!

    I'm not condoning irresponsiblity here, but come on, people!

    Andre, you are a breath of reality concerning this subject. You have demonstrated extreme patience in this forum.

    I'm just floored by some of the things people are convinced of here. :bugeye:
     
  22. Sep 20, 2005 #21
    Hi Andre,
    I quite agree with your analysis of the situation,however "to answer a question one has to first know the question" which too often is not addressed.
    "Is the world warming up"? relative to what time scale? If the period referred to is the past 10 years then the answer is probably yes.

    "Is this warming unusual and unprecedent"? Compared to what? I feel there may well have been periods in the earths history when warming has been more "unuaual", however if you look at the last century, it probably is unusual.

    "To what extend can that warming be attributed to which causes?"( you yourself have answered the first question here) If anyone can answer this at this moment in time then they deserve a nobel prize !!

    "Can we do anything?" Similar to the previous answer, however,IF AGW is present and IF carbon emissions etc are to blame we are taking a huge gamble by doing nothing. Once upon a time it was considered quite normal to dump effluent into rivers, canals and lakes (and the sea) until it was noted that the environment was becoming polluted almost beyond repair. Once again a big IF but can we really afford to take this chance of gambling with natural cycles.

    "Must we do anything?" The big question, "must" sounds as if we are assuming that we are culpable. Had you said "should" i would say yes.

    Nearly all the posts I read re GW, people are too quick too use the very limited, short term data we have to swing either on the pro or anti GW side. I was in the middle, now erring on the GW side. As for AGW, I think it is possible and cannot be ignored, purely from the point that if it is true it will actually be too late by the time it can be confirmed.

    From a factual point of view I share your views, but wether I would share them in 5 or 55 years time remain to be seen.

    Regards,
    Paul D...Guernsey
     
  23. Sep 21, 2005 #22
    That's the key question. Is it unusual? To know that you have to study paleo climate, which I have been doing for several years. In there is the key answer.

    Now take for instance the current minimum Arctic Sea Ice. Is global warming on a http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article312997.ece [Broken]?

    Now what would you think if fed continously with this type of red alert messages? Is this really a fact? There seems to be no trace of doubt that we are on the brink of disaster. However, let's have a closer look into the recent history. Somebody found this old letter:

    Confirmed here:


    So I don't even have to point at similar situations around 900 AD at the hight of the Medieval Warming Period or the early Holocene thermal maximum, when the trees grew at the beaches of the Arctic ocean, high in northern Siberia.

    This makes you wonder why this unprecedent scaremongering is so necesary. Journalists wanting firm catchy head lines? Scientists who want to secure their fundings for further studies? If they only would have known about the recent past, they would not even bother to worry. Yet with this kind of approach climate science is in a slippery slope upwards in a continuous circle until disaster seems imminent. However, with this kind of unfounded activism the world is heading for a completely different antropogenic disaster, spending googillions for nothing and be totally unprepared for the real problems that we're facing.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  24. Sep 21, 2005 #23
    Thank you for that Andre, a fascinating excerpt from the RS you have found there.
    After agreeing with just about all you say I have to be a little contentious with "what if the natural cycle is positively affected by human intervention?"
    There are so many "ifs" that one can only make best judgements I know. Would you say that the recent (last 3 years) darmatically increased trend in global warming is similar to previous warmings, just a blip, unreliable in source or what ??
    Regards
    Paul D...Guernsey
     
  25. Sep 23, 2005 #24
    Sorry Paul, for overlooking your question.

    If you look at the last years, we actually see more or less a level off after the warmest year 1998. So the real warming happened in the last decade as of about 1990.

    http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/aug/global.html#Temp [Broken]

    If 1998 was indeed the warmest or if 2003 had the warmest summer in Europe is unsure . There is a good case for 1540. Advise to have a good look at this little paper

    There seems to be no indication that anything unusual is happening. The panic for a sudden dramatic climate change is largely based on http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html [Broken]. It was a completely different story.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  26. Sep 27, 2005 #25

    Mk

    User Avatar

    Three papers published in the Science last week purport to debunk an important argument advanced by skeptics of the notion of catastrophic, manmade global warming. The skeptics’ argument is that while temperatures measured on the Earth’s surface seem to indicate that global temperatures have increased at a rate of about 0.20 degrees Centigrade per decade (the original estimate was 0.35, may I not that is a 50% error, there's a big difference from a fight on a test and a one hundred) since the 1970s, temperatures measured in the atmosphere by satellite and weather balloons have shown only a relatively insignificant amount of warming for the same time period (about 0.09 deg. C/decade).

    The implication of the skeptics’ argument is that whatever warming seems to be happening on the Earth’s surface, similar warming isn’t happening in the trophosphere. This unsimilarity is caused by the urban heat island effect.

    It is well known that changes in land use will cause changes in average ground temperature. Cities are hotter than the surroundign countryside - the urban heat island effect. Croplands are warmer than forested lands, and so on. A high percentage of weather stations that were out in the countryside forty years ago are now surrounded by concrete and skyscrapers and asphalt and so on. Which makes them register warmer. These facts are very well known within the field, of course. There is no controversy.

    http://eetd.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/HighTemps/UrbanProfile.gif [Broken]
    What is controversial about these heat islands is whether, and if so how much, this additional warmth affects trends in [global] temperature record. The current state of the science is that the effect on the global temperature trend is small to negligible—see below. So researchers take the raw temperature data from stations near cities and reduce them by some amount to compensate for the urban heat island effect. This reduction is calculated in different ways, depending on who does it. Most algorithms are based on population size. Population is proportional to the amount subtracted.

    Sounds good but it isn't. R. Bohm studied Vienna in 1998. Vienna has had no increase in population since 1950, but it has more than doubled its energy use, and increased living and commercial space substantially. The urban heat island effect is much stronger, but calculated reduction is unchanged, because it only looks at population change.

    It used to be assumed that urban heating was unimportant because the effect was only a fraction of total warming. The planet warmed about .3 degrees C in the last thirty years. Citites are typically assumed to have heated around .1 degrees C. The Chinese report that Shanghai has warmed 1 degrees C in the last twenty years. That's more than the entire global warming of the planet in the last hundred years. "Between 1987 and 1999, the mean nighttime surface temperature heat island of Houston increased 0.82 ± 0.10 degrees C." says D. R. Steutker, in Remote Sensing of Environment. Manchester, England, is now 8 degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside.*

    The average temperature of Pasadena, Calafornia, went from 62 degrees F in 1930, to 65.5 F in 2000. LA has about 14,531,000 people. The average temperature of Berkeley, CA, with only 6,250,000 people, from 1930 to 2000 has increased .5 degrees F. Death Valley, CA, with no urbanization, from 1932-2000 has increased .15 degrees F. In smalltown McGill, NV, from 1930 to 2000, it went from average 48 to 47. Guthrie, OK went from 60.5 to 59.9. Boulder, where NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research, where a lot of global warming research is done), has gone down half a degree. Turman, MO went down two and a quarter! Charleston, South Carolina went up over half a degree, and New York City went up 1 degree. Cities in New York with less urbanization such as Syracuse, Albany, Oswego and Westpoint, went down 1.5, 1.2, 1, and .35 degrees. And if you go back allllll the wayyyy from 1826, to 2000, then you will find the line actually rises steadily... about 0 degrees F. Its a horizontal line. New York went up 5.2 degrees F, and Albany went down half a degree in 180 years.

    We know CO2, the gas everyone is worrying about, has increased the same amount everywhere in the world. And its effect is presumably pretty much the same everywhere in the world. That's where the term "global" warming comes from. But New York and Albany are only one hundred and forty miles apart, you can drive from New York to Albany in three hours. Their carbon dioxide levels are identical. But somehow New York's temperature went up 5 degrees, a temperature increase that would kill many species, while across the street it got colder a little bit. In the last 180 years, New York has grown to seismic proportions, about 8 million people, whereas Albany has grown to quite less.

    The urban heat island effect makes cities hotter than the surrounding countryside; and this is a local effect, completely unrelated to global warming. In this case, we used all raw temperature data, and it is tainted by the very scientists who claim global warming is a worldwide crisis. It is adjusted downward, but the question is: Is it adjusted down enough? It is never a good policy for the fox to guard the henhouse. Such procedures are never allowed in medicine, where double-blind experimental designs are required.

    One of the new Science studies reported that the satellites had drifted in orbit, causing errors in temperature measurement. Corrections to the satellite data, according to the researchers, would increase the atmospheric warming estimate to 0.19 deg. C/decade -- more in line with the 0.20 deg. C/decade warming of the Earth’s surface. Another study reported that heating from tropical sunlight had skewed the balloon temperature measurements.

    Ben Santer of the Lawrenhce Livermore National Laboratory, one of the studies’ authors, told USA Today that, “Once corrected, the satellite and balloon temperatures align with other surface and upper atmosphere measures, as well as climate change models.”

    So is it really game-set-match in favor of the global warming alarmists?

    University of Alabama-Huntsville researcher Roy Spencer, a prominent climatologist, factored the newly reported corrections into his calculations, his estimate of atmospheric warming was only 0.12 deg. C/decade - higher than the prior estimate of 0.09 deg. C/decade, but well below the Science study estimate of 0.19 deg C/decade and the surface temperature estimate of 0.20 deg. C/decade.

    As to the claimed errors in the weather balloon measurements, Spencer says that no other effort to adjust the balloon data has produced warming estimates as high as those reported in the new study and that it will take time for the research community to form opinions about whether the new adjustments advocated are justified.

    Climate expert Dr. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project says the temperature adjustments are “not a big deal.”

    “Greenhouse theory says (and the models calculate) that the atmospheric trend should be 30 percent greater than the surface trend - and it isn’t,” says Singer. “Furthermore, the models predict that polar [temperature] trends should greatly exceed the tropical values - and they clearly don’t... In fact, the Antarctic has been cooling,” adds Singer.

    :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook