Global Warming

[Steviepinhead]

grmorton:

Ok, that is fine, leave it to others, but know this, that is exactly what the average YEC does. They leave it to the likes of Steve Austin, John Morris, and Danny Faulkner etc. The problem is that when we don't have the capability to critique an area, we are all at the mercy of others. Sometimes that is a bad thing.

Well, duh, podner. That's why I'm kibitzing on the sidelines of a discussion between seemingly-sane and informed people, like you and Sylas, who are working directly with the data.

It would increase temperature. The problem is that no one really knows how much--i.e. what the sensitivity is. the IPCC has used varying values over the past decade. The problem is that there are feedback loops. Does higher temperture mean higher evaporation and more clouds? If so, then the amount of heating per ppm of CO2 will be reduced. Things like this make the exact determination of the effects of a change of CO2 uncertain. I use the geologic past to show that the earth has already been through very high CO2 levels and nothing happened.

I hear what you're saying, I think, but -- recognizing the rather extreme limits of my knowledge -- so far you haven't out-argued Sylas on that one. Of course, I'm the jury member trying to judge between two "experts." As you said above, that doesn't always produce good results, but it's amazing the number of cases where average jurors, exposed to competing sets of "expert" claims, do get it right. Which doesn't mean this juror will have gotten it right in this case -- but I can only do what I can do.

I'm not a geologist either, but I'm still able to tell the difference between a Steve Austin (or a Dave Hawkins, to pick a particularly ludicrous example!) and a Glenn Morton.

Remember the worry some people had about the LHC? Some people thought that when they turned on the Large Hadron Collider, it would make black holes and destroy the world. But, physicist used a similar argument against that silliness. Cosmic rays already hit the earth with comparable energies and we haven't been destroyed yet. If they can do it, why can't I? The current rise in CO2 is miniscule compared with the past. Here is that pimple in a hole plot again. Why should I worry about such a tiny amount of CO2???

Glenn, you and I and Sylas have been around on this one at least a half-dozen times. YOU are comparing apples to oranges: a rise in temperature of only a few degrees a century, right now, may cause severe problems for an overpopulated technologically-dependent civilization, whether or not a much more substantial rise over (as far as I can tell, a much longer period) caused severe problems to the biosphere as a whole in the distant past or for whatever set of NON-overpopulated, NON-technologically-dependent hominids may have been on the scene at the time. Which is, once again, the point I was trying to make in the quote below, and which your following graph does not deal with at all.

I understand that you poo-poo the amounts of CO2 by comparison to the global deep past, and the extent of the rise, by comparison... But what I don't recall seeing is where you take the amounts of human-added CO2 and demonstrate that it could not, in physical principle, drive a temperature increase in the range that Sylas has talked about over the timespan that he has talked about (again, granting that you don't find those rises nearly as alarming as others might).

Once again, your attached thumbnail compares events over geological time with what is happening right now. You don't demonstrate that the current rise in CO2 could not, in principle, cause the rise in temperature over the next several decades that Sylas has argued for. YES, I get it, that you don't think that rise (your "pimple")-- in either C02 or in temp -- remotely compares to the rises in the geological past (your "hole"). But nobody rational -- like Sylas, and UNlike the Strawman alarmists that SM (and occasionally you) like to erect -- is claiming that a few degrees will nuke the biosphere or (all on its own) bring an end to our species. What's being argued is that even such a geologically-modest rise could cause significant discomfort for an already-fragile (overpopulated and resource strapped) technologically-dependent civilization.

So, I'll take your irrelevant graphic as a "No, Glenn has his serious doubts and uncertainties about the effects of the current rise in CO2, but he can't demonstrate that, in principle, it could not lead to the range of temperature increases for which Sylas has advocated."

[Steviepinhead]

No, it is the lack of quality control. Geeminy, Stevie, you seem to like putting thoughts into other people's minds. Why don't you ask rather than say stupid things like that???

Governments simply don't engage in QC very often. They don't go out of business if they don't. What are you going to do, go to a competitor to get Medicare, your driver's license or that permit?

The temperature data is no one's data, no one gets punished for invalid data and everyone thinks it isn't important. In the oil business, if we treated data that cavalierly we would be out of business. Same for any other business. The banks right now are finding out that treating cavalierly, the data that says "This guy can't afford that loan", threatens their very survival.

Geemeeny, Gleen, did you read the following two posts from Aug and me? Have you not noticed the "government interference" toing and froing between Aug and I in the peak oil thread? Has your sensahumor done gone up and left?

You're a serious guy, most of the time, and for good reason (you've had, and have, a more "serious" life than I've had, as far as I can judge).

So, I really shoulda used a smiley.

[Steviepinhead]

Sea of red (I think):

I know people are skeptical because of certain fraudsters trying to cash in on this problem,

Glenn (I'm sure):

Take note Stevie. Even others see this problem.

I was tempted to ignore this, but given the number of times that I've said that I couldn't care less about Al Gore (probably sincere, but possilby misguided) and any wingnuts further to his left (or vertical, or wherever wingnuts go when they're taking a load off), I'll just add that this was an unwarranted slight. So, no, Glenn, I didn't just fall off the turnip truck.

I really do appreciate your close focus on the data, but sometimes you get so close to the screen that the molding of the picture frame of our discussion must look like the Rockies rearing up in your peripheral vision.

[Steviepinhead]

Well, anyway, I wondered about the accuracy of those el cheapo mecury capillary thermometers. You know, the red thin column.

If the inner bore of such a thermometer is smaller by 10% than the design, then the column will be about 11.11% too high.

Of course, one can recalibrate the thermometer, but that's an expensive and error-prone procedure.

Or one could exercise a little quality control. As the instruments come off the assembly line, compare them to a verified instrument and toss the X percent that vary by more than a standard amount...

[FLovell]

Sorry to burst your bubble but much of what you have said doesn't even qualify as dialogue.

My friend you don't seem to have even the slightest clue as what your talking about when it comes to AGW,or for that matter even climatology it self.Ether you never took Global Warming 101or you just don't know what your talking about.Perhaps both.

The aggressive stupidity you have far surpasses Lee Strobels fine tuned universe speeches.

Your right we aren't having the same conversion,and that's because not only do you lack any understanding of AGW.You are very vague in your questions and don't understand the terms that you accuse me of not understanding.

It's not that I didn't give an answer,it's that I didn't give you an answer that you wanted.

You would have been far better served in replying without the rude and idiotic attitude,and instead making yourself a little bit more clear as to what it is you were asking.But now you can kindly buzz off,as I'm not going too further waste my time.

I respectfully disagree with all except for your last sentence (which reflects the time-saving best interest of us both), but I do appreciate your insight-revealing candor and I'm glad you got it off your chest.

By the way, I just gotta ask: Are you really Jorge?

-- Frank (Now buzzing off)

[Sea of red]

By the way, I just gotta ask: Are you really Jorge?

I don't know who that is.But no.

Try harder.

[Augustine2004]

Or one could exercise a little quality control. As the instruments come off the assembly line, compare them to a verified instrument and toss the X percent that vary by more than a standard amount...

I don't see that. You're a lawyer rather than a manufacturing engineer. If one's going to the expense of comparing thermometers to a standard, one might as well as go ahead and calibrate them rather than discard them. I guess!

[Augustine2004]

Sea of red, what was the hottest year ever measured? What was the CO2 level then? What is it today?

[grmorton]

This is a case where, at least for me, it doesn't matter what I expect. I have access to daily data for some towns in my state (North Carolina), And I am going to run averages for several years running on 2 or 3 towns as close together as I can get then and see if we see the same kinds of seemingly uncorrelated 2-6 degree ups and downs for averages we are seeing in texas and elsewhere. If not - then maybe it's a flaw in the data itself. If so, then I think we all just have to face the fact that average temperature for an area is not so homogeneous a thing as we think it ought to be. Why that might be true I am not going to guess at beyond that is how random process noise behaves.

I am in the middle of some very nasty deadlines at work or I'd do it right now. But I will get to it as soon as I have a sufficient block of time.


Jim

I already know of some towns with those jumps for 2-3 years. It does matter what you expect in one regard, how much of a temperature jump would you find disturbing? 10 to 12 degrees?

See below. Should I do as you suggested earlier and simply accept th is data as real? Should I accept it even if it means that Waldon in April 65 is having freezing temperatures for the entire month and West Point a few miles away was enjoying balmy 47 degrees? See second and third picture

[grmorton]

I would have three criteria: (1) indication of a bias (like Walden/WP), (2) (assuming the data we are all fussing over is real and accurate) it looks like around 8 degrees or so absolute difference, and (3) I would expect the long term averages (like I did for hallotsvill/flatonia) to be very close (within 1 degree) for two areas of the same climate/geography/topology - adiabatic correction notwithstanding.

Jim, Yippppppeeeeee. We agree on this. That is exact ly what I expected. If the difference had been only within 1 degree, I would never have brought this issue up. But when I see 10 to 12 degrees at Walden-Westpoint, 6 degrees in Hallettsville-Flatonia (which really should have identical weather because there are no differences between these areas), I get very concerned about whether or not this data is any good, or at least good enough to know for certain that the global temperature has risen .6 deg C. over the past 100 years.

However, I would set the absolute difference value based on data analysis of known good sites if I were doing it for real. At this point we are all just shooting from the hip.

I disagree here. I have analyzed lots of data. I am NOT shooting from the hip. So speak for yourself.

If any one of these failed, I would say the sites data needs to be looked at closely to see 'why' this data is showing an anomaly.

Jim

ETA: perhaps better for the long term average, I would expect it to be withing a set of normal bounds for temperature change similar to your equater to pole .02 degree per mile, +- some data established mean variation.

Ok, here are the gradient plots again. The yearly gradients are much much higher than .02 deg per mile. I have already done this analysis. I am not shooting from the hip.

notice that for years at a time the local temperature gradient is larger than that .0268 deg F/mile that you approve of. YEARS AT A TIME!!!!!!!!

Physically that is ludicrous for that to happen.

[grmorton]

Nope.

I'm the second coming.

As I thought. Not worth listening to.

[grmorton]

Mine isn't an argument from authority.It is an argument from trust.You can trust scientist and science itself far more than some religious authority figure.I don't not nor would I say that scientists are free from human error,in fact that was one of the most important things scientist are forced to remember.

Of course it is an argument from authority. An argument from authority is one that basically says, I am right because that book says so, or I am right because that pope says so, or I am right because the Bible says so, or I am right because Al Gore says so. You said that you were right because IPCC said so, as if IPCC can't get anything wrong.

If it's only one year then it's rather irrelevant as to the global temperature average which has has risen 0.75 degrees over the course of three decades.

Yep, someone who doesn't understand signal to noise ratios.

All of the UHI effects on surface temperature are taken into consideration by climatologist before reports are ever issued.They do this by comparing rural trends and urban trends.

Yeah, and you haven't read what one study of UHI said about the temperature out in the countryside. This study looked at two times, 1985 to 1987 and then 1999 to 2001, called interval 1 and interval 2 respectively.

David R. Streutker, "Satellite-measured growth of the urban heat island of Houston, Texas" p. 5

For interval 1 the mean rural temperature of the area surrounding the city of
Houston is 17.2 +/- 0.7^oC. (The uncertainty quoted is the standard deviation of
the mean and does not include any attempt to quantify the errors discussed
in the previous section.) The mean rural temperature of the same area for
interval 2 is 17.1 +/- 0.8^oC, virtually identical to the earlier interval."
http://files.harc.edu/Projects/CoolH...Heatisland.pdf

© source where applicable

I wanted you to see that last part because I figured if I didn't bold it and make it big you would ignore it. Global warming only happened in Houston, not in the rural area outside of Houston, which, by the way may very well include Hallettsville and Flatonia--which are not very far outside of this study area if they are not in it.

Two thirds of all surface temperature data comes oceanic records.All of which will have no UHI obliviously and can be trusted.If that's not enough then you can have a look at weather balloon data,ice cores,and satellite data(which by the way shows no coloration with the UHI).

Oceans have cooled over the past 5 years. See picture below. Of course you won't respond to it by acknowledging that the cooling is over the oceans. I guess CO2 doesn't go out over the oceans.

Your comparing apples to crab apples.Comparing two towns does not do anything to address AGW.All temperatures are compared on a global scale and not a local scale.That is why it's called global warming and not local warming.

So, SoR, where do you think they get the data for the globe? They get it from the LOCAL temperature. You really are a hopeless case. Are you seriously saying that it doesn't matter that the local data is bad so long as it shows that the globe is warming?
What a hoot.

I would have to see the records on on both of these towns and see exactly what circumstances each one is under in order to figure out the cause.

So what is stopping you? I have posted pictures of Flatonia and Hallettsville stations, and the temperature record, you can get the temperature record. Let's hear your explanation.


Put up or shut up.

[grmorton]

grmorton:

Glenn, if my memory has misserved me, I'm happy to apologize.

Thank you very much. I try really hard not to cherry pick. That is what I did when I was a YEC.

But my memory tells me that, somewhere back up one of these threads, you did present a series of "how can the globe be warming when these people here just experienced a record cold winter, etc." post. Which I called you on at the time.

Oh, yes, I have posted things along these lines. What you need to realize is that you yourself posted a link to a site that said that the sun's output now, is much less than what it used to be. Given that we get our heat from the sun, and given that the sun is outputting less energy, it is absolutely logical to think that we should be having harsher winters. Do you really think that if the sun outputs less energy we will have hotter winters?

And I will gladly add to this. Alaskan glaciers grew this year--just when we have had few sunspots and the sun's output (per your link) is less than it has been in a long time.

CRAIG MEDRED,"Bad weather was good for Alaska glaciers
MASS BALANCE: For decades, summer snow loss has exceeded winter snowfall." Anchorage Daily News, October 13th, 2008 11:08 PM

Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008

Unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually chill temperatures in June, July and August.

"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound," said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August.

"In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years."

Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.

http://www.adn.com/news/environment/story/555283.html

© source where applicable

I would ask again. Why is this to be dismissed when the link you sent me to says that the suns energy output is so much less?

If that never happened, again, I'll apologize.

Thank you and if ever I really tick you off for a reason other than that concerning data, I too will apologize. I know I am like limberger cheese!

What I haven't done is accused you of cherry-picking weather data in a climate discussion with respect to your neighboring localities datasets. First, as you've pointed out, those are yearly averages (whether that makes them "weather" or "climate," I dunno) which you are comparing to each other, and only tying to the climate discussion because it draws the reliability of one, the other, or both sets of weather instruments into question.

Now, if I had any reason to believe you knew in advance of some rare problematic sets of neighboring localities, then maybe I could accuse you of cherry-picking. But I have no reason to believe that (and it wouldn't be like the Glenn I have come to know and admire, however much he may be tempted to stray back and forth between weather and climate in the, er, heat of argument).

hmmm. I think climate is averaged weather. What do you define it as?

As far as I know, you've simply been picking pairs or sets of localities that seem to you to lie close together in similar general terrain conditions. Again, the only one of these that got critiqued was the Bay Area (a place I'm familiar with of old and have travelled and flown across quite recently),

Yes, and I back pedaled quickly when I realised that it was a very valid criticism that going from the coast to the inland, one should expect big changes in temperature. That is why I back pedaled. the critics (and you may have been one) were absolutely right and I was wrong to use that data. But I am not wrong to use Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Kanas, and Illinois data. I will tell you, you have seen most of the data that I have downloaded. I haven't hidden anything contrary to my viewpoint.

As to your other sets, I've thrown out some speculation (up river valley, down river valley, different aspect, different highly-local wind patterns...). You've poo-poo'ed those, claiming that you are familiar with these areas and that those explanations don't appear to work.
I've taken you at your word, and you've managed to perplex the rest of us.

I grew up in Oklahoma, where I said that explanatin wouldn't work. I have driven many times through western Kansas (my neice and Nephew live in far western Nebraska). That won't work there either. My son went to UI Champaine Urbana (sic? I didnt go there so I didn't need to know how to spell it). I have been through Missouri several times by car. And I worked the area where Hallettsville and Flatonia are in the oil industry. So, yes, I know these areas. A river vally in South Texas is about 5 feet deep

Nor, on another point, was I suggesting that you weren't statistically knowledgeable. I was simply suggesting that -- of your critics (which I only occasionally number myself among) -- others would have to step up with that expertise. I don't have it (though "Drunkard's Walk" or some title like that, is on my amazon.com "wish list," that will hardly make me competent, even once I can afford it, but just may dispel some of my profound ignorance).

Critics are of course welcome. I wish they would come here and actually do what Jim is doing--look at the city by city data. But what I see is people like Sea of Red come here and blather about what I should believe, but not actually addressing the data. If Jim can find something wrong with what I have done, I will do what I always do--admit that I am wrong.

Why hasn't Sylas come back to explain why CO2 lags temperature change in the little Ice Age? He said that that wouldn't happen in modern times. But I posted a plot of that. Here it is again.

I would ask again, given that in the late 20th century the sun was more active than at any time in the past 8000 years, could it be that the CO2 is a response to temperature, as it was in the Little Ice Age? And if not all the CO2, what part was or is a response to temperature? Why isn't that a logical question to ask given the picture below?

[grmorton]

grmorton:

Well, duh, podner. That's why I'm kibitzing on the sidelines of a discussion between seemingly-sane and informed people, like you and Sylas, who are working directly with the data.


I hear what you're saying, I think, but -- recognizing the rather extreme limits of my knowledge -- so far you haven't out-argued Sylas on that one.

Well, it is hard to out argue a guy who disappears. If he can't handle his emotions when challenged and expects everyone to fawn over his every word rather than actually engage in a give and take, what am I to do?

I will freely admit that he beat my butt early in this thread. No doubt. My hat is off to him. But, he did have a horrible pattern He only appeared when he had an answer to something. If he didn't, he didn't show up. I would advance points that I expected a response from him on, points I thought were good ones. He wouldn't respond. Such an approach--appear only when you have an answer and don't show when you don't, makes it appear that you out debate anyone with whom you debate things.

So, what am I to do? I can't make him respond to points I think are difficult for him.

[grmorton]

Geemeeny, Gleen, did you read the following two posts from Aug and me? Have you not noticed the "government interference" toing and froing between Aug and I in the peak oil thread? Has your sensahumor done gone up and left?

You're a serious guy, most of the time, and for good reason (you've had, and have, a more "serious" life than I've had, as far as I can judge).

So, I really shoulda used a smiley.

I apologize. I owe you this one.