Global Warming

[odis]

Thanks, that's a neat video. But I noticed this on the lead in:



If the world is not warming, why do you suppose all the rest of the glaciers in the region are retreating?

Why do you suppose the large majority of glaciers in the world have shown substantial and accelerated retreating in the last 100+ years?



Any ideas?

- T

is there any evidence to show that the glaciers stopped melting in the past 500 years? because if not then the melting glaciers is a rather constant effect and is normal.

[Augustine2004]

I certainly didn't finagle it.

No, I meant whoever did the data corrections. How could one correct errors that nobody knows? And it's dishonest to 'correct' the data so that it supports some hypothesis.

The problem I see is this is the kind of crapola work that no one sees, that they probably haven't seen, but it is quite clear to me, that assuming there is no error in my work, their editing is simply nutso

Considering how long this has gone on, I very much doubt it's any simple nuttery. Otherwise, we won't see any starving kiddie, lots of nut butter.

[grmorton]

No, I meant whoever did the data corrections. How could one correct errors that nobody knows? And it's dishonest to 'correct' the data so that it supports some hypothesis.

Considering how long this has gone on, I very much doubt it's any simple nuttery. Otherwise, we won't see any starving kiddie, lots of nut butter.

You have seen all the photos of US weather stations next to heat sources. How logical is it for climatologists to ADD heat to those thermometers, which account for 69% of all stations in the US?

Yet add degrees they did. To add degrees to a thermometer which is already reading hotter than it should is a travesty and climatologists are paid to know what their instrumentation is like and paid to maintain it. They do neither.

[Augustine2004]

LOL! yep, it's all me. Yet study after study after study backs up what I've been saying.

Computer model studies. Last I know, there were 26 models. If they all agreed, then essentially we only need one from now on. Nah, we don't need 26 incomplete-inaccurate models.

I noticed in the abstract for the article that you cited

The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions
H. Damon Matthews, Nathan P. Gillett, Peter A. Stott, Kirsten Zickfeld
Nature 459, 829-832 (11 June 2009)

how often computer models were mentioned. Bah!

Part of your model of the universe seems to be, the more ridicule you can heap on Glenn, the less I'd be inclined to pay attention to what he says.

No, that's not what the data indicates. I despise you and I agree with Glenn we have serious data problems.

[Tiggy]

is there any evidence to show that the glaciers stopped melting in the past 500 years? because if not then the melting glaciers is a rather constant effect and is normal.

That doesn't answer my question. What do you think caused the massive glacier retreat in the last 150 years?

- T

[Bill the Cat]

Um... coming out of the little ice age?

[Augustine2004]

That doesn't answer my question. What do you think caused the massive glacier retreat in the last 150 years?

I hope nobody minds my jumping in. Yes, I concede that those years have been exceptionally warm since the Little Ice Age. Even factoring in the cooling trend since 1998, we certainly may expect farther glacier retreats. You keep jumping to the conclusion, though, that AG-CO2 is the primary cause. Heck, nobody has shown solar variation can be ruled out as a cause yet; it appears to me to be the primary cause.

[Tiggy]

Computer model studies. Last I know, there were 26 models. If they all agreed, then essentially we only need one from now on. Nah, we don't need 26 incomplete-inaccurate models.

I noticed in the abstract for the article that you cited

The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions
H. Damon Matthews, Nathan P. Gillett, Peter A. Stott, Kirsten Zickfeld
Nature 459, 829-832 (11 June 2009)

how often computer models were mentioned. Bah!

Part of your model of the universe seems to be, the more ridicule you can heap on Glenn, the less I'd be inclined to pay attention to what he says.

No, that's not what the data indicates. I despise you and I agree with Glenn we have serious data problems.

LOL! Why shouldn't I ridicule someone who completely ignores the primary scientific literature in favor of the cherry-picked data graphs he draws up on his home computer?

Why shouldn't I ridicule someone who claims thousands of professional scientists in dozens of worldwide organizations are in a massive conspiracy to commit deliberate fraud?

You want to explain the huge worldwide glacier retreat of the last century? I'm all ears.

- T

[grmorton]

One of the interesting things in the hacked CRU emails is the amount of raw data that is there. I found an 1100 year record of temperatures from pine tree rings from New Zealand. It clearly shows NO warming. Even after 1958 when they tack on the instrumental temperature, there is no warming beyond what was the case in the past.

These climatologists are doing crapola work.

The many multiple data sets don't always support what they say about the warming this century being unprecedented or even unusual. the original article for which this data was prepared can be found at http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimber...CookPalmer.pdf

[Tiggy]

I hope nobody minds my jumping in. Yes, I concede that those years have been exceptionally warm since the Little Ice Age. Even factoring in the cooling trend since 1998, we certainly may expect farther glacier retreats. You keep jumping to the conclusion, though, that AG-CO2 is the primary cause. Heck, nobody has shown solar variation can be ruled out as a cause yet; it appears to me to be the primary cause.

Right now I'm just trying to get agreement on the fact that global warming is a real and measurable phenomenon. We can debate the cause later.

I never said greenhouse gases are the primary cause, not once. I have said repeatedly they are a contributing cause, and I've provided numerous studies that support the idea.

Tin foil hat guy keeps claiming that global warming is not even happening, that it's all an artifact of bogus temperature sensor placement. Like the air conditioners placed in the middle of the deep ocean, and next to orbiting spacecraft.

Can we agree the measured rise in temperature over the last century is real?

- T

[grmorton]

Computer model studies. Last I know, there were 26 models. If they all agreed, then essentially we only need one from now on. Nah, we don't need 26 incomplete-inaccurate models.

I noticed in the abstract for the article that you cited

The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions
H. Damon Matthews, Nathan P. Gillett, Peter A. Stott, Kirsten Zickfeld
Nature 459, 829-832 (11 June 2009)

how often computer models were mentioned. Bah!

.

Augustine, I looked at the article cited. Below is a picture from that article. The amazing thing is the lack of ability of any of these models to retrodict the past climate responses, which are all over the place. Then amazingly they proclaim that in the future, all the models will agree and remark on how remarkable this future agreement will be. That is truly a bizarre paper.

[Tiggy]

No, I meant whoever did the data corrections. How could one correct errors that nobody knows? And it's dishonest to 'correct' the data so that it supports some hypothesis.

Considering how long this has gone on, I very much doubt it's any simple nuttery. Otherwise, we won't see any starving kiddie, lots of nut butter.

The simple answer to Glenn's latest brain fart about the GISS temperature corrections is that satellite remote sensors don't rely on direct contact with the environment like thermometers do. The sensors gather reflected energy in the electromagnetic spectrum, from infrared to microwave, and the temperature / chemical content / lots of other neat stuff can be ascertained from the spectral signature being reflected from the ground.

Lots of different physical factors can affect the reception of the electromagnetic radiation - moisture content of the air, chemical content of the air, cloud cover, satellite look angle, antenna polarity, etc. to name just a few. As a whole, Antarctica is a lot clearer and drier than the northern hemisphere (which has lots more man made pollution) so needs less correction. There are entire books written about correction factors for remote sensors, and all involve scientifically verified and tested procedures. I guarantee NASA and GISS know what they're doing in applying the proper corrections for the individual spacecraft mission and readings of the data.

Glenn of course doesn't have the slightest sniff of a clue about any of this, which is what makes his self-righteous posturing and his homemade "gotcha!" graphs all the more funny.

- T

[Tiggy]

Um... coming out of the little ice age?

So I take it you agree that the global warming which has caused the massive acceleration of glacier retreat since 1900 is a real and observable phenomenon too?

- T

[Tiggy]

One of the interesting things in the hacked CRU emails is the amount of raw data that is there. I found an 1100 year record of temperatures from pine tree rings from New Zealand. It clearly shows NO warming. Even after 1958 when they tack on the instrumental temperature, there is no warming beyond what was the case in the past.

The many multiple data sets don't always support what they say about the warming this century being unprecedented or even unusual. the original article for which this data was prepared can be found at http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimber...CookPalmer.pdf

LOL! You didn't even bother to read the paper that the cherry picked data came from did you?

Everyone seeing this, please go read the paper.

The scientists were researching evidence for the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) in the southern hemisphere, and they found it. The MWP was a period from 800-1300 AD with unusually high temperatures throughout the world. The paper acknowledges that since the 1950's we have been in a very steep warming period, equally as steep as observed in the MWP.

Another OWN GOAL for Glenn Morton!

BTW, you do realize that the MWP and this century's large temperature rise could have different causes, don't you? Nah, given your "logic challenged" state you probably don't.

These climatologists are doing crapola work.

Good thing we have Glenn Morton, geologist and ace scientific muckraker on the job!

Hey Glenn, why don't you write up all your findings and home made graphs and submit them to Science or Nature? You'd be a famous celebrity for exposing all this corruption and incompetence in the scientific ranks. But they might ask you to actually substantiate your claims...uh oh, there goes that idea.

- T

[grmorton]

I decided to go ahead and post the GISS corrections on my blog. here

You can see the Goddard Institute of Space Science corrections gridded into longitudinal bins now. Gosh is it awful. But never fear, AGW wackos will figure some fig leaf for this problem.