Global Warming w/o Tiggy

[grmorton]

I am starting this thread. I want to have a rational discussion about global warming with global warming advocates. I will subject myself to the same rules as everyone else in this thread. There is to be no name calling . Posts consisting of nothing more than mindless claims of someone being a 'tin foil hat' person or anything like that might be fun but they are ruled out. I would ask moderators to delete such posts, even if I, in my excitement do the same thing. I really want data to be addressed.

Because Tiggy has shown no interest in being serious, and as many participants of the Global Warming thread have commented about how Tiggy has been merely childish, I am asking the moderators to keep Tiggy off this thread, or anyone else who behaves that way. It has been the policy of TW in the past that the thread starter can set the rules. I am availing myself of that benefit here.

With that, I am starting this thread with the following post from my blog.

One of the claims by people who don't look at the climatic changes in the Holocene is that the sea levels are rising faster now, due to man, than at anytime in geologic history.

An abstract in Nature Geoscience says:

Nature Geoscience
Published online: 14 June 2009 | doi:10.1038/ngeo544
Identifying the causes of sea-level change
Glenn A. Milne, W. Roland Gehrels, Chris W. Hughes & Mark E. Tamisiea[/cite

Abstract
Global mean sea-level change has increased from a few centimetres per century over recent millennia to a few tens of centimetres per century in recent decades. This tenfold increase in the rate of rise can be attributed to climate change through the melting of land ice and the thermal expansion of ocean water. As the present warming trend is expected to continue, global mean sea level will continue to rise. Here we review recent insights into past sea-level changes on decadal to millennial timescales and how they may help constrain future changes. We find that most studies constrain global mean sea-level rise to less than one metre over the twenty-first century, but departures from this global mean could reach several decimetres in many areas. We conclude that improving estimates of the spatial variability in future sea-level change is an important research target in coming years.

© source where applicable

But such rates as mentioned in that article are not unusual, nor are they outside of the rate of natural variation. A recent study in Science studied the cave deposits in Mallorca and showed that the rates of sea level rise were as great as 20 m/1000 years, or 2 meters per century. And this was over 80,000 years ago when no automobile or coal-fired electrical plant existed.

Dorale, et al, “Sea-Level Highstand 81,000 Years Ago in Mallorca”, Science, Feb 12, 2010, p. 861

"Specifically at Mallorca, speleothem
encrustations record a MIS 5b sea-level height of
~ –20 m at 85.4 +/- 0.9 ka and a MIS 5a height of
~ +1 m by 84.2 +/- 1.0 ka (10). The sea-level
drop after the MIS 5a highstand was very rapid
as well, because speleothem encrustations
record a height of ~ –15 m by ~78.6 +/- 0.8 ka
(10). These rates of sea-level change nominally
approach 20 m per thousand years..."

© source where applicable

That huge variation occurred without any human interference, yet the IPCC wants us to claim credit for raising the oceans at a rate of 3.1 millimeters per year (.3 m/century) when history shows that the oceans have naturally varied at 6 times the rate that the IPCC says should be blamed on us.

[cite=IPCC]
"Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8
[1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate
was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8]
mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003
refl ects decadal variability or an increase in the longerterm
trend is unclear."source IPCC AR4 WG1p. 5

Global warming advocates seem not to pay any attention to what has happened in the recent geological past. Why is that?

[grmorton]

Here is another point. Cooling has been going on for about 10 years. While this is weather, it is interesting that Miami has had the coldest first 3 months of a year ever!.

[box]Unless you spent this winter somewhere else, you know it was chilly, at least by South Florida standards. Now, with the data in, the National Weather Service has made it official. The first 3 months of the year were the coldest ever reported in Miami Beach, Naples, and West Palm Beach, and was among the coldest winters ever for Ft. Lauderdale and Miami.

http://cbs4.com/local/RECORD.LOW.TEM...2.1607771.html
[box]

[shunyadragon]

Here is another point. Cooling has been going on for about 10 years. While this is weather, it is interesting that Miami has had the coldest first 3 months of a year ever!.

[box]Unless you spent this winter somewhere else, you know it was chilly, at least by South Florida standards. Now, with the data in, the National Weather Service has made it official. The first 3 months of the year were the coldest ever reported in Miami Beach, Naples, and West Palm Beach, and was among the coldest winters ever for Ft. Lauderdale and Miami.

http://cbs4.com/local/RECORD.LOW.TEM...2.1607771.html
[box]

I am for the most part an observer and use your references as more information. I will only comment occasionally. The early parts of the previous thread were the most informative for both sides.

[wattsr1]

Here is another point. Cooling has been going on for about 10 years.

Is this cooling local to you or global i.e planet wide?

While this is weather, it is interesting that Miami has had the coldest first 3 months of a year ever!.

See above.

My reason for asking is that winters my way have been getting milder and the summers have been much hotter, as of late.

Again, as you say, this is only weather and not climate, but nevertheless, it counters your Miami trend. And I think this trend has been somewhat global across Oz.

I would go chasing the data, but continue to find myself too busy chasing YECs.


Regards, Roland

[grmorton]

I am for the most part an observer and use your references as more information. I will only comment occasionally. The early parts of the previous thread were the most informative for both sides.

Let's hope this thread can be as useful, Frank. That is my hope. The early parts fo the last thread, I got my butt whipped. But, I collected more info and honed my arguments. I hope you have paid some attention to the latter part of the previous thread.

[shunyadragon]

Let's hope this thread can be as useful, Frank. That is my hope. The early parts fo the last thread, I got my butt whipped. But, I collected more info and honed my arguments. I hope you have paid some attention to the latter part of the previous thread.

I have followed everything.

[grmorton]

Is this cooling local to you or global i.e planet wide?

See above.

My reason for asking is that winters my way have been getting milder and the summers have been much hotter, as of late.

Again, as you say, this is only weather and not climate, but nevertheless, it counters your Miami trend. And I think this trend has been somewhat global across Oz.

I would go chasing the data, but continue to find myself too busy chasing YECs.


Regards, Roland

Good question Roland. From the NOAA site http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-fi...nth=12&ext=gif
you can see a picture of the global temperatures as they calculate them. I think they are calculated too high because too many thermometers are near heat sources, but, if you look at the enlargement of the picture linked to above and posted below, you can see that 1998 hit a high temperature. 2006 was .02 deg C hotter than 1998 but most all the other years since 1998 are colder than 1998. The trend would be down for the past 10 years. Since this is global it should trump what is out there at either Miami or where you are.

I am delighted in the response to my new thread so far.

[technomage]

I think they are calculated too high because too many thermometers are near heat sources....

1. How long have the thermometers been located where they are at?
2. How long have the heat sources been where they are at?
3. How many (percentage) are actually "problem spots"?

I would want these three questions answered before I make too much of "thermometers near heat sources." If the heat source was there when or before the thermometer was there, it seems to me that the trends from that source are accurate, even if the spot data may be skewed.

[grmorton]

1. How long have the thermometers been located where they are at?
2. How long have the heat sources been where they are at?
3. How many (percentage) are actually "problem spots"?

I would want these three questions answered before I make too much of "thermometers near heat sources." If the heat source was there when or before the thermometer was there, it seems to me that the trends from that source are accurate, even if the spot data may be skewed.

Good questions. Some thermometer stations have been within a couple of miles of their present location for 100 years. Stations do move, sometimes without the weather service knowing it.

First we must ask what the temperature from those thermometers is being used for. It is being used to compare the present temperature with the past, i.e. 1880, 1890, 1900 etc etc. The conclusion is drawn that today is warmer than in those years.

Keep the above in mind as you ask yourself. Do you think ANY of those air conditioners were blowing heat on the pictured thermometers in 1900??? Were they blowing heat on those thermometers in 1920?, 1930? 1940? No, they weren't because few people could afford home air conditioning before the mid-1950s. My father was an oil company engineer. we didn't get central air conditioning until 1964. We had a couple of window units starting in 1961. Prior to that we had an evaporative cooler.

So if the air conditioners weren't there 100 years ago but they are there today, they have to be biasing the temperature at those stations today relative to the past. I see no way around this huge physics problem.

What percent of the stations are next to heat sources? According to a pictorial survey of stations, Anthony Watts shows that 69% of the stations are so poorly located that one can expect as much as a 2 deg C rise in temperature. (class 4 and 5 in the chart below)

http://www.surfacestations.org/

[Challenger Grim]

I am looking forward to this thread.

As before, obvious questions:

1) Are we sure it's our fault?
2) Are we sure it's a bad thing?
3) What's the end goal?

Not that anyone has to answer them now, but for a lot of my posts, these are my first challenges to ACC.

[wattsr1]

I am looking forward to this thread.

Yes. I keep on getting side tracked though. The arguments between Glenn, Tiggy, A2004 and others over the data, keep my head spinning. However, there are some aspects to this which are perhaps as bit more philosophical (and mushy), which can be added to the mix.

As before, obvious questions:

1) Are we sure it's our fault?

I think some of it is.

2) Are we sure it's a bad thing?

That's the problem. Predicting the future is so problematical. Unlike the past, the future leaves us with no data to test our theories by.

Very few changes are globally and universally a good thing. There often seem to be winners and losers, sooner or later. And there are no guarantees that we necessarily will win and they will lose. I think what happens is that the winners in anything see it as some kind of norm, and that "carry on as usual" is o.k. because, after all, we did not lose. it's a natural tendency, and a reasonable one. However it does not take into account that more global perspective.

3) What's the end goal?

To get our component of it under control, and attempt to ascertain possible outcomes for that which we have no control over.

Climate does vary, and we can impact weather at least.

Hence either way there is no guarantee that "we" will "win" and "they" will "lose" and thus we can sleep peacefully at night (looking at it from a selfish perspective.)

As with all kinds of things we have become aware of in recent decades - smoking, ozone hole, asbestos, acid rain, impact events, volcanoes, earthquakes, Carrington events - these can be global and long term in their consequence and vary greatly in their frequency. And some of them have really only become an issue, thanks to our modern technology or our reliance on it - e.g. acid rain, Carrington events

Take smoking for instance. Despite the initial denials, most societies in the West, did eventually trust the scientists and begin to restrict the use of tobacco. However, it will take a long time before we appreciate any real benefit from the drop in smoking. And even then, those future generations will never really feel it, in any meaningful way? It will become part of the norm, that decades earlier, a lot of folk used to die of lung cancer, probably caused by smoking. And folk will simply shrug their shoulder and think "so what?". Ditto the ozone hole. It will still be decades before we know if taking the scientists seriously on this, has recovered the ozone layer. But then, the problem is, given that climate change is occurring, even if the ozone layer does recover, it could well be a case of recover to what?

I don't think we can afford to dismiss this, even if it turns out that scientists are following a fad as far as human causation goes (which I doubt.). We do become aware of these kinds of possibilities as time goes by and they do need to be looked into.

Because some things happen at a low frequency, that is, not in our life, we tend to ignore the long term.

We are aware of these things now. It's kind of like the tiger has been let out of the cage, thanks to our ability to measure, and model, and contemplate the future, now that we know we have the potential to impact the earth significantly. Perhaps a good example is the bomb. We can scare ourselves to death over it. We can be complacent because we have not really used it yet, not in any big way. Yet it exists and we humans can be very stupid at times.

So how much do we lay awake at night; how much do we ignore it; how much do we learn to live with it; how much do we learn to control it and then abandon it?

I think the skeptics are wrong on this. However, it's not exactly as simple problem.



Regards, Roland

[grmorton]

We are aware of these things now. It's kind of like the tiger has been let out of the cage, thanks to our ability to measure, and model, and contemplate the future, now that we know we have the potential to impact the earth significantly. Perhaps a good example is the bomb. We can scare ourselves to death over it. We can be complacent because we have not really used it yet, not in any big way. Yet it exists and we humans can be very stupid at times.

So how much do we lay awake at night; how much do we ignore it; how much do we learn to live with it; how much do we learn to control it and then abandon it?

I think the skeptics are wrong on this. However, it's not exactly as simple problem.



Regards, Roland

Your post as usual was a thoughtful position. I noted two things I think are quite interesting. First is that you note that our abiltiy to measure and model and contemplate the future is now affecting our percetion of the world and our ability to impact the earth.

I want to focus in on the word 'model'. In physics, V=IR is a model of how voltage, current and resistivity will co-vary.. C=lambda*nu is a model of how the speed of sound, wavelength and frequency relate to each other. Both of these are linear models and are highly predictive. 19th and early 20th century physics simple because it focuses largely on simplifying the problem to quasi-linear models, Gravity (F=GMm/r^2) is simple and predictable if one restricts the attention to a 2-body problem. A 3-body problem (or in the case of our solar system a hundreds of body problem) is not simple, not predictable to any level whatsoever. Over the long long haul, the position and velocity of the planets is unpredictable.

What happens is that when we move from the simple model to the complex model our expectation is that the complex model will be as predictable as the simple model was. That isn't the case. Take 3 rather simple looking equations, the Lorenz equations.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_attractor). The out put of this simplified description of convection in the atmosphere is totally unpredictable. Oh, one can predict it for a few of the calculational steps but not for very long. Start two particles off very close to each other and shortly their paths will diverge remarkably far.

The problem with modeling the atmosphere is that the adherents of AGW tend to want to think in linear terms of climate sensitivity. A doubling of CO2 will result in X deg rise in global temperature. But given that even the simplest convection cell in the atmosphere is unpredictable and so is the largest cold front or hurricane unpredictable as to its path, strength etc, I find it odd that people have such confidence in the output of a linear model for the future of the planet.

Secondly with modeling, since the outpout of computer models themselves are now being used as if they are observational data, it is incumbent upon every researcher to display his code if we are to take seriously the claims of his output. Yet, Mann, of hockeystick graph fame, refused to give out his code so others could criticize it. We were supposed to believe that he programmed everything perfectly--take that on faith. Science isn't about faith; it is about questioning, probing, skepticism. This gets to the heart of the problem. How much faith should we put in a scientist who tells us x,y or z? Are we not allowed to question them? Are we not allowed to examine their data, their computer code, their methods?

And that gets to something I saw in Nature the other day concerning climatologists. I found it interesting because in democratic societies, how much are we supposed to rely on the masses for making decisions. The article notes that Hanson and Schneider have had much access to governmental leaders, more than that of the average citizen. Yet, Hansen has expressed frustration that the leaders of the world are not taking his declarations and putting his recommendations into effect.

Roger Pielke, Jr., "Tales from the Climate-change crossroads," Nature 464(2010): p.352

Hansen's complaint that leaders of sovereign couintries have not acceded to his demands implies a criticism of democracy, also present in Schneider's book. If science leads inexorablly to particular political outcomes, then it would seem to favour autocratic forms of governance. The middle amn--the general public--is easily ignored if heads of state need only hear the xpert avoice of science. Schneider worries that democracy finds it hard to deal with complex issues: if only the public understood the real risks, he explains, they would be 'much more likely to send srong signals to their representatives'. He bemoans a pub lic debate that includeds the participation of 'special interests' and that is filtered through an inept media, a perspective echoed by Hansen."

© source where applicable

After a lifetime of selling oil deals, I know that if I can't sell my prospect, something is wrong with MY PROSPECT, MY SALES TECHNIQUE, or both. It isn't the fault of the buyer. If these guys want to convince the general public, they need to be fully open about all their code, their data and everything that goes into their conclusions. If the data is so incredibly convincing, as they say it is, then openness should convince the vast majority of people.

Secondly, While you and I may see different sources for the human component in global warming (you see CO2, I see air conditioners, which is also a human component), I would agree that the question of should we merely adapt to it is one that is rarely discussed. Both sources of anthropogentic warming (CO2 or airconditioners) are because of our huge energy usage. If fixing that problems sends society back to the 19th century, leaving us with little in the way to feed 6-7 billiion people, is the solution worth it? How many have to die in order to fix this problem?

[grmorton]

1. How long have the thermometers been located where they are at?
2. How long have the heat sources been where they are at?
3. How many (percentage) are actually "problem spots"?

I would want these three questions answered before I make too much of "thermometers near heat sources." If the heat source was there when or before the thermometer was there, it seems to me that the trends from that source are accurate, even if the spot data may be skewed.

I had meant to add this to my reply to Roland, but it works here as well. this is from my blog http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2...rms-earth.html



One of the things that is very little appreciated is the amount of warmth caused by our energy use. the average American citizen uses 10,380 watts of energy. A watt of energy is a joule/second.

Temperature is a measure of radiation per square meter. The Stefan-Boltzman law relates the electromagnetic radiation to the fourth power of temperature. If you are equationophobic, skip this.

Watts/meter^2 = σT^4

The thing that should interest us is how much does the energy use of the average American warm a small city. The global warming advocates claim that rural areas are not affected by urban heat and they too have warmed. By this the claim is made that the globe's warming is not due to urban heat effect but to CO2.

We are going to test that. Riverton, Wyoming is a tiny town of about 11,000 people in central Wyoming. I lived there for a month in 1973, working on a seismic crew when my career started. Looking on the internet, I find that there are 367 people per square kilometer in Riverton. At 10,380 W per person, divided by the million, that works out, using the above law, to an additional .65 deg C added to the ambient, and natural, temperature. This is exactly what the global warming advocates say the earth has warmed by over the past century. It truly is interesting that the energy use in a small town causes the same warming that CO2 is said to have caused.

Let's look at Dallas, Texas. There are 1427 people per square kilometer, which, at 10380 watts per person, adds 2.5 deg C of unatural warming.

The interesting thing is that GISS and NOAA make all sorts of corrections for the errors in the temperature measurments, but none of them corrcct for the energy use density expected from the high energy lifestyle of modern cities.

Below is a chart showing that energy use affects the temperatures of the cities. The base level is 295 deg K. As population density rises, the heat generated in the city rises as well. And it doesn't take much of a city to cause this heat, as is seen with the 10,000 population of Riverton, Wyoming.
***

Added today. our energy use heats the local surroundings. It too is anthropogenic, and this energy use causes the thermometers to rise and thus, it is a cause of global warming. Shut off all our energy use and the temperature will fall because the humans will radiate less energy into the environment..

[David M]

Good question Roland. From the NOAA site http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-fi...nth=12&ext=gif
you can see a picture of the global temperatures as they calculate them. I think they are calculated too high because too many thermometers are near heat sources, but, if you look at the enlargement of the picture linked to above and posted below, you can see that 1998 hit a high temperature. 2006 was .02 deg C hotter than 1998 but most all the other years since 1998 are colder than 1998. The trend would be down for the past 10 years. Since this is global it should trump what is out there at either Miami or where you are.

I am delighted in the response to my new thread so far.

You may be less delighted with this response.

You are completely misrepresenting the data, you are comparing only the hottest year of one decade to the coldest years of the next decade which is invalid and dishonest.

Using this argument the simple fact that 2006 was hotter than 1998 means that any cooling trend is disproven.

From that data, for every year since 2001 the combined land/ocean temperature has been warmer than 1997, the 2nd hottest year of that decade (I'll admit that 2008 might be the same as 1997, its hard to tell on the graphic but having zoomed in it looks slighty higher) . The mean temperatures for 2001-2009 are consistently above the mean temperatures for 1991-2000, every year in 2001-2009 has been warmer than 8 of the 10 years in 1991-2000 and the hottest year was hotter than 1998.

The same overall pattern is seen in the ocean temperature data, every year in 2001-2009 has been warmer than 8 of the 10 years in 1991-2000 and 6 years were warmer than 1997, the 2nd warmest year of that decade. No thermometers close to urban heat sources there.

Since 2000 the trend is up.

Why are you lying about what the data you have referred to actually says Glen?

Added today. our energy use heats the local surroundings. It too is anthropogenic, and this energy use causes the thermometers to rise and thus, it is a cause of global warming. Shut off all our energy use and the temperature will fall because the humans will radiate less energy into the environment..

So you are admitting that human use of energy is contributing to global warming, well done you have accepted AGW. Now add in the effects of how we generate that energy in the first place and you get an even larger contribution.

[shadowmaster]

You may be less delighted with this response.

You are completely misrepresenting the data, you are comparing only the hottest year of one decade to the coldest years of the next decade which is invalid and dishonest.

Using this argument the simple fact that 2006 was hotter than 1998 means that any cooling trend is disproven.

From that data, for every year since 2001 the combined land/ocean temperature has been warmer than 1997, the 2nd hottest year of that decade (I'll admit that 2008 might be the same as 1997, its hard to tell on the graphic but having zoomed in it looks slighty higher) . The mean temperatures for 2001-2009 are consistently above the mean temperatures for 1991-2000, every year in 2001-2009 has been warmer than 8 of the 10 years in 1991-2000 and the hottest year was hotter than 1998.

The same overall pattern is seen in the ocean temperature data, every year in 2001-2009 has been warmer than 8 of the 10 years in 1991-2000 and 6 years were warmer than 1997, the 2nd warmest year of that decade. No thermometers close to urban heat sources there.

Since 2000 the trend is up.

Why are you lying about what the data you have referred to actually says Glen?



So you are admitting that human use of energy is contributing to global warming, well done you have accepted AGW. Now add in the effects of how we generate that energy in the first place and you get an even larger contribution.

The problem, despite Glenn’s strange outlook, is that there really is no good theory on why it is all AGW and how does CO2 figure in.
If scientists would stop using "green arguments”, like you do above, and stick to scientific modeling principles, then there could be significant progress to be made.

The "amplification" of CO2 “forcing" is merely an unvalidated assumption at present.
It is simulations that assume that we must consider what "Greenies" call the worst case assumption.
That might be O.K. if it was really possible for us to manipulate the climate without collateral damage.
A more honest approach would not reek of Tiggy smells.
It is not too late IMHO