Thousands of Scientists are Skeptical of Global Warming

[GIGObuster]

@Poptech

Please show me which of Hansen’s scenarios match the current emissions. If you cannot do this all of his modeled results are useless.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/climate_fraudit.php

The graph below shows the predictions of James Hansen’s 1988 climate model overlaid (in blue) with observed temperatures. Hansen’s scenarios B and C have turned out to be very good predictions of what actually happened.

Of course, it is an article of faith amongst the global warming skeptics that the models are wrong, so what do they do?

Eschenbach’s doctored figure

Well, there are only two things you can do to make Hansen look bad – you can misrepresent the results of his model, or you can misrepresent the instrumental record.

The first approach is the one taken by Pat Michaels, who dishonestly erased scenarios B and C from Hansen’s graph. The second approach is the one taken by Willis Eschenbach over at Climate Audit. If you move your mouse over the figure above, you can see Eschenbach’s version. By doctoring the instrumental measurements so that they were all lower, he makes it look like Hansen’s model predicted more warming that what was actually observed.

The trick Eschenbach used was to use a single year for the baseline instead of the thirty year average that is normally used. Yes, it’s another version of the disingenous baseline game that produced all those bogus “global warming ended in 1998” claims. Given the year to year variability of climate, by choosing the right year to use as a baseline you can manufacture almost any result you want.

Oh yeah, you have to admire the quality of the “researchers” at Climate Audit.

[KNO3]

@GIGObuster

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/mcintyre_has_another_go_at_han.php
RealClimate: Jim Hansen’s opinion

I don’t see the raw data. If I photoshopped my data I would be right as well.

[GIGObuster]

@KNO3

“Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all, and the small amount that was changed was adjusted for consistency.”

What small amount? Which figures? Did you actually read what you post?

Yeah, he reported that it was data that was coming from stations that were not considered reliable (That by the what was also a classic denier accusation: that “researchers do not account for the heat island or other items affecting the temperature of weather stations”)

@KNO3

Jones “said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all”

Uh huh. What’s a vast majority?

The point was that the data was not deleted, you are just trying to avoid the fact that someone mislead you. As mentioned, the data remains in the Met office and if you use a little logic you would realize that anything that Jones decided to delete still remains at the source.

@KNO3

"Refuting CEI’s claims of data-destruction, Jones said, “We haven’t destroyed anything. The data is still there – you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center”

Nope. “That’s all value added stuff.” Hence the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to get access to the NOAA raw data.

Chances are then that it will be thrown away for being a frivolous FOI request.

[GIGObuster]

@KNO3

I don’t see the raw data. If I photoshopped my data I would be right as well.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

http://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/merra/intro.php

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/

[KNO3]

@GIGObuster

Yeah, he reported that it was data that was coming from stations that were not considered reliable (That by the what was also a classic denier accusation: that “researchers do not account for the heat island or other items affecting the temperature of weather stations”)

I would like to see proof that that was the case. Science relies on proof. Testimony is all good and fine, but where’s the proof?

@GIGObuster

The point was that the data was not deleted, you are just trying to avoid the fact that someone mislead you. As mentioned, the data remains in the Met office and if you use a little logic you would realize that anything that Jones decided to delete still remains at the source.

Show me the link to the raw data please.

@GIGObuster

Chances are then that it will be thrown away for being a frivolous FOI request.

For raw data? Maybe.

[KNO3]

@GIGObuster

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

http://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/merra/intro.php

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/

Sorry I don’t see a section on raw data.

[Poptech]

@The_Second_Stone

You also point me to 500 articles, rather than one article. I don’t want 500 articles. I want one peer reviewed climate article that says the world is not getting warmer in its conclusion. One. Peer reviewed. World not getting warmer. Climate journal. Not irrigation journal, not economics journal. Not an article calling into question someone else’s methods, but stating in a conclusion that the world is not getting warmer. One. Just one.

Ok,

Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years
*(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 95, January 2007)

• Lin Zhen-Shan, Sun Xian*

Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
*(Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp. 1-9, January 2008)

• G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, O. G. Sorokhtin*

Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect
*(Environmental Geology, Volume 58, Issue 6, pp.1207-1213, September 2009)

• G. V. Chilingar, O. G. Sorokhtin, L. Khilyuk, M. V. Gorfunkel*

Cooling of the Global Ocean Since 2003
*(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 101-104, January 2009)

• Craig Loehle*

New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?
*(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 327-350, May 2003)

• Landscheidt T.*

Recent cooling of the upper ocean (PDF)
*(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 18, September 2006)

• John M. Lyman, Josh K. Willis, Gregory C. Johnson*

@The_Second_Stone

Northern ice cap getting thinner each year, sea levels rising. I don’t believe you, I believe my eyes. All you have is a lot of obfuscation. Not only do you apparently not know the difference between the Arctic and Antarctic, but you don’t know how to understand a scientific paper in a relevant peer reviewed journal either. No wonder you are so angry and confused.

All I want is one article that has a definitive conclusion that says global warming isn’t happening and that it is a peer reviewed article in a climate journal. One, and I will agree there is grounds for skepticism.

Then maybe you should check the list because they are there. I understand the fear of knowing these exist will greatly upset your emotional position.

1. The Arctic Ice has only been monitored since 1979
2. The sea-ce has grown back since the 2007 minimum, it is NOT getting smaller each year.
3. The Arctic has been ice free in the past.

Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years Ago (Norwegian Geological Survey)

4. There are other causes for the reduced ice such as winds and solar variability.

Summer retreat of Arctic sea ice: Role of summer winds (PDF)
*(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 24, December 2008)

• Masayo Ogi et al.*

Variations in the age of Arctic sea-ice and summer sea-ice extent (PDF)
*(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 9, May 2004)

• Ignatius G. Rigor et al.*

Solar Arctic-Mediated Climate Variation on Multidecadal to Centennial Timescales: Empirical Evidence, Mechanistic Explanation, and Testable Consequences (PDF)
*(Physical Geography, Volume 30, Number 2, March-April 2009)

• Willie H. Soon*

Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years (PDF)
*(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 16, August 2005)

• Willie H. Soon*

5. Sea levels according to the IPCC are only rising millimeters a year.
6. There are papers challenging even this on the list.

Estimating future sea level changes from past records (PDF)
*(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 40, Issues 1-2, pp. 49-54, January 2004)

• Nils-Axel Mörner*

New Perspective on Global Warming & Sea Level Rise: Modest Future Rise with Reduced Threat (PDF)
*(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 7, pp. 1067-1074, November 2009)

• Madhav L. Khandekar*

7. Whether global warming is happening or not has nothing to do with whether it is caused by man.

[GIGObuster]

@KNO3

I would like to see proof that that was the case. Science relies on proof. Testimony is all good and fine, but where’s the proof?

http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/28/watts-not-to-love-new-study-finds-the-poor-u-s-weather-stations-tend-to-have-a-slight-cool-bias-not-a-warm-one/

My guest blogger today is one of the best meteorologists around, Dr. Jeff Masters, former Hurricane Hunter and now Director of Meteorology for the Weather Underground. There’s so much damn stuff to blog on, I didn’t get around to the amazing new study that, as DotEarth’s Andy Revkin put it, “throws cold water on the allegation that bad weather stations have amplified America’s warming trend” — allegations made by former TV weatherman Anthony Watts who runs the anti-science website WattsUpWithThat.

We knew that the “good or best” weather stations provide data that matches the overall U.S. temperature record (see Must-read NOAA paper — Q: “Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising rapidly during the last 50 years?” A: “None at all.”). But as Revkin explains, “In essence, the paper, On the Reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record (pdf), concludes that the instrument issues, as long acknowledged, are real, but the poor stations tend to have a slight cool bias, not a warm one.” Like Revkin, I first saw this on Masters’ Wunderblog, and he gave me permission to excerpt it at length here.

Former TV weatherman Anthony Watts, who runs the popular global warming contrarian website, “Watts Up With That”, was convinced that many of the U.S. network of surface weather stations had serious flaws in their siting that was causing an artificial warm bias in the observed increase in U.S. temperatures of 1.1°F over the past century. To address this concern, Watts established the website surfacestations.org in 2007, which enlisted an army of volunteers to travel the U.S. to obtain photographic evidence of poor siting of weather stations. The goal was to document cases where “microclimate” influence was important, and could be contaminating temperature measurements. (Note that this is a separate issue from the Urban Heat Island, the phenomenon where a metropolitan area in general is warmer than surrounding rural areas). Watts’ volunteers–650 strong–documented the siting of 865 of the 1,218 stations used in the National Climatic Data Center’s U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) for tracking climate change. As reported in Watt’s 2009 publication put out by the Heartland Institute, the volunteers “found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat.” Watts surmised that these poorly-sited stations were responsible for much of the increase in U.S. temperatures over the past century, due to “a bias trend that likely results from the thermometers being closer to buildings, asphalt, etc.” Watts concluded, “the U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since the U.S. record is thought to be the best in the world, it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable”.

Figure 1. A poorly sited temperature sensor in Marysville, California, used for the USHCN. The sensor is situation right next to an asphalt parking lot, instead in the middle of a grassy field, as it is supposed to be. The sensor is also adjacent to several several air conditioners that blow their exhaust into the air nearby. Image credit: surfacestation.org.

Analysis of the data disagrees with Watts’ conclusion

While Watts’ publication by the Heartland Institute is a valuable source of information on siting problems of the U.S. network of weather stations, the publication did not undergo peer-review–the process whereby three anonymous scientists who are experts in the field review a manuscript submitted for publication, and offer criticisms on the scientific validity of the results, resulting in revisions to the original paper or outright rejection. The Heartland Institute is an advocacy organization that accepts money from corporate benefactors such as the tobacco industry and fossil fuel industry, and publishes non-peer reviewed science that inevitably supports the interests of the groups paying for the studies. Watts did not actually analyze the data to see if taking out the poorly sited surface stations would have a significant impact on the observed 1.1°F increase in U.S. temperatures over the past century. His study would never have been publishable in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Research

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

@KNO3

Show me the link to the raw data please.

AFAIK it should be here:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091208a.html

[Poptech]

@GIGObuster

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/climate_fraudit.php

Hansen’s scenarios B and C have turned out to be very good predictions of what actually happened.

This is a lie as neither matches the current emission levels.

[GIGObuster]

@KNO3

Sorry I don’t see a section on raw data.

RealClimate: Data Sources

Specially the Nasa ones. But there is a reason why raw data is preferred by deniers, it is easier to misrepresent or to tell the peanut gallery that they are still researching.

[GIGObuster]

@Poptech

This is a lie as neither matches the current emission levels.

Yeah, right, tell others not to trust their sight, that will work.

[Poptech]

@GIGObuster

Yeah, right, tell others not to trust their sight, that will work.

Please list the current emissions levels (cite you source) and the emissions levels for each scenario. If the numbers match any of the scenarios you win, if not I do. Game on.

[GIGObuster]

@Poptech

Please list the current emissions levels (cite you source) and the emissions levels for each scenario. If the numbers match any of the scenarios you win, if not I do. Game on.

I see, you are just going to claim that probabilities should be discounted, nope, that is going away from what it is clear; the match is really good when taking into account the probabilities. There is a reason why the American Meteorological Society, gave Hansen its top honor.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/weather-mavens-honor-climate-maven/

[Poptech]

@GIGObuster

I see, you are just going to claim that probabilities should be discounted, nope, that is going away from what it is clear; the match is really good when taking into account the probabilities.

It doesn’t work that way. None of the scenarios match current emission levels so they are all worthless. Probabilities are fine if reality turns out to match one of them, but it doesn’t. This is the sort of propaganda that you try to sell to the uniformed. Lets see the numbers or are you chicken?

[Poptech]

FASCINATING, a moderator censored my list and posted a broken link to a conspiracy post on a blog. Please remove the idiotic link you will not find my list online.

[GIGObuster]

@Poptech

It doesn’t work that way. None of the scenarios match current emission levels so they are all worthless.

Nope, if that was not the case then Mr. Eisenbach would not had need to move the bar as he did.

@Poptech

Probabilities are fine if reality turns out to match one of them, but it doesn’t. This is the sort of propaganda that you try to sell to the uniformed. Lets see the numbers or are you chicken?

Meh, you are just grasping at straws. Anyone can see the levels of deception that the guys at Climate Audit had to go to make the difference a significant one.

[Poptech]

Please list the current emissions levels (cite you source) and the emissions levels for each scenario. If the numbers match any of the scenarios you win, if not I do. Game on.

[Marley23]

:rolleyes:

Repeating myself from the other climate change thread:

[Mod Hat]

Copying and pasting scores of names is not a valid debate tactic or even a good citation. It’s obnoxious and tiresome. This isn’t a contest to see who can post the biggest wall of text. This goes for everyone: don’t do it again. I don’t want to keep abbreviating these lists. And if you are quoting from another source, keep the quote to a reasonably short length and just link to the full text.

As far as the “conspiracy post on blog” goes, Poptech, you posted the same interminable list of climate scientists to that blog. So rather than make everybody wade through three posts of it over here, I just linked to that post. I’ve corrected the link so people can read it if they choose. My apologies for the coding error but it’s now been fixed.

[Poptech]

@Marley23

:rolleyes:

Repeating myself from the other climate change thread:

[Mod Hat]

Copying and pasting scores of names is not a valid debate tactic or even a good citation. It’s obnoxious and tiresome. This isn’t a contest to see who can post the biggest wall of text. This goes for everyone: don’t do it again. I don’t want to keep abbreviating these lists. And if you are quoting from another source, keep the quote to a reasonably short length and just link to the full text.

As far as the “conspiracy post on blog” goes, you posted the same interminable list of climate scientists to that blog. So rather than make everybody wade through three posts of it over here, I just linked to that post. I’ve corrected the link so people can read it if they choose. My apologies for the coding error.

WRONG! That is not the current list. Please remove the invalid link and link to my actual list.

[GIGObuster]

@Poptech

Please list the current emissions levels (cite you source) and the emissions levels for each scenario. If the numbers match any of the scenarios you win, if not I do. Game on.

What game? You already lost and I did not need to make anything up, unlike that guy at Climate Audit.