I was recently reading The New York Times and saw a fantastic ad:
Recent research indicates that the benefits of moderate exposure to sunlight outweigh the hypothetical risks. Surprisingly, there is no compelling scientific evidence that tanning causes melanoma. Scientists have proven, however, that exposure to all forms of ultraviolet light -- both indoors and out -- stimulates the natural production of vitamin D. And research has proven that vitamin D protects against heart disease and many types of cancer, in addition to providing other important health benefits.
If you go to their website, you can read all about it.
The similarities between the "skin cancer" scam and the "global warming" scam are all too clear. First, according to this website, there is actually no evidence linking sun exposure with cancer. Amazing. I thought the epidemiological data nailed that connection decades ago. Boy, was I wrong! This is similar to the fact that there is no evidence linking carbon-dioxide emissions with climate change.
In addition, the sunlightscam website talks about how there is an enormous conspiracy between dermatologists and sunscreen manufacturers to promote this scam. It's all about the money. That's just like the conspiracy between climate scientists and politicians to create the fake problem of climate change.
In addition, the website talks about how exposure to the sun is actually good for you. This reminds me again of global warming: if global warming does occur, it will be beneficial! After all, people love warm weather. Do you need any more evidence than that? Case closed.
And who sponsors this great and informative website? Why, it's the Indoor Tanning Association:
Founded in 1999, the Indoor Tanning Association (ITA) represents thousands of indoor tanning manufacturers, distributors, facility owners and members from other supporting industries.
Again, this is reminiscent of the global warming debate. It is only large oil-producing companies like Exxon that have the credibility and moral authority to point out how the scientific community and others who promote global-warming hysteria are biased and corrupt.
Sigh.
I hope people realize I'm joking. The association between sun exposure and skin cancer is every bit as robust as the association between greenhouse gases and climate change. And that means it's pretty damn robust. What's interesting is that the Indoor Tanning Association seems to have virtually plagiarized the strategy incorporated by tobacco companies and global-warming denialists. The phrases "hypothetical risks" and "no compelling scientific evidence," along with efforts to smear the mainstream scientific community with accusations of corruption, are right out of the global-warming denialists' handbook.
This really underscores the effectiveness of the strategy. Regardless of how strong the evidence is -- whether it's the connection between smoking and lung cancer, exposure to sunlight and skin cancer, or greenhouse gases and climate change -- it seems possible to create doubt in the general public's mind with a concerted PR campaign.
Now that I'm done with this post, I think I'll go lie in the sun and relax. After all, according to the Indoor Tanning Association, it's good for me.
Lawsuit accuses Virginia power company of poisoning Dominican community with toxic coal ash
While scientists fight over BPA studies, Congress could just act
Seventh Generation launches anti-toxics campaign with wee gimmick
Comments
View as Flat
benp Posted 7:39 am
31 Mar 2008
These are sure signs of the exhaustion of the climate change argument. It borrows the moral high-ground from history, but struggles to make the moral case for 'action' on its own terms; climate change denial is the equivalent of being in favour of the slave trade. The climate change argument borrows scientific credibility from medicine; climate change is like cancer, and climate scientists are like doctors. This unsophisticated reasoning isn't designed to shed any light on the matters at hand. It merely uses this borrowed moral and scientific certainty to position climate alarmists on the "good" side.
[from http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/03/more-geometric- ... ]
Permalink
bigTom Posted 8:31 am
31 Mar 2008
Permalink
Ark Posted 8:34 am
31 Mar 2008
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Re ...
Man Made Global Warming is a hoax.
Permalink
surfthistle Posted 9:25 am
31 Mar 2008
This is a bad analogy.
Permalink
hekatonkheire Posted 10:03 am
31 Mar 2008
Admittedly we have kind of a different perspective on skin cancer here in Australia. Presumably there aren't ads like this running in the US, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0ZRuZ513uE&feature=re ...
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 10:41 am
31 Mar 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:21 pm
31 Mar 2008
You have to cut people some slack. Look at every other health, diet or environmental cause in the last four decades. The pendulum seems to swing one way and then another.
First cholesterol is bad and we shouldn't eat butter, just margarine. Then it turns out there's good and bad cholesterol.
By the time you figure out what's right and wrong with the world, your life is over. You might as well concentrate on having a good time regardless in a kind of Mad Max, Boy and His Dog, Cyberpunk spree of gay abandon.
Remember what Mother Nature says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLrTPrp-fW8
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." -- Galileo
Permalink
gorak Posted 1:51 pm
31 Mar 2008
And you must remember, that Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein ect... were SKEPTICS of the currently accepted scientific opinion.
That doesn't say anything about the skeptics of global warming or skin cancer, but it should give you pause before you seek to overturn the skeptical workings of hundreds of years of the modern scientific method.
Permalink
cce Posted 2:35 pm
31 Mar 2008
Read the CEO's introduction of Seitz.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ness/29154.html?pattern=frede ...
Read Singer's defense of Second Hand Smoke:
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TICT0002555-2573.html?patt ...
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:40 am
03 Apr 2008
Andrew Dessler has an uncanny talent for shooting himself in the foot over and over again with flawed analogies between all sorts of real and imagined problems and the current AGW concerns.
As benp pointed out very succinctly, Andrew uses this ploy to try to get a point across without having to defend the real arguments.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:57 am
03 Apr 2008
The problem arises when science is mixed with politics and is being driven by an agenda that is fueled by large sums of money.
It would be a wonderful world if all scientists really were able to "follow a high standard of behavior" and be totally honest all the time.
But money and politics drive this world, josullivan58, whether this is the "coal lobby", the "green activist" lobby or UN bureaucrats and politicians.
This danger of being misused to achieve a political agenda is the real "Achilles heel" of science.
Max
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 7:24 am
03 Apr 2008
I thought you left after I told you and benp to read the IPCC reports for yourself. you were so offended that I wanted you to do some work educating yourself you went off in a huff. well, if you don't understand the point of this post, I doubt I can explain it any clearer. I suspect, however, that the lurkers can understand my point pretty clearly.
regards
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:41 am
03 Apr 2008
Nice to hear from you. I'm sure the "lurkers" can understand your point, as you say.
Yeah. I read all the latest IPCC stuff (no "huff", though).
Guess if their next reports come out in 2013, we'll know more by then about the current "temperature plateau" (as their Chairman calls it) and whether this was the start of a long term flattening or even downturn of the curve. Maybe IPCC will even share some thoughts on what caused it.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:52 pm
03 Apr 2008
Hi Andrew,
This was before your time, but James E. Hansen was only 2 years old when this 1943 hit by Johnny Mercer hit the charts.
He is now heading the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). As you know, these are the guys that put together temperature records and model studies for the future, under Hansen's leadership.
But this song has obviously made a lasting impression on him over all these years.
He is now "accentuating" the "positive feedbacks" in climate change and "eliminating" the "negative" ones.
Kinda `splains this bizarre behavior, doesn't it?
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:53 am
04 Apr 2008
The analogy between skin cancer (caused by exposure of the skin to ultraviolet radiation) and global warming (caused by increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide) is, at first glance, compelling.
The analogy is made, "the sunlightscam website talks about how there is an enormous conspiracy between dermatologists and sunscreen manufacturers to promote this scam. It's all about the money. That's just like the conspiracy between climate scientists and politicians to create the fake problem of climate change."
Leaving aside the "conspiracy chatter", we see that there are some basic differences if we dig a bit deeper into the facts,.
These relate to the "levels of evidence" (linking the cause with the effect).
http://www.meb.uni-bonn.de/cancernet/304733.html
The evidence linking the incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer to the level and degree of exposure to ultraviolet radiation is provided by
· Controlled trials
· Case-control analytic studies
· Opinion of experts based on clinical experience
The evidence linking the incidence of cutaneous melanoma to the incidence of exposure to sunburns, especially in childhood and adolescence is provided by
· Case-control analytic studies
· Ecologic studies with a cancer incidence link
· Opinion of experts based on clinical experience
In other words, the evidence is in the form of observed effects directly linked to actual physical causes.
A description of one case-control study shows how a sample of subjects "were interviewed about their lifetime sun exposure, including exposure to the site of the squamous cell carcinoma (sites for controls were assigned randomly). Analysis was restricted to 132 cases and 1,031 controls born in Australia and with no ancestors from southern Europe. The total site-specific exposure was strongly related to risk of melanoma; the odds ratio increased to a maximum of 3.3 at 65,000 hr of exposure before falling slightly. Site-specific exposure during childhood and adolescence was more strongly associated with SCC than exposure during adulthood. The number of blistering sunburns to the site was positively associated with SCC. Use of sunscreens and hats showed inconsistent effects. Sun exposure, especially during childhood and adolescence, increases the risk of SCC."
http://www.meb.uni-bonn.de/cgi-bin/mycite?ExtRef=ICDB/983 ...
There have been many such studies, all showing an observed direct link between skin cancer and exposure to ultraviolet radiation.
In the case of anthropogenic global warming we are missing this direct link.
The link is suggested by the greenhouse theory and computer generated climate model studies, which project future changes in globally averaged land and sea surface temperatures, based on projected future atmospheric concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. These are then linked to projections of a higher incidence of more intense tropical storms more severe weather events and accelerating sea level rise in the future. These possible future developments are said to be "likely" or "more likely than not" to occur as a result of human influence based on "expert opinion rather than attribution studies".
In effect we are comparing observed physical evidence with conjecture based on theory and the virtual reality of computer models.
This is the key difference and, therefore, the key weakness in this analogy.
Max
In other words, the evidence is in the form of actually observed effects directly linked to physical causes.
In the case of anthropogenic global warming we are missing this direct link. The link is provided by the greenhouse theory and computer generated climate model studies, which project future changes in globally averaged land and sea surface temperatures, which are then linked to predictions of a higher incidence of more intense tropical storms more severe weather events and accelerating sea level rise. These possible future developments are said to be "likely" or "more likely than not" to occur based on "expert opinion rather than attribution studies".
This is the key difference and, therefore, the key weakness in this analogy.
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:59 am
04 Apr 2008
The analogy is made, "the sunlightscam website talks about how there is an enormous conspiracy between dermatologists and sunscreen manufacturers to promote this scam. It's all about the money. That's just like the conspiracy between climate scientists and politicians to create the fake problem of climate change."
Leaving aside the "conspiracy chatter", we see that there are some basic differences if we dig a bit deeper into the facts,.
These relate to the "levels of evidence" (linking the cause with the effect).
http://www.meb.uni-bonn.de/cancernet/304733.html
The evidence linking the incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer to the level and degree of exposure to ultraviolet radiation is provided by
· Controlled trials
· Case-control analytic studies
· Opinion of experts based on clinical experience
The evidence linking the incidence of cutaneous melanoma to the incidence of exposure to sunburns, especially in childhood and adolescence is provided by
· Case-control analytic studies
· Ecologic studies with a cancer incidence link
· Opinion of experts based on clinical experience
In other words, the evidence is in the form of observed effects directly linked to actual physical causes.
A description of one case-control study shows how a sample of subjects "were interviewed about their lifetime sun exposure, including exposure to the site of the squamous cell carcinoma (sites for controls were assigned randomly). Analysis was restricted to 132 cases and 1,031 controls born in Australia and with no ancestors from southern Europe. The total site-specific exposure was strongly related to risk of melanoma; the odds ratio increased to a maximum of 3.3 at 65,000 hr of exposure before falling slightly. Site-specific exposure during childhood and adolescence was more strongly associated with SCC than exposure during adulthood. The number of blistering sunburns to the site was positively associated with SCC. Use of sunscreens and hats showed inconsistent effects. Sun exposure, especially during childhood and adolescence, increases the risk of SCC."
http://www.meb.uni-bonn.de/cgi-bin/mycite?ExtRef=ICDB/983 ...
There have been many such studies, all showing an observed direct link between skin cancer and exposure to ultraviolet radiation.
In the case of anthropogenic global warming we are missing this direct link.
The link is suggested by the greenhouse theory and computer generated climate model studies, which project future changes in globally averaged land and sea surface temperatures, based on projected future atmospheric concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. These are then linked to projections of a higher incidence of more intense tropical storms more severe weather events and accelerating sea level rise in the future. These possible future developments are said to be "likely" or "more likely than not" to occur as a result of human influence based on "expert opinion rather than attribution studies".
In effect we are comparing observed physical evidence with conjecture based on theory and the virtual reality of computer models.
This is the key difference and, therefore, the key weakness in this analogy.
Max
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 8:22 am
04 Apr 2008
Ethically-challenged would be a generous description for you and your ilk.
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:34 am
04 Apr 2008
Instead of falling into the trap of making ad hominem arguments ("ethically challenged") and absurd "oil industry" allegations, why don't you try addressing the factual arguments instead?
Is it because you are afraid you would lose these?
I believe this is your problem.
BTW I have written that I am not for "inaction" on true energy conservation and environment related issues; just on senseless carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes that would accomplish nothing to resolve these issues.
Got it?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:47 am
04 Apr 2008
Hey Robco1,
Just so you know where I stand on "delaying progress", here is what I wrote on another Grist thread.
I am certainly NOT in favor of being a "delayer" when it comes to:
· Improving energy efficiency in power generation (i.e. revamping or replacing old inefficient plants with newer plants)
· Reducing waste on all levels
· Reducing real air and water pollution (not CO2 emissions)
· Reducing dependency on imported oil coming from politically unstable regions
· Improving fuel efficiency of automobiles
· Developing new energy-efficient sources of automotive fuels
· Developing and installing more cost-effective renewable power generation sources
· Building more nuclear power plants, and ensuring these are safe, of course)
· Developing new fast breeder technology
· Developing nuclear fusion technology
· Etc.
But I am in favor of being a "delayer" when it comes to the implementation of draconian carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes, which will cost everyone a lot of money and will make some people, organizations, hedge funds or money shufflers rich, but will accomplish none of the above.
Hope this clears it up for you.
But this is all sort of off the topic of this thread, which has to do with an analogy of skin cancer with AGW.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 9:16 am
04 Apr 2008
As for cap and trade "schemes," yeah, they were so ineffective in reducing SO2 from smokestack emmissions . . . whops.
Got it?
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:33 am
04 Apr 2008
SO2 is pollution. It does not exist naturally in the atmosphere to any significant extent. It is a cause for respiratory problems in humans, for destruction of plant life at higher concentrations and is believed to be a principal cause for acid rain.
CO2 is not pollution. It is an essential trace component of the Earth's atmosphere; no CO2 = no life.
There is no evidence that a reduction of CO2 emissions will have any significant impact on future intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones or future frequency of other extreme weather events.
There is no compelling evidence that a slight warming trend (if it continues) will be more harmful than beneficial for mankind, for the environment and for the future of "our planet".
Over the past 10 years CO2 concentrations have increased annually, but there has been no increase in the "globally average surface (or satellite) land and sea temperature anomaly. Why is this?
The IPCC chairman has indicated he would look into why there has been a plateau in temperatures, and we are all awaiting some answers.
So that it the basic difference here.
Got it now?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 10:27 am
04 Apr 2008
Over the past decade global temp. has increased dramatically, in line with the worst projections from credible scientists. And anyone who is intellectually honest and at all informed knows that there is a mountain of evidence showing how past warming and cooling trends have wreaked havoc on past ecosystems.
The key words there are "honest" and "credible." You folks should try to become familiar with them sometime.
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:45 pm
04 Apr 2008
Wrong again, Robco, when you say: "Just because it occurs naturally does not mean it can't be a pollutant. As you well know, CO2 is pollution when you have too much. Don't believe me? Fill your car with CO2 and sit inside with the windows shut. Which you must already be doing to come up with a series of factual errors."
Sorry Robco, looks like the "red herring" is yours. Here's a brief lesson in Chemistry 101: when you sit in your car and fill it with exhaust gas it is NOT CO2 that kills you. It is CO. (That's carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide). Got the difference?
CO2 could be dangerous to humans above 5,000 ppmv, but there is not enough fossil fuel on this planet to ever reach this level in the atmosphere.
Over the past decade (1998-2008) CO2 has gone up steadily but global temp has not increased at all, as you claim. Check the records:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
Plot it for yourself and you will see that the linear trend is flat.
The "worst projections from credible scientists" said it should increase by 0.2 degrees C per decade for the first two decades in the 21st century. Looks like they were flat out wrong, Robco, doesn't it?
You wrote: "The key words there are `honest' and `credible.' You folks should try to become familiar with them sometime."
This statement is a bit fuzzy. Tell me what you are trying to say here, Robco.
Were the incorrect projections of your "credible scientists" "honest" and "credible"?
Face it, your argumentation is full of holes, Robco1.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:08 pm
04 Apr 2008
The analysis of your lead article in the very first comment by benp was very much to the point regarding the "poverty of climate change ethics" as exposed by the attempts to link the climate change debate with other, totally unrelated issues. An earlier example of this fallacy was the "holocaust denier" analogy.
But I think another, more basic, fallacy in your analogy is the basic difference in the "robustness" of the cause and effect relationship between UV radiation and skin cancer as compared with human CO2 emissions and more frequent and intense tropical cyclones or extreme weather events.
In one case we have the reality of countless case studies based on the past experience of actual patients; in the other case we have the greenhouse theory and the virtual reality of computer climate models plus "expert opinion rather than attribution studies" to project future climate changes.
You made the statement that: "The association between sun exposure and skin cancer is every bit as robust as the association between greenhouse gases and climate change. And that means it's pretty damn robust."
But therein lies your fallacy. The "association between sun exposure and skin cancer" is extremely robust while the "association between greenhouse gases and climate change" (i.e. increased incidence of intense tropical storms and other severe weather events) is not very robust at all. In fact, it is very weak or even non-existent.
Do you have any counterargument to refute my statement?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 4:32 pm
04 Apr 2008
Even if you were one of those Australians who participated in the survey mentioned in an
earlier comment, who were exposed to blistering sunburns as children, your chances of getting skin cancer are not 100%.
Instead, there seems to be a rather large uncertainty about whether any particular
individual with that exposure history will ever suffer a negative effect. Given this large
uncertainty for discrete individuals, why do so many people take precautions, especially if they might be expensive, inconvenient, spoil our fun, or might have no beneficial effect for any discrete individual?
Perhaps it is because humans have evolved in an environment filled with many uncertainties. Maybe natural selection has left us with a built-in risk-management mechanism that takes a guess about the probability of an uncertain risk, and multiplies that guess by the seriousness of the consequences should the risk become real. The size of the product of that subconscious multiplication seems to determine the size of our
preventive response.
The intellectual assessment might say that the skin cancer risk faced by a discrete individual is quite uncertain, but if the risk becomes real the consequence is so severe that most people will take precautions just to be safe.
After all, a person only has one life. You can't make copies of yourself and do a double-blind experiment to see what your individual outcome will be for different exposures, nor can you remove yourself from a body with a bad outcome and install yourself in the body with the best outcome.
Since you can't switch to a new body if you mess up the one you have, most people don't want to take the chance even though, intellectually, the risk faced by a discrete individual is quite uncertain.
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:39 pm
04 Apr 2008
So staying away from excessive UV exposure to avoid the risk of skin cancer as an individual makes excellent sense, while attempting reduce the risk of hurricanes and other severe weather events by reducing global CO2 emissions does not.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:15 pm
04 Apr 2008
They're not. They are utterly immune to the concept that peer-reviewed science in multiple disciplines over the coarse of over 30 years has established an iron-clad association between human activity and global warming.
If you really want to do something futile and pointless try and pick up a bead of mercury with a single chopstick. That's about as useful as having a conversation with the deniers.
Oh, and back to the OP, one connection between tanning and climate change is dose response. CO2 in the atmosphere isn't a problem as long as it is consistent with the conditions that keystone ecosystem components evolved with. Outside of a narrow band climate patterns change and flora and fauna can become isolated populations or go extinct.
Likewise sunlight at the proper dose rate and exposure, the early hours of the morning and final hours of the evening is beneficial. At concentrated dosages the benefit of sunlight is overtaken by the damage done.
Dose responses count.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 6:32 pm
04 Apr 2008
The uncertainty I was referring to is whether any discrete individual at that exposure level will be among the 2% that get cancer.
Despite having only a one in 50 chance of a bad outcome at that exposure level, people still take precautions to avoid that exposure because they don't want to perform the experiment with the only body they have to live in.
I am guessing that this risk-aversion is an inherited behavior brought to prominence by natural selection.
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 1:49 am
05 Apr 2008
You are either delusional or a bald-faced liar if you believe the BS you are peddling here. It has been well-established that global temp. has increased dramatically over the past several decades.
What I am trying to say is that you are a liar who is spreading disinformation in the hopes that a rookie reporter will read this post and be influenced to write the following:
"...controversy still exists regarding climate change..."
Don't buy it folks. All these clowns either work for PR firms or spin...I mean, think tanks like the Heartland Institute, or are right-wing ideologues clutching their dog-eared copies of Atlas Shrugged while mumbling quotes from Leo Strauss lectures. Flat-Earth Society members have more intellect and credibility.
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 2:14 am
05 Apr 2008
Don't play the game. Expose them for what they are. Point out the money trail between th fossil fuel and utility industries and the denier "scientists" who have traded their credentials for "research grants" that are several times the norm for climatoligists, in order to produce bad science that can't pass the muster of peer-review (meaning that the numbers don't add up.) Expose the same money trail leading to the "spin tanks" like the Heartland Institute. Deniers are either amoral hacks directly employed to spread their lies, or are the self-delusional ideologues of the right wing clinging to their mantra of "regulation-bad, free-market-good." Or they are those who can't bear to recognize that the industry that employs them could be doing us unintended harm.
Call them out at every turn.
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:10 am
05 Apr 2008
Looks like you ran out of logical arguments so had to resort to childish insults and unfounded, incorrect assumptions as to who is "funding" me.
Keep up the good work.
Guys like you are giving the AGW movement a great name!
But it really does show that this movement is on shaky ground.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:22 am
05 Apr 2008
Agree with you that not everyone who exposes him/herself to UV radiation will get cancer.
The case studies based on actual patients have shown, though, that incidence is much higher for melanoma among those individuals who had sunburn during childhood/adolescence; likewise, the incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer is linked to the level and degree of exposure to ultraviolet radiation. (Sort of like the studies linking smoking and lung cancer.)
This is what I would call a pretty robust cause/effect relationship.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:39 am
05 Apr 2008
At the risk of "feeding a troll", I will respond to your post.
Everything you have written about "dose response" makes sense.
You also wrote: "Outside of a narrow band climate patterns change and flora and fauna can become isolated populations or go extinct."
To which "narrow band" of climate are you referring? Which evidence is the basis for determining this range? Which flora and fauna have become isolated due to climate change caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions? Which have become extinct due to climate change caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions? Please list specific examples with evidence that the isolation/extinction was caused by climate change caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions. Thanks for your response.
My point, which you did not address related to a fallacy in Andrew Dessler's analogy, i.e. the basic difference in the "robustness" of the cause and effect relationship between UV radiation and skin cancer as compared with human CO2 emissions and more frequent and intense tropical cyclones or extreme weather events.
In one case we have the reality of countless case studies based on the past experience of actual patients; in the other case we have the greenhouse theory and the virtual reality of computer climate models plus "expert opinion rather than attribution studies" to project future climate changes.
Would you like to address this point as well with some specific evidence that can refute my statement?
Thanks in advance for your reply.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:49 am
05 Apr 2008
Yesterday you wrote me: "Over the past decade global temp. has increased dramatically, in line with the worst projections from credible scientists."
I sent you the links to the Hadley and UAH globally averaged surface and tropospheric land and sea temperature records, so you could check some actual data (not just "the worst projections from credible scientists").
Did you download the record for "the past decade" (i.e.the period 1998-2008)?
Did you copy the data into Excel and establish the linear trend line over this period?
Did you see that the trend line is flat?
You should do this before you make claims about dramatic increases in global temp. over the past decade.
Keeps you from shooting yourself in the foot with incorrect statements.
Just a tip.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:59 am
05 Apr 2008
Let's carry your "fill the car with CO2 analogy" a step further: "Okay, Fill a plastic bag with CO2 from a tank (I know it doesn't come from the car's tailpipe; you just love the red-herrings, don't you?) and stick it over your head."
With this brilliant statement you have shown me that CO2 is "pollution".
Filling your car up with clean drinking water (with or without red herrings) while you are sitting inside would not be too smart, right?
So I supposed clean drinking water is also "pollution", right?
Believe I am beginning to see how your logic works.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 10:15 am
05 Apr 2008
Regarding the example of a vehicle filled with drinking water, I believe the more common term is "drowning hazard".
But regardless of this minor quibble regarding terminology, both commenters have clearly made their points that one should avoid exposure to too much of a good thing.
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 10:23 am
05 Apr 2008
Agree with you again.
"Too much of a good thing" in the case of clean drinking water is about two lungs full, I would guess, while for CO2 it is apparently somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 ppmv with prolonged exposure (or two lungs full at 100%, as you pointed out in the case of asphyxiation).
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 1:08 pm
05 Apr 2008
Since humans are not the only species on the planet, one wonders what the safe PEL's would be for the other plants and animals. For example, I've read comments about CO2 induced acidification of oceans which seems to threaten oceanic food chains. But I don't know what the PEL is that avoids that problem, and the uncertainty surrounding questions like that seems to stimulate many people's risk-aversion mechanism.
Interestingly, while I was reading the MSDS for CO2 I was surprised to see that rapid asphyxiation occurs at only 10% CO2 due to neurological effects, so 100% displacement of air is not needed. I was not aware of that.
It's always an eye opener for me to suddenly realize that something is ten times more dangerous than I previously thought.
Fortunately I like to maintain a really large safety margin in my daily activities, to protect me from the risks I might have underestimated.
It's a good life.
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:52 pm
05 Apr 2008
Glad we are very safe as regards CO2.
Can't see any reason to believe other species (especially plants!) are in any danger, either, despite some hype out there.
Fortunately we have so many natural checks and balances in the system to keep it that way.
I agree. It's a good life. Let's enjoy it.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:30 pm
05 Apr 2008
Sometimes it's good to clear the mind from all the day-to-day hype and take the "satellite view" on what is going on.
All of the fossil fuel we are burning today was originally atmospheric CO2.
So in our little way, we are returning to the atmosphere very slowly what was there a long time ago.
Of course, the whole cycle is much more complicated. As atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase (either from human emissions or from natural degassing as oceans warm up ever so imperceptibly), the natural cycle (which is so much greater than our human input) takes over.
This perspective sort of lets me see just how puny and insignificant we really are on this planet, despite our high intelligence and bloated egos. Insects generate more CO2 than humans.
There are some who have the arrogance of believing that they can "predict" where this is all leading us, and it will obviously be "bad" if not downright disastrous. But do these self proclaimed "prophets" really know what they are talking about? Should we really take them seriously and fear for the future of our planet?
Should we take out an expensive "insurance policy" to attempt to stop this imagined threat "just in case"?
I do not believe so.
All throughout human history there have always been prophets of doom.
Often they have tied their predictions to the wrath of an Almighty for the transgressions of man, using guilt and fear to sell their "repent now or die" message.
One of the earliest written records of ancient Sumeria (later rewritten by the Jews), tells us of a climate disaster (the Great Flood) caused as a result of the sins of man.
This latest scare is no different, MNG.
And after this one has passed into oblivion, there will certainly be a new one.
That's human nature.
But I would not take all this stuff too seriously, MNG. There is no impending disaster from human CO2 emissions.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:45 pm
05 Apr 2008
Reur: PEL's for living things
Nice to see you are back and adding some calm more philosophical aspects to the debate.
It is interesting, and surprising to me that 10% CO2 in air results in asphyxiation, but I imagine it would be slower and less awful than a 10% lungful of water, (whatever that is).
I have always imagined that drowning is not the best way to die, going on my experience of a relatively small amount of water "going down the wrong way". I think I've heard that a small amount of CO included with CO2 makes it quite peaceful if you want to part the good life.
Photosynthesis dependent life forms love CO2 of course, and have evolved in the overall biological processes such that at ~20% O2 and ~ 80% N2 everything is fine, and there is not too much oxygen about. However, I read somewhere that greenhouse tomatoes just love 1,000 PPM of CO2, and their attendants have no complaints. I seem to recall that less than 200 PPM CO2, can become a real problem for some plants, depending on other factors too.
Concerning the hype about increasing acidity in the oceans, and how it is going to destroy calcareous life-forms and hence the whole life chain, there are....well!....read-on:
a) Take one branch of climate science, and they say that as the oceans get warmer with AGW, because cold water can absorb more CO2 than warm, when it warms, there will be an increased out-gassing of CO2. (= alarming positive feed-back and a further acceleration of warming)
b) Another group(s), possibly led by marine biologists, contradicts a) by saying that despite less capable absorption capacity of warming water, it is holding ever increasing concentrations of CO2, and thus increasing in acidity. (carbonic acid)
c) More correctly, group b) should say that the pH (may) be reducing, OR the alkalinity is reducing, but of course increasing acidity sounds a bit more scary, than reducing alkalinity. One paper states in part: "surface ocean pH is estimated to have dropped from near 8.25 to near 8.14 between 1751 and 2004," (A drop in pH of 0.11 over ~250 years, in the alkaline range; neutral =7)
d) However, the whole topic is very complicated indeed: For instance, the quote in c) above almost becomes a joke when these complexities are properly considered. I refer you to the link below which takes you roughly to the middle of a more scholarly forum, on page 2 of 3, as a good starting point for understanding some of the issues.
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3& ...
Your rational comments on this would be appreciated. I think you will find the link interesting; there's even a bit of philosophy at the end, page 3.
Regards, BobFJ
P.S. have just returned from a few days break.
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 9:13 am
06 Apr 2008
The lead article at the head of the comments (a link to National Geographic) did not focus on ocean pH decrease. That was one of many impacts being reported, among others such as fishing and various forms of pollution. However, in that article there was a link to another National Geographic article that focused on concerns of pH decrease. Unfortunately, neither of those articles explained what the safe PEL for atmospheric CO2 would be to avoid harmful ocean pH changes.
One of the comments provided an excerpt from a paper which attempted to estimate future ocean pH based on past changes. That excerpt seems to be where the 0.11 pH decrease over the past 250 years entered the comment section. The significance of that size of pH change on aquatic life over that time span was not explained and may be impossible to determine. However the excerpt reported that a decrease in pH from the current 8.14 toward 7.85 would produce non-trivial changes in ocean surface chemistry and have an impact on ecosystems.
There were some comments on the above-noted external site expressing concerns about the source of the 0.11 pH change number for the past 250 years. There were comments expressing concerns about the method which that particular researcher used to extrapolate this reported past pH decrease toward the year 2100.
It seemed that all the comments on the external site expressed one, negative, perspective of this pH decrease issue. Although some of the concerns raised regarding that one research paper deserve further investigation, the one-sidedness of the comments was a bit disappointing since complex issues are seldom one-sided. The assumptions of "motive" in some of the comments seemed unprofessional.
The complexity of this issue, and the considerable uncertainty surrounding it, still seems to incline many people to err on the side of caution regarding the possible undesirable effects of excess atmospheric CO2 on ocean pH. Certainly more study seems appropriate, and in the meantime caution seems prudent.
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 12:49 pm
06 Apr 2008
See in your discussion with Black Wallaby that you are apparently concerned about possible future lowering of ocean pH due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
I've seen many "predictions" of future changes in ocean pH but very few actual measurements of what is really going on today to support these forecasts for the future.
The site below provides some good information.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm#how_ ...
I have quoted the conclusion below:
"How acidic are the oceans?
As this map suggests, ocean pH measurements have been done all over the world and in the most unlikely places. The false colour scale on the right suggests a range from 7.9 to 8.2 (personally I have measured a wider range from 7.8 to 8.3). The lowest pH occurs in upwelling areas whereas highest pH occurs in the centres of ocean gyres.
From this extensive mix it would be difficult to state what the 'average' pH is for the oceans, let alone whether the oceans have become more or less acidic.
Note that upwelling areas are more acidic because high-CO2 bottom water surfaces, warms up and makes CO2 more readily available, a bonus for photosynthesis by marine plankton."
The key conclusion here is "one cannot really say that the ocean has become more or less acidic".
So there is probably much less to worry about than some alarmists would have us believe.
Hope this bit of good news helps allay your concerns.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 3:06 pm
06 Apr 2008
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:50 pm
06 Apr 2008
You wrote:"The above-stated inability of this particular researcher to accurately determine the `average' ocean pH, and the accompanying conclusion that changes to the `average' pH can't be determined, seems to enhance, rather than reduce, the general risk-aversion urge that leads people to proceed with caution when faced with uncertainty."
Not really, MNG.
It just points out that all the "hype" about pH reduction in the ocean is just that: hype.
Other reearchers have been unable to come up with definitive 'average' numbers, while this researcher showed that there was no overall pH reduction in the ocean.
Don't fret, MNG. There is nothing to really worry about. "Not being able to determine a lowering in pH" does not equate to "maybe we should proceed with caution" (whatever that means), because there may be a pH problem, does it?
The buffering capability of the ocean and all its contents is such that the current and future CO2 emissions from the paltry human fossil fuel consumption could not do much to decrease the ocean pH significantly.
But if you enjoy worrying and fretting about imaginary future disasters, by all means, enjoy!
I just do not believe that it makes much sense.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:03 pm
06 Apr 2008
You can continue your discussion on pH of the ocean with Black Wallaby, but maybe you and I can move to another topic: i.e. that of observed actual "global warming".
Both the surface and satellite records show that there has been no warming in the past decade (1998-2008).
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
To convince yourself, all you have to do is download the monthly data from January 1998 to today into Excel and put in the linear trend line.
You will see that it is flat.
When the IPCC Chairman was recently asked about this, he said he would check if there were possibly natural factors that had caused this observed plateau.
The prior trend from 1976 to 1998 has been used by IPCC as the basis for claiming accelerated global warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
This record covers 22 years, or 2.2 times the time span of the most recent flat trend.
On this basis IPCC projected temperature increase of 0.2 degrees C per decade for the first two decades of the 21st century.
Is the most recent 10-year record a "trend"? Is it a temporary "anomaly"? Who knows?
We will have to wait and see.
But it does raise serious questions about the ability of the IPCC climate models to project future temperature increase.
What do you think, MNG? Has "rampant" global warming really stopped? Is the AGW bubble about to burst?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 5:38 pm
06 Apr 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/4/4/121748/2663
... and the discussion seemed to indicate that the temperature similarity is an artifact of year selection, not a trend.
On that page there is a graph showing the temperatures and temperature trend from 1880 to the present.
The data on the graph illustrates the artifact of year selection. If, instead of looking at 1998 and 2007, you compare the temperatures of 1999 and 2007, you see a temperature increase of almost 0.27 degrees. But that temperature difference is no more significant than the lack of difference during 1998 and 2007. It is the trend that matters, not comparisons between discrete years.
On that graph, the trend from 1998 to 2007 seems to show a temperature rise of perhaps 0.17 degrees or so. That seems to be reasonably close to the predicted 0.2 degrees per decade mentioned in a comment above.
Although this makes that prediction look pretty good, we will indeed have to wait and see whether the next ten years continue to follow the warming trend of the past ten years.
In many ways, I hope they don't. I have serious doubts that warming will be a good thing for everyone, and hoping the prediction is correct is like hoping the Titanic actually hits one of the icebergs it was warned about by other ships in the area.
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 11:29 pm
06 Apr 2008
Thanks for your comments, but before responding to your points, I see that Max has pointed to a good reference thus: http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm#how_ ...
I hope you have read it fully, and with understanding. For instance, did you notice the range of readings, (incl. graph) and relate them to your earlier concerns on that , I think, rather silly report linked over at CA? Also, the influence of biological activity in test samples etc?
Still, I guess you agree based on the info so far that we don't really have a clue what the global average (whatever that is as a parameter) pH is, or was, or if it is going up or down. Perhaps it might be appropriate for you to now weigh my items a) and b) which I paste from my earlier post:
a) Take one branch of climate science, and they say that as the oceans get warmer with AGW, because cold water can absorb more CO2 than warm, when it warms, there will be an increased out-gassing of CO2. (= alarming positive feed-back and a further acceleration of warming)
b) Another group(s), possibly led by marine biologists, contradicts a) by saying that despite less capable absorption capacity of warming water, it is holding ever increasing concentrations of CO2, and thus increasing in acidity. (carbonic acid)
Notice that group a) says that the pH should go up, and group b) says it is going down. What should we do to protect the biological life-chain in the oceans according to a) and b).....perhaps seed the oceans with nutrients or buffer agents? (for either + or - pH) Sounds like a good area for a research grant !
Are other fears like mutant pandemic bird flue, mischievous asteroids heading our way etc, more or less important, than reacting to the hype on so-called ocean acidification?
Regards, BobFJ
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:27 am
07 Apr 2008
You took issue with my statement that global warming has leveled off since around 1998, by referring me to a gristmill site.
You wrote: "The data on the graph illustrates the artifact of year selection. If, instead of looking at 1998 and 2007, you compare the temperatures of 1999 and 2007, you see a temperature increase of almost 0.27 degrees. But that temperature difference is no more significant than the lack of difference during 1998 and 2007. It is the trend that matters, not comparisons between discrete years."
Sounds good, MNG, but I prefer to go to the actual source of the data rather than relying on sites like gristmill to tell me a message they may want to get across.
So I downloaded the Hadley record:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
If I plot the last 10 years (starting January 1998, ending February 2008) I get a totally flat trend.
If I plot the trend starting January 1999 I get a linear trend of 0.009 degrees C per decade. Taken over the 9 years this is a linear increase of 0.008 degrees C, not 0.27 degrees C as grist has erroneously stated.
You are absolutely correct; it is the trend that matters. If you take the full decade you get a flat trend, if you start in 1999 you get an almost flat trend.
This is also why the Chairman of IPCC acknowledges that there has been a "plateau" in global warming.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:49 am
07 Apr 2008
Your post got me to checking out this current "plateau" in global warming (as the IPCC Chairman calls it) in more detail.
I showed you that the trend for the past decade (January 1998 to February 2008) is flat.
I showed you that the trend is almost flat if you start in January 1999.
Now I also checked the trend with later start dates:
Starting in 2000, the warming trend is +0.004 degrees C per decade
Starting in 2001, the cooling trend is -0.009 degrees C per decade
Looks flat to me no matter how you slice it.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:05 am
07 Apr 2008
Just to round out the data series on the current global warming plateau, I checked it using two later start dates:
Starting in 2002, the cooling trend is -0.018 degrees C per decade
Starting in 2003, the cooling trend is -0.023 degrees C per decade
So I guess this is really no "artifact" as grist would have us believe, but a true "plateau", as Dr. Pachauri calls it.
But I believe we can now move on to another topic.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 8:25 am
07 Apr 2008
You wrote:a) Take one branch of climate science, and they say that as the oceans get warmer with AGW, because cold water can absorb more CO2 than warm, when it warms, there will be an increased out-gassing of CO2. (= alarming positive feed-back and a further acceleration of warming)Can you point me to a reference or other scientific paper that says that? Thanks!
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:53 am
07 Apr 2008
You asked me; Can you point me to a reference or other scientific paper that says that? [that increased Ocean T's result in CO2 outgassing and feedback]
Let's do a deal here. If you can provide information that proves a direct cause and effect relationship between CO2 and climate change, then I will oblige. When I and others have asked you repeatedly for it before this, you have refused to help. Consequently I do not feel helpful
Oh, John Cross brought it up on one of your threads....perhaps he can help you.
Regards,
Permalink
JCross Posted 9:42 am
07 Apr 2008
John
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 10:26 am
07 Apr 2008
"Max pointed to a good reference"
Seafriends? Seafriends is astroturf. Its one guy, Floor Anthoni a dive shop owner, who did not like it when New Zealand created a marine protected area. He blew a gasket over this and started spreading pseudo-science.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 12:27 pm
07 Apr 2008
Thanks for your response. It's now crystal clear that you completely made up the "theory" that a warming world would lead to degassing of CO2 from the ocean.
For the lurkers: there's only one legitimate scientific theory, and that's increasing CO2 leads to ocean acidification. If you want to see the science behind it, you can read the IPCC reports. See Chapter 5 of the WGI report.
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:07 pm
07 Apr 2008
Sorry to cut into your exchange with BW, but you are wrong when you say: "Thanks for your response. It's now crystal clear that you completely made up the "theory" that a warming world would lead to degassing of CO2 from the ocean. For the lurkers: there's only one legitimate scientific theory, and that's increasing CO2 leads to ocean acidification. If you want to see the science behind it, you can read the IPCC reports. See Chapter 5 of the WGI report. "
Ummm... Maybe you should encourage your "lurkers" to read what James E. Hansen had to say:
"Most effective GHG feedback is release of CO2 by ocean at higher temperature"
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf ...
Then read what J. Ahlbeck had to say about this subject:
http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
It's out there, Andrew. All you gotta do is look for it.
Now I'll admit that you can probably tell your "lurkers" that Hansen's dire predictions of "positive feedback from ocean `outgassing' of CO2 at higher temperatures" may be wrong, but this theory is out there by an otherwise respected (if somewhat hysterical) climate scientist.
The analysis by Ahlbeck may be less interesting for you and your "lurkers", but it's out there, too.
So your statement that BW "completely made up the 'theory' that a warming world would lead to degassing of CO2 from the ocean" is not true.
Hansen and others made it up and published it.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 3:30 pm
07 Apr 2008
Max selectively quotes the Hansen article. Why not quote the entire sentence in, Max? Because it wouldn't make your point?
If that's true, then why is the ocean actually becoming more acidic. See the IPCC, chapter 5.
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:10 pm
07 Apr 2008
You wrote: "Max selectively quotes the Hansen article. Why not quote the entire sentence in, Max? Because it wouldn't make your point?"
Sorry, Andrew. Your argument is weak. You said that there were no papers saying that warmer oceans would cause release of CO2 which would cause an increase in global warming.
I showed you two examples that disproved your statement, one from Hansen.
Now you waffle around that I did not quote everything that Hansen said.
Face it, Andrew. Hansen said that a "GHG feedback" could come from CO2 released from the oceans due to higher temperatures. Right?
He even said this could be a most effective GHG feedback.
And you said earlier to BW that there were no scientific papers that stated this.
So you were wrong, Andrew.
Admit it. It can happen to anyone. Even you. Don't take it so seriously. You are not wrong all the time. Just this time.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:17 pm
07 Apr 2008
Now to part 2 of your post: "If that's true, then why is the ocean actually becoming more acidic. See the IPCC, chapter 5."
On what basis is this claim being made?
The ocean is mighty big, and I have not seen any compelling evidence that the ocean is "actually becoming more acidic".
Sounds like another unfounded IPCC claim to me Andrew. Bring some facts.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:18 pm
07 Apr 2008
You asked: "Did I?
Bob: Since you brought me up, do you have a reference for me saying this? I do not recall saying it on Dr. Dessler's site, although I may have since it was something that I thought was established. I will have to read up more on it while I await your reference."
Yes you brought it up and we discussed early-on in that great long still pregnant blog-thread entitled in part:
"...400...Try 19."
Bob
PS I'm on my way, running late for a 3-day trip.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 12:29 am
08 Apr 2008
I get tired of saying this, but the scientific basis for ocean acidification is in the IPCC report. I know that the last time I told you to read the IPCC, you reacted angrily ... but I feel strongly that everyone should take responsibility for getting to know the facts themselves.
Here's a hint: read chapter 5 of the IPCC report. You can find the entire report on-line at http://www.ipcc.ch.
Happy reading.
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:54 am
08 Apr 2008
You started off with the statement to Black Wallaby that there was no paper out there that discussed a positive feedback resulting in higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations due to out-gassing of CO2 from a warmer ocean. This turns out to have been incorrect based on two links I cited (Hansen, Ahlbeck). So we can lay this argument to rest, OK?
So now you have moved the discussion to the second topic:
"I get tired of saying this, but the scientific basis for ocean acidification is in the IPCC report. I know that the last time I told you to read the IPCC, you reacted angrily ... but I feel strongly that everyone should take responsibility for getting to know the facts themselves.
Here's a hint: read chapter 5 of the IPCC report. You can find the entire report on-line at http://www.ipcc.ch. "
I don't recall getting angry, Andrew. Maybe you are thinking about someone else. I am also surprised that you are getting tired. But your and my emotional or physical state is another discussion.
I have read IPCC chapter 5 in some detail, even before you gave me this helpful hint.
Chapter 5 suggests that the "surface waters of the ocean will become more acidic" (which is actually to say "less alkaline") due to higher CO2 content. The physical evidence presented for this suggestion in Chapter 5 is not very robust, i.e. a few spot measurements starting in 1985. According to the data presented, the three measurement locations started measuring around 1985, 1990 and 1995, respectively.
At the station with the shortest record, pH was actually measured and, from this pCO2 was calculated. At the other two stations, values of pCO2 and pH were calculated from direct observations of oceanic dissolved organic carbon (DIC, i.e. the sum of CO2 plus carbonate and bicarbonate).
The statement is made that "DIC reflect changes in both the natural carbon cycle and the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere". (This seems to be a rather strangely worded statement, since it would appear that the CO2 uptake by the ocean could be either of natural or anthropogenic origin, as there is no evidence that the small amount of anthropogenic CO2 would be absorbed preferentially to the very much larger amount of natural CO2.)
The suggestion is made that the change in pH is attributable to the recent uptake of anthropogenic carbon in the ocean. No physical evidence is presented for this suggestion.
The assertion is made that: "Changes in DIC between two time periods reflect the anthropogenic carbon uptake plus the changes in DIC concentration due to changes in water masses and biological activity". No evidence is provided to support this assertion.
There are calculations of past trends since 1750, but these hardly represent physical evidence, since there are no data from actual observations.
So, all in all, we have a very limited set of data points in three spots of the vast ocean plus some suggestions and calculations to tell us that the ocean is becoming "more acidic" (sounds a bit more serious than "less alkaline", which would be more scientifically correct) , that this is caused by the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 and that this trend started around 1750 (i.e. with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution).
So IPCC Chapter 5 is weak. Let's see is we can find some more data out there that IPCC may have overlooked.
A study starting with the statement: "ocean plankton have been ignored in most climate change models until now" suggests that higher carbon dioxide levels mean that ocean plankton will prosper and in doing so will soak up more and more of the carbon emissions absorbed from the atmosphere. This biological "negative feedback" is not mentioned by IPCC.
http://robertkyriakides.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/plankton ...
Another study has shown that higher CO2 levels and temperatures in the upper ocean promote coral calcification, and boost coral-symbiant photosynthesis, again providing a biological "negative feedback" to pH decrease, also not mentioned by IPCC.
This study points out that corals prosper at warmer temperatures (no real surprise, when one looks at their latitudinal distribution), so that warmer ocean temperatures will be beneficial.
The study concludes: "In the Great Barrier Reef, growth rates of corals have been shown to be increasing over the last 100 years, at a time when water temperatures have risen. This is not surprising as the highest growth rates for corals are found in warmer waters."
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6134& ...
The above are just two examples of important biogeochemical "negative feedbacks" (i.e. buffering or mitigating effects) not mentioned in chapter 5.
So, in summary, chapter 5 does not provide compelling physical evidence for:
· An overall "acidification" of the ocean
· An anthropogenic cause
And it overlooks some documented biogeochemical "negative feedbacks" that could completely change any projections drawn from the limited physical data provided.
Buy hey, Andrew, it's a good read and one source of information among many others ("e pluribus unum").
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 9:04 am
08 Apr 2008
-----
It seems the oceans both absorb and emit CO2.
Absorption seems to occur through contact between mildly alkaline surface water and CO2 in the adjacent air. Apparently this process is most pronounced in the turbulent colder waters of the North Atlantic and the southern oceans, partly due to increased solubility of CO2 in colder water, and partly due to slightly greater alkalinity in the surface waters of those oceans, among other factors.
This absorption process changes the surface water chemistry and reduces the pH of the water, making it slightly less alkaline (more acidic). These cold, lower pH waters seem to end up circulating downward into the deeper ocean flows, leading to some of the observed variations in ocean pH with depth and geographic location.
Emission of CO2 from the oceans apparently is mostly due to upwelling of cold, lower pH, deep water into regions of warmer surface water, where the increase in temperature reduces CO2 solubility and results in outgassing from the upwelling water. That water reverts to a slightly higher pH as the CO2 departs.
It has been estimated that the oceans are currently absorbing about 7 billion tons more CO2 per year than they are emitting. This "net absorption" of CO2 is estimated to have produced a small decrease in overall oceanic pH. Some measurements have been made which support this estimate, but more research is being conducted to refine the knowledge in this area.
It is important to note that there are biological and chemical mechanisms within the oceans that can slowly sequester some of the dissolved CO2, and by so doing, slowly mitigate the pH decrease caused by CO2 absorption. However, it is not clear that these mechanisms can work quickly enough to fully mitigate the anticipated pH changes brought on by rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.
There is some legitimate concern that oceanic pH decreases may alter the ocean ecosystem in harmful ways.
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 9:08 am
08 Apr 2008
That commenter also noted that oceanic CO2 emissions raise oceanic pH, and asked how it is possible for oceanic pH to continue to drop if oceanic CO2 emissions rise due to warming.
The short answer to this question is that the oceans are currently estimated to be absorbing 7 billion tons more CO2 per year than they are emitting.
If the increase in oceanic CO2 emissions is below this value, oceanic emissions will continue to be less overall than oceanic absorption, and the pH drop associated with the "net absorption" of CO2 would be expected to continue, at a rate appropriate to the reduced "net absorption" value.
Given sufficient warming, it is possible that the oceanic CO2 emission and absorption rates might become equal; however the global average temperature at which that equilibrium occurs may be harmful to both land and aquatic plant and animal species that are adapted to lower temperatures.
------
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 9:12 am
08 Apr 2008
The simplest answer is that if the oceans are reasonably healthy at their current pH levels, we should not change the pH unless we are absolutely certain of the effects.
Obviously this simple answer does not take into account the efforts required to reduce human atmospheric CO2 emissions, but whatever course of action we take, I am hopeful it would have this nugget of common sense at its core.
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:37 am
08 Apr 2008
Of course you are right in saying we do not know what is going to happen. By "we", I am including the IPCC and the many scientists out there.
We do not know for sure that atmospheric CO2 has anything to do with warming (even though IPCC thinks this is "very likely").
We do not know whether we are now entering the beginning of a cooling cycle, caused by some factor that we also do not know. And we do not know for sure what the effects of a colder climate would be on humanity, although we do have some recent historical evidence that it would not be too positive on balance.
To say "be cautious" implies that caution is the same as reducing CO2 emissions drastically because we do not know for sure that these may not be causing temperatures to increase, which we do not know for sure could cause sea levels to rises more rapidly than they have been ever since records started and which we do not know for sure could cause an increase in extreme weather events and tropical cyclone frequency and intensity, etc. etc.
We also do not know whether or not a warmer world would be a better place than today's world, whether higher atmospheric CO2 levels and moderately higher temperatures would not increase plant, forest and crop growth, whether it would enable arid and semi-arid reagions of the world to become green due to improved plant water use efficiency, whether or not there would in fact be fewer extreme weather events and tropical cyclones and fewer droughts, etc. etc.
To "excercise caution" in the hopes of being able to maintain the current status quo does not make much sense to me, if it includes making a significant sacrifice in our standard of living and in being able to address other, more important problems of this world that the computer generated virtual problem of anthropogenic climate change.
Just some thoughts from one who is less afraid of an unknown future than you appear to be.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 10:56 am
08 Apr 2008
In this context, the term "afraid of an uncertain future" does not seem to capture the situation.
The self-restraint we show today does not come from fear; it comes from a desire to ensure that future generations inherit a healthy planet.
This is why I prefer to use terms like caution, prudence, and risk-aversion when describing my desire to avoid causing long-term damage to this world.
We and the other species on this planet are well adapted to the current climate. It is always possible that some changes might be an improvement. But the changes are likely to be irreversible on normal human time scales, and I think future generations will appreciate our efforts to avoid causing unpredictable changes.
The genius of our species, if there is such a thing, will be revealed by our ability to reduce our potentially harmful inputs to the environment while simultaneously increasing our quality of life.
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:10 pm
08 Apr 2008
In your "fear or desire" post you revealed the basis of your fear. And the logical fallacies of your argument became apparent.
Premise 1 is that "We and the other species on this planet are well adapted to the current climate." This statement implies that we are now in the "goldilocks position of having a `just right' climate", and that any change will more than likely have a negative impact on our own lives, the other species and the environment around us. This assumption is unfounded. Certainly history has shown us that "warmer is better" (the MWP was a better time for humanity on balance than the ensuing LIA, when millions faced hardships, economic loss and even starvation due to harsher climate).
Premise 2 is that "we are causing unpredictable changes", rather than "unpredictable changes are occurring over which we have no control". This premise is also expressed in your statement "human-accelerated climate changes are expected to happen over the span of decades".
This is an anthropocentric assumption (i.e. "humans are responsible for climate change"), appealing to the emotions of guilt and fear. Many natural disasters, starting with the Great Flood and going through to the advancing glaciers and crop failures of the LIA appealed to the emotion of guilt that "the evils of man have caused the Almighty (or Mother Nature) to punish us". We take ourselves much too seriously here, MNG. Mother Nature is going to do what she wants to and we do not have much to say or control here.
Premise 3 is that we can change the course of climate change by "changing our behavior". This is the most arrogant and foolish of the premises. In actual fact, regardless of all the hype out there, we cannot change anything. There are surprises out there that our most educated scientists have no clue about, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about changes in the climate of our planet other than adapt to these changes when they occur.
Premise 4 is that by enforcing a political course of action (carbon taxes or carbon cap and trade schemes) we can achieve beneficial changes in the future climate of this world so that "future generations inherit a healthy planet". There is absolutely no valid reason to believe that these actions will ensure a "healthy planet for future generations", or even more importantly, that not taking these actions will risk that future generations will not inherit a "healthy planet".
There will be a few who benefit enormously both politically and financially from these policies (companies, individuals, hedge funds, politicians), and these individuals and organizations are the ones that are crying out most loudly that these policies are essential for our survival. But, unfortunately, the general public will lose from these policies, in particular those at that are already on the bottom of the economic pyramid. And, most importantly, there is no reason to believe that there will be any change in future climate.
But these policies will certainly take away funding from the more urgent real problems of today. I can mention just two, both of which cause some 4 million deaths annually in the poorest countries of this world:
lack of clean drinking water
lack of electrical power for clean cooking
These are the "poor man;s" problems we must solve today to pass on a healthier planet to the future generations, not the virtual computer-generated "rich man's" problem of anthropogenic climate change.
Sorry, MNG, you have not convinced me.
But you are a "nice guy" anyway.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 5:33 pm
08 Apr 2008
I reply that this is okay. I am not here to convince you.
I read the content on this and other web sites to learn about current events and to try to understand the attitudes and perspectives of the small group of people who post articles and comments. Including the people with whom I disagree.
Until just recently I have not felt the urge to post here. The comments on this site generally seem to express most sides of any issue, including unpopular and factually-challenged perspectives. Quite often the comments are of very high quality with worthwhile content. I never felt the need to add to it.
But recently some of the threads have drifted quite far from that style, toward "winning of arguments" instead of exchanging information or perspectives. Many of the comments have been characterized by intense disrespect covered by an intentionally inadequate veneer of politeness, if that. This loss of composure disappoints me.
My comments are an attempt to help return these threads to the character that attracted me to this site in the first place, by restricting myself to providing the most truthful and accurate information I can for the benefit of all readers, by expressing my perspective as clearly as I am able, and by answering, on those occasions when I can, the questions I am asked in good faith.
I do not know whether my actions will help restore the civil discourse here, such that I can return to reading without posting, but this is the only action I could think of to try to achieve that end.
-----
Regarding the comment: "But you are a "nice guy" anyway."
I reply: Thank you. I appreciate that very much. I do try.
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
JCross Posted 10:39 pm
08 Apr 2008
John
Permalink
JCross Posted 10:44 pm
08 Apr 2008
Is it the attitude of the posts that you object to or the fact that some don't seem to get anywhere? More importantly what do you think should be done about it?
These are serious questions and I would encourage other readers to post opinions about it as well.
Regards,
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:25 am
09 Apr 2008
Just read your well-expressed thoughts on the contribution of the various threads to the ongoing debate surrounding anthropogenic global warming, and I admit that I agree with almost every single point you have made.
Let me give you one rational skeptic's view on what is going on here to see if we can find any common ground.
There is an on-going debate surrounding the current AGW "scare" (you may prefer to categorize this as an "awareness" rather than as a "scare", but unfortunately the fear factor has been injected into the discussion, so it is more than just an "awareness").
This debate covers not only the accuracy, completeness and objectivity of the "science" supporting the suggestion that humans are causing major changes in climate, but also the veracity and credibility of computer-generated predictions of future changes allegedly arising from these anthropogenic causes and, finally, the political measures that are being proposed in order to mitigate these potential future problems.
This site (as well as many others) was set up to convey one particular viewpoint. As can be seen from the lead articles, this site it is clearly supportive of the so-called "consensus" position that anthropogenic factors (primarily the emission of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, etc.) are causing significant changes in our planet's climate, that these will have, on balance, more negative consequences than positive ones on the environment, on mankind and on other species and that these changes could become alarming if something is not done to address the root cause (i.e. human CO2 emissions).
This view is summarized in the various reports of the IPCC, a UN body that was specifically set up to evaluate the anthropogenic impact on climate and, as a result, has "a dog in the race", (i.e. no anthropogenic impact = no need for IPCC to continue to exist).
Another premise of many of the proponents of this view is that "the science is settled" (because a majority of climate scientists support a "consensus view"), and it is now time for "action", rather than for further debate. "Action" is vaguely defined, but it goes much further than the very sound steps of conserving energy where possible, eliminating waste and pollution of the environment, etc. (which every rational human being should fully embrace). In this context, however, "action" means implementing draconian political policy steps (carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes) involving hundreds of billions of dollars being shuffled around by politicians and bureaucrats, hedge funds, carbon trading companies, etc., where a few individuals will enhance their personal and financial power at the expense of everyone else. These are the steps that many rational skeptics of the AGW scare oppose as unnecessary and ineffective.
There are other, more alarmists, views, expressed by politicians, such as Al Gore (in his Oscar winning film) and UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, (in newspaper articles warning of imminent inundations) or by scientists turned activists, such as James E. Hansen (in his many publications and "tipping point" testimony before the U.S. congress). These individuals proclaim, "Time is rapidly running out; we must act now or we will certainly be doomed!" Many of the more vocal contributors to this site support these more alarmist views and believe that IPCC is being far too conservative and lackadaisical in describing the future disaster that awaits our planet.
There are also many sites, which support the view of rational skepticism and oppose the more alarmist predictions that are floating around (climate audit, etc.). Individuals supporting both sides contribute to these sites, as well.
It has been my observation (as I believe it has been yours) that the discussion of these topics by individuals who hold different views is, in effect, a debate of the issues. Each side states its arguments, premises and conclusions and in some (rare) cases finally agrees on a point of view that both parties can embrace. Undoubtedly, both sides can learn from such a discussion, as you have pointed out.
You point out: "But recently some of the threads have drifted quite far from that style, toward "winning of arguments" instead of exchanging information or perspectives". Yes, MNG, there is a "debate" going on, and the point of a debate is for each participant to listen to the opponent's arguments and premises, "get his/her points across" and, yes, in the end to "win the argument".
"Winning the debate" would appear to be a natural tendency when topics are discussed that could have far-reaching consequences.
It becomes especially true when emotions are involved. In a debate the appeal should be to reason rather than to emotion. But when an argument is based on the emotion of fear (we will soon all be inundated!) or guilt (we are all at fault for being so disrespectful of our planet and other species!), then the discussion automatically becomes emotional rather than rational.
There is also the tendency of both sides to "dig in and hold ground" rather than conceding even a small bit. I have seen this very clearly whenever (for example) a weak point, error or omission in an IPCC report is brought up. The "IPCC supporter" will go to all extremes to point out that IPCC could not have been in error or could not have intentionally omitted important scientific data from its report. Semantic distinctions between "made an error" and "cherry picked" become all-important. (I had a recent exchange on another site on such an issue.)
The debate can easily degenerate into a debate of "belief", much like a debate with a religious fundamentalist: "the Bible says so, the Bible is the word of God, so the Bible cannot be wrong" (exchange "IPCC Report" for "Bible" and "2,500 scientists" for "God").
It is also obvious that the longer an individual exchange goes on the more pointed the debate becomes.
There are some contributors to this and other sites that start off with "ad hominem" attacks, accusing the other party of being a "troll", a "denier", a "delayer", a "flat-earther", a "stooge" for big oil, etc. and making all sorts of personal insults. The individuals who fall into this trap have difficulty keeping their personal emotions (anger, fear, disgust, hate?) out of the discussion.
In this context you remarked that it disappoints you that, "Many of the comments have been characterized by intense disrespect". I agree that this is disappointing and that we should all avoid making disrespectful comments about the other individual.
But, MNG, I believe that what is going on is just human nature. AGW is more than just a theoretical scientific discussion and a "multibillion dollar industry", it is an issue that can and may affect and involve us all. That is why there are so many sites covering various aspects of this issue out there.
Fortunately we live in a democratic system, where issues can be discussed openly and dissent is not squashed.
And that is why the rational debate on these issues must continue.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:13 am
09 Apr 2008
There was an April Fool's joke recently on another gist thread.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/31/155730/362
Believe you also saw it and reacted.
It was interesting how many people thought the suggestion (of wiping out all penguins by relocating the allegedly threatened and "overheated" polar bears to Antarctica) was for real.
But it just shows how ridiculous proposals get made to "solve" a possible (but maybe unlikely) future problem by creating a certain immediate problem.
Many of the "get rich quick" carbon sequestration proposals of injecting CO2 into the oceans or into permeable geological formations (rather than leaving the CO2 in the atmosphere, where it is a natural trace component and the source of all life on this planet) are out there for real, not as April Fool's jokes.
One proposal calls for "sequencing the genomes" of microbes that produce fuels such as methane and hydrogen or aid in carbon sequestration, to allow an evaluation of their potential use to produce, for example, methane or hydrogen from either fossil fuels or other carbonaceous sources, including biomass or even some waste products.
Another calls for capturing the CO2 with lime. Another one (probably a joke) calls for covering the planet with concrete, which will gradually absorb CO2 as it cures and ages.
Now I am certainly not against developing new energy efficient technologies or planting new forests and stopping rampant destruction of tropical rainforests, etc., but I believe that there are some truly hare-brained schemes out there.
Why do such silly schemes even pop up?
Wikipedia gives us a clue when it tells us, "This concept of CO2 sinks has become more widely known because the Kyoto Protocal allows the use of carbon dioxide sinks as a form of carbon offset."
Oops!
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 10:22 am
09 Apr 2008
It may take me a while to respond to all of the points raised, so I want to let these two commenters know that I will post when I am able, probably a little bit at a time.
------
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:05 pm
09 Apr 2008
Here is one for JCross, who has recently shown his face on this site.
Hi John,
As one who is evidently concerned about climate change and its impacts, I would appreciate your comments on the statements below.
If you have no opinion, or if you are in agreement, you do not really need to reply.
There has been a lot of "hoopla" lately about "global warming". The latest records show that it has essentially stopped over the past 10 years, which skeptics are eager to point out, but supporters of the global warming hypothesis are crying "foul". It has not really stopped, and we are still at the highest levels of temperature anomaly today, therefore global warming is still a very real and apparent threat to humanity, the environment and our planet.
So let us see if we can cut through the hype from both sides and look at some facts.
Since global temperature records have been kept (based on the UK's Hadley Centre), and we have been emerging from the Little Ice Age, there have been several multi-decadal cycles from warming to cooling, with an overall slight warming trend.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
Period Trend Years Increase
1860-1879 0.196 20 0.39
1879-1906 -0.047 27 -0.13
1906-1940 0.161 35 0.56
1940-1976 -0.020 36 -0.07
1976-1998 0.175 22 0.39
1998-2008 0.000 10 0.00
Trend is linear decadal trend in degreesC/decade
Increase is linear change over period in degreesC
Between 1850 and around 1860 there was a very slight cooling trend.
This trend reversed to a warming trend for the next 20 years until around 1879 (the highest decadal rate of increase since records have been taken).
This was followed by another cooling trend until around 1906.
Then came another warming trend until around 1940, followed by a slight cooling trend until around 1976 (this one has been very briefly rationalized by IPCC, without any supporting evidence, as having been caused by anthropogenic aerosol emissions).
Following this, we had a trend with the second highest decadal rate of increase from 1976 to 1998. This trend has gotten a lot of attention as evidence of anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW).
This trend appears to have reached a "plateau" from 1998 to today, in sharp contrast to the IPCC projections from model studies, which predicted a record rate of increase of 0.2 degrees C per decade for the first two decades in the 21st century.
The longer-term trend over all these cycles has been an increase of somewhat more than 1 degree C over the 150+ years of measurement.
In its TAR (2001) IPCC reported an increase over the 20th century (1901-2000) of 0.6 degree C.
If one "jiggles" the definition of the 20th century (as IPCC did in its 2007 SPM report) to replace the 1900-1906 cooling trend with an essentially flat trend from 2000 to 2006, one can show a 100-year increase of 0.74 degrees C.
Interestingly, the highest decadal rate of increase occurred over the 20-year period from 1860 to 1879, in the "horse and buggy" days long before AGW was a problem.
The multidecadal cycles are apparent in the record, as is the underlying warming trend over the entire period.
Whether or not the past 10 years are the beginning of a new "flat" or cooling cycle remains to be seen.
What is apparent, however, is:
· that temperatures have been in an overall slow rising trend since 1850
· that there are multidecadal swings from slight cooling to warming
· that the recent warming trend from 1976 to 1998 is not unusual when compared to earlier warming periods, which occurred prior to AGW
· that the impacts of various "forcing" components on the global average temperature are not as simple as IPCC would have us believe
· that the ability of climate models to predict temperature trends is limited
John, I would appreciate your comments on the above, if you have any.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 1:25 pm
09 Apr 2008
"Is it the attitude of the posts that you object to or the fact that some don't seem to get anywhere? More importantly what do you think should be done about it?"
------
On the first point: I dislike disrespectful posts. I especially dislike posts in which politeness is turned into a tool for conveying disrespect.
Sometimes we don't respect a particular commenter. That's life. But we should be able to express our perspective and provide our information without our dislike pointedly permeating our words.
If we can't do that, we shouldn't interact directly with that commenter on the thread. If they show disrespect toward us, we should ignore them. This will reduce the potential disrespect in the thread by half. If the other commenter behaves like a child, we should make sure we behave like an adult. Remember: the readers can tell the difference.
------
On the second point: I don't mind posts on subjects that end in an impasse. Sometimes those discussions are quite useful. But I dislike it when commenters refuse to accept when an impasse has been reached. Repetition of previously expressed views and declarations of victory are not impressive.
Don't get me wrong here; I fully understand how tough it can be to disengage sometimes. I keep the following paragraph at hand to help me conclude the dead-end discussions I get involved in, and I paste it here in the hope it will help others:
"It appears we have clearly expressed our positions and still do not agree. Perhaps for the time being we can agree to disagree."
------
I will post later on the related subject of dealing with inaccuracies in comments.
Hope this helps...
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:43 pm
09 Apr 2008
We had a lively discussion about IPCC "cherry picking" on Antarctic Ice Sheet mass loss (resp. gain) earlier.
I am still awaiting your comments on the actually observed temperature record per my earlier post.
If you have nothing to say, I can understand that. It could be unpleasant to admit that the observed link between temperature and human CO2 emissions is tenuous.
But if you do have something to say, please do so.
And hey, MNG, I am not at all being disrespectful to JCross by asking him for his comments, OK?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:08 pm
09 Apr 2008
Your comments to JCross re "disrespectful posts" and discussions that "end in an impass" make sense to me.
When you have time, I would appreciate your response to my recent posts to you.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
JCross Posted 4:31 pm
09 Apr 2008
If you care to ask your question again without the rhetoric I will answer. If not, no problem.
Regards,
John
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 4:52 pm
09 Apr 2008
"...how do you think the posters on this thread should deal with what they see are inaccuracies?"
-----
When we disagree with someone on a public forum like Grist, we are aware that we have two audiences. The first audience is the person on the other side of the debate, and the second audience is everybody else reading the thread.
It's important for us to figure out why the "inaccuracies" bother us, because that knowledge is the key to dealing with them. Here are some possibilities:
1. We might feel that the "inaccuracies" could lead innocent readers to make bad decisions. In this context I believe we have a duty to point out the "inaccuracies" and more importantly to provide a little background information so Grist readers can understand the contentious issue. Generally, the people who post on these threads are quite good at this, which is why I like this web site.
But the question is: What do we do when someone insists on repeating an "inaccuracy" after we have posted to "correct" it? I would recommend the following:
1.1. Assess the seriousness of the "inaccuracy". The "corrective" actions should reasonably match the significance, or relative insignificance, of the "error" being "corrected". Some "inaccuracies" deserve only one "correction".
1.2. If your concern is for Grist readers, post a comment directed at us, with the background information we need to understand the issue. Don't discuss the other commenter in that post. Stick to the contentious issue. Don't overstate anything. Just try to explain all sides of the issue, including the uncertainties.
1.3. Remember that Grist readers are not a bunch of idiots. Not everyone has a science education, but I'm guessing most of us have a pretty good BS meter. Give us the information we need, so we can decide for ourselves.
1.4. If the person posting the "inaccuracy" wants to have the last post, let them. We can find your comment up above theirs.
1.5 Grist has a "no spam" policy for comments. If the person posting the "inaccuracy" tries to bury the thread with repeated posts, report them to (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[24]='\"';l[25]=' 103';l[26]=' 114';l[27]=' 111';l[28]=' 46';l[29]=' 116';l[30]=' 115';l[31]=' 105';l[32]=' 114';l[33]=' 103';l[34]=' 64';l[35]=' 108';l[36]=' 108';l[37]=' 105';l[38]=' 109';l[39]=' 116';l[40]=' 115';l[41]=' 105';l[42]=' 114';l[43]=' 103';l[44]=':';l[45]='o';l[46]='t';l[47]='l';l[48]='i';l[49]='a';l[50]='m';l[51]='\"';l[52]='=';l[53]='f';l[54]='e';l[55]='r';l[56]='h';l[57]='a ';l[58]='
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 6:00 pm
09 Apr 2008
"...how do you think the posters on this thread should deal with what they see are inaccuracies?"
-----
I mentioned in my last post that it's important for us to figure out why the "inaccuracies" bother us, and offered one possibility in my last post. Here's another:
2. These threads are a bit like being on a stage, and in this environment it can be very difficult to separate "inaccuracies" regarding scientific information, from "inaccuracies" that are basically personal attacks. But it is essential that we make this separation.
"Inaccuracies" regarding scientific information were discussed in my last post.
"Inaccuracies" that are basically personal attacks include things like putting words in other people's mouths, claiming that a question wasn't answered when it was, etc. To deal with these "inaccuracies", I recommend the following:
2.1. Recognize that these "inaccuracies" are intentional errors and thus simply cannot be fixed by posting "corrections". They should be ignored, no matter how irritating the misrepresentations are. The other person is behaving like a child. Be the adult. Remember that Grist readers can tell the difference.
2.2. If another commenter takes your words, turns them inside out, and sticks them back in your mouth to irritate you, almost everybody following the thread will say to themselves: "He didn't say that!" Don't worry that you will end up "looking bad" or "beaten" if you ignore this stuff and stick to the scientific issues. This will also considerably reduce your workload.
2.3. All the regular readers of this site are familiar with the aggressive commenters. You might have noticed that not many of the regulars will post when an aggressive commenter is around. That isn't a bad sign. It's a good one. It means those aggressive commenters have a bad reputation on this site, and readers take what they say with large grains of salt.
2.4. Grist does not condone attacks on other commenters. If the commenter starts to harass you because you have not responded to their posts, or for any other reason, report them to (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[24]='\"';l[25]=' 103';l[26]=' 114';l[27]=' 111';l[28]=' 46';l[29]=' 116';l[30]=' 115';l[31]=' 105';l[32]=' 114';l[33]=' 103';l[34]=' 64';l[35]=' 108';l[36]=' 108';l[37]=' 105';l[38]=' 109';l[39]=' 116';l[40]=' 115';l[41]=' 105';l[42]=' 114';l[43]=' 103';l[44]=':';l[45]='o';l[46]='t';l[47]='l';l[48]='i';l[49]='a';l[50]='m';l[51]='\"';l[52]='=';l[53]='f';l[54]='e';l[55]='r';l[56]='h';l[57]='a ';l[58]='
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 6:55 pm
09 Apr 2008
"...how do you think the posters on this thread should deal with what they see are inaccuracies?"
-----
I mentioned in my last two posts that it's important for us to figure out why the "inaccuracies" bother us, and offered two possibilities. Here's a third:
3. People spend a great deal of time seeking the acceptance of others, often without consciously realizing they are doing it. When someone accepts us or our views, we tend to feel "reinforced". When someone does not accept us or our views, we tend to feel "undermined". This effect can be particularly pronounced when we are put "on the spot" in a public forum like Grist.
This pursuit of acceptance is often subconscious and can produce counterintuitive behaviors like expending large amounts of effort trying to gain the acceptance of people we don't even like or respect, and who have no intention of accepting us or our views.
If you think you might be subconsciously pursuing acceptance, I recommend the following:
3.1 Ask yourself whether you respect the other commenter. If you don't respect them, ask yourself how much value you should attach to their acceptance of your view.
3.2. If you discover that their acceptance has no value to you, you will probably lose interest in trying to get them to accept your view.
3.3. Your focus can then return to the Grist readers you are attempting to serve. Your concern about "inaccuracies" in scientific information can hopefully then be addressed in the manner described in the first post of this three-post series.
-----
Hope that helps...
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:32 am
10 Apr 2008
Thanks for reply.
You wrote: "If you care to ask your question again without the rhetoric I will answer."
Please eliminate this sentence in my post to you:
"If you have no opinion, or if you are in agreement, you do not really need to reply."
Believe this is the sentence that was offensive to you.
But please let me know if any other statement in my post was unacceptable "rhetoric" and I can modify or eliminate it.
Looking forward to your viewpoint and a discussion on this topic.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 4:31 am
10 Apr 2008
2.3. All the regular readers of this site are familiar with the aggressive commenters. You might have noticed that not many of the regulars will post when an aggressive commenter is around. That isn't a bad sign. It's a good one. [snip]
-----
I would like to clarify the phrase: "That isn't a bad sign. It's a good one."
I did not mean to suggest that there is anything good about having regular Grist commenters chased off a thread by some aggressive commenter. I think that situation is quite objectionable and I expect Grist's editors are concerned about the impact this has on their readers.
My comment was only intended to convey that this "chasing off" is a possibility and we should realize that if the regular commenters pull back, that does not mean an aggressive commenter is being taken seriously.
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
JCross Posted 1:11 pm
10 Apr 2008
The statement that I was referring to was "If you have nothing to say, I can understand that. It could be unpleasant to admit that the observed link between temperature and human CO2 emissions is tenuous."
However I will take your statement that you are willing to withdraw the phrase I objected to at face value.
So, I think a good place to start would be with the following comments that you made.
What is apparent, however, is:
· that temperatures have been in an overall slow rising trend since 1850
· that there are multidecadal swings from slight cooling to warming
· that the recent warming trend from 1976 to 1998 is not unusual when compared to earlier warming periods, which occurred prior to AGW
· that the impacts of various "forcing" components on the global average temperature are not as simple as IPCC would have us believe
· that the ability of climate models to predict temperature trends is limited
I generally agree with your points 1, 2 and 3, although I would say that the recent warming trend does not end in 1998. Depending on which data set you take there are years since 1998 which are warmer than 1998.
I would not agree with your statement that the IPCC thinks the various forcing components are simple. There are a large number of factors involved and this is an active area of research.
In regards to the climate models, I have not yet entered a discussion on this topic that has come to any rational conclusions. So instead of commenting I will point to this post at Tamino's site.
John
Permalink
JCross Posted 1:15 pm
10 Apr 2008
Regards,
John
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 2:17 pm
10 Apr 2008
I don't want contributors such as yourself and the Grist regulars to be afraid to post. You are the people I come here to read.
I hoped my last post on this thread, titled Clarification of point 2.3 above, from MNG, which I excerpt here, expressed the same concern you just mentioned:
"I did not mean to suggest that there is anything good about having regular Grist commenters chased off a thread by some aggressive commenter. I think that situation is quite objectionable and I expect Grist's editors are concerned about the impact this has on their readers."
I hope I'm not misunderstanding your concern.
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:31 pm
10 Apr 2008
Thanks very much for your reply.
Objectionable sentence deleted.
Glad we could agree to the first three points of my conclusion.
You wrote: "I would say that the recent warming trend does not end in 1998. Depending on which data set you take there are years since 1998 which are warmer than 1998".
What will happen in the future is anyone's guess. The warming trend may again accelerate, or it may turn down into a real cooling trend. Nobody knows, and I certainly do not want to make any predictions.
But for the past trend I have used the Hadley record, which shows that 1998 is the record warmest year, as does the UAH satellite record. Which record do you feel shows which years to be warmer than 1998?
Do you feel that the Hadley (or UAH) record somehow is not representative of what is actually going on, and, if so, why not?
The rapidly warming trend from 1976 to 1998 is irrefutable. There was a linear decadal warming trend of somewhere between 0.14 and 0.18C per decade over this 22-year period, depending on which set of data is taken. I used the Hadley trend of 0.175, which I believe is also the basis used by IPCC.
But whether or not 1998 was the all time record year, the leveling off since 1998 is also irrefutable, based on all records.
Let's not fall into the trap of "my record is better than your record", but let's concentrate on the decadal linear rate of change over the period 1998 through February 2008. This clearly shows a flat trend, which is the point I was making. I believe this is true no matter which record is used.
You stated: "I would not agree with your statement that the IPCC thinks the various forcing components are simple. There are a large number of factors involved and this is an active area of research".
I agree with your statement. I do not believe that "IPCC thinks the various forcing components are simple". My point was that the impacts of various "forcing" components on the global average temperature are not as simple as IPCC would have us believe (i.e. in its emphasis on anthropogenic CO2 as the principal driver of climate change).
But I am glad we can both agree that there may be other very important factors that are still unknown to us all that are affecting global temperature trends and that the temperature record shows that there is something else going on besides just AGW.
And we apparently do not disagree basically on the ability of climate models to predict temperature trends accurately since you say "I have not yet entered a discussion on this topic that has come to any rational conclusions".
So where do we actually disagree?
We may be closer to agreement that we both thought at the onset.
Appreciate your feedback.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:57 pm
10 Apr 2008
You give long and detailed multi-post advice as to how us bloggers should behave in their correspondence. In general, I find your opinions to be quite sound, if perhaps over-ideological. However, there is one behaviour of yours that is very unsatisfactory per my philosophy. That is; your tendency to treat earlier comments as anonymous; interpret them in your own way; and then elaborate them for the alleged benefit of other readers, as if they were unable to form their own opinions. (and/or do not wish to post, for clarification or objection, whatever, for whatever reason)
Anyone who wishes to compare the sources with your opinions, especially when it is buried way-up-there in a long thread, is, unless prepared to work-on-it thus left with; "trust me", I, MNG am the oracle!
May I suggest that political correctness can be over-done? If I would like to know what you are talking about, I would like to see some clues. Give the commentator you speak of an identity, or better still, the short-cut link to his/her post. Grist has incorporated a feature on-site for that purpose. Just right-click the date at the foot of each post and then click "Copy short-cut", and paste it into your post, where it is appropriate. That way, there is no need to go searching for it; one click, and you are there.
I am also wondering if when you make one of your summaries, that if you are challenged on a point of accuracy, that it is unimportant, and it is the end of debate as far as you are concerned. A case in point can be found at: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753#com ...
Incidentally, I sometimes wonder if it is worth debating with some of the AGW alarmists anyway, because they mostly refuse to believe certain facts that cut across their belief systems. (sometimes with extreme abuse.... Even Dr Dessler is guilty of this sometimes). What encourages me to keep going is that there may be some rational people who quietly observe the debate. BTW, I have been fully retired for ~13 years, and do not work for "big oil" or anyone. As Max mentioned somewhere, ~4 million PEOPLE (yes; human beings) alone are thought to die each year from drinking polluted water and from inhaling smoke from cooking and heating fires. That e.g. is where the money should be spent, not on the "we think" self perpetuating politics of the IPCC!
Sorry, I got carried away there, the question I was to ask is: Do you know how many "quiet visitors" there are to these threads?
Regards, BobFJ
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:29 pm
10 Apr 2008
You wrote in part:
"A comment above asked, quite reasonably, what we should do to protect the "biological life-chain" in the oceans given the uncertainty over the potential impact of increased CO2 absorption by the oceans.
The simplest answer is that if the oceans are reasonably healthy at their current pH levels, we should not change the pH unless we are absolutely certain of the effects..."
It seems that you are summarising my Black Wallaby posts : http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...
From which I quote in small part from # 48:
"...Notice that group a) says that the pH should go up, and group b) says it is going down. What should we do to protect the biological life-chain in the oceans according to a) and b).....perhaps seed the oceans with nutrients or buffer agents? (for either + or - pH) Sounds like a good area for a research grant !
Are other fears like mutant pandemic bird flue, mischievous asteroids heading our way etc, more or less important, than reacting to the hype on so-called ocean acidification?
If you properly summarise my posts etc, you should be able to determine that I cannot believe in either a) or b), because although both opposites have plausible arguments, there is simply inadequate information to say which is right and which is wrong. You talk of potential increase in CO2 absorption in the oceans and do not mention the opposite possibility.
You might be able to recognise that my poser was a touch satirical! The proposal to seed the oceans, is about as silly as sending polar bears to the Antarctic! That is to say that my comment was NOT a reasonable one, as you claim.
The whole point of this part of my posts was to highlight the hype out there which adds more alarm to the alarmist's already overfed fears. The hype has no evidential basis, when 3-dimensional spatial and temporal factors are applied to the sparse recent or nil past data!
There are several other issues that you ignore.
I submit that your summary is VERY inadequate
Regards, BobFJ
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:23 pm
10 Apr 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...
You wrote in part:
"In an earlier comment on this thread, someone pointed out that elevated atmospheric CO2 levels are predicted to warm the oceans and increase oceanic CO2 emissions. This was appropriately described as a "positive feedback" which would increase warming.
That commenter also noted that oceanic CO2 emissions raise oceanic pH, and asked how it is possible for oceanic pH to continue to drop if oceanic CO2 emissions rise due to warming...
... The short answer to this question is that the oceans are currently estimated to be absorbing 7 billion tons more CO2 per year than they are emitting..."
That someone is probably me; Black Wallaby. I commented on the views of two camps in climate science with opposing views, which, as I pointed out above, have no evidential adequacy. You do not address the core issue which is: How can these opposing scientific opinions exist in parallel, bearing in mind that with current resources, neither can be proven either way. The short answer is not your estimated 7 billion tons of CO2 per year, but: we don't know which of the plausible possibilities is correct, or their scales.
When you say "it has been estimated", you give no indication of where that estimation came from. The absence of an estimation for the opposite opinion, which is probably of several orders of magnitude more difficult to determine, should not be argued as proof that increased out-gassing from warmer water does not exist. (although you make no argument but just ignore it). Finally, are you aware that the estimates of ocean CO2 flux, (last time I looked), were so huge that a mere 7 billion tons would be an extremely bold estimate VV the error margins on the estimated flux.
You also wrote:
"...Given sufficient warming, it is possible that the oceanic CO2 emission and absorption rates might become equal; however the global average temperature at which that equilibrium occurs may be harmful to both land and aquatic plant and animal species that are adapted to lower temperatures..."
Do you have any references for these ocean warming assumptions etc?
* I submit that this summary is unbalanced and inaccurate*
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:27 pm
10 Apr 2008
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:24 pm
10 Apr 2008
Reur: Oceans, CO2, and pH for average folks
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...
You wrote as a preface:
"For the benefit of Grist readers who are not familiar with chemistry, I have assembled a brief description of oceanic CO2 absorption, emission, and pH, which I hope will give these readers a general understanding of this subject."
This appears to be in response to Max's post to Dr. Dessler at
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...
However, I would comment that most readers would have learnt by now what CO2 and pH means WRT the oceans. On the other hand you do not explain the significance of pCO2 or DIC, or the interrelationship of carbonate or bicarbonate, which chemically may have a lot of readers, (or average folks as you call them), rather puzzled, including me. Thus you do not help them adequately with the chemistry.
In fact, most of what you say relates to physical and other processes for which YOU appear to have an agenda and personal belief
For instance, you say:
"Some measurements have been made which support this estimate, but more research is being conducted to refine the knowledge in this area."
Please advise where did you get this spin? What measure of magnitude are you claiming, with what measure of confidence? What do you mean by refine?
And another for instance, you say:
It is important to note that there are biological and chemical mechanisms within the oceans that can slowly sequester some of the dissolved CO2, and by so doing, slowly mitigate the pH decrease caused by CO2 absorption. However, it is not clear that these mechanisms can work quickly enough to fully mitigate the anticipated pH changes brought on by rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.
More conditionals, more unscaled parameters, more opinion without references, more assumption by simply not mentioning the opposite possibility that CO2 may be out-gassing more rapidly than in your opinion. (It's solubility reduces with increasing water temperature AOTBE)
I submit that this is a biased and inaccurate summary
Perhaps you should also place a few "I think" or "not all scientists agree" statements too.
Regards BobFJ
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:54 pm
10 Apr 2008
You wrote in full:
"Black Wallaby, I am trying to follow MNG's example so I will only point out (without comment) that your comment about me commenting on the release of CO2 from the oceans due to the current warming is not correct. If you read the context, my comment was in relation to transitions from iceages which is well supported.
John "
Yes John, that is correct; you brought-up that as the ocean gets warmer, it results in degassing of CO2. It is true that the particular topic was ice-age transition. It is also true that I thought you knew something about it; hence a suggestion to that effect to Andrew. It is also a plausible argument that the warmer the oceans get, say with AGW, the more rapid will be the out-gassing, since that is a physical characteristic of water and CO2. (AOTBE)
You also wrote in part in an earlier post, my emphasis added:
"...although I may have [said that about CO2 out-gassing] since it was something that I thought was established. I will have to read up more on it while I await your reference."..."
So what is your position anyway?
BobFJ
Oh, PS "...my comment was in relation to transitions from iceages which is well supported."
Really? Without comment?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 11:23 pm
10 Apr 2008
Reur sceptical obfuscation
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...
"Black Wallaby-
Thanks for your response. It's now crystal clear that you completely made up the "theory" that a warming world would lead to degassing of CO2 from the ocean.
For the lurkers: there's only one legitimate scientific theory, and that's increasing CO2 leads to ocean acidification. If you want to see the science behind it, you can read the IPCC reports. See Chapter 5 of the WGI report."
I'm pleased with the comments from Max, whilst I was away for a few days, and I guess your unkind accusation of me is now seen as unfounded.
I don't see anything worthwhile adding other than querying your use of the word `lurker' My mother-tongue is of the mother-land of the English language, and my understanding of `lurker' is that it is a far from complementary address, in all usual contexts. Since certain bloggers on this site like to obfuscate about the meaning of certain words, in a moment of insanity, I invested $41 on the most substantial Anglo-Oz dictionary I have ever owned. (The respected Macquarie Concise) It confirms my understanding of that word.
What meaning do you have in Americano, and at whom was it aimed?
In the furtherness of international understanding!
Regards, BobFJ
Permalink
JCross Posted 1:03 am
11 Apr 2008
We do agree on some things, but we still disagree on others.
The data set I generally use is the GISS Land-ocean set. As with all sets there are problems with it, but there are some specific reasons I use it. Using that data set, I calculate a trend from 1998 to 2007 (inclusive) of + 0.20 C/decade which is pretty close to what is the generally accepted value is. The problem is that the R2 value for the trend is quite small (0.30) so I would not say it was significant. Another problem is that of course temperature trends are autocorrelated functions and thus usually require advanced statistical techniques. From everything I have read, we can not really say too much about the trend in climate right now. Over on Skeptical Science, I think that John Cook has a really interesting idea . I don't think the professional climatologists accept it, but it is interesting.
You also have not understood my point about the climate models. I have not yet entered a discussion with anyone with enough actual knowledge of climate models to provide rational discussion and thus the discussions tend to not be productive. I have done a great deal of modeling in regards to engineering and was not impressed with the climate models of 10 years ago, but since they have been able to recreate climate without flux adjustments and my opinion has been changing.
So apart from the places where we disagree, I would say that we are indeed in agreement.
Regards,
John
Permalink
JCross Posted 1:07 am
11 Apr 2008
Also I should be clear that when I said "From everything I have read, we can not really say too much about the trend in climate right now. " that was for looking at the last 10 years. If we look at the overall time frame then things are, of course, stronger.
J.
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 3:29 am
11 Apr 2008
At this point people need to ask "why" and follow the money trail.
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:48 am
11 Apr 2008
Robco1 writes: "At this point people need to ask "why" and follow the money trail."
Follow the money trail indeed.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05461.pdf
How about 10-12 billion $ per year globally today on AGW (50% in USA).
AGW really has become a "multibillion dollar big business".
And just wait until the hundreds of billions from carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes start really kicking in.
Robco1 is right: Follow the money trail.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:44 am
11 Apr 2008
Believe we can truly agree on one thing: Your statement that "Agreement is a tricky thing".
Now I have been using the Hadley surface record and comparing with the UAH satellite record, but your totally different result from the GISS record made me curious, so I went back to the source of the data.
If I plot all the monthly anomaly readings from January (or March) 1998 to February 2008 (the last reading available in all three records), I get:
Hadley: 0.00 degrees C per decade
UAH: +0.01 degrees C per decade
GISS: +0.08 degrees C per decade
Nowhere do I see anything even close to +0.2 degrees C per decade. This value may have been the "generally accepted value" at one point, but it is no longer the actually observed value.
Am I missing something here? Did you include all the most recent data points in your analysis? Did you use "12-month average" values rather than the monthly points? How can you explain such a major difference?
Now to the trend: I have not said that the latest decade represents a "new long term trend".
It is less than half as long as the previous 22 year trend from 1976 to 1988, so we will have to wait and see.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 8:43 am
11 Apr 2008
Permalink
manacker Posted 10:42 am
11 Apr 2008
Since there appears to be a significant difference between the GISS record and the other two (Hadley and UAH), I checked the fourth record (RSS). It shows an essentially flat trend from 1998 to today, agreeing with Hadley and UAH. It appears that the GISS record is "the odd man out here".
There has been some discussion of why this may be so on the site below:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/a-look-at ...
The most significant thing is that none of the records show anything close to +0.2 degrees C per decade (as projected by IPCC). This trend was true from 1976 to around 1998, but since 1998 one record shows that the warming trend has slowed down significantly and the other three show that it has stopped.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 11:53 am
11 Apr 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329
Using 1998 as a starting point is a classic cherry pick.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 11:54 am
11 Apr 2008
After seeing your exchange with Max on this topic earlier today, I realized that two of my posts on another thread to MNG may well be of interest.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Graph smoothing for trend
Attn MNG,
Have you heard the expression: "you can prove anything with statistics'? There is another coarser one about knickers, you may have heard.
Did you know there are quite a variety of filters, and whatnot, which can give different outcomes over a long-term data set. However, these do not make any sense at all over a short term period. Max is perfectly correct in taking a linear trend over the past ten years or so. Nothing else would be meaningfull.
Incidentally, the infamous hockey-stick (MBH99)
used a 40-year smoothing, with an end-cheat of 20-years, but what sort of filter I do not know.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hadley smoothing of annual temperatures
Hi MNG, Further to my penultimate post above:
In your reference recently to a trend graph, I was surprised to see that the annual trend graph was stated to use a: 21-point binomial filter. I had not heard of such a filter before and it was late, so I let it pass. My puzzle was that if this was a weasel-name for 21-year smoothing, then the smoothed line should end 10.5 years short of the end of the data. To explain more; a 21-year smoothing, (of which there are several varieties) means that for any point in the data set, all the data for 10.5 years either side of that point is treated mathematically to obtain a smoothed trend at its centre. This is done, in order to eliminate noise, and emphasise low frequency trends.Thus, at the end of the data set, there is no data available to the right of that point. Why 21 years? Well it can be any period in order to achieve a desired result in smoothing. As I mentioned before MBH99 employed 40-year smoothing.
So the question remains; where did Hadley find additional data out to about 2018?
So, I went to a data expert's site, and here you have a more detailed review @
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2955
Enjoy your reading. BobFJ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John, I strongly recommend that you read the linked article. It is a scientific site, and the prime author is an undisputed expert with data handling, statistics and computer code.
Regards, BobFJ
Oh correction; for 10.5 years read 10, and for 21 years read 20, (20 years = 21 points!)
Permalink
JCross Posted 1:33 pm
11 Apr 2008
One of the reasons I like the GISS over the Had is that the GISS tries to fill in the high latitude areas where as the Had ignores them. In regards as to whether GISS is the "odd man out" there may be an argument for it, but the link you posted does not make that argument. (And in fact the author presented a great deal of statistics that were based on the fact the data sets have different zero points - a clearly ridiculous argument which he eventually admits to).
You also go on to say that warming trend has slowed down significantly, what was the significance test that you used? As I mentioned above, using 1998 as a starting point tends to give small R2 values.
Tamino had a good post on this, but I am going to bed and will dig it up tomorrow.
Regards,
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:03 pm
11 Apr 2008
You asked me, "From what you said, you appear to have used the monthly data, if so may I ask how you corrected for the fact that different months have different lengths?"
Yes, I used the monthly data. This gives the most representative information available on what is really going on, don't you agree?
Tell me, JCross how does the fact that "different months have different lengths" influence the trend in your opinion? Is this a major factor? If so, how? How would you correct? lease give details.
You wrote: "In regards as to whether GISS is the "odd man out" there may be an argument for it, but the link you posted does not make that argument"
Sorry, John, if you really take the time to read it, you will see that it does indeed address the issue why GISS does not agree with the other three records.
But the main problem many people have with GISS is that it has been shown to have faulty records (i.e. hottest U.S. year 1998 vs. 1934), other "ex post facto" adjustments made to the record, and people have frankly become suspicious relating to the objectivity of James E. Hansen, since he has become an activist, rather than an objective scientist on the U.S. taxpayer's payroll, who is being paid to give the U.S. taxpayer unbiased input on temperature trends.
My advice to you (if you want some semblance of objectivity): rely on the other records first; they have a higher probability of being "objective" than the GISS record.
But, in any case, you cannot deny that ALL records (even the somewhat suspect GISS record) show a significant slowdown (or an actual stop) of "global warming" since 1998.
Now you may point out that some folks may have a problem with the fact that the last 10 years (or decade) started in 1998.
They insinuate that it would be "unfair" to start the record in 1998, because this was an unusually warm year, calling this an "artifact".
Interestingly enough, none of these people had problems with this back in 1998, when this "unusual warmth" was being used to prove that AGW was causing accelerated warming.
So let's only look at the record for the past five years (2003-2008), instead of the past 10 years.
We find that:
The Hadley record shows a cooling trend of -0.28 degrees C per decade
The RSS record shows a cooling trend of -0.24 degrees C per decade
The GISS record shows a cooling trend of - 0.11 degrees C per decade
The UAH record shows a cooling trend of -0.09 degrees C per decade.
Again, 5 years (or even 10 years) do not constitute a new long term "trend", but they do give us reason to question the IPCC projections of 0.2 degrees C per decade future warming over the first two decades in the 21st century.
Has global warming really stopped?
It certainly may look like this is the case, but I agree that the jury is still out on this question.
Personally, I am not too happy that this appears to be the case, and I am actually hoping that those who predict a reversal of the current trend are right. I would much rather see a bit more warming than a real cooling trend.
We definitely do NOT need another Little Ice Age; much better would be a slight warming to get us back up to the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period or, even better, the Roman Optimum.
What do you think?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:08 pm
11 Apr 2008
You wrote in part in the penultimate post above:
"Hi Max:
[1] My mistake, somehow I took the trend from the met station index, not the land-ocean index. Using the land ocean index annual values I get a rate of 1.79C per decade...
[2]...You also go on to say that warming trend has slowed down significantly, what was the significance test that you used? As I mentioned above, using 1998 as a starting point tends to give small R2 values.
[3] Tamino had a good post on this, but I am going to bed and will dig it up tomorrow."
My comments in addition to those of Max are:
[1] Would you also like to check that result you give of a rate of 1.79C per decade? Is it per century perhaps?
[2] Max has explained what he did in Excel, so your question is puzzling We are dealing with a small sample without any wide band filter pass or any other fancy statistical treatment. Max is talking about the past decade and less in which prior temporal data is irrelevant. There is nothing mysterious about it; no fancy treatments; just eyeball it. Please digest my earlier post @,
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...
AND another one to follow shortly entitled "Eyeballing it".....if I have time.
[3] AHA! Now you have maybe finally revealed where you are coming from? Several times before I have asked where do you get your ideas from.....Do you read and believe RealClimate? You have not responded to this fairly important and repeated question. However, Tamino and RealClimate are cooperative clones. You do know that RealClimate was set up by the inventors of the Hockey-stick etc? (A most shameful episode)
I had a long and sad experience of dealing with fundamentalist Christadelphians that unflinchingly insist that the earth is quite young, that dinosaurs were described in the Bible, and were buried as fossils in the great flood some 4000 years ago. My second wife had "come-out" from there. After years of battle, I learnt that any discussion with them was pointless. I hope the same is not true of you, but I don't have a warm feeling if you trust Tamino/RealClimate!
Feel free to allay my fears of course, and I hope you do!
Regards BobFJ
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:35 pm
11 Apr 2008
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif Other data sources are somewhat similar.
The wiggly black line is an arbitrarily selected 20-year smoothing of apparently unpublished code which was selected to give a desired low frequency smoothing. By definition, there is no data available for the last half cycle of 10 years, (See my earlier posts), so there is apparently an extrapolation coding to "invent" that missing data through to ~2018. (Also see link below)
However, if we draw a vertical line at 1998, and then black-out everything to the left, that becomes irrelevant, and we can then purely consider the trend from thence forward. Notice that 1998 is a high spike, which is followed by two down reversals which virtually neutralize it.
Now don't worry about what sort of statistical treatment of whomever's choice might be applied to this 10-year period, or any part of it; just eyeball it and you should be able to see that the trend over that short period is flat. It's quite simple really, no need to make a meal of it!
PLEASE READ @: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2955
For greater understanding
Permalink
JCross Posted 10:05 pm
11 Apr 2008
If Max or anyone else thinks you have valid points they are free to bring them up and I may answer them. In addition if anyone would like my take on other posts that you make I will also consider those. However, until you can show that you are prepared to discuss in "good faith" I will ignore you.
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:55 am
12 Apr 2008
Let's see if we can continue our discussion on the global temperature record in good faith and resolve any differences we may have.
You have written that you generally agree with points 1, 2 and 3:
that temperatures have been in an overall slow rising trend since 1850
that there are multidecadal swings from slight cooling to warming
that the recent warming trend from 1976 to 1998 is not unusual when compared to earlier warming periods, which occurred prior to AGW
You did put in the caveat "although I would say that the recent warming trend does not end in 1998. Depending on which data set you take there are years since 1998 which are warmer than 1998."
Which years are warmer than 1998 in which record?
If I go back to the source of the data, I see that the "odd man out" is GISS. All the other records show no years after 1998 that were warmer than 1998.
The past 120 months show a flat linear trend in three out of four records (GISS is "odd man out" again, with a slight warming trend).
The past 60 months show a cooling trend in all four records (including GISS).
So, in light of the observed records, when would you say that the recent warming trend ended, if not in 1998? Maybe we can agree on a date here.
We were still not in agreement on two points:
that the impacts of various "forcing" components on the global average temperature are not as simple as IPCC would have us believe
that the ability of climate models to predict temperature trends is limited
Believe we agreed with your statement on point 4:
"I would not agree with your statement that the IPCC thinks the various forcing components are simple. There are a large number of factors involved and this is an active area of research."
I did not mean to imply that IPCC states that forcing components are "simple". They do however present a rather simplistic view on which forcing factors play the largest role in climate change, and these are identified as anthropogenic greenhouse factors. These are also the principal factors used in projecting future climate change, using climate models with various scenarios and storylines.
My point was that there must be something fairly significant at work here other than just AGW, since the correlation between atmospheric CO2 (plus other GHG) and temperature is not really that apparent when observed over the entire temperature record.
What are these as yet unidentified forcing factors that caused rapid warming in the late 19th century and early 20th century, mid-20th century cooling and the current slowdown (or reversal) of warming? Are we missing something basic here?
Point 5 is simply that the climate models have not shown a very good "hit rate" in the past on projecting temperatures (there have been several "global warming scorecards" published on this). Here is one:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
My direct observation was that the models projected warming at a decadal rate of +0.2 degrees C for the early 21st century (higher than over any extended period to date), yet the current trend is actually flat or even cooling.
You have written, "In regards to the climate models, I have not yet entered a discussion on this topic that has come to any rational conclusions."
I can live with that statement. The danger with any computer models is the old GIGO problem.
Someone once observed that had we had supercomputers back in the 1860s, when urban centers in England started exponential growth with ever-increasing "horse buggies", someone could have projected that within 100 years (by 1960) Manchester would be covered by two meters of horse manure.
So where are we still in disagreement?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:26 am
12 Apr 2008
I raised the question regarding when the recent warming trens stopped (if not in 1998).
Going through all four records, they all pretty much show that the most recent global warming trend stopped in 2001.
The linear trend of the 4 records from January 2001 to today is:
Hadley: -0.108 deg C per decade
RSS: -0.060 deg C per decade
UAH: -0.004 deg C per decade
GISS: 0.00 deg C per decade
So maybe 2001 is when the warming trend stopped (for now).
Whether these past seven years are the beginning of a new cooling (or flat) trend or whether they just represent a "blip" in the curve is anyone's guess today, and I do not want to make any forecasts.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:21 pm
12 Apr 2008
You have been kind of quiet for a while. Is everything OK?
Since all records show that global warming stopped in January 2100 (the official beginning of the 21st century), do you have any comments?
Do you believe this is the beginning of a new flat or cooling trend or just a temporary 7-year "blip" in the curve?
Appreciate your thoughts on this.
If you prefer not to comment, I can understand.
Thanks and regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:05 pm
12 Apr 2008
Rather than 2100, which must be a typo
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:03 pm
12 Apr 2008
That's a truly interesting proposal!
If I understand correctly, he believes (together with MNG, both of them in a very sensitive fashion), that everyone should be sweet and nice in debate. I totally agree with this as a concept, and try, but it is not the reality on the Dr. Dessler blogs. (Or many other blogs) I doubt if the reality can be changed by the wise philosophising of MNG/John+.
Me, Max, Benp, Jabailo, Darth and other rationalists whom seem to be targets in this have been called things like trolls, and liars, by Dr. Dressler himself. Other less educated people with little understanding of the science have resorted to insults like idiot, rock-for-brains, and much more.
However, do we go-off in a huff and refuse to debate with Dr, Dessler after such insults? No! We love to debate Andrew!
Could you MNG/John+ indicate where I or others have done such insult to you?
Please give us the opportunity to apologise, for I for one have tried to follow your guidelines, and know not what hurt I have caused.
Regards BobFJ
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:22 pm
12 Apr 2008
a) Andrew could not make his posts.
b) Only a few of us rationalists would be left, maybe with no-one contrary to debate!
c) Unless maybe some more neutral visitors chipped-in....PLEASE!
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:39 am
13 Apr 2008
Thanks for correcting my typo. Yep it is January 2001 (not 2100).
But in any case it looks like JCross has either gotten tired of this discussion or feels he has nothing more to contribute.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
JCross Posted 4:52 am
13 Apr 2008
Lets see - it is one of the first nice days of the spring and the kids want to go to the seashore for a BBQ. Now, do I head off for a day of fun with the family or sit inside and answer Max's questions? Humm - which do I choose?
Hey Max, I have a more than full time job, I do a lot of consulting on the side, I have a wonderful family and discussions on Global Warming is just a hobby with me. In regards to global warming I post on a number of blogs and am writing up a guest article or two for some other blogs. So apologies if I don't answer you quick enough. If you wish you can always call my attention back to something that you think I may have missed.
In regards to your comments. I don't know how much more progress we can make with your points 4 and 5 - we may have to agree to disagree. But just to be clear, there are a large number of factors that affect climate which act over different time scales. Volcanoes can act quickly, continental drift can act slowly. Additional CO2 will cause an increase of downward IR so it will act to warm (or reduce cooling). But everyone agrees that there are other factors. Could there be undiscovered ones - of course, but it would seem unlikely that they would be very large.
In regards to the models, I will say that I do not think that you (or for that matter I) really know enough about the climate models to have an intelligent discussion. I have done extensive computer modeling and am aware of its strengths and limitations. I do not think that your link to Warwick is all that strong since apparently he picks and chooses which IPCC report to draw from.
So that leaves us with the global temperature records to look at. I use the D-N annual values from the GISS L/O series. The actual values are: 45, 57, 52, 50, 61, 53, 59. If you calculate the slope using a linear regression you get a slope of +0.15 C/decade. However I stress that the trend is not significant and the R2 value is only 0.35 and that ignore the whole fact that we are dealing with an autocorrelated series If you are interested in the statistics I would recommend
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:34 am
13 Apr 2008
Three records (Hadley, RSS, UAH) show cooling from January 2001 to February 2008.
The fourth record (GISS) show a flat trend.
Those are the facts, John.
They are based on the monthly values as reported by each record.
Taking annual values introduces an unnecessary time lag. Stick with monthly figures, John. You will get better trend info over shorter periods that way.
Warwick points out where IPCC model projections have been poor. This was true in earlier IPCC reports. Whether it continues to be true in the latest report remains to be seen. I observed that the latest IPCC projection of 0.2C per decade warming for the "next 2 decades" isn't starting out that way, but, who knows what will happen?
To your offer of a bet: "In fact I am confident enough to offer you a bet that in - say - 2020 the annual temperature will be more than it is this year (2008). So I don't think it is a new flat or cooling trend - do you?"
How about replacing 2008 with 1998? Bet still on?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
JCross Posted 8:10 am
13 Apr 2008
Regarding the bet, yes, I am willing to take it up with the year being 1998. Say we use the GISS L/O index?
Regards,
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:53 am
13 Apr 2008
You asked: "How did you adjust for the month length." I did not. Can you show me how big an error this has introduced?
My R2 was .0125 not .004 as you say it was in your set of data.
1998 as the start year. Great!
But I prefer Hadley unvarnished monthly data averaged over the year (they also report the annual average, as you know) to anything GISS puts out, in view of their "odd man out" status and the problems we have seen recently with "fudged" GISS records.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
solarmeter Posted 11:48 am
13 Apr 2008
I read the entire thread.... and then joined.. for two reasons:
To counter the UV vs skincancer consensus, and
To advise Max that he has become my "Rush Limbaugh" of global warming because he validates my own opinions on the subject.
Now that you know my agenda... let me say that I have no connection or interest-conflict with any climate change org or big oil, etc business.
I do however have a vested interest in UV metrology... both outdoor solar and indoor tanning lamp versions. And, I firmly believe that the benefits of moderate (less-than-erythemal doses) of UVR far outweigh the risks.
The entire point of the initial subject tanning industry PR was to emphasize that exposure (not overexposure) to UVB promotes vitamin D3 synthesis and has no valid scientific cause/effect relationship to melanoma skin cancer.
That is the truth. What few contrary studies exist fail to account for confounding variables, were not peer reviewed, and/or were funded by "big pharma" skincare in cahoots with dermatologists (AAD) and their skin cancer org fronts.
Yes the subject PR was funded by the tanning orgs... but it is in response to years of faulty "science" propagated by the above special interests. Now that recent studies finally show that D3 insufficiency is contributing to many health problems and also has a role in increased internal cancers' risk... the information is finally becoming more public.
Getting a dose more than 1 MED (minimal erythemal dose) adjusted for skin type (ie: overexposure - sunburn) is NOT what the tanning industry recommends. Just like MAX's comment about a lung full of water or half full of CO² ... too much of a good thing is bad.
A CIE 200 J/m² dose of UVR will not sunburn skin types 2-6, but will provide a wonderful dose of D3 25(OH)D as blood tests can easily validate.
Long term overexposure (burning) can and will for light skin types result in some NMSC (SCC or BCC) that typically can be cured with a swab of liquid nitrogen or minor excision. But CMM melanoma is linked primarily with heredity, moles, skin type 1... and often occurs on places "the sun don't shine". It can also be "caused" by extreme overexposure of albino hairless lab mice via FS-40 60% UVB lamps... but NOT from normal 5% UVB solar or tanning bed lamps at doses consistent with FDA (indoor) and NWS (outdoor UVI) recommendations.
Anyway... sorry for the loooong post. But this whole subject about SCARING the public - beit from MGW (M = man-made) orgs or SUNSCARE orgs just makes me irate! I will willingly go to jail before ever paying a penny of any tax increase to help STOP global warming or ultraviolet irradiance. Both are the ultimate red herring false-causes imho.
Regards.... solarmeter
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:13 pm
13 Apr 2008
We have obviously reached an impasse on the most recent global temperature developments and trends.
Let's talk about the "bet" you proposed.
"I am confident enough to offer you a bet that in - say - 2020 the annual temperature will be more than it" was in 1998, based on the Hadley annual record of globally averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly. (Year changed from 2008 to 1998 and Hadley record rather than GISS.)
My record tells me the Hadley anomaly in 1998 was +0.526C. Do you agree? If not, which number do you propose?
Let's make sure we also establish what this "anomaly" is based on. As I understand, it the "baseline" here is the base period 1961-90. Do you agree?
If Hadley changes their "baseline" period in the future (such as "20th century average" or something else) we would have to make that adjustment.
Now, I am not a rich man, but I would be willing to put $1,000 (U.S.) on the line.
We could deposit this $1,000 in a bank somewhere, with our "bet contract", so that in the year 2020, if the globally averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly compared to the base period 1961-90 (according to the Hadley annual record) is higher than 0.526C, you win; if it is lower, I win.
Would you agree?
Then all we have to do is draw up the contract and select the bank to "hold the money".
Let's move to the next step, JCross.
Best regards,
Max
Permalink
JCross Posted 9:52 pm
13 Apr 2008
Now you want to use a data set that excludes parts of the globe that are warming the fastest! I have no problem with the Had data set, but if we use it I do want some adjustment made for that fact.
In regards to the details of the bet, I am willing to accept the sum (i.e. $1,000), but having been through something like this before, it is not as easy as you seem to think. There are a number of steps and some costs that must be split between us in order for us to have a secure wager. If we can come to terms on a data set we can begin to set things up.
In regards to the R2 we were looking at, which data set did you use to get the R2 and what if your interpretation of what an R2 of 0.01 means.
Regards,
John
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:21 pm
13 Apr 2008
The arguments being used by John+ about how to trend the observed global temperatures just over the past decade or so remind me of earlier obfuscations from AGW alarmists. When in a corner, they will pick on say a word and argue endlessly as to what it might mean. Things like "cherry-picking", ignore, plausible, etc.
No fancy treatments are needed to see that over the last decade there is a plateau in the temperatures. How anyone who claims to have scientific background can claim otherwise is head shaking stuff!
I repeat an earlier post to place it in sensible perspective.
Just eyeball it!
Here are the Hadley Centre HadCRUT3 annually smoothed graphs:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif Other data sources are somewhat similar.
The wiggly black line is an arbitrarily selected 20-year smoothing of apparently unpublished code which was selected to give a desired low frequency smoothing. By definition, there is no data available for the last half cycle of 10 years, (See my earlier posts), so there is apparently an extrapolation coding to "invent" that missing data through to ~2018. (Also see link below)
However, if we draw a vertical line at 1998, and then black-out everything to the left, that becomes irrelevant, and we can then purely consider the trend from thence forward. Notice that 1998 is a high spike, which is followed by two down reversals which virtually neutralize it.
Now don't worry about what sort of statistical treatment of whomever's choice might be applied to this 10-year period, or any part of it; just eyeball it and you should be able to see that the trend over that short period is flat. It's quite simple really, no need to make a meal of it!
PLEASE READ @: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2955
For greater understanding
Max, may I suggest that you don't get sucked-in to answering unnecessary questions. I believe some call it trolling.
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 10:42 pm
13 Apr 2008
http://www.newstatesman.com/200801140011
Permalink
JCross Posted 11:26 pm
13 Apr 2008
Autocorrelation is another issue which tends to be brought up only when it seems to be convenient.
Best,
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:18 am
14 Apr 2008
This post just covers our bet. I'll get back to your other points separately, still in the good faith of resolving any points of our discussion that may still be open.
You started the whole topic of a bet with: "In fact I am confident enough to offer you a bet that in - say - 2020 the annual temperature will be more than it is this year (2008)."
You "cherry pick" 2008. The first months of 2008 have been unusually cold, as confirmed by all temperature recors, with snow in southern China, the Middle East, record snows in parts of North America, etc. Even Grist tells us that the "World Meteorological Organization is expecting global temperatures to drop this year thanks to a strong La Niña."
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/04/04/world_temp/index.htm ...
So I respond to your "cherry pick" with one of my own: 1998, the year that the global warming trend of the late 20th century ended, and you agreed, "Regarding the bet, yes, I am willing to take it up with the year being 1998."
You come back with, "First, I gave in to you and instead of using an average temperature for the last - say 10 years, you got to cherry-pick the year with the largest el-Nino of the century."
Now you object to the use of the Hadley record (rather than GISS). I explained to you why recent events had shown that GISS may be unreliable in some areas, so that is why I usually prefer the Hadley record for global surface temp.
Now you tell me the Hadley "global" number is not really as "global" as the GISS number.
Lots of waffling here, John.
State what you want to bet on and which parameters will be used.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:58 am
14 Apr 2008
The Lynas article is an excellent example of "bending the facts to fit the theory".
· Our theory tells us it should be warming.
· The observed facts show us it is not warming.
· Something must be wrong with the facts; let's adjust them to fit our theory.
Another good example of this approach is hidden in the IPCC Chapter 4 FAQ section to rationalize the mid-century cooling trend from around 1940 to around 1976 as having been caused by "anthropogenic aerosol emissions". (But let's not get into that discussion here; it is a whole new chapter.)
I have just presented the fact, based on the observed temperature records of Hadley, UAH , RSS and GISS, that there has been a "plateau" in the global temperature trend. First I started the trend with 1998, and it showed no temperature increase over the past 10 years.
Another blogger criticized the choice of 1998 as the starting year, since it was a record warm year and, thus, introduced an "artifact".
So I re-ran the data starting in 2001, the "first year of the 21st century".
Three of the four records show a cooling trend (Hadley, RSS, UAH), and the fourth (GISS) shows a flat trend.
Hadley: -0.108 deg C per decade
RSS: -0.060 deg C per decade
UAH: -0.004 deg C per decade
GISS: 0.00 deg C per decade
Now John, these are not opinions. They are observed facts.
You raise all sorts of irrelevant side issues (correcting for the length of the month, R2 factors). You tell me that you have established that the "R2 is .004" (apparently using a GISS annual data set). I explain to you that in the case of the monthly Hadley set the "R2 is .0125".
So by now, we are beginning to see how this discussion is developing.
I bring facts, i.e. all 4 records show no global warming since January 2001.
You do not refute these facts.
How can you, they are out there for one and all to see?
Even Dr. Pachauri has said he will look into the causes for this apparent "plateau", so he is not denying the fact that it exists.
Instead, you counter with nit picks and obfuscations, treatises on statistics, blah, blah.
Face it, John. The past 7 years show no global warming, even a possible cooling.
Whether this is the start of a longer term cooling cycle (as we have experience before, most recently from around 1940 to around 1976) or whether warming will again take over, and, if so, when this renewed warming trend will start is anyone's guess.
I am not going to make any predictions, and I would advise you to stay away from prophesies, as well.
As Warwick demonstrated pretty effectively, predictions can come back to haunt you.
So that just leaves us with our bet to settle.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
JCross Posted 5:14 am
14 Apr 2008
In regards to our bet, what I propose is exactly what I said. We use 1998 as the benchmark. We use either the GISS dataset or the Hadley with some sort of allowance made for its exclusion of the polar region - your pick. We use the annual temperature (meteorological year) for 2020. If it is larger than 1998 I win, if it is smaller then you win. In the case of a tie, we average the 2019 and 2020 and see how that compares.
Now, in regards to the current temperature trends, I am afraid that the R2 value actually is quite important. However if you think that a trend with an R2 of 0.01 is good, then that is fine.
regards,
John
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 7:33 am
14 Apr 2008
Second, I have a question related to the autocorrelation article (see link a few comments above) posted by JCross.
I don't want to add to your workload, John, but I am hoping you might be able to find the time to help me understand something about the monthly time series being used to calculate the trends for the last 5 - 10 years.
In a comment above, you calculated the linear trend based on the annual average temperatures for what I assume were the past seven years, from which I quote:
<<
I use the D-N annual values from the GISS L/O series. The actual values are: 45, 57, 52, 50, 61, 53, 59. If you calculate the slope using a linear regression you get a slope of
+0.15 C/decade. However I stress that the trend is not significant and the R2 value is only 0.35 and that ignore[s] the whole fact that we are dealing with an autocorrelated series.
>>
However, at least two other commenters on this thread insist that we use monthly data instead of annual averages, and seem to have calculated flat trends using that method. Disregarding the question of whether the trend for such a short time period is relevant to anything, I must admit I'm curious to know why the monthly time series seems to produce a different trend compared to the yearly time series.
One difference between these two approaches is that the yearly time series is "seasonally balanced" and the monthly time series is not. What I mean is that the northern hemisphere isn't identical to the southern hemisphere, so the temperature anomaly for a northern summer might be more-or-less consistently different from the temperature anomaly of a southern summer, and likewise for the north vs. south winters.
Trends calculated from annual averages take that into account to some extent, since each data point includes four seasons. But the monthly time series doesn't seem to do this if it starts in month X of year Y, and ends at approximately month X in year [Y + n]. (i.e. the time series might start with data from the northern spring and end with data from the northern winter.)
My question is whether this is significant for the past decade. Is this why the short-term trend calculated using the yearly averages differs from the short-term trends for monthly series, which have been posted on this thread with start/end dates in the Jan - Feb - Mar time frame?
I'm wondering whether the short-term trends calculated from the monthly series would be the same if their start and end dates were both in the Oct - Nov time frame instead, such that the data set starts with the data from northern winter, and ends with the data from northern autumn.
If the trend of the monthly time series were being calculated over the span of decades, this might not be very significant, but for the 5 - 10 year time frames being discussed here, how significant do you think this "seasonal imbalance" in the monthly series' might be?
Thanks in advance for your consideration of this question.
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:42 am
14 Apr 2008
Back to our bet.
You wrote: "In regards to our bet, what I propose is exactly what I said. We use 1998 as the benchmark. We use either the GISS dataset or the Hadley with some sort of allowance made for its exclusion of the polar region - your pick. We use the annual temperature (meteorological year) for 2020. If it is larger than 1998 I win, if it is smaller then you win. In the case of a tie, we average the 2019 and 2020 and see how that compares."
Allowances and adjustments for this or that are complicated. Let's stick with a simple, easily understood published record.
I would agree to the Hadley annual globally averaged surface land and sea anomaly as it is reported. Presume this is what you mean when you say "meteorological year". If not, please explain. For the year 1998 this was +0.515C. Every year since then has been cooler, with 2005 the closest at +0.479C.
You apparently believe this is going to change and future temperatures will again become warmer.
You probably have the long-term odds on your side, while I may have the shorter-term record in my favor.
I was once told by my grandfather, "Don't ever bet on the weather." Looks like I am going against this sage advice.
The Hadley anomaly is currently based on a baseline period, which I believe is the average from 1961 to 1990. If this should change in the future or if Hadley make any other changes that change the reported anomaly in either direction, we would need to figure out what impact this has on the anomaly as published, and correct accordingly.
We agreed that the amount of our bet would be $1,000 (US).
So if we can agree on the basis for our bet, we can then start looking at the mechanics and details of setting it up.
That might best be done offline.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 7:55 am
14 Apr 2008
The graph in the New Statesman article is from this RealClimate post:
"Uncertainty, noise and the art of model-data comparison"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/unc ...
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:44 am
14 Apr 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125/#co ...
There are many parallels in the account you make, and how alarmism spreads from some spotty little study or opinion by "experts", or just pure politics etc.
I once chatted with a bright young thing who was doing a study on bone density loss in lactating women. I forget the numbers exactly now, but I asked what her sample size was and was surprised how modest it was at about 50. I asked if the participants were specially selected in some way and the reply was no...random. So I then reeled out a bunch of potential group differences that I thought might have a bearing on results, and that the individual group size would then become very small indeed. She seemed to go into mild shock for a while. EG some mothers modify their diet, smoking, drinking etc during pregnancy and lactation, or don't have the bad habits. Some even take dietary supplements, and so-on. Exercise, Genetics, body weight, age, medications, the possibilities are endless.
We also see studies which give contradictory results. Also, alarmist statements that a certain medication increases risk of some serious side effect by say 5%, but whilst discarding the benefits of the medication, and forgetting to say that it is say a 5% increase on the current rate of 3% which is not much at all.
Remember all that hype about the ozone hole? It cost big bucks to "fix" and was trumpeted as a triumph. Funny how it's gone quiet lately, and I think it was 2006 when it reached a record size....haven't checked lately.
Personally, I have always been puzzled how melanoma can occur on the soles of the feet, if exposure to sunlight is an important cause. However, over exposure may well do, and intuitively makes good sense.
We also know that over-exposure to other good things, can be bad for you.
Your parallel interest in the hype on AGW, just draws another parallel
Regards, BobFJ
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:10 am
14 Apr 2008
A conversation between A & B
A: Hey Mount Kilamanjaro has a beautiful big plateau
B: (An AGW expert) No it hasn't, I have some ATM data which I can plot, treat statistically, and prove to you that it does not have a plateau.
c: Eh?.....Just look at it....it's a plateau, as plain as the nose on your face...here's a photo....LOOK!
All this obfuscation, which would BTW have to go into how the year average is derived from monthly, is simply a waste of page space.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:53 am
14 Apr 2008
A: Hey Mount Kilamanjaro has a beautiful big plateau
B: (An AGW expert) No it hasn't, I have some ATM data which I can plot, treat statistically, and prove to you that it does not have a plateau.
A: Eh?.....Just look at it....it's a plateau, as plain as the nose on your face...here's a photo....LOOK!
B: No, you see you can't just consider the upper parts alone, you have too make a two kilometre horizantal smoothing including the lower slopes which are steeply climbing. That way we can prove that the top part is not a plateau at all.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:57 am
14 Apr 2008
Permalink
manacker Posted 10:28 am
14 Apr 2008
While we're at it let's measure the globally averaged contours of the Earth over a given observation period and then figure an anomaly compared to this statistical baseline value. Should give us a more representative look at Kilamanjaro's peak in the overall context of things.
Right?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 10:36 am
14 Apr 2008
A belated welcome to this site.
With all the AGW hysteria being blogged around on this site, it is reassuring to hear an occasional voice of reason, rather than all the panic expressed by the AGW-groupies you normally meet here.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
JCross Posted 11:27 am
14 Apr 2008
GISS Land/ocean index.
I think there are two factors at work here; the first is that using the monthly data allows you to include two extremely low months - i.e. January and February for 2008. These months are the coldest we have seen in a while so their effect is significant. I calculated the trend for the monthly data from 2001 to February 2008 which is +0.0185. If I exclude the Jan and Feb values the trend changes to +0.080.
The other effect is that when you look at monthly data there is information in the data that you lose when you use annual values (whether the information is significant is another matter). For example the year 2002 is an excellent example. The annual anomaly for 2002 is 56. Yet if we look at the monthly data and plot it we see a very strong trend that is negative (the trend for 2002 is -3.06). Thus in the year the early part had larger anomalies than the latter and if we use monthly data this is picked up and acts to reduce the trend.
Now, the real interesting question is what is the significance of the trends we are talking about. As I have said throughout the R2 values tend to be less than 0.01. Keep in mind that an R2 of 0 is what you would expect from random data.
In regards to a North / South change in the anomaly or any seasonal change in the anomalies I would be surprised if that was the cause. By using anomalies, seasonal difference like that should be removed provided it was present in the baseline data. Of course there is a possibility that a new one has been introduced, but I have not heard of anything like this. Did that answer your question? If not please let me know and I will try again.
One thing to keep in mind is a great line I heard about statistics from Tamino a couple of weeks ago. Someone was saying that the downward trend since 2001 was obvious and Tamino said "that is why I get paid to do statistics".
Regards,
John
Permalink
JCross Posted 11:37 am
14 Apr 2008
If you wish to use the Hadley then a fair bet would be to base the initial value on an average of several years (say 3 or 5).
In regards to the time, I suspect that the Hadley has a meteorological year value as well as the calendar year. The meteorological year is December to November.
Regards,
John
Permalink
solarmeter Posted 11:41 am
14 Apr 2008
Yes.... especially I agree that certain "alarmist" positions re UVR and melanoma totally fail to address how it occurs on "soles of feet", etc. Good point.
I believe that earth surface temp variations over short or long time periods are due far more to solar cycles than to man-made influences... with of course El Nino, etc contributing as well.
My informal UVR irradiance observations over 15 years have pretty much correlated with the general trend of warming/cooling - with a peak UV Index here in Michigan occuring near June 21, 1998 at 9.1 (~42N solar noon). From 1998 to 2006 the UVI has gradually declined to 8.7 at this location.
FYI... my participation at two UV Instrument Intercomparisons sponsored by NOAA/NIST on Table Rock Mountain near Boulder, CO... and a test on the roof of NIST in Gaithersburg, MD vs Brewer SciTec spectralradiometers validated the accuracy of the handheld UV meters I use.
Our yearly fluxuation in O³ layer DU here in MI is quite flat... and our air quality here 20 miles north of Detroit on Lake St Clair is stable, particulary on deep blue sky solar noon occasions when measurements have been taken during off-shore-winds to eliminate lake-effect water vapor concerns.
From 20-24 April I will be in Siapan (15N) where solar zenith is will be basically zero (~89.3° sun angle). I will record sea level measurements of Total UV, UVB, MED/hr, UVI, Eeff W/m², and visible "red light" mW/cm² as my maximum baseline for future comparisons to.
I "predict" (oops - Max say predictions can come back to haunt you).... that when we return to Siapan next year and beyond - the relative UV meter readings will indeed correlate (at an R² near .9+ over time) with the afformentioned temperature data bases' typical linear regressions.
Confounding factors of exact atmospheric particulates might screw this up... even though location and dates will be the same. But I can always ask NOAA/NWS for a satelite scan of Siapan on date measured if need be. At least the air mass will be identical where I take readings at xxKm inland from our resort hotel.
Again - sorry for the long post... but I firmly believe there is a valid link between solar irradiance (exact bandwidth TBD) and average global temp data per year or even per month. If NASA would add this to their priority I wouldn't have to play citizen scientist (again)... but I'm up to it and look forward to posting my baseline UV and 633nm readings here upon return from Siapan/Japan 01 May.
PS: If I wasn't so old now I'd climb Mt Fuji (Fuji san) while staying at my wife's parents' house in Mishima - and get some really good high elevation readings lol. Then I could show them to my friend Forrest Mims who takes UV readings atop Mauna Loa every year. Peace-out.
Regards.... solarmeter
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 11:47 am
14 Apr 2008
Oh, and of course, Tamino, an Oracle of ultimate wisdom and truth, just like Mann et al! It's always good to have such excellent references.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 12:10 pm
14 Apr 2008
All of them have problems of course, and there is a lot of comedy on it on the US stations on WattsUp....many station photos and histories are just hillarious! Just check-out the series of posts; "how not to measure temperature"
BTW, did I see somewhere that Hansen says that 2005 was the hottest year, not 1998?
Like I say there is too much credibility given to the numbers in my opinion, but they are out there, and it's all we can use.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 12:25 pm
14 Apr 2008
Giss quietly corrected their little graphs last August I think it was. (Did you hear Hansen screaming the good news in the media?)
Would it not be cute to gamble that 2020 will not be warmer than 1934 in the USA?
I'm not really a gambling person and doubt if the trouble of drawing-up a contract with John+/MNG would be worth the effort. Also, I may not live that long, being fairly ancient.
Max, perhaps you should consider the possibilty of a spike in 2020.
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 1:05 pm
14 Apr 2008
http://www.jir.com/graph_contest/index.html#OneGraph
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:28 pm
14 Apr 2008
What you claim is not really true. (In fact, it is totally untrue.)
The source of the data is the globally averaged surface land and sea temperature anomaly records published for all to see by Hadley, UAH, RSS and GISS.
These records all show a flat (or cooling) temperature trend over the past 7 years (since January 2001).
Can you bring any evidence to refute this?
If so, please do do.
If not, back off on your somewhat stupid comment that "commenters are knocking themselves out to convince everyone that there has been a plateau in global warming".
A tip: the actually measured record shows irrefutably that there has been a "plateau".
Those are the facts, josullivan58. Enjoy the good news rather than despairing!
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:48 pm
14 Apr 2008
Hadley annual is Hadley annual. It gets reported for all to see. That's the basis without any fudging.
1998 is 1998. For most normal folks this starts on January 1 and ends on December 31.
This year (1998) was the end of global warming, according to 3 of the 4 records.
That's the basis for your claim of more warming and my claim of no more warming, not an "initial value on an average of several years (say 3 or 5)".
Do not waffle on your bet as you did on the other discussion, JCross.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 3:48 pm
14 Apr 2008
John, thanks very much for taking the time to improve my understanding of the anomaly numbers, running the trend calculation without Jan and Feb 2008, and emphasizing which data set you were using. That helps a lot.
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:05 pm
14 Apr 2008
It's really great that you are "hoping to be nice", in agreeing with those that happen to share your own opinion, like josullivan58 or jcross.
While this conduct is certainly admirable (provided one agrees with your position on things), it has nothing to do with critically challenging the AGW hype that is out there to really establish what the facts are.
Being "nice" does not equate with being right.
But I have to admit that you are really nice (provided others agree with your own opinion).
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:27 pm
14 Apr 2008
Thank you for your recent blog, Black Wallaby.
That was helpful input, especially your input on the Antarctic, and the very pertinent explanation of the wiggly black line as an arbitrarily selected 20-year smoothing of apparently unpublished code, which was selected to give a desired low frequency smoothing.
Solarmeter, thanks very much for taking the time to improve my understanding of the long time changes that are due far more to solar cycles than to man-made influences and the futility of tax increases to help stop global warming. That helps a lot.
"Hoping to be nice."
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:02 pm
14 Apr 2008
[A] "I think there are two factors at work here; the first is that using the monthly data allows you to include two extremely low months - i.e. January and February for 2008. These months are the coldest we have seen in a while so their effect is significant. I calculated the trend for the monthly data from 2001 to February 2008 which is +0.0185. If I exclude the Jan and Feb values the trend changes to +0.080."
[B] "John, thanks very much for taking the time to improve my understanding of the anomaly numbers, running the trend calculation without Jan and Feb 2008, and emphasizing which data set you were using. That helps a lot."
Let us consider the alleged calculations in [A]. John is worried about Jan & Feb of 2008 because they were unusually cold. Presumably he has checked to see if there are perhaps any other unusual months at any point during the seven years, however, there is no mention of it. OK, so let's allow John to be worried about those months, but try and estimate their impact. Let's hope that he does not worry that February is one day longer in 2004 and 2008, and let's pray that he will allow us to further simplify and consider that each month has the same length. Consequently, the proportion of the period that John is worried about would be about 2/ 7/ 12, or ~2.4%.
So, John is worried about ~2.4% of the 7-year period that was unusually cold. I wonder if John may have made a mistake somewhere, because it seems difficult to get from +0.0185 to +0.080 by simply ameliorating 2.4% of the whole in favour of his argument.
Still, it is so nice that John, who is terribly busy when it comes to others on thread, can leap to respond in less than four hours to a really nice "Dorothy Dixer"
Yes, that helps a lot
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:22 pm
14 Apr 2008
Reur same subject @
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...
It sounds like a very interesting project that you have going there. Do you think that you can find a way to get it published somewhere, sometime?
It's very interesting to see some of the developments occurring on the solar front in recent times, and as you know, it's not all about sunlight as the AGW crowd seem to think. There are a few other effects of considerable complexity and variety in the particle emissions from the sun, magnetic fields, and solar system gravitational effects etc. The reluctant onset of cycle 23, lack of sunspots, and comparison with cycle 14, etc is very interesting, as is the 5-year programme with over 50 scientists at CERN.
Max found this very interesting summary by Richard Mackey, entitled
Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth's climate
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176. ...
There were a few surprises in there for me. For instance, the variation of the barycentre of rotation of the Sun, caused by the planets never occurred to me, but it is plainly a fact of science. Here may be some of the missing bits in the Milankovitch theory!
I saw another interesting solar paper somewhere, I think it was over at ClimateAudit, and I'll try and dig it up.
If you have not seen the Mackey presentation before, enjoy some intriguing stuff. It all makes sense to me.
Regards, BobFJ
PS, I had some enjoyable times in Windsor and Leamington on the shore of Lake Eirie in the 80's. Were you in the area around 1983, when the Detroit river froze over in April, and the adjacent year in April, they were water skiing? It's called regional variation!
Permalink
JCross Posted 10:24 pm
14 Apr 2008
"This year (1998) was the end of global warming, according to 3 of the 4 records.
That's the basis for your claim of more warming and my claim of no more warming, not an "initial value on an average of several years (say 3 or 5)"."
Well, if you look back through the history here you can see my initial proposal here which was to use 2008 for the comparison. You wanted to use 1998 which was a great deal warmer. I agreed but want to use the GISS data set since it covers more of the arctic. I have not used 1998 as the basis of a claim for anything.
If you wish to accept it on the terms above, great. If not, also fine.
Regards,
John
Permalink
JCross Posted 1:36 am
15 Apr 2008
As luck would have it Tamino just posted about the analysis of cycles and uses Jose (1965) as an example.
An interesting read.
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:41 am
15 Apr 2008
It sort of looks like you really do not want to make a bet on global warming.
You apparently believe that it is going to get warmer due to AGW. So does IPCC. In fact, they project that it will warm on average at 0.2C per decade (over the next two decades).
They published this in early 2007, when 2006 global temperature data were in. The Hadley record showed that the average annual temperature anomaly in 2006 was 0.421C. So from 2006 to 2020 is 14 years. At the projected average decadal rate of warming this means that 2020 should be at 0.421 + 0.28 = 0.701C, according to IPCC.
But rather than holding your feet to the fire to go with the IPCC projection (which we apparently both feel is ridiculously high), I'm giving you a break by picking the much lower actual number for 1998 (the year warming stopped according to the Hadley record). This number is only 0.526C, which is 0.175C lower than the IPCC projection for 2020. If you really believe IPCC, you should jump at such a deal.
IPCC projects that it should be 0.701C by 2020.
You apparently believe IPCC. Or do you?
I do not believe and bet you that IPCC is wrong in their projection.
And I even "spot you" 0.175C, which just happens to be the actually observed amount of increase per decade over the last 25 years of the 20th century (the period which IPCC uses to "prove" accelerated global warming due to AGW). So I'm "spotting you" 10 years of warming.
Now here's my problem with GISS. I just do not have any faith in GISS numbers.
· There have been disclosures of "funny numbers" coming out of GISS.
· James E. Hansen is no longer scientifically objective and neutral, since he has started acting like an AGW activist selling "tipping point" hysteria, rather than as a government employee who provides the U.S. public unbiased and accurate weather/climate data.
· The GISS record has been the "odd man out" compared to the other three records on warmest year, rate of warming/cooling, etc. (always erring on the high side).
And finally, if I had made a bet with you in 1984 that the temperature in 14 years (1998) in the USA would not be higher than it was in 1934 (the warmest year until then), I would have lost, only to find out long after you had cashed in the bet that the record had been "fudged" and that 1934 really was warmer than 1998.
Get the point?
But rather than insisting that we use the UAH record, which I trust fully, I am willing to use the Hadley record. It may not be transparent, and may have some built-in UHI distortion, but at least there are no indications that it has been compromised.
So that's the deal. If Hadley says 2020 has a higher annual globally averaged land and sea temperature anomaly than 0.526C, you win. If not, you lose. If the record is exactly 0.526C, we use the average between 2019 and 2020.
If you really believe in AGW and in the IPCC, you should take the deal.
If not, lets forget it.
Can we move on?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 8:04 am
15 Apr 2008
"back off on your somewhat stupid comment that "commenters are knocking themselves out to convince everyone that there has been a plateau in global warming""
First its not my comment and second its not stupid. manacker/black wallaby is confusing weather and climate.
manacker/black wallaby:
"John, who is terribly busy when it comes to others on thread, can leap to respond in less than four hours"
manacker/black wallaby is upset that JCross is not replying to him but is responding to other people. manacker/black wallaby needs a more constructive hobby than waiting for comments on gristmill.
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:16 am
15 Apr 2008
A side issue. You cited a Tamino tale. Good for a chuckle.
But let's examine the Tamino allegory (Wikipedia; comment by me).
Prince Tamino has got lost in the forest [i.e. T. is having difficulty statistically seeing the forest for the trees] and now finds himself in a country which is ruled by the Queen of the Nights [also known as "never-never land"]. A huge monster [anthropogenic greenhouse warming] chases him and he is very frightened [in fact, he is hyterically terrified of certain doom]. He falls down in a faint [happens to the best of guys, when you are hysterically terrified of certain doom]. Three ladies who work for the Queen of the Nights come and kill the monster [the ladies are called "Sun", "Cloud" and "Reason"]. Then they see the handsome prince and they argue about which one of them will stay to look after him [Who will win? "Sun": the brightest, "Cloud": the coolest or "Reason": the most logical? Actually, they all agree to share Tamino in a never-ending circle of happiness and love. And they all live happily ever after...].
I like stories with happy endings, don't you?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:28 am
15 Apr 2008
You are being insulting and unfair when you write to both Black Wallaby and me: "First its not my comment and second its not stupid. manacker/black wallaby is confusing weather and climate."
I know fully well what the difference is. And I'll bet BW does as well, but I'll let him talk for himself.
When it gets warmer, it's "climate".
When it gets cooler, it's "weather".
Any idjit with an IPCC report in his hand knows this.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:19 am
15 Apr 2008
Reur:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...
Tamino certainly works hard on it!
As I've said before, there is a popular saying:
You can prove anything with statistics.
Also, he is active on RealClimate, and appears to be a clone of the mentality that exists on that site. As you know, Mann et al, the inventors of the hockeystick, set up that site, partly to defend there extremely corrupt hockeystick.
If I want to learn anything about data handling, I would go to McIntyre and McKitrick, and definitely NOT Tamino.
BobFJ
Permalink
JCross Posted 12:08 pm
15 Apr 2008
Also, once again the bet I proposed is here. Take it or leave it.
John
Permalink
JCross Posted 12:11 pm
15 Apr 2008
I am thinking of suscribing. I loved the graph.
Best,
John
Permalink
solarmeter Posted 12:26 pm
15 Apr 2008
Max said "Solarmeter, thanks very much for taking the time to improve my understanding of the long time changes that are due far more to solar cycles than to man-made influences and the futility of tax increases to help stop global warming. That helps a lot."
That was funny! Particularly considering the context of prior that-helps-a-lot posts.
Back on cue... there are several worldwide networks for solar irradiance monitoring with spectral radiometers and broadband meters traceable to NIST for accuracy. The NWS/UGA and USDA are among the best. USGA is here: http://uvb.nrel.colostate.edu/UVB/
Before you guys keep all your eggs in the various surface/sea temperature data files (some probably including readings like from my dad's old circa 1926 "thermometer" still hanging outside his north-facing window)... you might want to include some modern solar irradiance metrology in your warming/cooling "prediction" considerations.
I, of course, always carry a UV Index meter in my shirt pocket... but almost no one else I know does. One guy in SF who actually does carry one discovered a two day "hole" (thinning) of the ozone layer over his head last year. He used to work at NASA... so he checked satellite data and sure enough the DU was about 30% below typical.
It would be counterintutive to consider high UV as being an indicator of net-present "warming" - because less greenhouse "gasses" rather than more allow higher intensity UVR transmission.... BUT if a trend remains higher that means our black-body in the sky is excited.
Conversely however.... ignoring such anomaly O³ short-term thinning - since the trend over recent years shows less UVB that means either the sun is "cooler" and/or something in the atmosphere is absorbing more 290-320nm rays. Can increased CO² do that? I don't know... but I doubt it. More likely water vapor and "haze" in general. I'll have to ask SRRB in Boulder. They would know.
Regards.... solarmeter
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:18 pm
15 Apr 2008
I figured you would turn down the bet that 2020 would be warmer than 1998.
Shows me how much confidence you really have in AGW and the IPCC.
Looks like we agree on something here, John, and it is not AGW or the IPCC forecasts.
It is quite simply that the warming over the 14-year period from 2006 (when IPCC put out their February 2007 report) to 2020 will be less than 0.106C.
In other words, you are not even confident that the warming rate will be 0.076C/decade, when IPCC says it will be 0.2C/decade (or 2.6 times this rate).
So much for your confidence in IPCC. Kinda agrees with mine.
You have waffled around, John, but have backed down on this bet because you are not sure that AGW is really happening as IPCC claims. I can fully understand that.
Maybe one of your supporters out there wants to take up the bet. By all means, it is open to anyone who is a strong enough believer in the IPCC version of AGW to be interested.
How about it, josullivan58, Robco1, Pangolin, MisterNiceGuy? Or even the venerable Dr. Andrew Dessler. Any takers?
Probably not.
It was nice blogging with you anyway, John, as it gave me some insight into how strongly you really do have confidence in all this AGW stuff.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
JCross Posted 4:43 am
16 Apr 2008
So to be clear, we use the Hadley numbers. If the year 2020 has a higher annual globally averaged land and sea temperature anomaly than 0.526C, JCross wins. If the anomaly is lower than 0.526C Max (Manacker) wins. If the record is exactly 0.526C, we use the average between 2019 and 2020.
In regards to how the bet will be structured, my first choice would be Long Bets. This is fully transparent so people can see the bet in clear view. It has the disadvantage that the money will not go to us personally but to a charity of our choice. However I like the idea of charity profiting from our work.
You can reach me john dot croix at hotmail dot com
Regards,
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:34 am
16 Apr 2008
Agree with your proposal that the "proceeds" go to a charity of your/my choice.
Will contact you to set this up.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:57 pm
16 Apr 2008
No need for you to respond directly, this is more for passers by.
In response to Josuulivan58's: (see graph at)
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...
You wrote:
Great Graph
JoSullivan: thanks for the link to the JIR.
I am thinking of suscribing. I loved the graph.
Was that a satirical put-down on Lovely Jo' or what?
Or is it a measure of your scientific irrationality?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 11:25 pm
16 Apr 2008
I have not yet digested your http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...
In part because I don't yet figure some of your acronyms. (I am not expert in this area, but can probably understand it if I can find time)
As a quickie, I'll just mention one thing at the moment, and I quote you:
"Before you guys keep all your eggs in the various surface/sea temperature data files (some probably including readings like from my dad's old circa 1926 "thermometer" still hanging outside his north-facing window)... you might want to include some modern solar irradiance metrology in your warming/cooling "prediction" considerations."
I'm not sure what you mean by "you guys", but me, Max, and other rationalists talk about the published global T's because that is what we are stuck-with. However, many of us think it is a nonsense's in real terms. Have you explored this on the WattsUp... site and Climate Audit etc. Some of it is sickenly hilarious....amazing photos etc!
Ask me for links if you like!
Regards, BobFJ, (web nickname Black Wallaby = Australian marsupial, kangaroo-like)
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:52 am
17 Apr 2008
Checked out your info on UV exposure / melanoma / Vitamin D / etc. and agree. The correlations are not straightforward. I had always been led to believe that the link was fairly strong (at least for the non-melanoma skin cancer), but it looks like there are mixed data even there. And heredity is one of the big factors.
This is where Andrew Dessler may have (accidentally) gotten it right this time in comparing this with man-made global warming, where the correlations (this time between man-made CO2 and global warming) are also not straightforward.
But Andrew likes to make these analogies which sometimes end up backfiring on him, in order to "sell" his personal take on potentially disastrous anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW) to an audience of non-experts, without having to defend the AGW theory itself or the sometimes spotty data used to support it.
When he gets into defending a specific AGW claim (such as on an earlier thread concerning the link between hurricanes and AGW) he sometimes gets into trouble.
On a previous thread he used an analogy to "obesity" (and got irate responses from contributors who felt personally attacked).
His other ploy has been to "trash" an individual or group of individuals who have spoken out against the IPCC or some of the more ridiculous predictions of disaster from AGW. These individuals are not "qualified" to have a relevant opinion on such matters. There was a series of these threads around the end of last year. These threads serve to sell the concept of "scientific consensus" on AGW by attempting to discount those individuals who do not share the so-called consensus view.
Direct discussion with Andrew is interesting, however. In a direct interchange he brings his ideas across very well and one can learn from them. And he is certainly more than knowledgeable when it comes to "climate science" concepts.
But, unfortunately, he often makes his initial comments to get a discussion started and reacts to the first few responses and, after that, prefers to remain aloof and let others do the debating.
But I'm glad you are on the site and contributing. We need as many rational and involved contributors as possible. And you'll have fun.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 11:28 pm
17 Apr 2008
"I had a quick read through Max's reference "Rhodes Fairbridge [That Black Wallaby quoted], and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth's climate"."
Fine;
That's an encouraging start!
Let us know when you have read it through properly, wont you?
BobFJ, hoping to be really nice.
Oh and BTW, we look forward to the benefit of your careful and thoughtful analysis of it.
Permalink
solarmeter Posted 11:21 am
18 Apr 2008
Too slammed packing and finishing business stuff right now to reply.... but I bookmarked this thread in case it is still going when I return from Japan and Siapan early June.
They said on the radio today the jet stream is gradually moving UP over the years, giving us Michiganders milder winters and warmer summers.
One couldn't tell by our cold March and early April... but finally as of today Spring has arrived!
Regards.... solarmeter
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:12 pm
18 Apr 2008
Enjoy your trip to Saipan and Japan.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
solarmeter Posted 12:47 am
11 May 2008
In Saipan late April it was 89 and sunny every day. UV Index reached 14.2 at 12:15 solar noon local time - nothing unusual for sub-tropical island at 15°N with sun angle 87.8°. The O³ layer was ~285 DU. Their record UVI was 16.0 (not sure of date).
Ocean was crystal clear and warm. Don't know temp... but easy to swim with no goose bumps. Here is where we were:
http://www.panoramio.com/photos/original/5194863.jpg
Local weather data here:
http://www.wunderground.com/US/MP/Saipan.html?bannertypec ...
Then in Japan near Mt Fuji... but noon UVI was only about 7 there. Also typical.
Sooo - NO alarmist indications of AGW on the trip... at least based on UV readings.
Regards.... solarmeter
Permalink