Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Why Anthropogenic Global Warming is Manmade

A global warming advocate who is a friend, has been after me to post some stuff over at Realclimate.org, a site for believers in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). I don't say scientists because scientists are skeptical even of what they believe. Those guys are not skeptical of anything concerning the party line on AGW. Sheeple is the term I use for this.

Consensus is what they say science is all about. We are told that there is a consensus about global warming. Funny, but that was exactly the claim made against Alfred Wegener, the meteorologist and amateur geologist who proposed continental drift. He was an outsider. He wasn't supposed to be able to understand geology. He was an amateur. And he violated the consensus of the day and everyone KNEW he was wrong. Wegener challenged the scientific consensus of his day.

"Despite their general rejection of the theory of continental drift, scientists somehow could not quite lay it to rest. In November of 1928, Wegener was invited to New York to attend an international symposium sponsored by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. He eagerly accepted the chance to explain his views, only to find that the few support raised at the meeting were quickly drowned out by a chorus of hostile dissenters, who criticized not only his hypothesis but his scientific credentials as well. One after another, delegates to the symposium stood up to express, with crushing sarcasm, grave doubts about the possibility of continental drift. Some barely troubled to justify their rejection of the hypothesis; others demonstrated errors of detail and used them to discredit the whole theory; a few seemed unable to restrain their anger that the idea was being seriously considered at all."

"Professor Rollin T. Chamberlin of the University of Chicago attacked Wegener's geological evidence on 18 separate counts, claiming it ranged from unlikely to ludicrous. "Wegener's hypothesis in general,' he said, 'is of the footloose type, in that it takes considerable liberty with our globe and is less bound by restrictions or tied down by awkward , ugly facts than most of its rival theories."

"A professor of paleontology at Yale University, Charles Schuchert, provoked much hilarity by displaying pictures of a globe on which he had elaborately tried, and spectacularly failed, to fit together obviously incongruent coastlines such as those of North and South America. He also pointed out that erosion would have substantially altered the shape of the coastlines over long periods of time, yet Wegener was suggesting, by matching Africa and South America, that the fracture line had retained its shape for 120 million years. "Is there a geologist anywhere," asked Schuchert, "who will subscribe to this startling assumption?"

"Professor Bailey Willis of Stanford University picked up on the same theme, charging that Wegener's supposed fit of the continental coastlines was illusory. If continents were drifting through a layer of the earth's crust, said Willis, the stresses of the movement would utterly destroy the original configurations; the apparent fit of Africa and South America could therefore be nothing more than coincidence. William Bowie of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey used the nagging question of the driving force as the basis for his attack. If the continents were being propelled toward the Equator by some mysterious force, as Wegener had suggested, then how, Bowie asked, could four of the seven continents remain concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere, three of those on one side of the earth? Of a total of 14 speakers, hardly anyone had a favorable word for the idea of continental drift. One scientist who wrote about the symposium may unintentionally have accounted for much of the animosity when he complained, "If we are to believe Wegener's hypothesis, we must forget everything which has been learned in the last 70 years and start all over again."

"Wegener himself spoke only briefly and said little in his own defense. Perhaps he had heard too many attacks to know where to start defending himself; perhaps he was so serenely convinced of the validity of his hypothesis that he saw nothing to be gained by arguing about details. Whatever the reason, he listened intently but silently throughout the symposium, smoking his pipe, to all appearances unmoved by the barrage of criticism.

"On his return to Germany he went right ahead with a fourth and final edition of The Origin of Continents and Oceans, although this time he acknowledged the difficulties of trying to answer his critics."
Russell Miller, Continents in Collision, (Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books, 1983),p.51-52
________________________________________
© source where applicable



We should all be careful about how dogmatic we get about science. and as a member of the AAPG, we should be ashamed of the way Wegener was treated.

But today, it is the AGW advocates who act as if everyone who doesn't agree with them are nutters. They don't think there is the slightest possibility that they could be wrong--no, they have the consensus.

What I want to look at tonight is the fact that the editing of the raw temperature record is making the present appear hotter than the thermometers are measuring. In 2002 Balling and Idso published an article in Geophysical Research Letters, 2002, p. 1387 did something very simple. They merely subtracted the raw US average temperature record from the edited US average temperature record. What they found was that each year the editing by the climatologists added more and more temperature to the US record. In 1930, the editing reduces the temperature measured by the thermometers by negative .2 deg C. In other words, editing cools the earth in 1930. But in 2000 the editing of the raw records was adding positive 0.17 deg C. This means a .35 degree C tilt to the raw data.

What does this mean? Well, it means that the climatologists doing the editing think that the modern instrumentation is so awful that it measures too low of a temperature. Thus they feel they must correct it by adding heat to the present time. It also means that they think that the equipment used in pre- 1930 was so wonderful that it hardly needed to be corrected at all. Ludicrously, the AGW advocates don't think about this very seriously.

Ok, so you don't believe me about this. Let's look at a NOAA site http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ushcn_monthly/ushcn_monthly_doc.html
This site has the following picture:



and says

"The cumulative effect of all adjustments is approximately a one-half degree Fahrenheit warming in the annual time series over a 50-year period from the 1940's until the last decade of the century." http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ushcn_monthly/ushcn_monthly_doc.html


So, the modern instrumentation is so bad, so awful that we must adjust its temperature readings upward while, at the same time, we lower the temperature in 1930 by only a smidgeon. One can only conclude from this that we had better instruments in the 1930s and earlier than we have today. So much for progress. The effect of this is that we tilt the temperature trend accentuating the scare factor of the temperature. Old instrumentation doesn't need correction, but new instrumentation requires an uplift in temperature.

I would ask the AGW advocates: Why don't we simply go use the equipment that they used in the 1930s, which doesn't seem to need fixing by adding heat to it?????

Ok, so you still don't believe me (that is what believers in AGW do--they believe AGW and disbelieve any apparent problems). Let's see what Balling and Idso say.

“The annual difference between the RAW and FILNET
record (Figure 2) shows a nearly monotonic, and highly statistically
significant, increase of over 0.05 [deg] C dec_1. Our analyses of
this difference are in complete agreement with Hansen et al. [2001]
and reveal that virtually all of this difference can be traced to the
adjustment for the time of observation bias. Hansen et al. [2001]
and Karl et al. [1986] note that there have been many changes in
the time of observation across the cooperative network, with a
general shift away from evening observations to morning observations.
The general shift to the morning over the past century may
be responsible for the nearly monotonic warming adjustment seen
in Figure 2. In a separate effort, Christy [2002] found that for
summer temperatures in northern Alabama, the correction for all
contaminants was to reduce the trend in the raw data since 1930,
rather than increasing it as determined by the USHCN adjustments
in Figure 2.It is noteworthy that while the various time series are
highly correlated, the adjustments to the RAW record result in a
significant warming signal in the record that approximates the
widely-publicized 0.50 [deg]C increase in global temperatures over the
past century.”
Robert C. Balling and Craig D. Idso, “Analysis of adjustments to the United States Historical Climatology
Network (USHCN) temperature database, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 29, NO. 10,, p. 1388

Below is Balling and Idso's chart.





This editing bias means that editing bias is part of the cause of global warming. It leads to the conclusions that either

1. the instrumentation is getting worse with each passing year
2. the observers are getting drunker with each passing year and are reading the thermometers as if they are too cool. Thus they need to either have their booze removed from the clutches of their hands or be given new glasses.
3. bias plays a major role in global warming.

For any AGW supporters who might read this, please explain why we have to add .6 deg F or .35 deg C to the modern temperature record in order to account for instrumentation problems? I would also ask that they explain why the instruments from 1930 were so much better.

It's only 0.6 deg F, just over half a degree. That isn't very much. Well, given that advocates of global warming claim that the earth has warmed by only 1.1 deg F over the past century, it represents half of the claimed temperature rise. Editing is responsible for half of the global warming. From that viewpoint, global warming IS man-made, it is made by human climatologists editing the temperature record and not by CO2. The claim that global warming is man-made is true, just not in the sense that it is normally meant.

7 comments:

  1. 1) For the non-expert, assuming the scientific consensus is correct is the right decision 99 times out of 100. This is true for climate change, evolution, vaccine-autism links, atomic theory, relativity - you name it. It is impossible to independently prove even a small percent of the scientific knowledge out there.

    Within a field, everyone is always poking and prodding at their area of speciality, trying to find new, scientifically defensible conclusions to make. In the short term, it is possible for erroneous ideas to survive, but it is unlikely to happen in the long term.

    The theory of climate change is supported by theory, modeling, temperature measurements, biological and physical indicator observations, satellite data, statistical analysis, and paleoclimate analysis. Sure, all of these areas can use refinement, but it is overall a very solid foundation.

    2) For temperature measurements: well, within your quoted section, there seems to be a rationale for adjustment which is that time of measurement has changed over time. Do you not buy that?

    I will note that, once the errors in the satellite data were fixed, the satellite trends have matched the surface observation trends since 1979. That would seem to show that the surface temperature folks were doing a pretty good job of getting their adjustments right for that period, even in the face of serious skepticism.

    Additionally, there are a host of indicators that indicate that things have been warming: growing seasons, timing of spring, forming and breaking of ice in lakes, movement of plant species - all indicate that the US has been warming in accordance with the surface temperature record.

    And on a global scale, without warming it would be hard to explain the acceleration of sea level rise this century given that mass measurements of glaciers and ice sheets can't account for it all.

    So, while it is great that people continue to improve our surface temperature records, the balance of evidence shows that these records are consistent with a number of other observations and are unlikely to be seriously wrong.

    ps. Note that because we are dealing with anomalies and not absolute temperatures, adding to the modern record is equivalent to subtracting from the historical record - it doesn't mean that we think the modern record is less accurate than the historical record at all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. woox0LAVhIhtvEOQoeAC7D7Bm6_eesOdZg-- said...
    [i]"1) For the non-expert, assuming the scientific consensus is correct is the right decision 99 times out of 100. This is true for climate change, evolution, vaccine-autism links, atomic theory, relativity - you name it. It is impossible to independently prove even a small percent of the scientific knowledge out there."[/i]

    GRM: I think Feynmann got it correct:
    “Richard Feynman may have said it best: Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.” -Lee Smolin, The Trouble with Physics, (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006), p. 307

    So, being sceptical, unlike many sheeple, do you have actual evidence that experts consensus is correct 99 out of 100 times? I am an scientific expert in some areas of geophysics, yet I doubt I have had that level of accuracy.

    Indeed, I have evidence that experts are not right as often as you claim. So I would suggest that you back up your claim of 99% accuracy of experts. I bet you can't. Here is my data.


    "In this week's edition of ESPN.com's "Tuesday Morning Quarterback," columnist Gregg Easterbrook broke down the pick accuracy percentages of all the media "experts" from sources like Sports Illustrated, USA Today, and, of course, ESPN, to name a few. Easterbrook deduced that the "experts" were correct 66 percent of the time, only 1 percent higher than my friends' and my average and well below my sister's."

    "Besides these percentages, the only notable difference between the "experts" and my friends, my sister and me is that we're not being paid tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to be wrong one-third of the time."
    http://media.www.easttennessean.com/media/storage/paper203/news/2009/02/12/Sports/Expert.Advice.Avoid.Experts-3626302.shtml

    **

    "Psychology and Political Science at Ohio State University. Experts who said they were 80 percent confident in their predictions ended up being right only about half the time. And even when they were wrong, experts minimized their errors. http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1999/C/199902734.html

    **

    "In one part of this study, Tetlock asked experts years ago to predict outcomes on seven different issues. In 1988, for example, he asked 38 Soviet experts whether the Communist Party would still be in power in 1993; and he asked 34 American political experts in 1992 whether President Bush would be re-elected later that year."

    "After the events occurred, Tetlock then re-contacted the experts to ask them about their predictions. In all seven scenarios, only slightly more than half of the experts correctly predicted the events that occurred. Still, even those who were wrong had been quite confident in their predictions. Experts who said they were 80 percent or more confident in their predictions were correct only 45 percent of the time."
    http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1999/C/199902734.html


    GRM:Indeed, I would say that you have an almost religious belief in the accuracy of experts. This is from a review of Philip Tetlock's book

    "It is the somewhat gratifying lesson of Philip Tetlock’s new book, “Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?” (Princeton; $35), that people who make prediction their business—people who appear as experts on television, get quoted in newspaper articles, advise governments and businesses, and participate in punditry roundtables—are no better than the rest of us." http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/05/051205crbo_books1

    And in my profession a really good oil finder, one who finds lots of oil and gets his employers, as well as himself very rich, is accurate in predictions of oil only 1/3 of the time. Listening to the expert economists on the investment shows, I can guarentee you that half of them are flat out wrong.

    woox0LAVhIhtvEOQoeAC7D7Bm6_eesOdZg-- said...


    [i]"Within a field, everyone is always poking and prodding at their area of speciality, trying to find new, scientifically defensible conclusions to make. In the short term, it is possible for erroneous ideas to survive, but it is unlikely to happen in the long term.

    The theory of climate change is supported by theory, modeling, temperature measurements, biological and physical indicator observations, satellite data, statistical analysis, and paleoclimate analysis. Sure, all of these areas can use refinement, but it is overall a very solid foundation. "[/i]


    Actually no one in that field is actually being sceptical. They hate skeptics. Haven't you seen that on the internet over at RealClimate.org? They don't welcome sceptics, they ridicule them. So, where is this internal challenging you speak of?

    woox0LAVhIhtvEOQoeAC7D7Bm6_eesOdZg-- said...

    [i]"2) For temperature measurements: well, within your quoted section, there seems to be a rationale for adjustment which is that time of measurement has changed over time. Do you not buy that?

    I will note that, once the errors in the satellite data were fixed, the satellite trends have matched the surface observation trends since 1979. That would seem to show that the surface temperature folks were doing a pretty good job of getting their adjustments right for that period, even in the face of serious skepticism. "[/i]

    GRM:No, I do not buy their rationale. I don't buy that modern instrumentation should require adding more degrees to the reading when everyone knows that urbanization makes all thermometers read too high. Therefore, logic would dictate that the result of editing should be a LOWERING of temperature back to natural levels seen out in rural areas, rather than a raising of all temperatures even those taken in a city.

    GRM:I didn't discuss satellites yet. We will eventually get to them but I won't go there yet.

    woox0LAVhIhtvEOQoeAC7D7Bm6_eesOdZg-- said...


    [i]"Additionally, there are a host of indicators that indicate that things have been warming: growing seasons, timing of spring, forming and breaking of ice in lakes, movement of plant species - all indicate that the US has been warming in accordance with the surface temperature record."[/i]

    GRM: Well, clearly you are behind the times. Are you aware that the Alaskan glaciers are now growing for the first time in 250 years???

    "The decline since 1999 and especially since 2007 has led to rapid cooling and heavy snows. Alyeska, Alaska picked up 826" (nearly 70 feet) of snow last snow season. This was followed by an extremely cold summer and a sudden advance of Alaskan Glaciers for the first time in 250 years."

    "Anchorage reached 65F only 16 times this past summer, tying the record set in 1970 for least 65F days. It broke the record for least 70F days with only 2."
    http://www.rightsidenews.com/200811292811/energy-and-environment/alaskan-cold-and-glacial-advance-due-to-pdo.html


    woox0LAVhIhtvEOQoeAC7D7Bm6_eesOdZg-- said...


    [i]"And on a global scale, without warming it would be hard to explain the acceleration of sea level rise this century given that mass measurements of glaciers and ice sheets can't account for it all." [i]

    I didn't say the earth wasn't warming. I said that the quantitative measurement of it is so flawed as to be useless. So, don't conflate two different ideas. Be precise.


    woox0LAVhIhtvEOQoeAC7D7Bm6_eesOdZg-- said...
    [i]"So, while it is great that people continue to improve our surface temperature records, the balance of evidence shows that these records are consistent with a number of other observations and are unlikely to be seriously wrong."

    ps. Note that because we are dealing with anomalies and not absolute temperatures, adding to the modern record is equivalent to subtracting from the historical record - it doesn't mean that we think the modern record is less accurate than the historical record at all."[/i]

    GRM:Of course when you add degrees to the present readings you will add them to the anomaly

    GRM: Ask yourself this. If they are improving the instruments, why does each year's correction become larger and larger? Clearly there is something logically wrong with your claim that they are improving the instrumentation if it requires a larger correction than the older instrumentation required.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One off predictions are nothing at all like a scientific consensus. Scientific consensus is "the age of the Earth is about 4 or 5 billion years old", "gravity drops off as the square of the distance", "an object at rest will stay at rest without a force acting on it", "matter is made up of atoms which are themselves made up of protons and electrons", "increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases will lead to warming of the planet"... I could come up with millions of such statements. Basically, all the stuff in high school science textbooks. Occasionally, details around the edges will get modified, but only very rarely does a scientific consensus belief get overturned - rarely enough that everyone can pick "Continental Drift" and "ulcers aren't bacterial in nature" as two of the few major examples of the last half century. If we couldn't depend on scientific consensus, science would ground to a halt as everyone would have to spend their entire lives trying to reprove things that have been well understood for decades.

    GRM: "Actually no one in that field is actually being sceptical"
    Actually, everyone is. Why don't you actually go and read the scientific literature - like every science field, you don't publish by saying "yeah, ok, everyone's right, let's go home" you publish by saying "look, I can show a better understanding of this phenomena than anyone else - here's my evidence". The climate science community is _composed_ of skeptical scientists - what they get very tired of is idiots with no understanding of the field coming in and making the same tired, disproved claims or strawmen arguments over and over again.

    GRM: "logic would dictate that the result of editing should be a LOWERING of temperature back to natural levels " and "Of course when you add degrees to the present readings you will add them to the anomaly":

    Let me try, again, to explain how anomalies and trend analysis work to you. I want to measure the temperature change in garden. Originally, I take my temperature readings at noon, next to the big black rock. I record my measurements in a log book. But then I decide that that I would prefer to take my temperature readings at 9 in the morning, in the middle of the grassy field. I run both thermometers simultaneously for a while, and find that the new morning grassy thermometer reads 1 degree cooler, on average, than the old noon black rock thermometer.

    So, now, I have two choices if I want a consistent data set: I can go back and rewrite all my old logbook numbers, and subtract 1 degree off. Or I can just add 1 degree to my new readings.

    Now, if what I care about is getting some "best temperature" for the garden, then it matters whether I add a degree to my new reading or subtract a degree from my old reading.

    But if I'm a climate scientist, I don't care about the actual temperature of the garden - I care about whether or not the garden is warmer now than it was ten years ago. And basic math will show that (NEW T) minus (OLD T minus one) is equivalent to (NEW T plus one) minus (OLD T). So, NO, when I add degrees to the present reading the anomaly is no different than if I had subtracted one degree from the old readings.

    And this "correction" has nothing to do with "improving" the instruments, but is rather a consistency correction. It is like saying that I used to measure the height of my kid when he was wearing shoes. Then one year I decided it would be better to measure his height barefoot. So, I find out that shoes add, on average, 1 inch to his height. Now, when I measure his height today and find out that he's 4 foot 6 and want to know how much he has grown since last year, when I measured 4 foot 3, I can either add 1 inch to today's measurement or subtract 1 inch from last year's measurement. The correction is equivalent - and rather than changing all the old records, it is easier to just add 1 inch to all my new records. _If_ what I care about is the anomaly and not the absolute height.

    GRM: "GRM: Well, clearly you are behind the times. Are you aware that the Alaskan glaciers are now growing for the first time in 250 years???"

    Ah yes, the classic "let me find one year in one place" exception to the global long term trend.

    http://ak.water.usgs.gov/glaciology/all_bmg/3glacier_balance.htm
    http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
    http://www.geo.uzh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb9/sum06.html
    http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0811/06glacier/

    Honestly, there is "skepticism" and then there is "leaping upon any shred of data that might possibly contradict the scientific consensus on climate change without placing it into any sort of context".

    ReplyDelete
  4. woox0LAVhIhtvEOQoeAC7D7Bm6_eesOdZg-- said...
    >>>One off predictions are nothing at all like a scientific consensus. Scientific consensus is "the age of the Earth is about 4 or 5 billion years old", "gravity drops off as the square of the distance", "an object at rest will stay at rest without a force acting on it", "matter is made up of atoms which are themselves made up of protons and electrons", "increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases will lead to warming of the planet"... I could come up with millions of such statements. Basically, all the stuff in high school science textbooks. Occasionally, details around the edges will get modified, but only very rarely does a scientific consensus belief get overturned - rarely enough that everyone can pick "Continental Drift" and "ulcers aren't bacterial in nature" as two of the few major examples of the last half century. If we couldn't depend on scientific consensus, science would ground to a halt as everyone would have to spend their entire lives trying to reprove things that have been well understood for decades. <<<<

    GRM: I remember when I first started working in the Gulf of Mexico seeing something that looked like a thrust fault. I mentioned it to an older colleague. He informed me that everyone knew there were no thrust faults in the Gulf and that anyone who said that there were would probably lose their jobs. That was the expert geologic consensus of 1973!

    GRM: Today we know that there are thrust faults, lots of them, in parts of the Gulf of Mexico. Consensus was wrong and that wrong consensus lead to drilling many dry holes and costing the oil industry hundreds of millions of dollars.

    GRM: I think you should understand seriously the observation by Max Planck
    "The Physicist Max Planck claimed that theories are never abandoned until their proponents are all dead—that science advances 'funeral by funeral'. " Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers, (New York: Basic Books, 2000), p. 10

    Scientists aren't looking for truth, like others, they are looking for confirmation of their pet theories.

    woox0LAVhIhtvEOQoeAC7D7Bm6_eesOdZg-- said...

    >>>Actually, everyone is. Why don't you actually go and read the scientific literature - like every science field, you don't publish by saying "yeah, ok, everyone's right, let's go home" you publish by saying "look, I can show a better understanding of this phenomena than anyone else - here's my evidence". The climate science community is _composed_ of skeptical scientists - what they get very tired of is idiots with no understanding of the field coming in and making the same tired, disproved claims or strawmen arguments over and over again.<<<

    GRM:What scientific literature are you speaking of? I have personal subscriptions to Nature, Science, Current Anthropology, Science News, New Scientist, Geophysics, and I peruse JGR and GRL quite often. I read these journals each week. I have over 200 physics books sitting about 4 feet behind me, I have read them all. I have around 4-500 anthropology books about 5 feet behind me and have read them all. I have 3-4000 anthro articles in my garage. I have a full set of American Association of Petroleum Geologists in a back room and I have several hundred geology books around this house as well as a collection of Chinese geological books.

    GRM:I think I do read the scientific literature, so get off your high horse here.

    GRM: If I am another idiot with a disproven claim, please explain why, with today's better equipment we have to correct today's temperature the most? You haven't touched that problem. I think you are afraid to actually try to explain why better instruments requires more heat to be added to the system.

    woox0LAVhIhtvEOQoeAC7D7Bm6_eesOdZg-- said...
    >>Let me try, again, to explain how anomalies and trend analysis work to you. I want to measure the temperature change in garden. Originally, I take my temperature readings at noon, next to the big black rock. I record my measurements in a log book. But then I decide that that I would prefer to take my temperature readings at 9 in the morning, in the middle of the grassy field. I run both thermometers simultaneously for a while, and find that the new morning grassy thermometer reads 1 degree cooler, on average, than the old noon black rock thermometer.

    So, now, I have two choices if I want a consistent data set: I can go back and rewrite all my old logbook numbers, and subtract 1 degree off. Or I can just add 1 degree to my new readings. <<<<

    GRM: Bzzzzt. Wrong answer. You can't just subtract one degree off of all temperatures back to 1900. There were no 3 story automobile parking lots back then. Doing what you propose exaggerates global warming by cooling the past more than it should be cooled. You have to remove an increasingly large value from the temperature stream due to the gradual urbanization of the world in the 20th century. You seem to forget this.

    GRM: Until you come to grip with the fact that the temperature correction to be made to the anomalies is not a bulk shift but a tilt, you won't understand the true nature of the problem.

    I wrote:
    >>>GRM: "GRM: Well, clearly you are behind the times. Are you aware that the Alaskan glaciers are now growing for the first time in 250 years???"<<<

    to which
    woox0LAVhIhtvEOQoeAC7D7Bm6_eesOdZg-- said...

    >>>Ah yes, the classic "let me find one year in one place" exception to the global long term trend.<<<

    GRM: Ah yes, the classical lack of curiosity exhibited by those of faith, concerning why this sudden change when we have 100 ppm more CO2 in the atmosphere than we had 250 years ago.
    woox0LAVhIhtvEOQoeAC7D7Bm6_eesOdZg-- said...

    >>>http://ak.water.usgs.gov/glaciology/all_bmg/3glacier_balance.htm
    http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
    http://www.geo.uzh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb9/sum06.html
    http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0811/06glacier/

    Honestly, there is "skepticism" and then there is "leaping upon any shred of data that might possibly contradict the scientific consensus on climate change without placing it into any sort of context".<<<

    And this, woox, is the classic non-sequitur. As a former philosophy grad student I know how few people understand the nonsequitur. It is like me saying "it is raining today" and someone disagreeing by saying "No it's not; it didn't rain yesterday". Yesterday's rain has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it is raining today.

    All of your wonderful links are to yesterday. You are saying that the glaciers aren't growing in 2008 because they didnt' grow in 2005, 2006 or 2007, which is the time range of all those studies linked by you. NON SEQUITUR, but non sequiturs are grand red herrings.

    Do you have the slightest curiosity about why the glaciers are growing? My suspicion is that you don't if it makes you doubt anything about AGW.

    ReplyDelete
  5. GRM: I think you should understand seriously the observation by Max Planck
    "The Physicist Max Planck claimed that theories are never abandoned until their proponents are all dead—that science advances 'funeral by funeral'. " Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers, (New York: Basic Books, 2000), p. 10

    Me: Hmm, and which scientific community has more old, senile scientists in it, the climate change community or the skeptics community?

    On Alaska glaciers: I was pointing out that one region in one year is not a climatic trend. If you had a global trend for several years, that would be something. You'll note that there was slight _global_ glacier growth for one year of Pinatubo. If you go to the websites I've listed, you'll note that for any given year, for every 10 glaciers that are receding you can probably find one that is advancing (after all, glacier retreat or advance depends on both local temperature and local snowfall). But if you can't understand why "glaciers grew in Alaska this winter" is not evidence against "global warming is causing glacier recession, and glacier recession is evidence of global warming", then you are hopeless.

    On the 3 story parking lot issue: you are performing a classic "moving the goalposts", or, possibly a "lack of precision in your original statement". If I read your original posts, it seems pretty clear that you were saying that "raising modern temperatures by a degree is wrong, you should lower historical temperatures by a degree!"

    I pointed out pretty clearly how that logic held no water. In doing so, I even noted "but things would be different if the parking lot was built next to the thermometer in 1930".

    Now, you say, "Bzzzt. Wrong answer" totally ignoring the fact that I was the one who clearly pointed out to you the appropriate way to phrase your own argument.

    So "Bzzzzt" to you. I have no more interest in continuing this discussion, since i have better things to do with my time.

    ReplyDelete
  6. woox0LAVhIhtvEOQoeAC7D7Bm6_eesOdZg-- said...
    >>>On Alaska glaciers: I was pointing out that one region in one year is not a climatic trend. If you had a global trend for several years, that would be something. You'll note that there was slight _global_ glacier growth for one year of Pinatubo. If you go to the websites I've listed, you'll note that for any given year, for every 10 glaciers that are receding you can probably find one that is advancing (after all, glacier retreat or advance depends on both local temperature and local snowfall). But if you can't understand why "glaciers grew in Alaska this winter" is not evidence against "global warming is causing glacier recession, and glacier recession is evidence of global warming", then you are hopeless. <<<


    GRM: Well, it is interesting to me that any trend has to start at some point, and at that point, everyone wants to discount it. A good example is the broker talking heads on TV who always said, from Oct 2007 until now, "Don't sell out, you have suffered most of your stock price decline as of now". People don't change with the data, especially if it upsets a world view (that stocks will always rise, not withstanding that in the modern era there was a 100 year long bear market in England).

    GRM:Similarly It is easy for you to try to dismiss me as needing to go 'read the scientific literature' which is ridiculous in my case, given my library, and that obviates your duty to actually think about what I am saying. Glaciers en mass in Alaska haven't grown widely for even one year in the past 250, so to find them doing so, should make the curious individual stop and ask: "Is my view correct?"

    woox0LAVhIhtvEOQoeAC7D7Bm6_eesOdZg-- said...
    >>On the 3 story parking lot issue: you are performing a classic "moving the goalposts", or, possibly a "lack of precision in your original statement". If I read your original posts, it seems pretty clear that you were saying that "raising modern temperatures by a degree is wrong, you should lower historical temperatures by a degree!"<<<

    Once again you show that you are mathematically not thinking properly. I didn't move any goal post. Maybe you misunderstand how urbanization has taken place, gradually over the past 100 years. You were the one who claimed that we must either change the cooler temperatures up or the hotter temperatures down for the entire series. It is clear that in 2000 (or so) that to make the temperature sequence smooth, one must lower the temperature in 1999. But then, what about 1998? Should it be lowered the same as 1999? Should 1997 be lowered the same as 1998? On and on.

    To always answer yes to that question gets us into the ridiculous claim that because of a parking lot build who knows when but definitely after autos became widespread,, we must lower the temperature of 1900 when there were no autos.

    So, don't get your feathers ruffled just because I showed a difficulty in your logic. Maybe the problem was with my writing, but it also could be a problem with your mathematical understanding as well.


    woox0LAVhIhtvEOQoeAC7D7Bm6_eesOdZg-- said...
    >>>I pointed out pretty clearly how that logic held no water. In doing so, I even noted "but things would be different if the parking lot was built next to the thermometer in 1930".

    Now, you say, "Bzzzt. Wrong answer" totally ignoring the fact that I was the one who clearly pointed out to you the appropriate way to phrase your own argument. <<<

    Maybe you should be my editor. I make no claim to being a grand writer.

    woox0LAVhIhtvEOQoeAC7D7Bm6_eesOdZg-- said...
    >>>So "Bzzzzt" to you. I have no more interest in continuing this discussion, since i have better things to do with my time.<<<

    Sorry to see you go.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "You can't just subtract one degree off of all temperatures back to 1900. There were no 3 story automobile parking lots back then."

    As long as I'm here again: before I left your blog, I did look at the station log. And you're right - the thermometer wasn't on a 3 story parking lot in 1900. It was on a different 3 story building in downtown LA.

    Now, I'm not saying that there aren't temperature differences between different types of 3 story buildings, and certainly the city as a whole is larger now with attached increased urban heat island effect, but there actually is an urban heat island correction by UHCN, and I would guess that if you are averaging over a large number of stations as long as they are all being moved around 3 story buildings the temperature errors will cancel out. It would be a different story if between 1900 and 1950 lots of thermometers were being moved from ground plots to the tops of buildings, and if there were no urban heat island correction at all.

    Whether the UHCN urban heat island correction is big enough to satisfy you is another question.

    ReplyDelete