Global Warming

[rov1100]

As the global temperature has remained steady for the past 10 consecutive years can we assume the panic is over? Or is it that Britains efforts (only 2% of the world's emitters) have succeeded in creating equilibrium?

[beso]

David H //The Colorado diagram looks pretty clear to me although it only covers since 1992 but does show the 3.2mm annual rise until last year.

Here's a 109 year one (presumably from 1900-2009) http://ncwatch.typepa...120a4c4a1c3970b-800wi //

No soucre is provided for this graph. Properly published graphs explain the analysis used and include a link to the raw data as the University of Colorado has done. None the less I will analyse it over the weekend.

// Here's a local rise rate from Holgate (not sure where it is) which looks pretty unremarkable http://climatesanity....d-dev-digitized.jpg//

Worthless graph without without a verifiable source. BTW Holgate is the author not the location. I can see how well you understand the data you are using. @@ A search for the author turned up nothing. This is what I mean by your lack of critical analysis. You simply believe anything that supports your prejudice.

// Meanwhile here's a totally different one since 1992 http://www.friendsofs.../GlobalSeaLevel.jpg//

Two lines have been drawn between points at the beginning and end of each period. No source provided. Worthless rubbish from a site that claims the planet is cooling by using similar stright lines between two points chosen to demonstrate their prejudice.

[David H]

As (unlike the busy bees at Skeptical Science who are paid generously for their time spreading their side of the story online) I don't get paid for this but do it as the media virtually do not, I do have hundreds of saved links but not ordered so rather than dig through them every time just find similar ones quickly. I didn't have the sources so people could see the jpegs alone without any distractions, but do have them or I couldn't have linked the graphs alone.

But those sea levels (I picked a few, there were pages of them) were all over the place for the last century. I found the full set (not anomalies like for temperature, which do need separating as do not show the same thing) from sharply rising, almost stopping and waving around randomly. They were all world sea level and all for the last 100 years or so. That makes me very sad that the organisations who legislate and claim to inform and educate its citizens can't even find ways to measure what they need but claim they can. The IPCC report had I think four to choose from, three were similar and one was flatter, and for some reason they picked the sharpest rise although all were from universities.

But looking too close stops us seeing the big picture. Had the graphs both agreed and rose to reflect the scare stories I'd keep quiet, but they don't. What we have is some show a sharp rise since the 70s or so, but the amount risen is piddling. The only major rise is CO2, but since we have never lived through a rise in CO2 we haven't much idea what it can and can't do except a possible 1C rise from doubling, the rest depends on future feedback.

Anyway, that's completed a circle. I'll answer slapshot's question now. Should the figures change beyond all recognition, two things could happen. Either they are so well known and falling it would be impossible to convince the people there was a problem and they'd say things had changed, the models were inadequate, and we'll learn from our mistakes. But following similar small scale events all they do is say 'it takes a hundred years or more to see the full effects of CO2 and anything which happens in the shorter term is irrelevant'. That's pretty much a get out of jail free card and one they can use indefinitely. If the public started to turn once they realised they were being BSed one or two countries may relent, but can't really see the big guns letting go now after it's running so smoothly.

[birdie1971]

What really gets me angry is the self righteousness of the some of the advocates for AGW. The pompous self-preening and the arrogance. I've heard it said time and again that because I and others don't believe that mankind is causing 'dangerous' global warming then we're all guilty of a moral evil – as if we're all moustachioed twirling tyrants obsessed with bringing about untold misery to as yet unborn human beings. It is said that we are selfish, ignorant, evil people and it has been suggested that I and people who think like me on this issue should be killed.

This is no exaggeration. We are called 'deniers', drawing the obvious linguistic parallel with the Holocaust. A rather disgusting 'advert' for AGW was made last year called 'No Pressure' (directed by Richard Curtis no less) which showed people who doubt the evidence being murdered. Ha, ha, ha. Very funny. Not.




The sheer venom that I and other are subjected to because we're not convinced by the evidence produced by overtly political organisations such as the IPCC demonstrates that this matter has gone beyond the realms of scientific debate and resides mostly in the world of politics. As I stated earlier, it has been admitted by the head of the IPCC that scientific chapters are edited by politicians and bureaucrats prior to publication to ensure that the science corresponds with the politics.

This is deeply worrying. And I would hope that AGW devotees such as Beso would admit that politicians meddling in the wording of scientific research is alarming to say the least.

[David H]

This is pretty much the best sea level diagram I've got for the recent picture. One reason for the variations is as well as mixing float and satellites plus local selections meaning the total is skewed, this satellite only view shows each satellite is producing a different trace, some close and Envisat on an excursion of its own, although heavily relied upon officially.

But the one thing they do is all slope downwards, and the reason every other figure I've been provided varies as each study picked one where this has a good few, and at least they do all aim the same direction albeit in quite different fashions the level appears heading south. The reason I've posted bare images is mainly that's how Yahoo provide them and clearly can't exist without a decent source as so few measure world sea level so not really worth challenging. This one however has all its sources within the graph itself so passes muster on that front as well. Also when you post source pages the graph you want can be so far down it's a bugger to find and not everyone will bother to spend the time searching. A bare image should suffice considering they can all be sourced if required.

http://img62.imagesha...velcombinedsatell.jpg

[beso]

David: Firstly, thankyou for actually providing something intelligent to discuss rather than unsubstantiated assertions.

However it does highlight the danger in your assumption that something:

"... clearly can't exist without a decent source as so few measure world sea level so not really worth challenging. This one however has all its sources within the graph itself so passes muster on that front as well."

In fact far from being what it purports to be, that data has been doctored by a denialist. Anyone familiar with the original data will recognise this instantly. Here is the original source with the genuine up-to-date curves.

http://www.aviso.ocea..._RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.png

I have actually tracked down the original source of the faked graph where the author, Steven Goddard, admits he has altered it.

http://stevengoddard....decline-in-sea-level/

His publication of it with the original copyright attribution without indication of the modifications he made is tantamount to scientific fraud. The use of the image from imageshack is popular among denialist because it disconnects it from the admission that it is faked.

If something like this was done by a "climatist" it would be widely publicised as a scandal and "climatist" conspiracy.

Goddard claims to have "normalised" the Envisat graph by simply moving it down a centimeter so that the start lines up with the averaged plot of the other data at that point. This is not valid by any mathematical or scientific procedure.

The satellites have different coverage of the oceans and as a result resond to local changes in the elevation differently. The Envisat data covers a wider range of latitudes and so includes more sections of North Atlantic, North Pacific and the vast Southern Ocean. This makes a big difference and radically alters the response times of the respective averages to localised changes in the regions they do not both include.

Small localised millimetre scale changes in sea level take decades to be distributed across tens of thousands of miles of ocean. These tiny changes occur at a level far below tides, currents and difference driven by air pressure.

Choosing one point to line up disparate graphs shows no comprehension of these issues and is simply a convenient fudge that suits Goddard's prejudice.

Moreover the two JASON satellites and Envisat data track quite closely during 2006 through 2008. At other times the Envisat measurements make excursions both above and below the JASON curves.

Indeed it appears that the Envisat has a tendency to show stronger movements than JASON both above and below the trend. It is just convenient for the denialists at present while it is below the trend.

As explained on the University of Colorado site the short term ocean level changes are highly responsive to the Southern Oscillation Index which dumps vast quantities of water onto the land when in the negative phase where the Eastern Pacific is warmer.

http://sealevel.color.../2011_rel2/sl_mei.pdf

Also, one of the favourites of the deniers is to complain bitterly if the source of the data is changed in a plot yet this is exactly what they choose to focus on here. They completely ignore the JASON data which incidentally, almost returned to the trend line in October.

Do you think denialists will be interested in discussing this data again in a few years when the ENSO index is reversed, the JASON data is again above the trend and the Envisat is probably even higher?

So David, in conclusion I would suggest you place a little less trust in imageshack and denialist blogs as your data sources and stick to the accredited publishers.

Once again I have successfully countered the basis for your objections to the IPCC and explained why we should still be concerned about sea level rise. Will you be adjusting your thinking at all?

[David H]

As I said before, I have to run all the fishy graphs in front of experts and yes, some do drop through the cracks and you appear to have found one, but I didn't post that set in isolation and doesn't remove the other variations. I did just get sent an explanation of a long and short term fit on Jason/Topex findings alone which you'll be glad to know are rising, (although why anyone, climatologist or not should be pleased to see that I can't work out), but have a fairly good argument that they fit a sine wave rather than a linear rise when compared http://homepage.ntlwo..._Continue_to_Rise.pdf

Every researcher must act honestly on both views, and a few buggers will always need to be kicked into touch as people are human first and academics second. Both sides have a heap of material and once you eliminate the bad stuff I still can't see how the official line can be very certain as the doubts and areas of little or no information or knowledge of processes can't make enough of a picture to be convincing. Science should be free to work on their theories in private without being pressurised to release data constantly and used for political policies. That puts far too much stress and urgency on what should be a patient and meticulous profession and forces early and incomplete material to come out, which however good others may be tends to cast doubt on the whole area and process. It's a shame the academics can't get back to their research independently regardless of the results and not be expected to perform almost to order and have their findings used in ways beyond their control.

[beso]

Apparently it is not the first time Goddard has bungled interpreting graphical evidence.

http://thinkprogress....denier-talking-point/

BTW A correction to my previous post. A negative Southern Oscillation Index (AKA La Nina) puts hot water in the Western Pacific.

A glitch in my brain. I live in Eastern Australia on the edge of the Pacific and it is hard to think of it as anything except East.

Will be back later to read David's next link.

[beso]

I have read the link. The idea of a sinusoidal fit to the data is not unreasonable.

However fitting a sinusoidal curve to linear data is not difficult where the data is matched to the nearly linear section of the curve well away from the maximum and minimum.

If the data is undergoing a faster than linear rise it is quite easy to fit the early data to the bottom part of the curve.

All that is then required is a strong La Nina at the end of the data and you have your trailing off curvature.

However the real test of a sinusoidal pattern would be to look beyond the half cycle considered. There is no sign whatsoever of a sinusoidal falling change immediately before the period of the plot. There is absolutely no evidence of a repeating cycle of 45 years in the tide gauge data.

Hence there is no reasonable expectation of a persistent downturn of sea levels in the near future. In any case the purported sine wave occurs next year so the matter will be soon resolved.

The scientific prediction is that we will see a rapid rise in the average sea level following the next deep excursion into El Nino conditions (positive SOI). This will be also be driven by the rising intensity of the sun when it finally gets away from the particularly persistent and quite low actvity period it has just come through in its eleven year cycle.

By 2020 it will be very difficult to continue denial although there will be those who persist. But they will be overwhelmed by a younger generation who weren't born into a world that had always been considered to be stocked with inexhaustible resources and treated the atmosphere as a limitless rubbish tip for gaseous waste.

However I don't want to see a decade of opportunity lost.

[New Judge]

Sorry to return at this late stage (it’s nearly time for me to wash my hair again).

“But they will be overwhelmed by a younger generation who weren't born into a world that had always been considered to be stocked with inexhaustible resources and treated the atmosphere as a limitless rubbish tip for gaseous waste.”

Don’t you mean, beso, that they will be overwhelmed by a younger generation who were instructed to absorb everything they are told by their teachers as absolute fact, not conjecture. And who have not experienced a lifetime of being continually and persistently told by "experts" that they were all to die of some horrendous natural catastrophe only to find a few years later that it was all a load of cobblers?”

Does that not fit the bill a bit better?

I’ll leave you and David to slog it out.

[beso]

Even New Judge's rhetoric is built on fabricated claims and heresay.

Far from it being today's younger generation that would unquestionably accept the voice of authority it was his generation where the role of teachers was seen as instilling facts and then assessing how much could be parroted back on demand. Those who didn't comply were beaten with sticks.

Modern teaching acknowledges the rapid growth of knowledge and teaches "how to learn" rather than "what to learn".

The "boy cried wolf" argument is also disengenuous.

Some draw parallels with the Ozone Depletion problem that emerged in the late 1980s. They argue that it came to nothing and is evidence that experts are jutst trying to scare us.

Scientists rang the alarm and the world resopnded with the Montreal Protocol in 1991 that averted certain disaster. Just last year was the first time that the hole had really begun to shrink as the atmospheric fluorocarbon levels recede after the demise of most of the old refrigeration equipment from the day.

There were Ozone denialists too. And what do we find in the AGW denial crowd? Many of the very same people.

Far from being a case for those who would denegrate science it is proof of success. Indeed the research begaan when a scientist realised the potential for damage to the Ozone Layer. Nobody had even noticed the satellite data because the software automatically removed such low readings from the data on the presumption they were errors.

AGW began the same way. Scientist realised the the effect of Carbon Dioxide on infrared radiation and went looking for the evidence in the earth's climte. They found it in current trends and abundently in the geological record. It was not a case of noticing the rising temperature and then looking for a cause.

Some claim that CO2 is left as the cause because nothing else can be blamed. This attempts to protray it as an innocent bystander who is being told to take the rap.

In fact the statement by scientist about "no other cause being found" is evidence of the scientific method at work. If someone can find evidence for another cause then by all means bring it forward but the fact is every possible objection to the reality of AGW has been resoundingly disproven.

Moreover those objections that remain are things like Steven Goddard's falsified graphs and ludricous propositions like fitting sine curves to the data based on less than half a cycle.

[beso]

BTW If you want to discount the "we are going to die" component of the scientist's message on ozone depletion you might try it with the victims of skin cancer and their families across Australia were we have seen a rise in ultraviolet levels and these diseases.

[birdie1971]

^^^ I'm not trying to be pedantic here but are you talking about the sum total of all incidences of skin cancers or about the incidences in non-aboriginal peoples (ie. immigrants)? If so, are the skin cancer rates amongst the aboriginal peoples comparative with the 'immigrants'?

[New Judge]

"...it was his generation where the role of teachers was seen as instilling facts and then assessing how much could be parroted back on demand"

The difference is, beso, that in the past pupils were taught that two plus two equals four, not that it might equal five in some circumstances or possibly one and a half in other "models". Those were the facts they were asked to "parrot back".

In my earlier post I was referring to primary school pupils who are having global warming theory rammed down their throats, not third year philosophy undergraduates.

[jake-the-peg]

Sounds rather like Intelligent designers on about Darwinian "theory" NJ!

They wanted to "teach the controversy" too despite ther not being any serious conntroversy

The only serious controversy about AGW is how bad it will be.

Unless in all this time you've actually managed to find a serious scientific institute that says otherwise.

[New Judge]

I’m not going down that road, jake. I’ve done so many times in the past and it’s a waste of time. I’m now more concerned with the effect that the acceptance of man-made GW by politicians is having upon the rest of us. I’m pleased you’ve been able to boil down the GW debate to just a matter of how serious it will be,

As far as the educational aspect goes we have children as young as six or seven being scared witless by their teachers into believing that their world will end in their lifetime as a result of some sort of global catastrophe caused by GW. Their teachers are presenting conjecture as fact and presenting it in an alarming way to young children. The children, being children, accept the conjecture as fact (in the same way earlier pupils accepted that two plus two equals four) and are becoming distressed. I know as I’ve met some of them and the tales they tell me about what they have been told are truly appalling.

As I’ve said, I’ve heard countless tales of disastrous consequences being forecast as a result of (on a global scale) fairly insignificant natural processes. The predicted consequences have turned out to be, almost without exception, entirely incorrect and to burden young children with such matters as part of their primary education is beyond the pale.

[David H]

The only serious doubt is how bad it's going to be? When's that exactly, and would we ever be alive to know about it?

Sorry, but this is medieval alarmism gone wild, you simply can't factor in the details to any computer program to know what's going to happen a month or a year ahead worldwide, and whatever fear and emotion you two are spouting the rise in temperature alone would never have raised more than an eyebrow had CO2 not been measured to rise a lot more.

The added details that most CO2 before the rise was shown came from ice cores, which aren't actually that certain, and the rise would not either have been associated with anything other than itself had temperatures been falling (as they do half the time since we had weather) is another point that sadly never happened as the two happened to coincide and we've been made to pay the price ever since.

The Chinese appear not to like the conventional view either, five experts at Peking University (yes, they actually appear to have kept the old name) highlight all the same uncertainties everyone else who does a few enquiries has, and before you go saying 'well they're Chinese, they don't want to pay carbon tax' then take that up with them if you think any scientists would put their professional reputation up to cheat the system, which is exactly what you'd be doing if you dared to claim that.

http://www.co2science...cles/V14/N45/EDIT.php

[beso]

Once again David shows the truth behind his denial is simply that he doesn't care less because it won't be his problem.

Apparently "the Chinese" (all billion of them?) doubt AWG because five "experts" (in fact inconsequential faculty members) simply repeat the same tired rubbish written by the same boring fools as are listened to by the likes of rov, David H and Birdie. New Judge just posts dumb rhetoric.

You have all proven yourselves incapable of making a rational assessment of the facts. Faked data that would have been obvious to anyone familiar with the real data yet claim to have read beyond the media. What a joke.

And then follow up with purported sinusoidal matching to the sea level changes and expect to be taken seriously.

Every argument any of you have posted has been shot down in flames yet still you stand by your delusional faith. Your position is nothing to do with science. Should we continue this discussion in the Religion And Spirituality section?

[beso]

The link to the "Chinese article" takes us to complete rubbish.

"Doubts about the source of the CO2". Sure. Nothing to do with the mountains of coal and seas of oil we burn every year.

And there we see again, references to the same old same old fools like S Fred Singer, the 87 year old professional climate denialist who is inextricably linked to organisations that take money from Phillip Morris and ExonMobil.

[Davethedog]

No one doubts that global warming is occurring, the arguement is how much is mans involvement.

Despite Beso's statements, and there is no doubting his argument or intelligence, there is no absoloute unequivical data to support him and therein lies the problem. available data supports both sides of the argument depending which way one cares to adapt it. Until it does all the pointing and posturing by both sides will remain theoretical. A bit like god.

I am not looking for an argument or calling Beso wrong.

[beso]

The suggestion that the available data is equivocal is based on a huge series of myths perpetrated by the skeptics.

The temperature rise measured is consitent with the scientific models that show the relationship between CO2 and warming. None of the alternative claims bear up to even the most basic scrutiny and most of them are supremely ridiculous.

Unfortunately the average person is incapable of comprehending the science but more importantly have a vested interest in doing nothing to change the inevitable consequences because the worst will only arrive after they have ceased living.