But a flaw in this study may prove to be the monthly temperature records used. Corals respond to temperatures on the scale of days or weeks—hence bleaching events in the Great Barrier Reef or elsewhere in the world—that can then "slow colony growth for years," says marine biologist John Bruno of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who also studies corals but was not involved in this research. "Unfortunately, this [temperature] information does not exist." It is such fine-grained data on local temperature changes that would be needed to better understand how temperature, acidity and coral growth interact, although it is becoming increasingly clear that impacts from warmer ocean temperatures will determine the fate of coral reefs.
It is also clear that both of the impacts of rising human CO2 emissions—global warming and ocean acidification—are making life harder on the reef, including rapidly declining growth for Porites coral in the Great Barrier Reef. And there is no easy cure: Bruno's work shows that even marine protected areas, essentially ocean parks, cannot protect reefs from global problems like climate change. As Cooper adds: "Changes such as this with the relatively modest amount of global warming to date—compared with what is predicted for the next few decades—is cause for concern."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
210 Comments
Add CommentThis is infuriating. Australias Great Barrier Reef is in great shape. To claim it has deteriorated in recent years is simply a lie. It has quickly bounced back after each setback from storms, Crown of Thorns starfish infestations & bleaching events.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose damned uncooperative corals! Don't they know that they are supposed to stay in place and just die! How dare they move into other areas and change their range? Didn't they get James Hansen's memo?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow are we supposed to keep raising $$$ when our cash cows don't die but just move off to greener pastures?
Signed,
Eco-Corporate Inc.
Stasis is our goal; Your Money is how we get There (TM)
Do you have hard proof that the corals are bouncing back? It would be highly reckless to use anecdotal evidence to assure ourselves that the Great Barrier Reef is thriving when it could be declining rapidly. Also, this study didn't cover it, but as temperatures warm further, are the corals able move south fast enough to stay within their survivability range? These questions are all moot since we show no signs of slowing down our carbon emissions currently and Ocean Acidification will take care of any transient uncertainty in coral viability in the long term.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSault, the demise of corals was blown out of the water (sorry about the pun; couldn't resist) several months ago. Just becuase you haven't heard about it doesn't make Carlyle wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat it probably means is that your choice of websites that you follow is ill-informed.
The acidification this was blown out of the water as well (OOPS, I did it again) when it was shown that hourly and daily variation in pH is far, far greater than any acidification due to CO2.
Again, your choice of politically slanted reading materials wouldn't reflect that.
But again, your wilful efforts to remain misinformed are not Carlyle, or my or the coral's problem.
Get with the program, this stuff is cold soup.
I'm even surprised that you ask if corals can move fast enough to survive. Their larval stages are planktic so they can follow wherever the currents take them at whatever speed the water flows.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFast enough to colonize any ocean in the planet without even breaking a sweat.
If you want to consider something realistic, how about that overfishing and the wholesale removal of entire polulations of fish, shellfish etc are having a massive effect on the chemistry of the ocean? the Eco-Corporations are so fixated on CO2 that their blindness is exacerbating the problem. Meanwhile, the real problem is solveable, but we are wasting resources on a political goose chase.
There is evidence to support this fish/coral view in that protected reef environments where fishing is banned and complete eco-systems are maintained show remarkably robust and diverse coral growth. Maybe the corals need the fish?
Nahhh..., couldn't be... it has to be all about CO2, it just has to.
Corals have gone extinct many times before in the geologic record. The basic chemistry required for their existence becomes too difficult at low levels of ocean alkalinity. To pretend that it can't happen again in the modern era is delusional.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.globalreefproject.com/coral-reef-history.php
Shoshin, I like how you keep making these incredible claims, but apparently a source is too much to ask.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I were making claims even half as grandiose as those you're making, I'd be providing sources without even asking.
Of course, since your entire time here is spent strawmanning vast swaths of people (or perhaps better put, making up imaginary environmenalists who have nothing in common with real ones so you can attack the caricature), I can't say I'm surprised.
I'd like you to show me one environmental group that's concerned about climate change's impact on species, but not concerned biodiversity loss itself, as you're implying.
Well?
Carlyle, I was wondering where you had gotten off to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI had seen numerous articles on this topic come and go without your input; it was making me sad :p
I recall us discussing the topic of reefs at one point, but I don't think it was in any great detail.
Do you have a source to suggest that the Great Barrier Reef hasn't seen a net reduction in correlation with SST changes and other effects?
Contrary to Shoshin's sorry caricature of people who actually, you know, know things about the environment, I'd like to know exactly how much damage climate change is and isn't doing right now (along with all the other threats Shoshin claims we're ignoring).
In any event, higher levels of CO2 are causing both the warming and the lower pH.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere you go.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/study-finds-coral-reef-growth-thrives-in-warmer-waters/story-e6frg8y6-1226261278615
The study finds that Australia corals have done quite well during the past 110 years of ocean warming.
The study in the Australian this study are one in the same! Although Carlyle disparaged this study, so I don't think this proves that the corals are fine. You can tell the bias in the Australian article however, because they focus on the increased growth of the southern corals on the Western Australian coast and ignore the declining northern and Eastern (i.e. Great Barrier Reef) populations. I do like how they incorporated the following caveats to show that they have some journalistic integrity:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...corals are more resilient than previously thought, up to a certain point."
However, the loaded term "blanket predictions" that global warming will devastate reefs undermines their credibility as coral bleaching and mass die-offs are happening in much or coral's natural habitat. This increased growth away from the warmer waters is a desperation move by coral species to survive.
"Those reefs have actually been able to take advantage of the warmer conditions," said Janice Lough, a senior AIMS research scientist and one of the study's authors."
Which reefs are she talking about, the northern or southern ones? The article leads people to think she's talking about the northern populations by its sloppy writing, but she's probably talking about the southern populations given what her paper said.
"Warming temperatures make coral bleaching more likely."
So true, but why did they have to tack this onat the end of the article? Why no links or even just titles of the papers they are referencing in proving their point? What are they trying to hide?
But this comes as no surprise from a News Corp-owned paper. That's why "According to other commentators, however, the newspaper "is generally conservative in tone and heavily oriented toward business; it has a range of columnists of varying political persuasions but mostly to the right."
You know, News Corp are the guys embroiled in a massive phone hacking scandal. You know, the guys who run Faux News, the epicenter of climate misinformation (or just ALL misinformation for that matter):
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/22/374434/fox-news-viewers-misinformed-study-jon-stewart/
Sticking to biased sources is guaranteed to make you misinformed.
You know what's really awesome?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen news stories talk about scientific papers and then DON'T CITE THEM
How the hell am I supposed to verify that this paper is saying anything remotely close to what they're claiming, when they don't cite the paper?!
They could be citing one of two different papers here:
DOI: 10.1126/science.1214570
DOI:10.1126/science.335.6068.502-b
I won't get free access to them until this time next year (maybe it's time to spring for that Science subscription afterall?), but the first paper's abstract definitely doesn't definitively support the conclusions of The Australian. In fact, the paper's abstract clearly says that while there's no de-calcification on certain higher-latitude coral reefs, there may well be in other places (again, the specifics of which I can't elaborate on unless I can gain access to the paper; I'll see if I can find a free copy hosted by the authors later)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/study-finds-coral-reef-growth-thrives-in-warmer-waters/story-e6frg8y6-1226261278615
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA GOVERNMENT-RUN research body has found in an extensive study of corals spanning more than 1000km of Australia's coastline that the past 110 years of ocean warming has been good for their growth.
The findings undermine blanket predictions that global warming will devastate coral reefs, and add to a growing body of evidence showing corals are more resilient than previously thought, up to a certain point.
Naturally enough this report qualifies its findings. “Up to a certain point”
Who can argue with that? Of course it will not survive boiling water but there is ample evidence that it will thrive in temperatures above their present levels.
Virtual all the alarmists predictions over the last decade have come from those who depend on Government funding. Alarmism & political considerations loosen purse strings. There have been numerous reports that have countered the alarmism.
There is an article today on a blog site, about the alarmism with links. I can not be bothered chasing up more evidence but it is not hard to find. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/warming_good_for_corals_so_what_about_oves_claims/
I have family who live adjacent to The Great Barrier Reef & have visited the reef many times over the last fifty years. I have seen damage & recovery numerous times. It is a robust system & a wonderful place to be blessed with a research grant.
Sault, if they're indeed citing the first paper I cited there (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6068/593.abstract?sid=7f581ba4-9bb0-45f6-94db-c4128aefb285), then your interpretation would seem correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Australian is misrepresenting the paper, to the point that even the abstract clearly disagrees with the news report (and yes, it does have loaded language with a clear bias).
Maybe that misrepresentation is precisely why they didn't even bother to cite the paper, for fear people would read it and realize they were misquoting it?
Carlyle, again, if you actually read the paper, the link you gave is giving a conclusion almost polar opposite to what the paper actually says.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, SOME coral reefs are benefiting from the warmer water, but apparently not all of them.
Well I can't get hold of the full paper, but here's a press release that's going to be a little more balanced:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.aims.gov.au/latest-news/-/asset_publisher/MlU7/content/3-february-2012-ocean-warming-drives-coral-growth-rates-in-western-australia;jsessionid=26630D648A84C957ED5BE1495387A881?redirect=http%3a%2f%2fwww.aims.gov.au%2flatest-news%3bjsessionid%3d26630D648A84C957ED5BE1495387A881%3fp_p_id%3d101_INSTANCE_MlU7%26p_p_lifecycle%3d0%26p_p_state%3dnormal%26p_p_mode%3dview%26p_p_col_id%3dcolumn-2%26p_p_col_pos%3d2%26p_p_col_count%3d3
It's actually FROM AIMS.
According to the paper's own authors, only some corals are benefitting, and only because they're being pushed towards optimal growth temperature, but that others have already been harmed, while the continued warming will pass that optimum temperature (as it already has for some sites) and eventually overwhelm any benefit, and that will be in addition to the compounding problem of Ph drop.
In other words, the paper 100% disagrees with the interpretation of The Australian.
I was disparaging the SCIAM reporting & spin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, the SCIAM article manages a massive spin from the same article & adds the throwaway line about the Great Barrier Reef & gives a link back to a SCIAM article published in 2009 by the same SCIAM author. Great alarmist stuff if you are into that.
Just as an aside, recently my family & I chartered a Cessna 10 passenger Caravan Sea Plane amphibian for a one hour flight from Whitsunday Airport near Airlie Beach. Stunning. I defy anyone to find ‘deterioration of the Great Barrier Reef’. Go take a look. http://www.airwhitsunday.com.au/location.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The study in the Australian this study are one in the same! Although Carlyle disparaged this study, so I don't think this proves that the corals are fine."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe corals are fine. There is a great deal of literature that shows that corals were not harmed by warming. Even if you ignore the Australian study you can find similar observations in places like Japan.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL046474.shtml
In the paper cited above we read, "Four major coral species categories, including two key species for reef formation in tropical areas, showed poleward range expansions since the 1930s, whereas no species demonstrated southward range shrinkage or local extinction. The speed of these expansions reached up to 14 km/year, which is far greater than that for other species. Our results, in combination with recent findings suggesting range expansions of tropical coral-reef associated organisms, strongly suggest that rapid, fundamental modifications of temperate coastal ecosystems could be in progress."
Got that? In Japan corals moved northward as the water warmed. But the warming southern area showed no shrinkage. This is not surprising for anyone who goes to places like the Caribbean and notices that coral loves very warm shallow water or knows that coral actually appeared on this planet when it was a lot warmer and CO2 concentrations happened to be more than ten times higher. It is time that readers and writers of this magazine actually began to pay attention to the science.
I'm sure you know that a trend does not consist of a single data point ;)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsidering the very authors the paper that was being cited here say that coral is already suffering negative consequences as a result of temperature rise exceeding optimal growth temperature, and that there's considerable potential risk from both temperatures and acidification, the very same authors who the skeptics here were MORE than willing to trust just a few hours ago... I think their opinion as experts is worth listening to. An expert I am not here.
They also indicate that they have literature to cite which shows just that, again, I won't be able to view the paper for a bit, so I don't know what literature, but again, these were the same authors that you guys were willing to trust, just a few short hours ago.
I'd like to think the so-called skeptics here weren't ONLY giving this paper consideration so long as it was saying what they liked ;)
Also, I have no idea if the great barrier reef is specifically deteriorating, growing, or otherwise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre some coral reefs deteriorating? Apparently, according to the very authors you were citing just a few short hours ago ;)
Is that area, in particular? I have no idea. You claimed it wasn't, so I think the burden of evidence is on you to show that.
Thank you VangelV. There are a number of Australian studies that give the lie to claims that the reef is in danger of serious decline too. The opposite is the case. In fact after massive inundation by fresh water after last years floods, the old cry of the reef is in peril once again was shouted at us by the warmists who claimed we caused the floods too, even though only weeks before they were warning us that we had passed the tipping point & would suffer continuing drought. Of course we caused that too. Another false alarm. Must be research grant application time again. These false claims are not harmless either. It causes great harm to the tourist business with guests staying away in the belief that the reef is ruined. In fact the people who live in the area take great care & pride in the area. This is a good thing. Woe betides a ship that enters protected areas. Occasionally there is a shipping accident where a container ship hits some reef. A couple of years ago there was an incident. It was reported as massive damage caused to the reef. In fact the ship had caused a couple of hundred metres of damage in a system thousands of miles long. Plenty of hysteria out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Great Barrier Reef behaves in much the same manner as a large land based ecosystem. In a system so large it is always possible to find pockets of reef that are in the process of being damaged by or recovering from fresh water inundation after floods, bleaching where particularly hot days happen to coincide with a very low tide & occasionally like a grasshopper or locust plague on land, the Crown of Thorns star fish can harm large areas of reef. But it is a robust system & despite the howls of anguish when one of these events is detected, it always recovers & to the consternation of the doomsayers, this happens quickly. It is healthy & vigorous. Try & visit it sometime.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCatamount: Yes, corals go extinct. New corals speciate. It's called evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, thanks for the example of how not to keep a curious mind in science. Apparently you find questions threatening.
A 5-second google scholar search for "Coral Bleaching" turned up a lot of results. Here are just some of them:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.springerlink.com/content/w027010hn767k860/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x4160m2004w9t785/
Look, coral bleaching is becoming a big problem and some species have a higher temperature tolerance, but these warming conditions are generally bad for most ocean ecosystems. You can cherry pick little anecdotes here and there, but the overall picture for corals is looking rather grim.
The big problem with these natural events is that it gives all the leaches that sponge off the Australian tax payer an excuse to extract more funding. There are some genuine marine biologists doing good & necessary work, mostly based at James Cook University, Townsville but there are also many spongers who make their living by instigating scare campaigns. If you look at the dates the bleaching scares are made, then check on the areas they are talking about twelve months later you will see what I mean. Unfortunately that is very difficult as they are very shy about releasing data. This is the kind of alarmism we have had for years. None of the dire predictions have come to pass: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2770
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reef quickly recovered from the earlier impacts mentioned & none of the even worse impacts many such sites predicted never came to pass.
The Government web site is more factual but it also uses consultant advisers who keep making dire forecasts that do not eventuate.
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/outlook-for-the-reef/climate-change/marine-park-management/building-resilience/current-conditions-on-the-great-barrier-reef
This is the actual condition they report. I believe it is reasonably accurate.
Current conditions on the Great Barrier Reef
However if you wish to see the alarmist side of this site visit the section on the sidebar: Climate Change and the Great Barrier Reef
These are the types of predictions that we repeatedly endure that just as repeatedly turn out to be false. For all the research done on the reef, it is extrordinarily difficult to extract actual figures or gain access to detailed reports. What is new about that?
Sorry but I had no trouble finding it. The paper in question is:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDOI: 10.1126/science.1214570
While you are at it you might want to also look at the Japanese paper that came out last year.
doi:10.1029/2010GL046474
"In fact after massive inundation by fresh water after last years floods, the old cry of the reef is in peril once again was shouted at us by the warmists who claimed we caused the floods too, even though only weeks before they were warning us that we had passed the tipping point & would suffer continuing drought."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a 'problem' for supposedly science oriented sites like this one. We all know that coral are harmed by fresh water and by exposure to cold temperatures. The events are entirely local. Yet, when we have coral kills by such factors they are inevitably blamed on some argument about a global average that has no meaning.
I would like the editors of Scientific American to publish an article that explains exactly how 'global average temperatures' can be considered meaningful even though a annual temperature distribution that is more benign (a warm winter, spring, and fall along with a milder summer) can produce a higher value than a dangerous distribution (a brutally cold winter, spring and fall along with an extremely hot summer). The entire concept of a global average, particularly when such a large impact comes from 'imputed temperatures' and when the raw data is 'adjusted' by adding a warming signal, makes no sense. But even smart people want to believe and let their ideology get in the way of rationality. If we are not careful these people will discredit science and rationality and do great harm to all of us.
There's tons of info here if you bother to look:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/outlook-for-the-reef/climate-change/how-climate-change-can-affect-the-reef/great-barrier-reef-vulnerability-assessment
You can't cherry-pick anecdotes that agree with your preconceived notions of what the truth is because you'll miss the bigger picture. Reefs are in trouble around the world and the science is overwhelming on this. Sure, some species can shift away from the equator into coastal zones that have entered their temperature range, but it takes decades to establish productive reef communities. When bleaching is occuring on a more frequent basis and is expected to become an annual event in the future, the integrity of existing reefs, the most biologically productive and the most effective at protecting the coast from battering by waves, is bleak. You are willfully disregardng the mountain of evidence if you think otherwise.
"You can't cherry-pick anecdotes that agree with your preconceived notions of what the truth is because you'll miss the bigger picture."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not dealing in anecdotes but with the actual science. And as I pointed out, the science shows that corals like warmer water. It shows that the corals are growing fastest in cool areas in which we have seen the greatest warming but that the warm areas have not seen a shrinkage as temperatures warmed up.
The science is actually very clear. Go and take a swim in the shallow warm waters in the Caribbean and you see coral thriving. Move towards cooler waters and you don't see coral because it likes the warmer temperatures. Take a look at what happened when Florida's coral was hit by cold currents and you see a major kill that will take time to recover. There has been no such event from a warm current in a particular area.
"Reefs are in trouble around the world and the science is overwhelming on this."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, they are in trouble. But that is due to fishing, harvesting to sell to tourists, pollution, cold water current damage, and excess fresh water due to the flooding that the AGW proponents said would not happen. If we were to use a scientific approach we would eliminate those factors and stick to the effects of temperature. And on that front we find that corals like warm waters and will expand their territory when the water warms up. The temperature ranges that they can deal with is very large. While they do not like cold water some of the shallow pools in which they are found can get quite hot. Keep in mind that corals first appeared on this planet when temperatures were quite warmer than today and when CO2 levels were ten times higher. Unless you can show us evidence that current species have evolved to be vulnerable to the very hot waters in which they now thrive you have no evidence or logical argument to support your claims.
<b>Sure, some species can shift away from the equator into coastal zones that have entered their temperature range, but it takes decades to establish productive reef communities.</b>
So? A decade is a very short period of time. And if we think that corals are good then why would we think that more of them are bad for the environment?
"When bleaching is occuring on a more frequent basis and is expected to become an annual event in the future, the integrity of existing reefs, the most biologically productive and the most effective at protecting the coast from battering by waves, is bleak."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut you are confusing narrative with science. There is no evidence that bleaching is more frequent or unnatural. Corals come back very quickly in warm waters as one specie is quickly replaced by another. Bleaching is common and is most likely tied to ENSO conditions rather than some general temperature trend because the local changes are greater when we have ENSO events. On the other hand, coral can't live in cold waters and once they are killed off they don't come back until temperatures are high enough again.
I have no idea how it is that people who are obviously intelligent can ignore the actual evidence and the logic and set everything aside for a narrative that is based on faith and ideology. This world has serious problems and needs serious individuals to deal with them. We can choose to ignore the reality but eventually we have to deal with the consequences of that reality.
Shoshin, I'm trying to figure out how you could possible give a response that contributes less to this discussion than the one you just gave, and I'm not coming up with anything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou get called out on not offering any kind of source for your claims (I guess "curious mind in science" to you means "one who takes me at my word because I say so"?), and for putting forth a bad strawman...
you respond to neither, and instead just toss in irrelevant statement about "evolution", which you've demonstrated no knowledge of, and an irrelevant personal insult.
I mean, are you even capable of addressing the topic at hand in any substantive way?
"Try & visit it sometime"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, one data point does not a trend make.
You can't look at an ecosystem for five minutes and go "yep, looks fine to me!". If I had gone out to the American midwest in 1880 and done that, it would have looked absolutely fine to me, since, only bothering to take one look at one period of time, the conspicuous lack of American Bison would be lost on me.
Please don't rely on anecdotal evidence, you're smarter than that.
Again, according to YOUR OWN CITED AUTHORS, corals have optimal temperatures (and ph) for growth. Some are expanding because warming is bringing them towards that temperature, but further warming will exceed it, some have already exceeded that temperature and are decalcifying.
Are you saying the very authors, who's work and expertise you were putting up as genuine yesterday, when they were agreeing with you, you're now rejecting now that they disagree with you?
Again, I'm not saying corals are or aren't in trouble, based on what I know, because the truth is that I know little.
But every single biologist I've read work from or talked to who knows more than I do (and knows more than you do) about this topic is saying that there's a serious problem here.
Do you know more than they do? Can you cite actual research that necessarily says that worldwide, corals are not going to ever face a serious problem, in contradiction to these first authors (and again, why were you willing to listen to them when they seemed to be backing you, but aren't now that they aren't?)?
I'm not taking a definitive position here, but right now the only thing I have to go off if is this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe authors YOU CITED are disagreeing with you.
Do you see what my problem is here?
I'm going to take a look at VangelV's papers in a bit and see if they shed any further light, but for the moment, this is where I sit.
Vangel, your Australian paper, which we've been discussing already, does not support your statements here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe very authors of the paper note that destruction is occurring no less conspicuously than growth, and those same authors say that warming will, on the whole, be destructive (for reasons I've already quoted them on and don't want to reiterate...yet again).
Your Japanese paper is interesting, but does not necessarily mean anything for corals worldwide, in a scenario of increased warming, because their findings are indirectly addressed by the Australian paper's authors, who note that, again, warming will, on the whole, be destructive.
So your own cited science doesn't really seem to agree with your position here.
You also can't just ignore other research done that's relevant to the topic. Three other papers are listed in the ISI Web of Knowledge that cite the Japanese paper, for instance, and offer a picture signficantly different than the one you're painting
10.1371/journal.pone.0025824
10.1126/science.1204794
10.1029/2010JC006831
Taken together, if there's one conclusion one could draw from the papers discussed here, it's this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is definite potential for both thermal and ph damage to corals worldwide, but the effects are very heterogeneous in nature, and should be the subject of further research, but the exact impacts are hard to judge.
In other words, anyone here definitively claiming a conclusion either way, is not backed by the scientific research, because the scientific research, if anything, is showing that the impacts will be complex, and presently have a fair bit of uncertainty associated with them.
That said, again, the experts in question think that on the whole, there's serious risk, with large future warming, for serious negative consequences. Given that warming has only really just started occurring (for about 40 years, and at a rate that's likely to be greatly superseded in future decades), it's kind of foolish to say "corals aren't extinct yet, so they're going to be fine". Again, it's equally foolish to try to draw up precise doomsday scenarios, because the distribution and extent of impacts, positive and negative, need further research.
So for now, I'm going to let the experts who are actually research this topic sort that out, and for now, just accept their judgement that we probably shouldn't be massively increasing SSTs or acidification.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/22/coral-barrier-reef-australia
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDamaged Barrier Reef coral makes 'spectacular' recovery
Of course, when there is good news it is extraordinary or lucky, not just natural.
At least they reported it.
It has to be understood that researching the reef is a huge industry. It is necessary to learn about & monitor this system. The problem is that so many researchers depend on bad news to keep themselves funded & employed. Who is going to fund research if it is unanimously pronounced, no problem here.
You point out that a visit to one point proves nothing. That is true for good or bad news yet with the reef actually consisting of thousands of individual reefs extending over thousands of miles, that is exactly what happens. A section of perhaps one reef is represented as being the whole reef.
But your own article only underlies the problem here, and does not support the contention that there isn't a potential serious problem here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1998 was a huge temperature spike, but if temperatures permanently reach and shoot past that temperature in a decade, can you offer evidence that coral will not suffer net negative effects?
Can you offer evidence that there is NO temperature at which a long-term problem will occur, as you seem to be implying, even as the very experts you cite, who know vastly more than you (or I) contend the exact opposite?
"The problem is that so many researchers depend on bad news to keep themselves funded & employed"
Well now there's an interesting claim. Can you back that assertion with evidence?
I hear it claimed a lot on a lot of scientific issues, but there's never a shred of evidence offered to back the assertion; it's usually just assumed that the claim will be accepted on "common sense" grounds (in other words, accepted based on nothing).
The fact that scientists are easily able to get funded and published with all sorts of findings, good and bad, would seem to contradict this, but again, it's your claim, so the evidence is your burden.
and how do you contend with the fact that there's a mountain of papers that directly contradict the assertions your making (including the very one you cited)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's just a small sampling of a few others:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02404.x
DOI: 10.1007/s00338-009-0531-7
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.061267
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/backend/ptpmcrender.cgi?accid=PMC3040180&blobtype=pdf
Here's one that shows that the overall cover in the Great Barrier Reef is declining (even though there are recoveries, they're smaller than the losses):
DOI: 10.1007/s00338-011-0787-6
Now, again, the research does not suggest that all corals are declining everywhere, all the time. The effects are heterogeneous (hence the need for more research). A few communities are even doing quite well.
However, to suggest that there is necessarily no problem of any kind, or even a potential for a problem, is both foolish and directly contradictory to the evidence, which suggests very strongly that decreasing pH and water of a sufficiently high temperature, could both cause serious problems (while no research presented to date suggests a worldwide either an immunity or long-term benefit of corals from these effects).
"Vangel, your Australian paper, which we've been discussing already, does not support your statements here."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? In the Australian story on the paper we read:
"The researchers found that, contrary to their expectations, warmer waters had not negatively affected coral growth. Quite the opposite, in fact: for their southern samples, where ocean temperatures are the coolest but have warmed the most, coral growth increased most significantly over the past 110 years. For their northern samples, where waters are the warmest and have changed the least, coral growth still increased, but not by as much.
"Those reefs have actually been able to take advantage of the warmer conditions," said Janice Lough, a senior AIMS research scientist and one of the study's authors."
The bottom line was that in no area sampled was there a shrinkage and the cooler areas that warmed up the most saw significant growth.
Of course if you can cite areas of shrinkage where the cause is warming I would be more than happy to look at the information again.
"Your Japanese paper is interesting, but does not necessarily mean anything for corals worldwide, in a scenario of increased warming, because their findings are indirectly addressed by the Australian paper's authors, who note that, again, warming will, on the whole, be destructive."
But there is no direct evidence that warming is destructive. After all, corals live in warm water and are continually exposed to extremely hot water temperatures in shallow pools during low tide. But when they are exposed to extreme cold conditions you see massive die-offs that will require much warmer temperatures before the corals can recover. That is not the problem with warm water bleaching where a new species replaces the old one.
"So your own cited science doesn't really seem to agree with your position here."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure it does. Show me where in the Australian paper the scientists find shrinkage. Of the six areas sampled none exhibited a loss that could be attributed to warming. And why are we supposed to ignore the Japanese study?. After all if you understood the history of coral you would know that it appeared on this planet when it was much warmer and when there was even more than ten times the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today.
"Here's just a small sampling of a few others:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02404.x"
This is experimental work. Its conclusions are no means the same as those that have been performed by other researchers. Wouldn't it be easier to actually go out and look at areas that have a great deal of CO2 coming from vents in the ocean floors?
"DOI: 10.1007/s00338-009-0531-7 and DOI: 10.1242/jeb.061267"
First, you are citing a paper that traced a natural spike in temperatures that has nothing to do with human emissions of CO2. Second, this type of bleaching is not uncommon. It simply leads to one type of organism replacing another. This has happened for the past few hundred million years and is nothing new.
http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v434/p67-76/
"http://ukpmc.ac.uk/backend/ptpmcrender.cgi?accid=PMC3040180&blobtype=pdf"
The paper mentions, "sediment plumes, nutrients, and pollution" as having possible impacts. It might help to actually figure out what is going on before you spin a narrative in which you blame CO2.
And for the record, the acidity claim being pushed by the AGW promoters is one of the dumbest yet. As I pointed out before, the history of this planet shows hotter temperatures and more CO2 than the present. And if you actually bothered to look at the studies you would find that, "organisms are already experiencing pH regimes that are not predicted until 2100." The conditions in the experimental Albright and Langdon paper that you cited are already surpassed by natural conditions in the real environment.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0028983
"It has to be understood that researching the reef is a huge industry. It is necessary to learn about & monitor this system. The problem is that so many researchers depend on bad news to keep themselves funded & employed."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny how the people who try to question the 'energy industry' and see a funding conspiracy behind every study that is skeptical don't seem to ask the funding questions from narratives that support their own beliefs.
"1998 was a huge temperature spike, but if temperatures permanently reach and shoot past that temperature in a decade, can you offer evidence that coral will not suffer net negative effects?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't you see the problem with your logic? It is clear that 1998 was a natural event that had nothing to do with CO2 emissions. It is also clear that the oceans have not been warming since the ARGO system began to provide accurate data.
Unlike you, I have logic on my side. Corals are not a recent evolutionary development. They first appeared on this planet when seas were much warmer and when CO2 concentrations were ten times higher. They also survived during recent warm periods such as the Holocene Optimum, the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warming, and the Medieval Warm Period and our current temperatures are not any warmer than previous warm periods.
Now if the polar bears and coral survived those temperature changes why would they die off under current conditions?
"Can you offer evidence that there is NO temperature at which a long-term problem will occur, as you seem to be implying, even as the very experts you cite, who know vastly more than you (or I) contend the exact opposite?"
What I can do is show you that corals survived hotter temperatures and higher CO2 conditions. And we also know that even if the IPCC were right our temperatures would not exceed what this planet has experienced many times in the past. Let me remind you and other warmers that those warm periods were eras of much greater biodiversity over most of this planet. It was not warm temperatures but cold that wound up doing damage to plants and animals on this planet.
"Here's one that shows that the overall cover in the Great Barrier Reef is declining (even though there are recoveries, they're smaller than the losses):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDOI: 10.1007/s00338-011-0787-6"
Did you read the paper? Let me just point out a few problems that I saw in the abstract.
"Formal monitoring of the Great Barrier Reef was initiated in 1986 in response to the clear scientific evidence (and growing public concern) over the loss of corals caused by two protracted outbreaks of crown-of thorns starfish, which began in 1962 and 1979."
It seems to me that the outbreak of crown-of thorns starfish is a natural event. It certainly had nothing to do with warming because from 1962 to the mid 1970s there was no material warming. Let us go on.
"Pointing to the current levels of protection of the Great Barrier Reef, they state that earlier estimates of losses of coral cover since the early 1960s have been exaggerated."
It is not a big secret that many of these 'studies' have trouble agreeing with each other. The error bars are huge and when you account for them there may not be any material trend that is supported by any of the data.
"However, the loss of close to one-quarter of the coral cover over the past two decades represents an average loss of 0.34% cover per year across the whole GBR after 1986, which is very similar to previously reported rates of annual loss measured over a longer timeframe."
But the longer time frame included periods of cooling. A negative PDO meant cooler temperatures for nearly 30 years. That means that if the rates are the same temperature is not a big factor and points to other natural or human activities.
"The heaviest recent losses have occurred on inshore and mid-shelf reefs, which Sweatman et al. (Coral Reefs 30:521531, 2011) attribute to a natural cycle of disturbance and recovery."
A 'natural cycle of disturbance and recovery?' What does this have to do with CO2 emissions? Or temperature trends? Let me remind you again that the ARGO data does not show any ocean warming since 2003. Clearly any damage since them can't be attributed to the increase in the average temperature.
"This result, and other clear evidence of widespread incremental degradation from overfishing, pollution, and climate change, calls for action rather than complacency or denial."
Note the problem? The authors mixed up many possible causes, throw up their hands and call for action. That does not seem very scientific to me.
"In 2006, high sea temperatures caused severe coral bleaching in the Keppell Islands, in the southern part of the reef — the largest coral reef system in the world. The damaged reefs were then covered by a single species of seaweed which threatened to suffocate the coral and cause further loss."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"A "lucky combination" of rare circumstances has meant the reef has been able to make a recovery."
"The findings are important as it is EXTREMELY RARE to see reports of reefs that bounce back from mass coral bleaching or other human impacts in less than a decade or two, the scientists said."
Emphasis added in CAPS! By the way, if it usually takes a "decade or two" for corals to bounce back, and bleaching is now becoming a yearly phenomenon, then EVEN YOUR OWN SOURCE says that the corals are screwed!
Oh, and nice link Carlyle, because the Guardian story also linked to THIS story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/10/road-to-copenhagen-poznan
So we've already lost %20 of the world's reefs and according to the coral specialists that know more about this than you or I:
"If nothing is done to substantially cut emissions, we could effectively lose coral reefs as we know them, with major coral extinctions," said Clive Wilkinson
"The report, released today at UN climate talks in Poznan, Poland, said warmer and more acidic seas posed the biggest threat in future. Other threats include overfishing, pollution and invasive species "
So it's not just climate change and ocean acidification (OA). Our other disruptions to the biosphere have an effect as well, but the nails in coral's coffin will be climate change and OA.
The high temperatures of 1998 were a "natural event" that was exacerbated by the long-term temperature trends driven by human emissions. I mean, unless you don't think CO2 can trap heat or that we've increased its concentration by %40, what else did you think was going to happen?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Unlike you, I have logic on my side."
Just saying it doesn't necessarily make it true. Unlike you, I have a million dollars...or so I wish!
"They also survived during recent warm periods such as the Holocene Optimum, the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warming, and the Medieval Warm Period and our current temperatures are not any warmer than previous warm periods."
Wait, so temperature reconstructions are only reliable when they agree with your preexisting belief? Talk about selection bias! Only crackpot climate deniers can look at the paleoclimate data and think the current warming and temperatures are nothing to worry about:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
You can't have it both ways; either the paleoclimate data is wrong or you're wrong. You can't "bend the curve" to fit your narrative.
"What I can do is show you that corals survived hotter temperatures and higher CO2 conditions."
No you can't. AT BEST, you can show that the ANCESTORS of current coral species survived temperature fluxuations that were many (possibly hundreds) of times slower than today. And this is only ON AVERAGE. The acute die-offs caused by wild temperature swings in the past will get covered over in the long term, but we aren't heading towards conditions that provide opportunity for that long-term recovery, are we?
And if you're so worried about runoff and other pollution, why don't I see more climate deniers protesting industrial farming and supporting smart growth that limits urban runoff? How come I dont' see your ideological bretheren riding with Greenpeace as they protest fishing with dragnets? Where's the consistency?
If ifs were candy & buts were nuts what a merry Christmas it would be. Conjecture is not fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe doom & gloom industry will always out shout reason & evidence. Including on this site. Follow the money. No research money for good news to do with the environment. Even when some is published it is accompanied by apologies.
Barrier Reef still 'pristine', despite concerns: scientist
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBY IAN MORGAN
07 Jun, 2009 09:46 AM
THE Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is in excellent shape - farming and other human activity are not killing the reef, according to James Cook University's reef scientist Dr Peter Ridd.
As a physical oceanographer, his area of interest has been sediment transportation, and his conclusion is there is no significant threat to the reef from human activity and he is adamant cane farmers are not killing the GBR.
"But we are dealing with an important ecosystem so we can't be too complacent," he said.
"If you can minimise your nutrient loads (from farming), you'd be stupid not to, particularly if it reduces your cost of production without harming your crop size."
With regard to proposed legislation, he said whatever priorities are set, they need to be based on good, un-emotive science.
With 25 years of Great Barrier Reef (GBR) research behind him, James Cook University's Dr Peter Ridd has studied the reef ecosystem longer than have most 'eminent' scientists.
http://nqr.farmonline.com.au/news/state/agribusiness-and-general/general/barrier-reef-still-pristine-despite-concerns-scientist/1532999.aspx
Good old time scientists who began studying the reef long before Global Warming was heard of, do not share the views of the jonnie come lately alarmists.
Spawning Studies Investigate Bleaching Effects
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA CRC research project on soft coral reproduction has found a new link between spawning and the 'bleaching' phenomenon which leaves stressed corals pale or dead. James Cook University doctoral candidate, Kirsten Michalek-Wagner, is investigating how bleaching affects the internal chemistry of soft corals and their ability to reproduce.
http://www.reef.crc.org.au/publications/explore/feat19.html
Note the rapid recovery even after extreme laboratory conditions were imposed.
"So we've already lost %20 of the world's reefs and according to the coral specialists that know more about this than you or I:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If nothing is done to substantially cut emissions, we could effectively lose coral reefs as we know them, with major coral extinctions," said Clive Wilkinson"
But the bleaching had nothing to do with a gradual increase of temperatures. It was caused by ENSO conditions that are quite common. And the story makes an assumption that it is rare for coral to bounce back when that isn't the case. Actually, most bleaching events are a non issue because they simply involve the expulsion of one species in favour of another. This has been going on for hundreds of millions of years. And if you and the 'scientists' followed the logic you would be asking why we should worry about coral when coral first appeared during much higher temperatures and much higher CO2 concentrations.
From what I see this is a non-story that has far more to do with money and ideology than science.
"The high temperatures of 1998 were a "natural event" that was exacerbated by the long-term temperature trends driven by human emissions. I mean, unless you don't think CO2 can trap heat or that we've increased its concentration by %40, what else did you think was going to happen?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not dispute that CO2 can help trap some heat. What I dispute is the argument that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature change. It is clear that the science points to solar activity as the primary driver and that much of the real increase that we measure comes from local changes in land use. Most people should have seen a rise in temperatures during night and in the winter not because the earth got much hotter but because they now live in urban heat islands that are significantly warmer that rural areas. But that increase has nothing to do with CO2. It is caused by large masses of concrete and metals that retain heat during the day and release it at night. My 12-year-old measured an 8C difference between downtown Toronto and the farm area north of the city. The differences in Guelph and Brampton were around 5C and we even measured a 1-2C difference in rural areas that had a few buildings near major intersections.
The 1998 data also presents a big problem for the AGW crowd. First, if you look at the US data, which is supposedly the most reliable (but still sucks) 1998 was not even as warm as 1934. Second, 1998 is still the high year globally even after all of the 'adjustments' that tend on add a warming signal to the actual measurements. In the 13 years since 1998 we have seen record CO2 emissions but have yet to see a new record high. More interesting is the ARGO ocean data. It shows no warming since the time the system came on line even though the AGW theory demands a monotonic increase in heat.
The bottom line is that the 6-7% increase in CO2 concentration has done caused temperatures to rise any higher. We now see many of the AGW proponents, who previously ignored changes in solar activity, changes in the PDO/AMO/AO, and other factors finally admit that those natural factors have a role to play. But the problem for the warmers is that once you give each natural factor a role there is little left for CO2.
Cold water dissolves more CO2 than warm water. Acid CO2-rich water makes it hard for oceanic organisms to get CaCO3 from dissolved bicarbonates for shell formation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWarm water causes bicarbonates to precipitate carbonates, because warm water emits CO2 into the air. This emitted CO2 causes greenhouse gas warming above warm currents such as El Nino, in a closed retroactive loop.
This is basic chemistry, so there is no point in anyone trying to deny it.
"Just saying it doesn't necessarily make it true. Unlike you, I have a million dollars...or so I wish!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, thanks to fools who believe in narrative instead of reality I have manged to accumulate a million dollars. Thank you very much for that little fact and I wish you a great deal of success in trying to ruin the economy and the economic lives of your fellow citizens. Each little success that you and people like you have adds to my net worth.
But the logic is intact. If you look at all of the data you find that coral first appeared on this planet when the oceans were much warmer and when CO2 concentrations were much higher. If you look further you find that there are many species that compete against each other. But it gets even more interesting.
We know that corals have a symbiotic relationship with algae. The algae reside with and provide the corals with nutrients. The corals give the algae protection. The arrangement works fine but when water temperatures get too hot, the corals expel the algae and replace them with a heat resistant species. This is exactly what happened in Australia following the 2006 bleaching event.
The logic is sound. We do not have a particularly warm period when compared to our planet's history. Corals survived and thrived during all those periods. That means that temperature is not the big factor that the alarmists claim it is. Our current day observations also point to many other factors including pollution, fresh water runoff, sedimentation, overfishing, tourism, etc. I know that it is convenient to ignore those factors but no rational person would ignore them unless there was an ideological agenda as motivation. But this site is not supposed to be pushing ideology. It is supposed to be about science. And right now, the science is clearly against the alarmists on this issue.
"Wait, so temperature reconstructions are only reliable when they agree with your preexisting belief?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot at all. They are good when they use the right proxies. If we find that orange orchards were found at significantly higher latitudes 1500 years ago than today than it is safe to assume that it was warmer at that time than it is today. If we find graves under the permafrost it is safe to assume that at the time that those graves were dug it was warmer than today. If I dig under the leading edge of a glacier and find roots of trees and organic material than it is safe to assume that the glacier appeared after the tree. If I see a new mountain pass appear when a glacier recedes then it is safe to assume that the Roman era inn that lies near it was built to service travelers using that route. It is safe to assume that when I see sediments show an increase in pollen and organic material the periods in question were warmer and greener.
What I have a problem with some reconstructions is the lack of transparency. When I get tree ring series that uses select samples from an unarchived series a red flag goes up. When I see that the calibration period disagreeing with the premise a red flag goes up again. When I see proxies used upside-down over and over again because they help the statistical methodology a red flag goes up. And when I see a statistical method that turns random data into a particular shape I do not believe the output of that method.
We have a great deal of evidence that shows us that the MWP, RW, MW, and HO were as warm or warmer than today. This evidence does not rely on cherry picking tree ring samples that agree with the researchers' premise. It is actually much clearer than that. My favourite bit of evidence comes from the glacier artifacts. We now know that those mountain glaciers that the warmers are so worried about have grown and receded thought our history. The age of the artifacts found beneath them clearly tell us when those mountain passes were open because temperatures were at least as warm as today. And those artifacts clearly do not support the alarmist narrative that we are hearing from you and others.
http://www.welt.de/print-welt/article177591/Steinzeitliche_Handelswege.html
"You can't have it both ways; either the paleoclimate data is wrong or you're wrong. You can't "bend the curve" to fit your narrative."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile this is a bit of a diversion let me point out that I have no problem with the data when there is transparency and when proper procedures are followed. The problem that I have is that the proponents of the AGW theory forgot all about the scientific method and were not very transparent. They did not make their data available. They stopped using certain data sets when those sets did not produce the desired result. They did not archive their proxies. They cherry-picked proxies. They cut off the data sets when the results began to diverge from the narrative. They used a statistical method that could create the desired trend from random data. They spliced different data sets and ignored the uncertainties.
When you don't follow the scientific method you don't produce valid scientific studies. What is so disturbing to those of us who were taught how to do proper research is just how much the editors of Nature, Science, and other journals bent over backwards to protect the authors even when they did not follow the rules and violated the scientific method.
"No you can't. AT BEST, you can show that the ANCESTORS of current coral species survived temperature fluxuations that were many (possibly hundreds) of times slower than today. And this is only ON AVERAGE. The acute die-offs caused by wild temperature swings in the past will get covered over in the long term, but we aren't heading towards conditions that provide opportunity for that long-term recovery, are we?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are confused. Corals are already exposed to higher variations and greater temperatures than are being predicted for the next 100 years. We already have data from hot tidal pools. There is a very clear correlation between the proportion of corals that host heat-tolerant algae and the temperatures of the pools. The results clearly indicate that the coral were able to adapt to local conditions.
"And if you're so worried about runoff and other pollution, why don't I see more climate deniers protesting industrial farming and supporting smart growth that limits urban runoff?"
How many such protests have you been to? And how do you know what the protesters believed about polar bears and corals?
"How come I dont' see your ideological bretheren riding with Greenpeace as they protest fishing with dragnets? Where's the consistency?"
This is about science, not ideology. So stop citing narrative and stick to the science. If you want to discuss politics go to the Fox or CNBC sites. You will find statists from the right and left to agree or fight with to your heart's content. But this site is supposed to be about science and objective evidence.
"This is basic chemistry, so there is no point in anyone trying to deny it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy all means let us go back to the basics. Corals first appeared on this planet when CO2 concentrations were ten times higher and oceans were much warmer. By the way, if you look at the fossil record you will find that oceanic organisms had no trouble with shell formation. Once again, the actual evidence trumps the incomplete knowledge and theory.
Vangel, since Sault has already addressed SOME of the myriad of logical problems with your responses to me (some, not all, including you blatantly ignoring several of the papers I cited), I'm going to switch over, for the moment, to something a little easier to deal with, and that's your clear misconceptions about climate change in general.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What I dispute is the argument that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature change. It is clear that the science points to solar activity as the primary driver"
Science points to no such thing. Solar is ONE of the primary drivers of climate, historically, in addition to CO2 (without which most of our climatic understanding falls apart), but its irrelevant for judging the past 35 or so years, since TSI hasn't actually correlated with temperatures since measurements began in 1978, and has actually decreased slightly if you want to get nitpicky (but for all intents and purposes, has remained constant in trend).
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
"the real increase that we measure comes from local changes in land use. Most people should have seen a rise in temperatures during night and in the winter not because the earth got much hotter but because they now live in urban heat islands that are significantly warmer that rural areas."
If you're suggesting that measured increases in temperature are UHI effects, then I'm afraid that's just patently wrong, because the patterns of observed warming don't correlate with increasing urbanization.
I could cite papers, but you can shoot down this particular claim pretty effectively with nothing more than a couple of images
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/warming-due-to-urban-heat-island.php
If you follow his addendum, you can actually find some of that work, but would it change anything?
Actually, the biggest effect from overall land use change in relatively recent history is probably that we've slightly cooled the Earth, because all the conversion to cropland has created an increase in albedo.
There are apparently considerable uncertainties there, but either way, the effects are tiny, and most likely cause cooling overall, not warming
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442%282003%29016%3C1511%3AUIRFDT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The 1998 data also presents a big problem for the AGW crowd. First, if you look at the US data, which is supposedly the most reliable (but still sucks) 1998 was not even as warm as 1934. Second, 1998 is still the high year globally even after all of the 'adjustments' that tend on add a warming signal to the actual measurements. In the 13 years since 1998 we have seen record CO2 emissions but have yet to see a new record high"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd why is this a problem?
The trend in temperature was still warming up through about 2006, and since then, we've had a short lull in warming, but we've had those before, several times just in the past few decades, and they never signaled an end to warming.
And while data sets disagree over where 1934 sits in years, it really doesn't matter, globally, because 1934 was a modest year. Even if you think all non-US data is junk, which I'd challenge you to demonstrate, it's irrelevant, because CO2 is still clearly the primary driver of the past 40 years of warming.
"We now see many of the AGW proponents, who previously ignored changes in solar activity, changes in the PDO/AMO/AO, and other factors finally admit that those natural factors have a role to play. But the problem for the warmers is that once you give each natural factor a role there is little left for CO2"
Except that those still don't account for the warming, and numerous methods still peg CO2 at the same forcings we've estimated it at for decades, 1.5-4.5C with a high probability of a middling value. The LGM, reductions in certainty of the aerosol forcing based on pinatubo, analyses of the past 40 years, and numerous other methods consistently return the same result.
Which is why ALL climate scientists, for all intents and purposes, agree on this point, not just your so-called "alarmists" (and I freely admit they're out there).
""While this is a bit of a diversion let me point out that I have no problem with the data when there is transparency and when proper procedures are followed. The problem that I have is that the proponents of the AGW theory forgot all about the scientific method and were not very transparent. They did not make their data available. They stopped using certain data sets when those sets did not produce the desired result. They did not archive their proxies. They cherry-picked proxies. They cut off the data sets when the results began to diverge from the narrative. They used a statistical method that could create the desired trend from random data. They spliced different data sets and ignored the uncertainties."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally, that's quite a set of accusations.
Of course, I've heard them for years, and no one has ever been able to demonstrate them.
And even if there were some dishonest scientists, and there no doubt are on both sides, since it's easy to show that many of the denialist scientist are (and I doubt they're the only ones), what you're suggesting is that EVERY CLIMATE SCIENTIST OUT THERE is engaged in a mass conspiracy, and not one of them has come forward about it. Even the so-called skeptic scientists must be involved, because if there was some clear conspiracy with clearly-defined lies being put forth in it, those skeptic scientists would be focusing on THAT, instead of lying through their teeth, or harping on whimsical points (and they'd all be presenting the same argument, rather than harping on DIFFERENT whimsical points).
"The logic is sound. We do not have a particularly warm period when compared to our planet's history. Corals survived and thrived during all those periods. That means that temperature is not the big factor that the alarmists claim it is. Our current day observations also point to many other factors including pollution, fresh water runoff, sedimentation, overfishing, tourism, etc. I know that it is convenient to ignore those factors but no rational person would ignore them unless there was an ideological agenda as motivation. But this site is not supposed to be pushing ideology. It is supposed to be about science. And right now, the science is clearly against the alarmists on this issue"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with this is that, first off, you're just wrong about temperatures, by all indications. The MWP was not likely as warm as today. Yes, I know, Ross Mckitrick and Steve Mcintyre blah blah blah, but their methodology doesn't hold, because if you use it to compare proxies with the modern record, there's no correlation of any kind.
MBH98, on the other hand, not only passes this test, but is corroborated by other papers using different methods with different assumptions (for example http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/rutherford-et-al-2005-highlights/ )
But let's forget that for a moment.
First, the MWP may have been AS warm as today. Let's just assume that might be the case. Corals can clearly survive today's temperatures; that's not in dispute. The concern is that if enough warming happens in future decades, it could become another stressor for them, and as you've pointed out elsewhere, given all the other ecological problems in the ocean right now, they don't need another source of stress.
Secondly, the MWP does not likely have our levels of acidification.
As for previous eras that were far warmer than today, that was largely many millions of years ago, and any coral species would have evolved in those conditions. I have no doubt corals can survive in very warm seas; what I doubt is that like many species, they'll have absolutely no problem adapting to a rapid change, of any kind. Were we facing a .1/c decade COOLING trend, I would be just as worried.
It's not the warming we're concerned about; it's the rapid change in general, combined with all the other environmental problems (habitat fragmentation/loss, pollution, overharvesting, death of other co-dependent species, etc, etc).
How can the sun be driving the warming we're seeing if solar activity isn't trending in the right direction? It's been decreasing slightly over the past few decades yet each decade is warmer than the previous one. I really want to know what value for the Earth's climate sensitivity do you use to formulate your opinions on what humanity's CO2 emissions can be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, Vangel, I have no disagreement with the statement that there are some ill-founded alarmists out there, who would like to harp on global warming at the expense of focus on other important problems. Frankly, I probably know a lot more than you do about those other problems (no offense, but it IS what I study, so unless you're also either an environmental bio student or scientist...), and with that said, I wholly agree with you that we shouldn't lose sight of other issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt the same time, a lot of the environmental nutjobs out there reject many of the potential solutions that would solve global warming anyways, like broader adoption of nuclear power.
These people irk me as much as they irk you, and probably moreso, because it's quickly going to become my job to clean up after them.
That said, you're painting with a VERY broad brush here, trying to generalize unfathomably large groups of people with sweeping judgements for which you have no apparent evidence, especially against all of them.
I'd urge you to consider how much that doesn't help you make your case.
2005 and 2010 were both hotter than 1998:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
It's more like a %40 increase in CO2 concentration since 1850. You should learn some climate science before trying to participate in this debate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt depends on what dataset you use.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCRU, for instance, does not include as much polar data (partly because the coverage there is lousy), so their results occasionally differ very slightly.
Still, it's not about whether X year was warmer than X year; it's about the trend, and temperatures don't become a statistically significant trend for several decades (the WMO says 30 years) because of intrinsic climate variability. I can point to entire 10-year periods in the past few decades where even the trend would be flat (or even perhaps falling?), but again, climate does that. Oscillations come and go, things get out of whack for a few years here or there, a massive volcano erupts, etc etc.
This is why VangelV's harping on small time periods is meaningless. Yes, the ENSO was very high in 1998, and since four or five years ago, give or take, it's been bottomed out, and yes, that's going to override the anthropogenic forcing for that period, but so what?
Warming still continued, overall, right through 2005-2007 or so.
Whether 1998 was warmer or not is irrelevant, because it wasn't characteristic of temperatures during that time period, which was still cooler, overall, than today.
Here's a linear regression of 1995 to 2007 to demonstrate (how I love virtual TI)
http://imageshack.us/f/687/temp4j.jpg/
1998 is circled in red. Is it higher than 2005? Not according to GISS, but who cares? It's not about breaking 1-year records as VangelV implies.
Even after the massive drop in temperature occurs, and we start a brief cooling (my graph ends before that to demonstrate warming up to that point), the Earth's temperature STILL trends upward from that low point, despite the ENSO not really going up any.
So even in the cooling bout, you can see a warming trend in the noise. Temperature is creeping back up to where it was in 2005, even though the ENSO is still bottomed out, so clearly SOMETHING is still warming the planet.
As an addendum, I should note that even though there's still clearly something that appears to be warming the planet for the past few years, slowly overriding the ENSO, as I said, definitive conclusions don't really come from any analysis of such short time periods anyways. Five years is not a statistically significant time period.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm simply trying to demonstrate that even within the short time period, the skeptic argument doesn't hold. That the Earth is slowly warming even as the ENSO stubbornly stays put would actually be evidence in my favor, but the time period is too short to matter, so unlike so-called skeptics, I don't use it to draw conclusions, beyond showing that their conclusions are still wrong, even when they do.
"Really, that's quite a set of accusations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, I've heard them for years, and no one has ever been able to demonstrate them."
Really? Try and find the data that was used by Mann. And look at the Wegman and NAS conclusions. Both pointed out that Mann's methodology was inadequate. Dr. North's committee only said that Mann was likely correct because there were other studies that showed that it was warmer today than it was during the Little Ice Age that MBH wanted to paper over. In his testimony before Congress North stated that he agreed with the Wegman findings. And when the Wegman commission corrected the statistical errors in the methodology the MBH trend disappeared.
Anyone who can read and has taken the time to look at the e-mails from UEA knows that even AGW alarmists like Cook, Briffa, and Wigley admitted to each other that Mann's work is crap.
Here are some of the comments by Cook:
"I am afraid that Mike [Mann] is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead."
and
"One problem is that he [Mann] will be using the RegEM method, which provides no better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not know where his estimates are coming from."
and
"Of course, I agree with you. We both know the probable flaws in Mike's recon, particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff. Your response is also why I chose not to read the published version of his letter. It would be too aggravating. The only way to deal with this whole issue is to show in a detailed study that his estimates are clearly deficient in multi-centennial power, something that you actually did in your Perspectives piece, even if it was not clearly stated because of editorial cuts. It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively."
We have MBH coauthor Bradley point out:
"I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year "reconstruction"."
There is plenty of evidence that the main proponents of the AGW theory have been far more critical of each others' work and of the uncertainty than has been revealed publicly. And cutting off the data in 1960 to hide the fact that it diverges from the temperature record is a problem for anyone. The deception has been demonstrated. You just refuse to look.
VangelV, I've always been a little leary of both Mann and Hansen because of some of the way they present personal positions, but you didn't accuse the scientific community of having a few questionable members, an assertion I might even agree with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou essentially accused EVERY SCIENTIST, EVERYWHERE, of being part of a global conspiracy.
That's what I get when I read your statements. Is this interpretation of what you've said an inaccurate representation of your views?
"Vangel, since Sault has already addressed SOME of the myriad of logical problems with your responses to me (some, not all, including you blatantly ignoring several of the papers I cited), I'm going to switch over, for the moment, to something a little easier to deal with, and that's your clear misconceptions about climate change in general."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did not ignore the papers. I merely pointed out that the papers showed many factors other than anthropogenic warming. Surely you do not want to argue that there were no ENSO driven changes in the past. And surely you do not wish to ignore the vast data that shows that coral adapt to warmer temperatures by expelling algae and replacing it with a higher heat tolerance species. You do not want to ignore the fact that bleaching is quite common as is the recovery. Or that coral prefers warm to cold water.
And as I pointed out, warmer temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations did not prevent shell formation or coral growth in the past. The data is actually very clear and the evidence is not in dispute.
We have plenty of evidence that shows that coral formation increases when water temperatures go up. We have plenty of evidence that shows that acidification is not a problem because local variations are far higher than the changes that the models predict by 2100. I have cited plenty of papers that disagree with the conclusions that were implied in the cited material that was provided by the alarmists. You can choose to ignore them but you can't choose to ignore the reality. The reefs are doing fine. They will continue to do fine as long as pollution, fishing methods, and tourism related stresses are kept low. If the oceans warm corals will expand their ranges. That is a good thing.
"I did not ignore the papers. I merely pointed out that the papers showed many factors other than anthropogenic warming"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs assertion I've agreed with.
Is anyone here asserting that ONLY AGW is a threat to any species, anywhere?
This strawman is not going to make your case.
"We have plenty of evidence that shows that coral formation increases when water temperatures go up. We have plenty of evidence that shows that acidification is not a problem because local variations are far higher than the changes that the models predict by 2100."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not sure exactly how it's possible that this has escaped you, in fact I'm sure it hasn't. Surely you realize that if the overall pH trends downward, than the range of those perturbations will also be shifted significantly?
Also, people have been claiming that short-term variations are greater, but to date I haven't seen anyone cite a source there, so this comment assumes you're correct, when that has not, in fact, been demonstrate (unless I missed it).
". The reefs are doing fine. They will continue to do fine as long as pollution, fishing methods, and tourism related stresses are kept low. If the oceans warm corals will expand their ranges. That is a good thing"
Then I guess you really didn't read most of the papers I cited, because several showed results that your papers did not address, not the Albright and Langdon paper that shows that pH stress does, in fact, impede coral, nor the Miller et al paper that shows US sites which indicate severe increased susceptibility to disease correlated with catastrophic bleaching events that have occurred with higher temperature, nor the Palmer et al paper that also shows increased suspectibility to disease with temperature.
You're en ignoring the authors of YOUR OWN PAPER, the Australian one, who state in the AIMS press release that the only reason some corals are growing is because they're reaching an optimal growth temperature, which will eventually be passed, ceasing that benefit, and that that has already been observed in other sites.
Nor have you really demonstrated that corals have had no problem surviving short-term changes in temperature equivalent to predictions by 2100.
There's no compelling evidence that MWP temperatures, or other recent events, comes close to those predicted temperatures, and long-past periods when things unequivocally WERE warmer are irrelevant to the discussion, because those coral species doubtless had time to adapt tothose temperatures; they didn't spend thousands of years in cooler temperatures shifting upward several C in a century and a half, nor did they endur a combined shift in temperature and pH.
Now, again, alone I have no idea what effects that will have, or if they'll be sufficient
Now, I don't disagree with you having some basic scientific skepticism. You should.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, to claim that there is NO evidence that a rapid shift in temperature and pH will have NO negative impacts, is just plain foolish, and unreflective of what's been discussed here, and in disagreement with the positions of many of the very authors you cite.
"Science points to no such thing. Solar is ONE of the primary drivers of climate, historically, in addition to CO2 (without which most of our climatic understanding falls apart), but its irrelevant for judging the past 35 or so years, since TSI hasn't actually correlated with temperatures since measurements began in 1978, and has actually decreased slightly if you want to get nitpicky (but for all intents and purposes, has remained constant in trend).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant"
No wonder you are confused. You believe that the argument is about the solar constant.
It actually isn't. The solar argument is primarily about the role of solar activity on changes in cloud cover. We know that increased solar activity leads to a reduction in cosmic radiation that makes it into the lower atmosphere. This means less ionization energy, a lower concentration of CCNs and lower cloud cover. Less cloud cover means a warmer planet. That means warmer temperatures, receding glaciers, and a lot of worry about nothing of significance.
Since you are ignorant of the argument let me provide you with some links to papers that you can take a look at.
doi:10.1029/2009GL038429
doi: 10.1038/nature10343
doi: 10.1029/2009GL040789
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.5027
doi: 10.1029/2001JD001264
doi: 10.1016/S1384-1076(02)00193-8
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.051102
"If you're suggesting that measured increases in temperature are UHI effects, then I'm afraid that's just patently wrong, because the patterns of observed warming don't correlate with increasing urbanization."
Of course UHI has a major effect. Take a look at the literature. If my 12-year-old can measure a difference between urban and rural temperatures so can you. And if the stations that provide the temperature readings fail to meet the standards it is rather difficult to argue that the data is very accurate and that the uncertainty is not important.
"Actually, the biggest effect from overall land use change in relatively recent history is probably that we've slightly cooled the Earth, because all the conversion to cropland has created an increase in albedo."
Actually, even there you have it all wrong. NASA was suggesting that 25% of the global warming could be attributed to soot deposits on snow. Perhaps this explains why Hansen keeps showing much higher imputed Arctic temperatures. (Even when actual measurements do not agree.)
http://terranature.org/globalWarmingSoot.htm
"And why is this a problem?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe trend in temperature was still warming up through about 2006, and since then, we've had a short lull in warming, but we've had those before, several times just in the past few decades, and they never signaled an end to warming."
That is not true. There has been no statistically significant warming for a decade and a half and we still have the problem of a lack of ocean warming even though the theory suggests a radiative imbalance that would lead to a monotonic increase in ocean heat storage. The inconvenient fact is that the predicted warming signatures have not been observed. Not only is there no evidence of the predicted equatorial mid-troposphere hot spot but the ARGO system has not observed the predicted heat storage that Trenberth and company are looking for.
"And while data sets disagree over where 1934 sits in years, it really doesn't matter, globally, because 1934 was a modest year."
They don't disagree. Most local readings show that the 1930s were warmer than the 1990s. Even Hansen admitted as such for the US before he began to 'adjust' the temperatures.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/hans_k2.gif
As for the 'global' temperature reconstruction, it comes from the CRU value added data set, not the actual measurements. Given the fact that many institutions have adjusted the data without justification the reconstruction is meaningless without access to the original measurements.
When the adjusted record looks like this:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1012/S00054/climate-science-coalition-vindicated.htm
and the measurements look like this:
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/awfw/Image2.gif
you better have very good explanation. If you don't you are going to admit that the reality is very different than what was being reported.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1012/S00054/climate-science-coalition-vindicated.htm
Please explain to rational readers why we should accept adjustments without explanation and how it is that the past temperatures can be readjusted downward time after time. And why exactly should we believe changes made without disclosure, without archiving of old data, and without access to the algorithms that made them?
One last thing. The global temperature reconstruction is not supported by the proxies used by Mann, Briffa, and others. That is why the AGW promoters used the 'Nature' trick and cut off the data before 1960.
"Except that those still don't account for the warming, and numerous methods still peg CO2 at the same forcings we've estimated it at for decades, 1.5-4.5C with a high probability of a middling value. The LGM, reductions in certainty of the aerosol forcing based on pinatubo, analyses of the past 40 years, and numerous other methods consistently return the same result.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich is why ALL climate scientists, for all intents and purposes, agree on this point, not just your so-called "alarmists" (and I freely admit they're out there)."
That is simply not true. There are many people who admit that the AMO, PDO, AO, solar activity, ENSO conditions, soot, etc., play a role in temperature change. Even if we ignore the fact that science does not depend on consensus there certainly is no consensus on the issue. Hell, if you read the Climategate e-mails you will find that even the strongest proponents of AGW think that most of their own work is crap. They select the studies and data to create a narrative, not to find the truth. Which is why I am so disturbed that the journals and science magazines have been so silent about the obvious fraud and the lack of transparency.
"It actually isn't. The solar argument is primarily about the role of solar activity on changes in cloud cover. We know that increased solar activity leads to a reduction in cosmic radiation that makes it into the lower atmosphere. This means less ionization energy, a lower concentration of CCNs and lower cloud cover. Less cloud cover means a warmer planet. That means warmer temperatures, receding glaciers, and a lot of worry about nothing of significance"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sorry, I actually coughed up my lunch laughing at that.
I hate to break it to you, but I'm hardly ignorant of this subject.
Yes, it's possible that reduced cosmic rays because of increased solar activity might stifle nucleation from those cosmic rays, causing a decrease in high-altitude clouds and decreasing the Earth's albedo...
but if you actually bothered to LOOK at the PMOD data, you'd see that the sun isn't increasing in activity, so the point is moot.
Total Solar Irrandiance is the same now as it was in 1978. It has trended neither up nor down (well, slightly down, but not significantly).
Now the sun was increasing in activity in relatively recent history.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe sun is probably the cause of most of the warming observed during the first half of the twentieth century, because of a direct change in the forcing, and possibly because of reduced cosmic ray output...
I say reduced because Svensmark et al have never actually shown a physical mechansism by which cosmic rays cause sufficient nucleation (the particles known to be created are a couple orders of magnitude too small), but regress of the mechanism, the sun has played a role in the past, even the recent past.
It just hasn't played a role since 1978.
"That is simply not true. There are many people who admit that the AMO, PDO, AO, solar activity, ENSO conditions, soot, etc., play a role in temperature change"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, they all agree that these play a role in the temperature. Your contention that these represent some kind of secret alternative to CO2 as a forcing shows great ignorance on your part.
These influences have at-times very great influence. Co2 also has great influence, again, as dozens of different methods all show Co2 to be, not the only strong forcing, but one of them (and those that have quantified it continuously arrive at the same answer).
And no, the climate scientists have never said "most of their work is crap".
They've discussed potential problems with certain studies; that is not the same as saying "most". And yes, there is a clear consensus on the science
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
Presently there about half a dozen to a dozen climate scientist, in the entire world, who are stated skeptics, and have other causes they believe to be the driver of climate; the uncertainty is because it's hard to say who's even still a skeptic among the traditional crowd (you can certainly cross Muller off the list).
Presently, that list definitely consists of:
Patrick Michaels
Roy Spencer
Richard Lindzen
John Christy
-maybe one or two others
Svensmark I haven't heard any solid statements from in some time, last I heard from Friis-Christsen, I saw him FINALLY admitting solar activity didn't correlate with temperatures after 1980, I can't seem to get a straight answer on Pielke Sr.'s position (his son indicates that overall, he thinks humans are changing climate, contradictory to certain statements made), and of course, there's always the occasional person I forget about.
Also, "I say reduced because Svensmark et al have never actually shown a physical mechansism by which cosmic rays cause sufficient nucleation"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisshould read "I say *possible* because Svensmark et al have never actually shown a physical mechansism by which cosmic rays cause sufficient nucleation"
and seriously Vangel, let me again say that you made my day here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere you were drumming up what you were implying to be some great new bombshell that was going to revolutionize the science and "teach the ignorant environmental bio major something new", a great new hypothesis that was going to make all conventional wisdom just fly right out the window...
...and you drudge up the cosmic ray hypothesis...
and act like it's something we've never seen before!
and then claiming that it still worked, despite the solar forcing not actually changing in over 30 years (eliminating the very driver of this hypothesis), acting like TSI is actually something different than the solar forcing! I mean, that would be like me claiming that the ocean heat content is not the same as the heat content of the oceans!
You, sir, deserve an internet for that.
Seriously, you've been an intelligent person for discussion most of the time here, arrogant and condescending "assume if they don't agree with X, that they aren't aware or it" attitude aside, but this... this just makes my day for humor.
So, like Sault, you refute the evidence exposed in the email scandal & want us to have our judgment modified by apologist spin doctors rather than reading the actual emails? Nothing to see here, according to Sault. Perhaps I have missed your response to the emails. It is rather a litmus test you see. Exposes at least one of the prisms you view reality through.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"VangelV, I've always been a little leary of both Mann and Hansen because of some of the way they present personal positions, but you didn't accuse the scientific community of having a few questionable members, an assertion I might even agree with."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut the problem is that most of the foundation for the AGW argument comes from Hansen, Jones, and Mann. Without their data adjustments and reconstructions there is no case to be made for a CO2 driven temperature trend. Keep in mind that the 1996 IPCC report initially concluded that there was no evidence of man as a driver for climate change. It was Ben Santer, who rewrote substantial sections of Chapter 8 after the contributing scientists had already approved the previous version, who made the claim that it was human activities that had an impact on the planet's climate. He removed or modified references to the extent of the uncertainty without approval by the reviewers. That upset quite a few of the contributors who considered the process a subversion of the peer review process.
If we look at specifics we find unsubstantiated claims made about polar bear populations, the urban heat island effect, solar activity, coral growth, malaria, hurricane activity, etc. The experts in specific fields admit that there is uncertainty in their own field but somehow believe that the rest is all right.
Do you remember the Christopher Landsea resignation when Trenberth argued that global warming would cause more hurricane activity right after the Katrina disaster? Landsea wrote, "To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record." You had non experts make claims that were not supported by the science. The Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy certainly did not support their claims.
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg
continued below..
continued...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You essentially accused EVERY SCIENTIST, EVERYWHERE, of being part of a global conspiracy."
No. I pointed out that the IPCC and the primary data keepers were the major problem. In my response above I pointed out how non-experts used their IPCC positions to rewrite Chaper 8 after it had already been approved to make claims that the experts had not agreed to and how they had used their positions to make claims about hurricane activity that were clearly false and unsupported by the evidence. Let me give you another example.
The IPCC was claiming that even a minor increase in temperatures would cause malaria to spread. It actually ignored Professor Paul Reiter, who is one of the foremost experts in the field, because he would not go along with the deception. In a letter to the House of Lords, Professor Reiter set the record straight. He pointed out the following:
"The scientific literature on mosquito-borne diseases is voluminous, yet the text references in the chapter were restricted to a handful of articles, many of them relatively obscure, and nearly all suggesting an increase in prevalence of disease in a warmer climate. The paucity of information was hardly surprising: not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists. One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.
Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Nina, but whose principal interest was the effectiveness of motor cycle crash helmets (plus one paper on the health effects of cell phones).
The amateurish text of the chapter reflected the limited knowledge of the 22 authors. Much of the emphasis was on "changes in geographic range (latitude and altitude) and incidence (intensity and seasonality) of many vector-borne diseases" as "predicted" by computer models. Extensive coverage was given to these models, although they were all based on a highly simplistic model originally developed as an aid to malaria control campaigns. The authors acknowledged that the models did not take into account "the influence of local demographic, socioeconomic, and technical circumstances"
The IPCC process is very corrupt and cares more about politics than science.
...continued...
continued...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You essentially accused EVERY SCIENTIST, EVERYWHERE, of being part of a global conspiracy."
The point that was made by Professor Reiter on malaria was a very clear one. He pointed out that malaria used to be prevalent in Washington and London during the Little Ice Age and that anyone who has any understanding of the issue knows that malaria is not a "tropical" disease. One of the largest outbreaks of the 20th century took place in the Soviet Union in the 1920s. During the peak infestation period there were nearly 13 million cases per year and around 600 thousand deaths. In Archangel, close to the Arctic Circle there were nearly 10,000 deaths.
Sadly, the IPCC ignored the experts and the literature as it used professional activists and political appointees to write that section of the report.
The polar bear issue is just as screwed up. First, the population of polar bears has exploded over the past 40 years. But that is not the impression one gets from reading the IPCC reports. And keep in mind that the polar bears had no problem with warm temperatures of the Holocene Optimum or the Medieval Warm Period.
You want to talk sea ice cover? Well, we hear all of the talk about catastrophic ice loss in the Arctic but don't hear that global warming should effect global sea ice cover. But when you look at the global ice cover data there is no trend.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
So why aren't scientists bringing up these facts? Why don't they point out that you can't hide proxy data? That you can't cut off one data series just because it diverges from other series? That polar bear populations have gone up, not down? That malaria has not spread as the world has warmed up? That exposure to excess cold is a much bigger threat to life than exposure to excess heat? (The highest mortality rates are observed in the winter, not summer.) That the predictions made by the IPCC have failed to materialize? That it is accpetable to keep adjusting the actual measurements just so that you can get the trend that supports your narrative? That the ARGO system shows that the predicted heat accumulation is not there?
It seems to me that scientists, who should be skeptical of everything, are quite eager to accept claims made in other fields as truth even when the evidence shows that many of the claims are not supported by the general literature. That is corruption. And that shows that money matters in science as much as it does in business and politics.
"How can the sun be driving the warming we're seeing if solar activity isn't trending in the right direction? It's been decreasing slightly over the past few decades yet each decade is warmer than the previous one."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have already answered this above.
Take a look at the Shaviv and Svensmark papers that I cited and the cloud chamber experiments. The issue is the effect of solar activity on CRF, not just TSI. (And recently there has been a lot of discussion about the variation in UV output that seems interesting.)
"I really want to know what value for the Earth's climate sensitivity do you use to formulate your opinions on what humanity's CO2 emissions can be."
I do not believe that the IPCC's sensitivity assumptions are valid and have not seen any justification for them. I believe that a doubling should cause somewhere between 0.7C and 1.4C. That would not be considered catastrophic nor harmful.
"The problem with this is that, first off, you're just wrong about temperatures, by all indications. The MWP was not likely as warm as today. Yes, I know, Ross Mckitrick and Steve Mcintyre blah blah blah, but their methodology doesn't hold, because if you use it to compare proxies with the modern record, there's no correlation of any kind."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually there are hundreds of papers from all over the world that suggest otherwise. M&M were proved correct when they argued that MBH98 and MBH99 were flawed papers and that the methodology used created hockey sticks out of random noise. And if you paid attention to the Congressional testimony you would have learned that both North and Wegman agreed that the only thing that could be said from the MBH papers was that today's temperatures were warmer than those in the Little Ice Age. They said that MBH could not draw any conclusions about the MWP.
I suggest that you go to the source rather than the warmist interpretation of the findings.
"MBH98, on the other hand, not only passes this test, but is corroborated by other papers using different methods with different assumptions (for example http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/rutherford-et-al-2005-highlights/ )"
Vangel, you can try and spin the cosmic ray hypothesis all you want, but this is one clear case you can't teach an old -wrong- hypothesis new tricks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCosmic rays are driven by solar output, which has not varied. It doesn't matter how much solar output might affect cosmic rays; it's not going to produce a change while it's static.
Do you want to take it from the other direction?
Cosmic rays themselves have not varied; they follow no long-term up or down trend.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/recent-warming-but-no-trend-in-galactic-cosmic-rays/
"I do not believe that the IPCC's sensitivity assumptions are valid and have not seen any justification for them. I believe that a doubling should cause somewhere between 0.7C and 1.4C. That would not be considered catastrophic nor harmful"
and you base this on? and contend with all the evidence to the contrary of your statement by doing what exactly?
"So, like Sault, you refute the evidence exposed in the email scandal & want us to have our judgment modified by apologist spin doctors rather than reading the actual emails? Nothing to see here, according to Sault. Perhaps I have missed your response to the emails. It is rather a litmus test you see. Exposes at least one of the prisms you view reality through"
If these emails were an honest attempt to raise alarms about the science to begin with, they'd all be released at once.
Instead, these people wait until a climate summit, then release a few emails, then wait for another climate summit, then release a few more, basically as a repeated political stunt.
There are numerous examples of excerpts from these emails, those held up as the most egregious examples of fraud, being nothing more than out-of-context nonsense.
Are there also emails that show something substantive? Perhaps.
Show a specific email, and I'll tell you whether I think the conclusion you're drawing from it is reasonable or not.
If you want to draw a conclusion about what sweeping judgement I make of "climategate", beyond the transparent dishonesty behind it, it's simply this: I don't make sweeping conclusions, either way.
I judge the emails on a case-by-case basis.
Thank you. That explains it. Bye.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook, you present a lot of different arguments and it would take forever to debunk them all. Most, if not all, of your arguments are countered here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
I think it's telling that there's not one or two major objections to climate science from the denialist camp; to-date, they've found 173 arguments and soundly rebutted them all with peer-reviwed science. How come you need 173 arguments? It's like the thrust of your argument keeps changing as more data becomes available. Is it the Sun? Well according to you it is, until actual solar output doesn't agree with climate denial theory. Okay, so it's cosmic rays then, but there is no conclusive proof that cosmic rays can cause cloud formation! CERN just said that particles 1/10 to 1/100 the size necessary to nucleate droplet formation can be formed by energetic particles in a lab. So why do you distort the CERN team's conclusions? Why do you need 173 arguments to make your case? How come you can't come up with 1 or 2 "nail in the coffin" arguments that we can actually debate instead of shifting from one of those 173 to the other in an endless loop?
A good paper explaining climate science and sensitivity can be found here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf
Unfortunately this is more alarmist tosh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe ocean temperature is falling, as proven by the Argo Buoys.
In addition, the oceans are only taking up a mere 2 billion tons of extra carbon per year (due to the increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 from 280ppm to 390ppm)this 2 billion tons is less than 0.005% of the carbon that the oceans contain. (That is, ONE part in NINETEEN THOUSAND)this will not affect ocean acidification significantly.
Why do you deniers NEVER PRESENT PROOF TO BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENTS? Where are your calculations on ocean pH? Where is a study saying that shell-forming animals will be OK at a lower pH? Whether you know it or not, there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence saying that ocean acidification is bad:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=mackieOAposts
When you come in here with unverified "evidence" and unsupported arguments, don't expect to be believed. You have to have extraordinary evidence to back up those extraordinary claims. But I guess I shouldn't expect a science denier to actually now how science works.
When you present evidence, Sault & his buddies find some 'Peer reviewed' disclaimer. They even have ‘Peer Reviewed' disclaimers that claim the email scandal is a beat up so do not live in the false hope that facts & figures will divert them. It will not. If you say black, they will say white. An appeal to reason is futile. If you say 2 plus 2 equals four, they will ask for peer reviewed proof. Absolutely bereft of any ability to analyse anything themselves & credit the remainder of us with the same disability.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, you really have been brainwashed haven't you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy claims are not extraordianry, and this information is easily available.
You are a rude person, so I think I'll get you to do your own research.
Oh, and something else, the MSL (sea level) is falling, world temperatures are falling, Greenland and Antarctica's ice sheets are growing, the great barrier reef is fine, (I live next to it), sea ice flows in the arctic and antarctic are growing, the IPCC's models have been proven to be completely wrong, CO2 forcing feedback is negative (around -1.1), the polar bears are fine, and AGW has fallen into a heap.
Any questions?
Thanks for the warning, mate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo offense Catamount, but you miss the issue. You keep arguing about soalr output, but the issue is not solar output the issue is sunspots, and their effect on cosmic ray shielding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery different issue. So you can blather on about about solar output, but you are not addressing the issue.
Now, I have another issue that you can fail to address:
Please provide experimental and real world evidence of the forcing factor that amplifies CO2's effects. The physics is very clear that left to it's own devices, CO2 is nothing more that a clammy virginal foundin in the sweaty humping of the global climate brothel.
Somewhere there must be some Viagra for the poor little fella. Tell us where it was found and experimentally demonstrated. Word of warning, though, if any of the papers you quote use computer models as evidence, you lose, as computer models are meaningless.
Let's see some real evidence. I keep issuing this challenge to every Caped Climate Crusader and none have yet answered the call. Do you feel lucky today?
Carlyle - LOL! You have sault and cronies figured out, without a doubt. I rarely even bother to read anything they post anymore. They refuse to even acknowledge anything, peer reviewed or otherwise, unless it tows their imagined line. Thanks for continuing the battle, albeit a wasted effort on the warmers, hopefully other visitors to the site will take something away besides the dogma.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLive long and prosper, my friend!
"At the same time, a lot of the environmental nutjobs out there reject many of the potential solutions that would solve global warming anyways, like broader adoption of nuclear power."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCorrect. People who claim to care about the environment somehow oppose one of the cheapest and cleanest solutions that we have. With the new nuclear designs you can produce a great deal of very cheap power for quite some time without posing many risks to the environment.
"That said, you're painting with a VERY broad brush here, trying to generalize unfathomably large groups of people with sweeping judgements for which you have no apparent evidence, especially against all of them.
I'd urge you to consider how much that doesn't help you make your case."
There is nothing that I have said about corals, polar bears, sea ice cover, the raw temperature measurements, malaria, hurricane activity, the IPCC process, mortality rates, etc., that is not factual. This is easy to check and should be checked by people who want to be called scientists. When these people find a problem they need to speak up. If they do not they are as guilty as all those people who were quiet when Lysenkoism and eugenics were the scientific flavour of the day.
"Secondly, the MWP does not likely have our levels of acidification."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? Where is your data? Are you even aware that in many places the ocean goes through a much greater variation in pH than is being predicted as the change over the next 100 years? That is variation that goes on today and has been going on for the entire history of the planet.
From what I see there is no scientific basis for most of the claims being made by the AGW proponents. After the warming scare waned they changed to focus to 'climate change' as if the climate did not change all the time. Once they figured out that was going nowhere they began to talk about catastrophic change. But that is a hard sell to a public that sees plenty of excess deaths due to the unusually cold weather in Europe but no excess deaths due to the milder winter in Eastern North America. After having made fools of themselves by predicting more and more hurricanes only to see a major decline in the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index and scare kids into thinking that polar bears were dying even as polar bear populations reached half century highs something else was needed. The ocean acidity scare was one such thing until the real data came in and showed that a large variation in the ocean is common and that no matter how much coal we burn the oceans will remain basic. The next scares, which you have not yet latched on to as far as I know are sustainability and biodiversity. The problem is that warming leads to more diversity to and that trying to destroy the real economy does not lead to sustainability.
This is a site that deals with science. Since you have no clue about pH levels I would not be arguing on that front until you had some historical data. And how do you supposed all those fish survived in the oceans when CO2 levels were ten times higher than the present?
<b>As for previous eras that were far warmer than today, that was largely many millions of years ago, and any coral species would have evolved in those conditions. I have no doubt corals can survive in very warm seas; what I doubt is that like many species, they'll have absolutely no problem adapting to a rapid change, of any kind. Were we facing a .1/c decade COOLING trend, I would be just as worried.</b>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut we are facing a cooling trend. Solar activity is falling and the physicists suggest a decline to Little Ice Age Levels. The PDO and AMO are going into their negative phases, which suggests a stepwise decrease in the raw measurements. In a few years we will have a harvest that gets ruined by an early frost and we will have a replay of the 1960s when the USSR wheat crop took a major hit from the weather.
Did you notice the harm done to Florida's wildlife and coral during last year's cold spell? Why is that preferable to warmer conditions?
"It's not the warming we're concerned about; it's the rapid change in general, combined with all the other environmental problems (habitat fragmentation/loss, pollution, overharvesting, death of other co-dependent species, etc, etc)."
You seem to be confused. The change is not rapid. Even that fraud Phil Jones admitted that the global warming rates from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were, "not statistically significantly different from each other." So I don't see how your argument about warming holds up.
I agree that pollution is a problem but that problem has nothing to do with the AGW argument. But let me note that pollution levels are correlated to the standard of living. Richer countries and countries that respect property rights permit less pollution into the environment. Under common law a man may do what he wishes with his property but cannot permit pollution to harm his neighbour by crossing the property boundary. This is why cities like Toronto, Boston, and New York have court cases in which smithies were not permitted to build in residential areas.
From what I can tell the AGW crowd wants more pollution because it would act to decrease the standard of living of most people. Theirs is an ideological battle that has very little to do with facts, science, or concern for the poor or humanity. When Phil Jones travels a quarter million miles to give talks about how others should not use as much energy I doubt that he really believes what he says.
"It's more like a %40 increase in CO2 concentration since 1850. You should learn some climate science before trying to participate in this debate."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am talking about the increase since 1998, which we can accurately measure. I do not accept the 40% number because I have seen too many studies showing higher CO2 concentrations than the number chosen by the IPCC.
But it makes no difference. A 40% increase would mean that we would have seen far more than half the temperature increase. The IPCC put that at around 0.8C which means that its sensitivity number is way off. You can't really have it both ways. If that is the number you want to use you have to see what sensitivity it implies and compare it to the IPCC predictions.
"2005 and 2010 were both hotter than 1998:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm"
Actually, they were not. If you have paid attention you would have known that GISS and CRU make adjustments to the actual measurements and that the reconstructions come from the 'adjusted' data. If you change the numbers you will change the rankings of the years. But changing history is somewhat of a Soviet/Nazi approach that is not acceptable in science.
Take a look at this link:
http://voices.yahoo.com/nasa-admits-1934-not-1998-was-warmest-year-494073.html
What we have here is Hansen admitting in 2007 that 1934 was the warmest year for the US. But that is not what GISS had been saying. GISS actually doctored the data to make 1998, 2005, and 2006 look exceptionally hot. It was only forced to admit the error after SM, who discovered the problems with the MBH papers, found a 'problem' with the GISS data. (I believe that Hansen chalked that up to a Y2K bug.)
Note that NOAA adds a warming signal to the US data.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/ustemp-adjustments.gif
Note the GISS changes.
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/hans_k2.gif
What Hansen has been doing is being done by many of the other data keepers. Jones has said that some of the original data used for the temperature reconstruction has been lost or destroyed and is no longer available from CRU. The reconstructions are created from 'value-added' data sets that do not reflect the original measurements.
So when we get a global temperature we have no clue how accurate it is. We have already seen Jones screw around with the UHI claims. After getting a small effect that diverged from most of the literature by using fraudulent Chinese and Russian data Jones came up with another figure that was around 20 times higher. Yet, the data sets still seem to reflect the original assumption. And with the NZ fiasco we find that the official NZ data was shown to have a 1C per century trend while the original raw data showed no trend whatsoever. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research was not able to justify the changes made to the records.
If you look at the information you certainly do not see any support for the claims from the actual temperature data. The claim comes from computer algorithms that use adjusted data with most of the adjustments coming from algorithms that have not been analyzed and by using assumptions that cannot be justified. As such the claims have to be rejected.
"Is anyone here asserting that ONLY AGW is a threat to any species, anywhere?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead the article. It is about temperatures cooking coral. I would say that if you paid attention to the claims from the IPCC you would get the exact message that I provided you with. Now you can say that nobody is ignoring other factors but that would be disingenuous because the big debate has been about cutting carbon, not about real pollution.
"This strawman is not going to make your case."
What "strawman"? Don't you listen to the pronouncements being made? The IPCC is telling us that the danger is CO2, not actual pollution. It argues that the planet will warm up and that the rising temperatures will kill polar bears, coral, the Amazon, etc., etc., etc. If you agree that the arguments about global warming and the role of man is immaterial I will agree with you. But I doubt that is what you are really saying here.
"I'm not sure exactly how it's possible that this has escaped you, in fact I'm sure it hasn't. Surely you realize that if the overall pH trends downward, than the range of those perturbations will also be shifted significantly?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are missing the point. That range has been measured without much of a change in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. We do not know enough about pH changes in the ocean to make any significant statement. After all, as I wrote above, the oceans did very well with CO2 concentrations that were ten times higher than current levels. Ocean life thrived. And if you look at the data, neither temperature nor CO2 concentrations are significant. We have no clue about ocean temperature trends prior to 2003 because the data was terrible and had too many errors to be all that useful. Since 2003 we have had the ARGO data but that has shown no material increase.
You know that there is no way that our use of fossil fuels will make the ocean acidic. The acidity claims are just narrative made by people who want to keep the funding coming. They don't really know the complexity of the mechanisms involved, don't have any historical data, and don't have a clue about the local condition issues. Life in the ocean handles the variation quite well and does not need the IPCC to deal with CO2. If you guys really want to 'help' argue about the ability of governments to pollute as they wish and emission laws that do not respect property rights.
"Thank you. That explains it. Bye"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo when someone challenges you to an examination of the emails for context and accuracy of quoting by people who comment on them, rather than just taking popular internet interpretations uncritically, you bail from the conversation?
Does that mean you don't discuss with anyone who doesn't uncritically agree with you?
That, to me, would say far more about a person then how they feel about a few politically hyped emails.
Let's start by going over one of your past statements as yet unaddressed:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“But the problem is that most of the foundation for the AGW argument comes from Hansen, Jones, and Mann”
If you honestly think this, then it's indicative of you not really understanding the science, and not reading the scientific literature.
Mann's research is interesting for context, but irrelevant to AGW theory. Whether past temperatures changed has nothing to do with whether humans are capable of producing changes.
Jones and Hansen are not the foundation of AGW theory either. AGW theory was established decades before they were born. If you had said Callendar, you might be correct (or Arrhenius), but not Jones and Hansen.
In the modern era, they're a tiny piece of the amalgamation of researchers contributing to this issue. Annan, Briffa, Robock, Schmidt, Hargreaves, Santer, Steig, Rutherford, Laut, Trenberth, all people who have enormously made the case for AGW, without any of these three scientists, and you insult all of them, and the thousands of others I can't come up with off the top of my head, by suggesting that they haven't made contributions of their own, even though, combined, just that tiny portion of the world climatological community has:
-demonstrated CO2's effect in multiple studies to be ~3C
-analyzed model matches to tropospheric trends
-built paleoclimate records at all timescales
etc, etc
In fact, if I type the worlds “anthropogenic climate change” into the ISI Web of Science, their names only appear on three papers, out of the first hundred (among hundreds of other scientists).
"Really? Where is your data?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This is a site that deals with science. Since you have no clue about pH levels I would not be arguing on that front until you had some historical data"
I like how you jump from asking for data, to just assuming I don't have it.
It's been very characteristic of you this whole time: you just assume that when someone says something that doesn't make sense to you, that they're ignorant, without even given them a chance to present something to back themselves. Your arrogance amazes me. I certainly have my flaws in debates, but at least I don't automatically assume that when someone says something that disagrees with me, that it's necessarily out of ignorance.
Multiple papers have found that for millions of years, ocean pH has not trended significantly up or down, and those differences, even given the margins of error, show pH within ranges far less extreme than predicted for the next century.
Here's just a couple of examples
DOI: 10.1126/science.284.5421.1824
DOI: 10.1038/425365a
"Are you even aware that in many places the ocean goes through a much greater variation in pH than is being predicted as the change over the next 100 years? That is variation that goes on today and has been going on for the entire history of the planet"
It seems that no matter how many times we ask you for specific data and citations, you're unable to provide it.
"The next scares, which you have not yet latched on to as far as I know are sustainability and biodiversity. The problem is that warming leads to more diversity to and that trying to destroy the real economy does not lead to sustainability"
In other words, you're again launching vague personal attacks on environmentalists rather than actually addressing science.
We can discuss this at another time, for now, it's little more than a red herring on your part (why is that always the favorite logical fallacy of denialists? It never fails).
"And how do you supposed all those fish survived in the oceans when CO2 levels were ten times higher than the present?"
I'm trying to figure out how many times I've already addressed this. That I can't even recall means it's more than I should have had to.
“But we are facing a cooling trend”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? Would you like to show that to me? Since warming continued, unabated, until about 2005, and since the lull in temperature we had for a few years after was no greater than what was seen several times in the past few decades (after which further warming always followed), and since a few years doesn't make a trend in the first place, I'd like to see where you can show me that.
“Solar activity is falling and the physicists suggest a decline to Little Ice Age Levels. The PDO and AMO are going into their negative phases, which suggests a stepwise decrease in the raw measurements. In a few years we will have a harvest that gets ruined by an early frost and we will have a replay of the 1960s when the USSR wheat crop took a major hit from the weather”
So you're saying we MAY be facing a cooling trend.
If that proves to be the case, and it proves to be substantially more than a degree or so magnitude, over a period of less than a hundred years, then I will wholly advocate every attempt to counteract that effect, through any reasonable geoengineering proposal that might be available (which, granted, might not exist, since thus far no decent solution in that area has yet been proposed for warming).
“Did you notice the harm done to Florida's wildlife and coral during last year's cold spell? Why is that preferable to warmer conditions? “
I'm sorry, did you not just quote me saying I would be “just as worried” about a massive cooling event?
Does that not strongly imply that I would not consider cooling preferable?
Do you actually READ the comments you quote?
“You seem to be confused. The change is not rapid. Even that fraud Phil Jones admitted that the global warming rates from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were, "not statistically significantly different from each other." So I don't see how your argument about warming holds up. “
Either it's you who's confused, or you're offering another strawman.
If the 1970-2005 warming were the end of AGW, no one would consider it to be anything of note. Clearly, when we talk about rapid warming, we're referring not just to the past 30 years, but a continued century of warming, resulting in a rise of several degrees C, including a potential rise in the rate of warming.
Small fluctuations happen rapidly all the time here or there. That is not the rapid warming trend being worried about.
“What we have here is Hansen admitting in 2007 that 1934 was the warmest year for the US. But that is not what GISS had been saying. GISS actually doctored the data to make 1998, 2005, and 2006 look exceptionally hot. It was only forced to admit the error after SM, who discovered the problems with the MBH papers, found a 'problem' with the GISS data. (I believe that Hansen chalked that up to a Y2K bug.)”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's test this hypothesis of yours that the warming isn't real, and only the product of statistical filtering.
Why, if that's the case, has long time SKEPTIC Richard Muller done an analysis that completely agrees with GISS/NOAA and CRU temperatures?
http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis/
Let's go to the site of another skeptic, Roy Spencer, and look at the trends in his satellite data, shall we?
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.3
Look at that, the UAH data shows the same roughly global trend (.14C/decade).
Well, I guess that's another wild conspiracy theory we can kiss goodbye, unless you're going to claim that both Richard Muller and Roy Spencer are in on the supposed global conspiracy you imply every other climate scientist to be part of (nearly every other climate scientist being behind AGW).
“What "strawman"? Don't you listen to the pronouncements being made? The IPCC is telling us that the danger is CO2, not actual pollution. It argues that the planet will warm up and that the rising temperatures will kill polar bears, coral, the Amazon, etc., etc., etc. If you agree that the arguments about global warming and the role of man is immaterial I will agree with you. But I doubt that is what you are really saying here.”
Oh, I see, so apparently because an organization founded for the express purpose of focusing on climate, focuses on climate (how shocking!), that means that everyone is ignoring all the other problems, and now you're compounding a red herring with a false dichotomy, because apparently, according to you here, my only two choices in position are:
A.) Entire disagree with AGW theory
B.) Believe that no problem other than AGW can be significant
Apparently those of us who actually study these issues can't both accept AGW theory, just as virtually every climate scientist on Earth does, AND believe that other problems are just as serious.
“You know that there is no way that our use of fossil fuels will make the ocean acidic. The acidity claims are just narrative made by people who want to keep the funding coming. They don't really know the complexity of the mechanisms involved, don't have any historical data, and don't have a clue about the local condition issues”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? Did you get a PhD in some topic relevant to this and publish a paper while I was away?
I mean, I assume you did, since you're basically explicitly stating that you're smarter than numerous published authors.
Why don't you link me to your research? I'd love to read it! It will be interesting how you back up the statement that our fossil fuel use if physically incapable of altering ocean pH.
It must be one hell of a scientific venture you're on, since you're disproving basic chemstry, which holds that
"CO2 + H2O -> H2CO3"
“If you guys really want to 'help' argue about the ability of governments to pollute as they wish and emission laws that do not respect property rights”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do argue about those issues. Why do you assume I don't?
Do you not realize that AGW is one issues among a myriad I study and frequently comment on? We have power generation that, as I understand it, spews as much radioactivity as nuclear plants even generate (only they dump it out a smoke stack instead of burying it), in addition to gross amounts of mercury. We've traded smog for acid rain problems. We have severely polluted lakes and rivers around the nation, full of substances, half of which I probably don't even know the specifics of. We've killed or severely harmed people and the environment alike.
In addition, we're doing far worse than simple pollution. Overharvesting and habitat destruction have driven species to the brink of extinction that are so resilient, that feat shouldn't even be possible. Take wild cat species for instance. These animals share the reproductive anatomy that makes rabbits prolific; they can breed absurdly fast. Yet, most of the species are threatened on some level or another, many critically. Puma concolor (whatever of the myriad of common names you want to assign to it) has what, maybe a quarter of its range from 100 years ago? And the US is relatively healthy environmentally compared to many nations; we actually still have a lot of relatively unspoiled land. The red wolf and black footed ferret we drove just about to complete extinction (the latter was even declared extinct). We fragment habitat as well, which compounds the existing problems by reducing effective populations, because it partitions those populations, reducing gene flow.
Combined, I discuss these other issues an order of magnitude more than climate change.
So, again, I ask you, why do you make the assumption?
As a final note, Vangel, we've asked you to justify your estimation of climate sensitivity to CO2 (and, of course, the strength of the forcing).
Do you withdraw your claim about it, or can you do that?
also, I apologize for any missing quotation marks; SciAM didn't like them apparently
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sure you can figure out what's being quoted
Almost all of what you say, does not bear any similarity to the facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs we all know, GISS, CRU and NOAA's doctored data all needs to be triple checked by impartial and credible scientists before it can be believed.
Christy/Spencer are speaking about a longer-term trend that the planet is warming at 0.14c per decade. My answer is; so what?
That means by 2100 it will be 0.14 x 8.8 = 1.23c warmer than now.
This is THREE times less than the IPCC middle alarmist estimate, and FIVE times less than the Australian Govt alarmist estimate. Not that it matters now, since we are in a down-trend because of the MDO; and the long-term thrend is therefore lower.
If you took off your blinkers, you will see that the late 20th century rise was also the MDO at work, and very little (if any) of it can be attributed to CO2.
It is easy to see from the climategate emails that the small field of climate science has been hi-jacked by a number of individuals; about 20 of them. The leaders of this anti-humanity gang are Mann and Jones. Among the others are; Tom Wigley, Danny Harvey, Tim Carter, Mike Hulme, Mark Eakin, Tom Crowley, Keith Briffa, Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughes, Ed Cook, Ben Santer, Richard Smith, Michael Oppenheimer, Kevin Trendberth, Andy Dessler, Jim Hansen.
These people have shown themselves to be alarmist, myopic, selfish, arrogant, exhibiting groupthink, anti-human and against the scientific method, and should be sacked from any holding scientific post ever again.
Belief in their assertions, and actions based on their bodgy science would cause untold misery and the deaths of hundreds of millions, if not billions worldwide.
When the science is this important, no small gang of anti-science lying fools must be allowed this much control over the policy of nations. The science needs and must be done by impartial and competent scientists stringently using the proper scientific method of hypothesis and testing; of openness, checking and re-checking.
Soooo, those ancient fossil corals that lived when seas were much warmer and more acidic survived how?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Mann's research is interesting for context, but irrelevant to AGW theory. Whether past temperatures changed has nothing to do with whether humans are capable of producing changes".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is another red herring constantly brought up by warmists. It is a trick; on the surface it sounds logical, but ignoring underlying natural climate changes means that we can't possibly measure any anthropogenic component.
That means that ANY warming at all becomes instantly anthropogenic!
It is very easy to show that a 100% proved and definate long-term warming trend (which is now obviously attributed to anthropogenic emissions), could in fact include a net anthropogenically-caused COOLING! (and vice versa)
This is why historical records are being fiddled by the warmist crowd as much as they can get away with; it enhances their CO2 warming case.
For example, Mann took a whole millenium of wild climate change, and fabricated a single straight line from it! This is how crooked these folk are.
Frolly, its your statements that don't fit facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are about 9,000 scientists in atmospheric sciences in the United States alone, hardly a "tiny field". Not all of them necessarily work in climatology, in fact, many will be meteorologists, but then, meteorlogists overwhelmingly agree with AGW theory. The official position of the American Meteorological Society is one of endorsement (but then, I suppose that shouldn't be a surprise, since ALL scientific bodies endorse AGW theory). If the whole field is "hijacked" by "about 20 individuals", then why does basically all published research agree with them, to the point that in a random survey of 928 papers, not one disagrees? (see previous mention of Oreskes 2004)
Not that that should surprise you, either, since 5 out of 6 scientists in all fields agree (http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/)
"That means by 2100 it will be 0.14 x 8.8 = 1.23c warmer than now.
This is THREE times less than the IPCC middle alarmist estimate, and FIVE times less than the Australian Govt alarmist estimate."
Okay, if they're alarmists, then let's stop your dithering about over vague accusations, irrelevant characterizations, and grand conspiracy theories and cut to the chase.
If you don't think increased CO2 output will increase temperatures more quickly, then what is your estimate of the forcings for the 20th century? For the LGM?
What do you attribute observed warming since ~1970 to?
"This is another red herring constantly brought up by warmists. It is a trick; on the surface it sounds logical, but ignoring underlying natural climate changes means that we can't possibly measure any anthropogenic component.
That means that ANY warming at all becomes instantly anthropogenic!"
Umm, no?
If we had absolutely no paleoclimate data, why would we assume based on that fact that all warming is anthropogenic? That's completely nonsequitur.
In fairness, it's an exaggeration on my part to say that short-term paleoclimate could have no relevance; if you had both a good estimate of the forcings and temperature, it can help constrain/confirm existing science, but Mann's work doesn't address a breakdown of the forcings, and Vangel's contention that AGW theory is absolutely contingent upon that one paleoclimate breakdown for that one period is unequivocally false. We get far more useful paleoclimate data right now from the LGM. So in that narrow sense, Mann's work is irrelevant, because AGW theory (nor ANY climate hypothesis) is not dependent on it.
When I was a boy, I went skin diving in the crystal clear water of the coral reefs of the Florida Keys. I could see for a long distance underwater. When observing those reefs no one needed LSD for a psychedelic experience.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToday visibility is a few feet. Sewage and farm run off have greatly darkened the water. This has caused Gymbrevis or red tide to poison a whole lot of fish and probably coral. Making the water darker has probably caused it to absorb more sunlight than clear water absorbed. That would raise the water temperature without a rise in air temperature.
I would suspect that Australian farmers have the same tendency to over fertilize as other farmers. If so, runoff is just as likely to produce red tide off Australia as it does anywhere else in the world.
I suspect that sewage might not be 100% recycled but that some would add to the red tide.
If the reef gets cloudy, it will get warmer.
Australia has a lot more reef to ruin than Florida did.
Nobody that I know disputes the need to keep excess nutrients or other pollutants away from the reef. Australia does an excellent job of this. Tourists are not even allowed to take thimble sized samples of dead coral away with them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe argument here is about the effects of slightly increased temperature & acidification. These effects are overblown. Increased temperatures increase the habitable range of coral. The degree of acidification is nothing like it has been in the past. To suggest the system is so fragile it will be unable to cope is laughable to those who have seen flood, cyclone, Crown of Thorns, Toxic Bloom & bleaching damage quickly recovered from. Care is called for. Hysterical alarmist garbage will turn more people away from legitimate concerns.
"Hysterical alarmist garbage will turn more people away from legitimate concerns"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo will denying basic legitimate concerns by pretending relevant science doesn't exist. Neither your statements about temperature, nor pH, nor even your statements about the general health of the reef in question, reflect the entirety of the scientific papers, nor the comments of their authors, discussed here.
Columbus observed red tide in 1492 in the Caribbean.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.petitionproject.org/
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8355&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimaterealistsNewsBlog+%28ClimateRealists+News+Blog%29
Three sources which disagree with you.
Catamount, you and your ilk care nothing for the reef, or any other natural feature. You would be happy if it dissapeared tomorrow, as long as it helped you get to your true goals; some of which are known to us all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's see, you have the Petition Project, which consists of thousands of signatures, almost none of which actually come from scientists who study the atmosphere (only 1.5% of signatories actually study relevant fields, if you bother to look), and who comprise an infinitesimal portion of all of the fields covered (what non-climate scientists think is of little importance since they don't study the issue, but if you really care, then as I demonstrated, 84% of all scientists in the US back AGW theory, give or take for sampling).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen you have the worn out "900 paper" list, which consists largely of papers that aren't even actually skeptical of AGW despite being claimed to be (here's just a few specific examples cited: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-part-two-using-our-paper-is-misleading), and is still irrelevant, because while skeptics DO publish papers (many of them quite prolifically), there are so few of them, that if you do a random search for climate papers, the skeptic papers are such a minority, you won't even find one in that random list.
Don't take my word for it. Go over to google scholar, search for climate change, and tell me how many papers you had to sift through before even finding one skeptical paper.
Your third source is a misleading look at temperature, posted on a graph to small to do any numerical analysis of, followed by 50 irrelevant, unsourced quotes (seriously, what is it with you people and quotes, as opposed to actually arguing tangible science; if you want to quote, quote the peer-reviewed literature). If you actually go and look at the data sets they claim to source, they look nothing like that graph, and all of them show a warming trend up to 2005, not 2002, as this is claiming, and it's a red herring anyways, because climatic fluctuations for a few years here or there aren't statistically significant. Temperature has paused several times in the past few decades, but it always picked up again.
As for the quotes themselves, without sources to check context, they're worthless. The second quote, for instance, might not even be challenging AGW theory. CO2 does not cause interglacial temperature rises, but rather enhances them. That's like saying water vapor doesn't cause temperatures to rise; it doesn't, it merely enhances warming.
In fact, the person quoted in that second quote ENDORSES AGW THEORY! Lucka Bogataj believes in AGW. Go look her up.
"Catamount, you and your ilk care nothing for the reef, or any other natural feature. You would be happy if it dissapeared tomorrow, as long as it helped you get to your true goals; some of which are known to us all"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see. So you're not actually capable of arguing the science, and instead must turn on argumentum ad hominem.
I love how you accuse someone who's spending thousands of dollars out of pocket, and six years of his life, on an environmental biology degree, of "not caring". You know nothing about me, who I am, or what I care about.
If actually discussing the science is so far above you, that you need to resort to personal attacks, then don't bother commenting.
Everything you said is tosh (except what you quoted from me).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou alarmists are always saying how scientists or the scinetifically literate all support AGW; lets see what they REALLY think.
Some questions from a Recent Poll conducted by Scientific American;
3. What is causing climate change?
Greenhouse gases from human activity 30.9% 1,602
Solar variation 33.1% 1,718
Natural processes 75.8% 3,934
There is no climate change. 6.2% 320
answered question 5,188
4. The IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is:
An effective group of government representatives, scientists and other experts. 18.0% 932
A corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda. 81.3% 4,220
Something to do with Internet protocols. 0.7% 36
answered question 5,188
5. What should we do about climate change?
Nothing, we are powerless to stop it. 65.4% 3,394
Use more technology (geoengineering, carbon capture and storage). 16.7% 865
Use less technology (cars, intensive agriculture). 5.8% 303
Switch to carbon-free energy sources as much as possible and adapt to changes already underway. 29.5% 1,528
answered question 5,188
And the most important question of all;
8. How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?
A 50 percent increase in electricity bills 3.8% 195
A doubling of gasoline prices 5.5% 286
NOTHING 76.7% 3,981
Whatever it takes 14.0% 726
answered question 5,188
So, the vast majority (76.7%) of scientifically informed people are so UNALARMED about climate change, (even though they are fed this alarmist nonsense day and night through the media, and through peer pressure) that the WILL NOT WASTE EVEN A SINGLE CENT to attempt to stop it.
OK you say, these are not scientists/geologists; what about them?
JAPAN;
Dr Maruyama said yesterday there was widespread scepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC report (AR4) that most 20th century warming..... "is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".
When this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, he said, "the result showed 90 per cent of the participants DO NOT BELIEVE the IPCC report".
CANADA;
A Canadian survey of scientists offered even more evidence that the alleged ‘consensus’ is non-existent. A canvass of more than 51,000 scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) found 68% of them disagree that ‘the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.'"
Want more?
Can we clear up a misconception that the oceans are acidifying - they are not! The defintion of acidification is "The process of becoming acid or converting into an acid", neither of which apply to the oceans. The so-called acidification of the oceans is a furphy and scare tactic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe oceans are alkaline with a variable pH of between 7.45 and 7.8 and the variation occurs on both a time and a geographic scale. Apparently, in some parts of the world, the pH of the ocean had fallen by up to 0.3 units over a fairly long period of time but the ocean remains alkaline and in no respect is it at all acidic.
This factor is relevant in respect of the solubility of some calcium salts which form part of the composition of crustacean shells.
It has been shown that corals, at least on the Great Barrier Reef, have adapted to the pH changes in the local ocean which have so far been observed.
So first you rely on personal attacks, and then you make a bunch of unsourced claims?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like how you've basically dodged every challenge I've offered you to demonstrate your point of view. You can't give an estimation of forcings, nor an answer as to what's been warming the planet for the past few decades, if not changes in atmospheric composition.
If you think there's no consensus on climate change, then go do what I suggested Postman1 do. Go to Google Scholar, or another database of peer-reviewed work, search for the topic, and tell me how many results you have to go through before you hit a single skeptical paper.
Of course, since you've dodged every other challenge, I doubt you will.
For the time being then, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you are simply misled or have been brainwashed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you really want to discuss just the science behind AGW we can do that, too but it won't take long, as there is hardly anything to discuss.
1) The AGW models are wrong; not just wrong but completely wrong. They cost millions, yet their "projections" are totally valueless, being just a few possible scenarios out of billions of futures that we may have.
2) The predicted amount of warming is wrong; because of an assumption of positive feedback. The assumption is based on faulty methodology and foolish un-scientific thinking.
3) The predicted sea level rises are wrong, and ridiculously over-exaggerated. Experts in the field report that we should expect +0.05m (+ or - 0.15m) by 2100.
This is 18 times less than the Australian Government's alarmist figure of 0.90m which ultimately comes from the CSIRO and the IPCC.
Data shows that MSL (Sea levels) are FALLING, as are global temperatures.
Due this AGW bunk, (and our green/left wing govt.)we are going to be hit by the world's largest carbon tax, from July 1 this year. It will take from the economy more in its first 3 months than the European carbon tax has in 7 years. And we are a country of 23 million compared to Europe's 400 million. The tax is estimated to cost our ecomomy US$1.35 TRILLION by 2050.
Its equivalent, if implemented in the US would be a tax by 2050 of US$17.9 TRILLION.
OBAMA wants this tax!
You yanks are next - don't say you was not warned.
Whether or not you agree with a particular solution or not is irrelevant to the discussion of the science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are plenty of spectacularly bad solutions I could think of, and plenty of good solutions that many die hard AGW proponents would turn their noses up at.
That has nothing to do with atmospheric physics.
So let's start with what I asked you in the first place.
-What is the strength of and climate sensitivity to the CO2 forcing, and what is your overall estimation of the forcings
-What do you attribute post-1970 warming to, if not anthropogenic CO2 increases
When you've answered those initial questions, then we'll move on. It's not appropriate to change the subject when a topic has yet to be resolved.
Ranting with unsupported claims is not EVIDENCE! If you don't respect the peer-review process, you don't respect science itself and should not be commenting on SCIENtific American.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you guys understand that there's a LITERAL MOUNTAIN of scientific papers supporting the fact that humans are messing up the climate with our CO2 emissions? Do you guys realize the LITERAL MOLEHILL of scientific papers that disagree? How do different lines of evidence such as atmospheric physics, marine biology, glaciology, Ice Cores, Ocean sediment cores, tree rings, glacier sediments, glacier retreat, and the Earth's energy balance ALL point to the fact that our CO2 emissions are changing the climate?
How can the thousands of scientists in these fields be in on a massive conspiracy to fudge data, get it to agree with AGW, and then keep everybody quiet? Do you even understand how impossible it would be to keep everybody quiet? Do you even KNOW what the professional rewards would be if a scientist blew the lid off of this "conspiracy"? We're talking Nobel Prize(s) and more! And how about the fact that exactly ZERO professional scientific or technical organizations disagree with the consensus on AGW? After months of asking, the deniers can't produce a link to EVEN ONE professional body that disagrees.
Look, the people who know better are in agreement that we have to reduce our CO2 emissions. These silly conspiracy theories are really just a symptom of a distrust of authority in general. I doubt you guys even believe your own stories you spin and it's all a negative reaction against those dorky science types you don't like. I mean, if the deniers need 173 different arguments and STILL fail to make ONE valid scientific case, it's really just the kitchen sink approach writ large over the defining issue of the 21st Century.
I get it. Studies show the overwhelming majority of climate deniers are conservative white males. They see cimate change and action to prevent it as a threat to their previlaged position in society. The fact that Al Gore raised awareness of the issue doesn't help matters in your minds. The fact that those commie scientists took your muscle car away and are now coming for your SUV doesn't help either. The fact that the loudest voices coming from your "tribe" (Faux News and right wing radio) say it's all a hoax doesn't help either.
It's clear this is a political reaction to a scientific problem. That's why the science is not on your side and why the deniers never have, nore need, proof to back them up.
Bear in mind that although I know more about this subject than 99.9999% of folk, I am not a climate scientist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo date we have had around 1.6W/m2 of forcing. For a doubling of CO2 (say, by 2060) forcing would total around 3.6W/m2; this would fill most of the remaining CO2 absorbtion bands. The generally accepted theoretical rise in temperature to equilibrium would be 1.2c without feedbacks.
Positive feedbacks can be discounted for several reasons including; the lack of the observed signature (rise in tropospheric temperature over the tropics), (Christy et al 2007) and recent papers measuring the OLR directly, (Lindzen & Choi, 2009) show that there is negative feedback to the CO2 forcing.
This anthropogenic effect would piggy-back on natural changes, and so would be difficult or impossible to isloate in the temperature record.
In addition, the OLR record (NOAA) since 1979, when compared to the surface temperature anomoly (HadCRUT3) shows an interesting correlation; that a strong neative feedback mechanism is probably at work between them, with the OLR able to react to a temperature signal by as much as 75W/m2 over as short as an 8-month period.
The additional anthropogenic CO2 signal, at just 1.6W/m2 to date, is therefore easily accounted for in this very large feedback mechanism.
As previously mentioned, the late 20th century warming can be attributed (in part or in whole if needed) to the Multi Decadal Oscilation; the correlation with past movements in this known cycle is good.
There is literaly a mountain of literature, in fact a much bigger mountain on religious belief, Comunism, Astrology, Pyramid power, all peer reviewed. No matter the field. You still have to use your judgment. That is a problem for those who have none. Peer review has been trashed by climate science. Many other fields of science still have integrity. Astronomy, particle physics, materials, space science & many many others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, you only THINK climate science has trashed its integrity because right wing hacks have told you so. You still have to use your judgment. No religious belief, boogeyman political ideology or strawman argument has been peer-reviewed. The fact that you THINK they have is very telling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am using my judgment when I realize that increasing the composition of a gas in the atmosphere %40 so quickly and expecting NOTHING to happen is ridiculous. I am using my judgment when I see how the balance of the evidence is vastly in favor of AGW. I point that out to you and all you do is regurgitate debunked denier myths and run away from factual debate. Who is using their judgment now?
Frolly, THANK YOU
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's good to see someone who finally states their position clearly and answers all questions to it, and then clearly cites sources to back up their straightforward answers.
It doesn't mean you're right in this particular case, since there are massive problems with the research quoted (as well as with the osciallation argument, because Spencer et al have to throw all the laws of geophysics to the wind to make it work), not that bad research representative of a tiny minority of climate scientists (such a tiny minority, that two of your three authors are from my four "four skeptic" list, and if we count Spencer since you mentioned oscillations, that's three of four authors) is your fault.
Nevertheless, you're the first person who's had a comment on here on several days that I actually thought might be genuinely scientifically skeptical, and not ideologically denialist in nature.
I have classes until what would be your tomorrow morning, so I won't be able to reply properly for a bit, but in the meantime, I have a question:
If it was reasonably shown that the particular research by Christy, Choi, Lindzen [and Spencer] was likely wrong (and it could be shown that CO2's effect on climate was in line with mainstream literature), would you change your position, no longer having an alterantive explanation, nor a reason to believe CO2's effect was small?
You have no idea what kind of case I will or won't make, of course, but I'm curious to see exactly how entrenched your position is. After all, were you to show research that clearly indicated CO2 to have a small effect, even if it didn't address all the research to the contrary, and I couldn't easily dismiss it, I'd give it very serious consideration (I might even stop endorsing AGW theory if I was then able to figure out why all the other research showed the exact opposite).
It's just something to ponder, pending a proper response.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There is literaly a mountain of literature, in fact a much bigger mountain on religious belief, Comunism, Astrology, Pyramid power, all peer reviewed"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI gave you a lot more credit than that. Here I thought you were about making rational arguments, rather than making unbacked nonsense claims to suit an ideology.
So let me respond to your irrational and absurd post with a simple, rational test.
Since you're clearly implying an equivalence between climate science and astrology in the peer-reviewed literature, let's me take up the same challenge I've offered to others, and search for Astrology in the literature, and see how many papers in a random sample support or don't support astrology.
I use the ISI Web of Knowledge, which I'll restrict to the Web of Science, in line with your insinuation about astrology as compared to climate science (though if requested, I'll gladly use EBSCO, JSTORS, Google Scholar, etc).
Okay, so, results:
1+2.)
These aren't papers, but rather are merely entries pointing out the existence of books on the topic, not articles making comment.
3.)"The Influence of Education Major: How Diverse Preservice Teachers View Pseudoscience Topics"
Not much explanation needed here.
4.) An article on the history of astrology in the middle ages in a particular place
5.)An article discussing a musician's exploration of various subjects, including astrology
6.)"Astrometerology and medieval astrology"; it's on the study of various old texts regarding astronomy and astrology in medieval Spain
7.)"What Makes Some People Think Astrology Is Scientific?"
This is a study of a survey of everyday peoples' attitudes on astrology; the abstract clearly identifies it as pseudoscience
8.)This is another result pointing out the existence of a book from a database(http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fiery-Shapes-Celestial-Portents-Astrology/dp/0199571848)
9.)This is a study of an 11th century text outlining the methods of an astrological practice called "Tasyir"
10.)The study of rituals at a Buddhist temple, one of which is astrology
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/9971/resultsg.jpg
(in case anyone's wondering, yes that's the MWO forums my little pony thread in that tab; I had to look, and yes it's as horrifying as it sounds)
Not ONE of these results is evaluating astrology as a science, nor do the next ten, nor the ten after that, nor do any endorse it.
So no, there is not a "mountain" of peer-reviewed literature on astrology as a science, like there is with AGW. Not one paper in 30 endorsed or even explored it as a science.
What a ridiculous response. I was pointing out that just because something is peer reviewed, it does not follow that it is fact. Someone who is your peer is merely someone who is your equal. Also that there are billions of people who hold beliefs that they think are backed up by irrefutable evidence. The number of people supporting an idea is not a proof. Climate science has not provided the proof & has fudged some of the data. Do not put words in my mouth either. I do not dispute that the earth has been warming. I dispute the causes & degree to which Co2 & mankind is responsible. I do not know why I bother responding to garbage comments like your post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere was an English politician back in the 1800s who responded to pompous non arguments thus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou sir, are a sophisticated rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself.
Now you support the climate scientists & the predictions they make about our future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust have a look at the results of climate science predictions & their accuracy. Three articles today on this blog. Usually if I quote a blog with unpalatable truths, the messenger is attacked rather than the evidence. I expect nothing less this time.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
1/ Silence of the dam minister
Andrew Bolt – Wednesday, February 08, 12 (06:20 am)
SENIOR Queensland cabinet minister Stephen Robertson has been recalled to the state’s floods inquiry as it zeroes in on evidence that Brisbane’s main dam was mismanaged in the days before the city went under water…
A transcript of the teleconference shows that Mr Robertson was informed that Wivenhoe was 52 per cent above full supply level and filling with more water. However, the 17-page transcript does not record the minister saying a single word.
Maybe Robertson was just stunned. After all, hadn’t Chief Climate Commissioner assured us that the dams would never fill again?
2/ What has this green madness cost us?
3/ What will it take for the warmists to say they were wrong?
2000:
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
”Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said…
David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of
Many other failed predictions follow.
So what, increased rainfall variability due to climate change causes a dam to fail...News at 11...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle, at some point are you actually going to say something that in some faint way, remotely resembles something that in some way addresses some kind of science, or is that too much to ask?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst you contradicted the authors of a paper you cite the moment they no longer seemed to agree with you, and contradict all the data presented here on corals in a changing climate, then you rambled on over "the emails", but then shied away from a challenge to actually investigate a few on a case by case basis (because apparently putting your money where your mouth is is too much to ask), then you drew a patently false and absurd analogy between climate science and fields of pseudoscience, responding to Sault's claim about a mountain of research papers by claiming a "bigger" mountain existed on those topics, implying equivalence (because there's a mountain of SUPPORTING papers on AGW, so either you're implying an equal amount of supporting papers on, say, astrology, in which case you're simply wrong, or you're admitting there isn't, in which case your analogy serves no purpose, so take your pick on why you're wrong), and then when I show that your claim about a mountain of papers regarding astrology is just unequivocally false, you call it "ridiculous", and then you dither on about nothing that has anything to do with any part of anything being discussed in any way.
"There was an English politician back in the 1800s who responded to pompous non arguments thus.
You sir, are a sophisticated rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself"
There was an internet troll who once responded to pompous non-arguments this: "Cool Story Bro".
It's a phrased reserved for things like your quote here, which amounts to little more than a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
If you think this characterization fits me as well, then you should know that I also probably kick puppies and kittens, drink the blood of small children, steal purses from old women, and talk loudly in movie theaters.
Do you know what that has to do with the topic at hand, and evidence on your part that you actually have a point to make?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Congratulations on reaching staggering heights in irrelevancy.
"I was pointing out that just because something is peer reviewed, it does not follow that it is fact"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich you showed by making a statement that was absolutely, unequivocally false. There is no peer reviewed literature on astrology, not of the type that there is on climate science, and since Sault clearly said peer reviewed papers "supporting" climate change, your analogy implies peer reviewed papers supporting these things of yours, which is also unequivocally false.
So again, are you wrong because you said something that was simply incorrect, or are you wrong because your statement had nothing to do with Sault's comment, because there is no supporting peer-reviewed literature on these topics?
"2000:
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event .
Children just arent going to know what snow is, he said&
David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of
Many other failed predictions follow"
In 1991, Eigel Friis-Christensen claimed that solar output was responsible for recent observed global warming, and that a correlation between the two existed all the way up to the publishing of the paper.
Many more wrong statements, predictions, and characterizations followed by world climate skeptics.
Oh, yes, and contrary to your unbacked accusation that mainstream climate scientists "fudged data", these people DID fudge data, and unlike you, I can give an example:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/hansen-has-been-wrong-before.php
Based on your apparent standard of evidence, which I've now exceeded by actually citing a supporting example, that now means that all climate change skeptics are now wrong.
Gee, Carlyle, when are going to, you know, "admit it"?
Of course, it's really hard to say what conclusions you're trying to draw, because all you do is dither about without actually addressing any science or saying anything substantive.
Your post is like one giant rambling example of the Chewbacca Defense.
I think I'll reserve further responses to you for when you can actually make an argument that has something to do with science, that being what we're trying to discuss here.
Now if you'll excuse me, Frolly actually tried to make a substantive post that actually warrants discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt least there's one person on the so-called "skeptic" side willing to do that; he deserves to be answered for that.
How can anyone have a logical argument with you & sault? Both believe the email scandal was nothing but a political beatup. By the way, I noted your comment to Frolley re your willingness to reconsider your position in light of the evidence he presented. More garbage. If the sun exploded you would claim it was the result of AGW.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Both believe the email scandal was nothing but a political beatup"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, that's a strawman (so now you can't even argue honestly?)
What I said was that I didn't draw a sweeping conclusion either way, and then I CHALLENGED you to show that there was something of substance, a challenge you utterly failed to meet, because you don't actually present evidence to back your positions.
"By the way, I noted your comment to Frolley re your willingness to reconsider your position in light of the evidence he presented. More garbage. If the sun exploded you would claim it was the result of AGW"
That may or may not be true, and I can't prove it either way, but whether or not that's true, you would have no idea, because you don't present evidence in the first place.
I'm not going to respond to your drivel any further. If you can't be bothered to actually argue something of substance, then go have a debate with someone more at your level.
I think it is time to get real in the discussion on this interesting topic. What I am about to say and quote is not central to the scientific detail discussed but it is central to the overall significance of the discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has been stated or inferred that there are mountains of peer reviewed literature which support the theory that global warming is mainly of anthropogenic origin due to mankind's increased output of CO2. My contention is that reliance on the climate change peer review process is totally misplaced as it has been systematically corrupted by senior global warming scientists, which makes much of the evidence quoted in this thread irrelevant.
One reads in the publication "The Climategate Emails" of the email sent out by one such climate scientist, Phil Jones, who reports as follows:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what ‘peer review literature’ is!” (1)
The impertinence of this statement is mindboggling. Just who do these scientific ‘gurus’ think they are? In other words, Peer Review becomes Pal Review and they create a club of scientific bullies to both authors and journal editors. Be aware that this criticism is not confined to the climate change literature but is a problem of honesty, integrity and open disclosure which pervades the science journal literature in general.
CONCLUSION : Much of present climate change literature is an unreliable reference to what is actually happening in the real world and has been corrupted not only by climate scientists but also by the political organisation and processes of the IPCC (a reference to this is available), all of which is in need of radical revision.
REFERENCE :
(1) John Costella, Editor and Annotator; “The Climategate Emails”. Email No. 1089318616 (Phil Jones to Mike Mann) of 7th May, 2004. The Lavoisier Group, Melbourne. Australia. March, 2010 .
Bramer, the problem is that you're trying to draw conclusions, based on an off-the-cuff personal remark, that doesn't remotely fit reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, Jones though MM05 was a junk paper, and yes, he made a quip about keeping it out. Does that mean he actually meant it, and is capaple of corrupting peer-review in such a fashion, or even the IPCC's inclusion process, to keep any and all research out by those authors, or skeptical research in general?
If it does, then why does mention of another paper by M&M APPEAR in the IPCC report, in Chapter 3? That, in and of itself entirely undermines the conclusion you're drawing.
Further, even if you thought the IPCC was corrupt, they don't write the peer-reviewed literature.
Shall we see how many papers skeptical scientists are able to publish in peer-reviewed journals in general?
Searching the ISI Web of Knowledge, here's how many peer review papers I get for skeptical authors just since 2000:
Richard Lindzen: 26 (that's more than two a year!)
Roy Spencer: 16
John Christy: 23 (give or take; I had to count manually because there are two John R Christys)
Patrick Michaels: At least 15 (There are two PJ Micheals)
Any others you want me to check?
Clearly skeptics can publish their papers just fine, so the peer-reviewed literature reflects the full weight of opinions just fine.
This is why I dislike these emails, instead of debating actual evidence. There may (key word: may) be some that show particular individuals engaged in dubious or even downright scientifically destructive activities, but nearly all the emails presented to date are either misquotes, or emails that are so unclear in their implications, as to be completely open to interpretation.
I remember in Climategate 1, there was an email where a rather uncivil scientist was basically stating in private, to a colleague, how much fun it would be to beat up Patrick Micheals. Now, given how much Michaels has lied through his teeth about other peoples' work, I can't blame the guy, yet NOT ONCE did he actually go out and do it. Why? Because it was an off-the-cuff quip, made in a private email, intended to have no significance.
I once quipped in a private message that I'd like to deport the far right and left wings in the US to a small island and let them murder each other, so that the rest of us could have an adult discussion on national policy. That doesn't I actually advocate mass deportations, or murders (I mean, I may for all you know, but not necessarily!).
Bramer. How dare you have an opinion that is not in lock step with the warmists. You have to learn that only their links & peer reviews could possibly be correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"should read "I say *possible* because Svensmark et al have never actually shown a physical mechansism by which cosmic rays cause sufficient nucleation""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe know that the theory is correct. Cosmic rays cause ionization in the lower atmosphere. We just have to wait to do follow-up experiments to see if we can get to the nucleation size that we expect is the minimum if we can get the gas mixtures right and can keep the chamber walls from being a problem. (I think that is still far away.)
But note that the experimental evidence to support the argument that human emissions of CO2 are a material driver of temperature change does not exist. In fact, while the evidence shows a link between CRF and temperature it shows that CO2 concentrations follow temperature change by around 800 to 1,200 years. That makes changing CO2 the effect, not the cause of temperature trend change.
And note that the observations show that, "low clouds contain less liquid water following Forbush decreases, and for the most influential events the liquid water in the oceanic atmosphere can diminish by as much as 7%." That is a point in favour of solar activity and diminishes the need for a role for CO2. Add that to the other observations and there isn't much of a role left at all.
While I would be astonished if your contribution had any influence on your diehard protagonists, I am sure your reasoned & knowledgeable contribution is greatly appreciated by many who read these posts, regardless of their natural leanings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the end, facts will win.
"...and you drudge up the cosmic ray hypothesis...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand act like it's something we've never seen before!
and then claiming that it still worked, despite the solar forcing not actually changing in over 30 years (eliminating the very driver of this hypothesis), acting like TSI is actually something different than the solar forcing! I mean, that would be like me claiming that the ocean heat content is not the same as the heat content of the oceans!"
It is clear that you have no idea what the theory actually says. TSI is not as important as the change in CRF through the lower atmosphere. And even on the TSI front we now have evidence that the change is UV is significant enough to have an impact.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038429.shtml
Take a look at the data presented after the 15 minute mark and the comments about UV changes being around 10% and more versus the 1% TSI. And pay attention to the argument that a scientific theory has to be falsifiable if it is to be taken seriously. The GCMs are not falsifiable because every error can be 'corrected' by adjusting a parameter or two or 'adjusting' the data.
Then there is the work done by Shaviv and others that also supports the cosmic ray theory. The nice thing about this theory is that it is shown to explain observations over decadal, century, millennial, historical, archeological, and geological time frames.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI&feature=related
The bottom line is that the science shows that solar activity cannot be dismissed as it has been by the politically appointed lead authors of the IPCC. In their attacks on solar activity the IPCC lead authors have misrepresented the research and attacked straw-men arguments that were designed to knock down. But that game is now over. The IPCC has been discredited and the scientific community has started to speak out against the obvious fraud being carried out by the AGW team, which has engaged in cherry picking, data manipulation, and data destruction. The game is now almost over as formerly green supporters in the UK, US, and Germany have now turned against the fraud. The formerly quiet scientists are beginning to ask how such a small number of data points can provide a reading to the nearest 0.01 C and why some temperatures are imputed when there is perfectly good measurement data that can be used to perform the calculations. And even more importantly, they are beginning to question how it is possible to get a meaningful number when adding and averaging temperatures.
"Cosmic rays are driven by solar output, which has not varied. It doesn't matter how much solar output might affect cosmic rays; it's not going to produce a change while it's static."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut this is not true. You have obviously not paid any attention to the science and are still using the interpretation of the theory that has come from the AGW apologists. Try actually reading the hundreds of papers on the subject and compare it to the straw-man argument that you are thinking of.
"http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/recent-warming-but-no-trend-in-galactic-cosmic-rays/"
A great example of what I am talking about. You get a muddled argument that has nothing to do with what the theory is really saying. Much of the RealClimate argument has already been refuted by the authors. Take a look at the response to the critics and try to actually pay attention to the empirical evidence.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SvensmarkPaper.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038429.shtml
"So when someone challenges you to an examination of the emails for context and accuracy of quoting by people who comment on them, rather than just taking popular internet interpretations uncritically, you bail from the conversation?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is one.
"…For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate."
And another:
"All of our attempts, so far, to estimate hemisphere-scale
temperatures for the period around 1000 years ago are
based on far fewer data than any of us would like. None
of the datasets used so far has anything like the
geographical distribution that experience with recent
centuries indicates we need, and no-one has yet found a
convincing way of validating the lower-frequency
components of them against independent data. As Ed
wrote, in the tree-ring records that form the backbone of
most of the published estimates, the problem of poor
replication near the beginnings of records is particularly
acute, and ubiquitous. I would suggest that this problem
probably cuts in closer to 1600 than 1400 in the several
published series. Therefore, I accept that everything we
are doing is preliminary, and should be treated with
considerable caution."
And another:
"2) No justification for regional reconstructions rather than what Mann et al did (I don't think we can say we didn't do Mann et al because we think it is crap!)"
And another:
"I have just read this lettter - and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative ) tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data again any other "target" series , such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage he has produced over the last few years , and ... (better say no more)"
There are many other e-mails that show that the very people who were defending Mann thought his methods were producing crap results. Try to explain that.
Bramer to Carlyle
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for your comments. Your wisdom is decoded and appreciated. I take it that your tongue fits neatly in your cheek.
Bramer to Catalan
I'll deal with your comments in the near future. You seem oblivious to the ingrained unsciemtific mentality
of fudging scientists who produce fudged science.
Bramer to Carlyle
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for your comments. Your wisdom is decoded and appreciated. I take it that your tongue fits neatly in your cheek.
Bramer to Catalan
I'll deal with your comments in the near future. You seem oblivious to the ingrained unsciemtific mentality
of fudging scientists who produce fudged science.
Yes bramer. It simply does not matter what evidence is presented the warmists flatly disregard it. As I pointed out to Catamount, if the sun exploded he would blame it on AGW. I asked his opinion on the email scandal. See my post #83 His response at # 89. Will be interesting if Catamount answers #155. from VangelV
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSault does a similar thing. Wants you to go to a couple of sites that 'put the emails in context', as if we were too stupid to read them for ourselves.
Peer reviews on Astrology. There are similar Peer Reviews for all the topics I mentioned in post #134 contrary to your pathetic responses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.astrologycritics.com/astrology-book-reviews.html
As I pointed out to be someone's peer is to be equal to them in a particular field usually or in social status for example.
If an author of particular types of books reviews another author in the same field, they have been Peer Reviewed.
Contending that Peer Review gives legitimacy to a claim automatically, is laughable.
You & Sault could legitimately Peer Review each other. Would you expect us to take that seriously?
So just where has all that Co2 captured heat gone? Its not in the oceans. Must have gone into melting glaciers. Well certainly not in the Himilayas as the IPCC chief claimed. I do smell something though. In fact it’s a rat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains
If you honestly think that's what peer-review is in the sense of what's done in science, then I can see why you don't bother actually arguing facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent, I look forward to your thoughts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey'll consist of something more substantial than personal characterizations, I trust? What I "seem" like to you is irrelevant to the discussion.
Umm, Carlyle, first your own article doesn't even support your contention here (which is probably why they amended it; see the addendum added today), and secondly even if Himalayan ice wasn't being lost, pretty much everyone skeptical and proponent alike admits the world is warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate science. Not science in general. For integrity, peer review in science depends the reviewers being independant & arms length. Not a buddy system. That is why they are coming unstuck. What about the IPCC & their false claims re the glaciers. Peer reviewed I believe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo it is O.K with you for the IPCC to be massively wrong & alarmist so long as the main narrative is correct. Lets not worry about the details. More & more shambolic. Right up there with humans causing tsunamis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say the article does not support my contention & refer to an addendum as if it negates the main thrust of the article. It does not. Read it yourselves folk. Here it is again. Who exactly is spinning here? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI note you have not answered the email samples provided by post # 155. VangelV
If you're just going to put words in my mouth then I'm not going to bother responding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI no more like massively wrong predictions and statements than the next guy, and both sides have been guilty of them.
You also are basically falling back on unsubstantiated claims. I very clearly demonstrated that skeptics and proponents alike are able to publish papers, so your claims about peer review are basically hollow. Good and bad papers alike make into peer-review from both sides, the point of the literature being to be a place of discussion of science.
You basically are strawmanning when you imply that I'm asserting that something being peer-reviewed guarantees quality, but regardless, you've yet to substantively demonstrate any problem with the process in climate science, specifically, with any kind of real evidence.
"You say the article does not support my contention & refer to an addendum as if it negates the main thrust of the article. It does not. Read it yourselves folk. Here it is again. Who exactly is spinning here?"
Well since a bit of UNCERTAINTY in the ice loss doesn't even remotely have any kind of impact on the fact that the planet is clearly warming, nor is there any reason to agree with the insinuation that ice caps would represent anything substantial in the Earth's radiation budget (being infinitesimal in both volume and mass compared to the overall surface of a planet), I'd say it's you who's spinning.
"I note you have not answered the email samples provided by post # 155. VangelV"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's because I'm still working up a response to Frolly. Even if he's not here, the fact that he's provided the most scientific position of any skeptic here in days is worth consideration and thoughtful response.
I could have said the same thing for you at one point, before you stopped arguing evidence and became nothing but an adversarial crank.
Frolly, if you're still around then I apologize for the delay. Work has kept me busier than usual, and some your claims (being a little more interesting than most here) warranted a closer-than-usual look (a credit to you).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"To date we have had around 1.6W/m2 of forcing. For a doubling of CO2 (say, by 2060) forcing would total around 3.6W/m2; this would fill most of the remaining CO2 absorbtion bands. The generally accepted theoretical rise in temperature to equilibrium would be 1.2c without feedbacks"
The problem is that while this is correct, assuming it to be the total climate response, or even more than the total climate response, as claimed by Lindzen et al, doesn't remotely fit observation, and I'm not just talking about CO2 there.
Whether CO2 was warming induced, solar induced, whatever, it should still be subject to temperature-dependent negative feedbacks claimed, at least many forcings should be, shouldn't they?
An overall climate sensitivity of at least .75c/m/w^2 fits roughly with other climatic forcings.
Take this paper here, for instance
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf
Go through the GISS estimate of warming from solar influences (which we know the exact forcing of, because it's just direct energy injection). At .12c for .15mw^2, that comes to .8C/W/m^2. Remote Sensing System's estimate is even higher.
Now, there's certainly some margin of error in there. It's hard to guess exactly how much from two data points, but if we average the .12c and .2c figures, and then take the difference between them as being the margin of error, we'd get .16c +- .08c. I think that's a fair methodology for a rough estimate (again, only having two data points). That would make climate sensitivity somewhere between .53C/W/m^2 and 1.6C/W/m^2.
In other words, even to short term solar fluctuations, climate is clearly way more sensitive than is being given credit for by skeptics.
Isn't it funny how OTHER forcings show the climatic response in line with what's claimed by mainstream scientists for CO2, but that somehow, conveniently, only CO2 isn't subject to that sensitivity because of a magical CO2-only set of feedbacks that shouldn't be anything of the sort? Taking your estimate, we'd get a piddling ~.3C/W/m^2
Okay, but Lindzen and Choi could always be right, right?
Just because something seems like patent BS doesn't mean it necessarily is.
So what are the flaws with the papers themselves?
"Positive feedbacks can be discounted for several reasons"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"the lack of the observed signature (rise in tropospheric temperature over the tropics)"
There are two problems with this argument.
First, the problem with this argument by Douglass et al (as it's properly identified, not Christrie et al; I'm not criticizing, just pointing it out), etc, is that the Radiosonde data isn't accurate enough to make a determination. The Radiosonde data actually DOES seem to show this signature, but there's no way to really know with any degree of certainty whether it's there or not at the moment, because, again, the data wouldn't show it regardless of whether it was.
A 2008 paper by Santer et al actually went and compared the model responses to observed tropospheric trends, and there's no discrepency.
You see, the problem with the Douglass et al paper is that it doesn't take any uncertainties into account. It actually just ignores the uncertainties in the observations and in the models, among other problems and they used an outdated version of the Radiosonde data (Raobcore 1.2 vs 1.4).
If you don't want to read the big paper by Santer et al, Real Climate summarized the problems with the Douglass et al paper using some very simple statistical arguments you should be able to easily follow (or at least muddle your way through, if you're like me and math impaired).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/10/tropical-tropopshere-iii/
If you look, the statistical approach by Douglass et al is SO BAD, that even if you take data that's a match, their statistical approach often shows it to not match.
Furthermore, the Douglass et al paper is not only a statistical train wreck, that doesn't reflect the radiosonde data, but just as importantly, satellite MSU data also agrees with the models, and disagrees with Douglass et al
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/grl.fu.2011.pdf
If you look at table one there, the GCMs don't perfectly agree with this study. Clearly, if this study is right, the models need more work, which I'd argue anyways, but the atmosphere still does behave in roughly the manner they describe, and the tropical troposphere DOES warm faster than the surface. So the models are far from perfect, but Douglass et al are just flat out wrong.
Yet another paper, Allen and Sherwood 2008 (DOI: 10.1038/ngeo208) actually addresses some of the systematic biases with Fu et al and finds an even better match with models.
Either way, the point is that multiple studies, using entirely different methods, all fail to replicate Douglass et al's results, and no wonder, given the gross flaws in their methodology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not just these three eiterh of course, many other studies have failed to replicate Douglass's results:
-Santer et al 2011 (DOI: 10.1029/2011JD016263)
-Thorne et al 2011 (DOI: 10.1029/2010JD015487) This paper is very interesting, because it shows great agreement between models and data overall from 1958-2003 in the radiosonde data (again, no match with Douglass et al), but shows that the satellite data, specifically has less agreement (like with Fu et al). This supports the contention of a bias in the satellite MSU data, in my opinion.
-Mears et al 2011 (doi:10.1029/2010JD014954)
etc etc
Indeed, it seems the only ones able to replicate the findings of this small circle of skeptics, is this small circle of skeptics, and besides, the results don't match observed CO2 effects on temperature.
"and recent papers measuring the OLR directly, (Lindzen & Choi, 2009) show that there is negative feedback to the CO2 forcing"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, it's not that simple. You can't just point a satellite at the Earth and say "yep, it's letting off too much!".
Lindzen and Choi content that when SSTs go up, an absolutely massive increase in OLR occurs, but again, the problem with this is that SSTs would go up regardless of what was warming the Earth, as I'm sure you know, therefore NO forcing would have a anything but an absurdly low climate sensitivity (which doesn't fit the solar measurements).
The paper also doesn't match above cited research. Again, it seems to be a case where, while there's a huge plurality of authors who publish on every climate topic, the names always changing from topic to topic because there are many thousands of working scientists out there, the skeptics are always the same half dozen or so people, and no one ever seems to be able to corroborate their findings, except them.
There are other problems as well specifically with this paper. For instance, they show a mismatch with models for some periods, but they only use AMIP models over this period, which don't include many forcings normally included in GCMs that were important over this period. For instance, you'll note actually reading the paper that almost every model run they use excludes Pinatubo, which should stick out like a sore thumb (and does in the data, but not in most of their model runs, because they chose incomplete models). These are things that are hugely going to affect these fluxes.
So they're basically just omitting forcings, and then going "hey, the models arent showing enough outgoing shortwave flux!", and sure enough, in 1991, most of the models they use aren't.
Well no kidding einstein! If you toss out the single most important forcing event from the models, the models aren't going to show all that outgoing radiation.
That's not a negative feedback, that's a HUGE FORCING! And they're just pretending it doesn't exist! (again, it's not included in AMIP models, which they specifically chose; GCMs in general DO include aerosols and model Pinatubo pretty well). The generally ignore external forcings in their estimates.
Also, their methodology is such that the result you get for feedback depends on which start and end points you pick, so with their methodology, you can MAKE the feedback whatever you want
Trenberth et al 2010 addresses these and other problems.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/Fasullo/refs/Trenberth2010etalGRL.pdf
"the OLR record (NOAA) since 1979, when compared to the surface temperature anomoly (HadCRUT3) shows an interesting correlation; that a strong neative feedback mechanism is probably at work between them, with the OLR able to react to a temperature signal by as much as 75W/m2 over as short as an 8-month period."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI assume you meant 7.5W/M^2, not 75, but either way, you're going to have to be a lot more specific in your explanation here.
The NCDC's OLR page (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/indicators/olr.php) shows absolutely no such magnitude, besides, I'm not sure how revealing that data would be for a very simply analysis anyways.
"late 20th century warming can be attributed (in part or in whole if needed) to the Multi Decadal Oscilation; the correlation with past movements in this known cycle is good"
Whether it's the AMO or any other oscillation, the problem remains the same: cause and effect (and magnitude).
Showing that one moves with the other doesn't offer evidence of much. Suggesting otherwise has been a flaw in reasoning shown by denialists and alarmists alike (Gore showed an atrocious example in his film with CO2).
Take Spencer:
He tried to effectively claim that the SO and PDO were responsible for warming, and indeed, they do more or less go up and down with temperature (does it drive temperature, or does temperature drive it, or is it a feedback that goes both ways? You can't tell just from a correllation).
But actually showing that they could have enough impact, within the framework of known geophysics, is different.
Now, let me make it clear that Spencer does all sorts of things wrong, but among the biggest is what he does with the ocean mixed layer depth. What you want to count at the ocean mixed layer depth depends on how much temperature change you want to allow for from the surface, and where you go, but regardless, overall, it's in the ballpark of 50-100m.
So what mixed layer depth does Spencer use to make his model work? The better part of a KILOMETER! In his words, "The best model fits had assumed ocean mixing depths around 800 meters".
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/
In other words "[I don't care what the real mixed layer depth is; I just plugged in values until the model spat out the result I wanted]". I mean, playing with values isn't a bad thing with models, that's why they're great; they LET you play (and see how things result), but you can't input a starting condition that's WAY off and then treat it as real.
Sadly, I'm running into time constraints again, so while I was
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisplanning on getting into the CO2 climate sensitivity, it's
something I'll have to do another time.
I can't assert anything about CO2's observed effect on
temperature without showing it; hopefully that's something I"ll
get to later (for now; I guess any mention should just be
disregarded, until I have time to back up the claim).
One thing I will note, though. Given normal sensitivity that
applies to almost any forcing, your 3.6W/M^2 would produce
warming inline with mainstream climatologist' estimates. At the
values discussed earlier for the solar forcing, say, with
NASA's temperature estimate, you'd be looking at ~2.9C, which
is a fair bit by 20/20.
@Vangel
I'd like some discussion of your points as well, but again,
another time. Perhaps tomorrow afternoon (EST), whatever that
is, your time.
As a final note to all, I'd like to say that since no science can ever be settled unequivocally, it's kind of silly to make an argument there either way.
A far more interesting discussion would be what level of action could be agreed upon based on a risk assessment.
Even if we couldn't agree that serious AGW was more than 1% likely, wouldn't you say it'd be justified for global civilization to spend a thousand dollars making sure? Where's that line drawn? A million dollars? A billion dollars? That's still pocket money.
What about a trillion dollars? There's a more interesting debate. That's still a tiny sum for the planet over any period of time.
How certain is anyone here that AGW is or isn't correct? It's not a 100% for anyone. So what about 99% 90%? 85%? 50-50?
What kind of cost would be justified at those numbers?
What if a discussion demonstrated methods that wouldn't cost anyone anything in the long run, or better yet, even benefitted society overall, AGW aside?
Discussing AGW abstractly is an interesting topic, but the debate is still academic, in my opinion, and doesn't address the real topic that society should be discussing.
Sorry for the funny formatting at the end (also, "is a fair bit by 20/20" should read "is a fair bit by 2060"; why the silly flub up on my part? I have no idea...)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDiscussing AGW abstractly is an interesting topic, but the debate is still academic, in my opinion, and doesn't address the real topic that society should be discussing.'
It is not just a matter of the cost of limiting Co2 emissions. It is cost benefit. Also taking action that is not counter productive. It may yet be proven that the rises in global temperature forecast as a result of Co2 emissions would be a good thing anyway plus the increase in Co2 may be necessary to improve global biota. Now proposals for reduction of wasteful use of carbon based resources would have my full backing if they can be demonstrated not to cause more harm than the problems they are meant to address. the push for bio fuels is in my opinion a disaster as are the vast majority of alternative energy schemes.
Weighing the effects of Co2 in and of itself is an interesting notion. There'd probably be harm and good alike, but it's hard to say how much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor instance, crop responses to higher CO2 levels have been extremely disappointing. I actually have a copy of an interesting 2011 paper on that topic (and others, including what has and hasn't shown a temperature response) from Lobell et al, but it's sitting around in a long-burried copy of Science. This is especially puzzling to me, because I'd think plants would just gobble up human-emitted CO2, since it's primarily of the isotope plants prefer, because most of our fossil fuels ARE plants, or at least were.
If I had to guess, I'd say the effects would probably be neutral, or possibly mildly beneficial, but probably highly heterogeneous.
Would I spend money on fixing it? Probably not, if for no other reason, than because there are other far bigger environmental problems that money could better address.
"the push for bio fuels is in my opinion a disaster"
No argument there, and they don't reduce carbon emissions
"as are the vast majority of alternative energy schemes"
I'm not sure I'd agree with that assessment. Now, surely, some of them aren't all that useful. Solar is a great way to go... for all of a few percent of the surface of the planet (not enough to meet needs).
Do they actually do harm though? I don't think so.
I mean, sure, a bird occasionally will smack a wind turbine, but most birds have absurdly large populations that can't be killed by any localized event.
Remember the mass dying here in the US that everyone cried hysterics over a year or two ago? I called BS on it the moment it was being mentioned. Sure enough, ornithological experts came out a few days later pointing out that it's absolutely normal for thousands of birds to die at a time. Their populations absorb that easily.
Beyond that, what is there? So long as a source of energy is deployed where its genuinely viable and profitable, why not use it?
But I'm not interested in really wasting effort on niche solutions. If a solar company wants to operate, cool, but that's not going to help the rest of us much.
I'm not interested in discussion of solutions like this
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/science/countering-climate-change-without-waiting-for-a-payoff.html?scp=1&sq=africa%20black%20soot&st=cse
Or getting our nuclear power industry back on its footing, speaking of which, two new reactors are going up on Georgia, (but China's about to build four of them, so I guess we could be doing better)
Excuse me, I meant to say I AM interested in solutions like the one mentioned in the above NYtimes article
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Mann's research is interesting for context, but irrelevant to AGW theory. Whether past temperatures changed has nothing to do with whether humans are capable of producing changes."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are kidding. Without the data manipulation the AGW community would still be scrambling to explain why the MWP, Roman Warming, Minoan Warming, and Holocene Optimum were warmer periods than today. If we natural factors could cause such warming in the past why can't those same factors be in play today?
"Jones and Hansen are not the foundation of AGW theory either. AGW theory was established decades before they were born. If you had said Callendar, you might be correct (or Arrhenius), but not Jones and Hansen."
I have read Arrhenius' paper. (He was wrong.) And I have read the theory. But you miss my point. A theory is not taken seriously unless you can find some empirical data. Since there is no empirical data to show that human emissions of CO2 are a material driver of temperature and plenty of evidence to show that CO2 changes are the effect, not the cause of temperature trend changes the hockey stick 'team' decided to step in and provide what appeared to be the evidence. The problem was that they made such dumb errors and lied so many times that they were discredited.
And it did not help that their own e-mails show that they did not buy into the reconstruction because of insufficient data and inappropriate methods.
"In the modern era, they're a tiny piece of the amalgamation of researchers contributing to this issue. Annan, Briffa, Robock, Schmidt, Hargreaves, Santer, Steig, Rutherford, Laut, Trenberth, all people who have enormously made the case for AGW, without any of these three scientists, and you insult all of them, and the thousands of others I can't come up with off the top of my head, by suggesting that they haven't made contributions of their own, even though, combined, just that tiny portion of the world climatological community has:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-demonstrated CO2's effect in multiple studies to be ~3C
-analyzed model matches to tropospheric trends
-built paleoclimate records at all timescales"
A simple challenge should not be a problem for you then. Here is goes.
Show me a single bit of CREDIBLE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that shows that HUMAN EMISSIONS OF CO2 ARE A MATERIAL DRIVER OF TEMPERATURE CHANGE.
"No offense Catamount, but you miss the issue. You keep arguing about soalr output, but the issue is not solar output the issue is sunspots, and their effect on cosmic ray shielding."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue is solar activity. It is the change in magnetic field streetlight that effects cosmic ray flux in the lower atmosphere and helps change the amount of global cloud cover and that has a large impact on temperatures.
That said the change in sunspots is not as important because there are 11 year and 22 year cycles and while they appear there is a bigger cycle found in the record. This cycle may effect the UV output, which can also be a magnifier and play a part that is not fully clear at this time. Keep in mind that the barycenter of the solar system moves within the sun and its location can have an impact on internal dynamics that can affect various processes and solar factors. The problem with the AGW proponents is that they have ignored this complexity and the solar factors that matter in favour of a narrative that tries to suggest that a minor change in a minor gas is all that really matters. The problem for them is that there is no empirical evidence to support their hypothesis and plenty that refutes it. No wonder the AGW movement is collapsing and former supporters are now abandoning ship or claiming that they were duped.
I concur with the sentiments & most suggestions in your link. A little dubious about draining rice fields, could cause nutrient loss, pumping expense & diminish water supply. As for windmills, the wildlife death toll is ridiculously exaggerated except for a few sites. My complaint is that again, except for special localities & purposes they involve massive expense for very poor return.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar is very good in many parts of the world for domestic & even some low level industrial hot water. Solar electricity also has niche markets but will never fill base load needs.
"I like how you jump from asking for data, to just assuming I don't have it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am saying that I hear a lot about the changes of pH due to human emissions of CO2 but I don't see any data to support it. You certainly have not shown me any papers that show that over the past 50 years, which is when the IPCC says our impact shows up, we have observed any changes. I pointed out papers that show that there are huge seasonal variations in pH for many areas of the ocean and that those variations are far greater than what the IPCC claims will be the change over the next 100 years.
So my point is valid. You have to data for this critical period. And most of the papers that have pointed to are just preliminary guesses.
"DOI: 10.1126/science.284.5421.1824"
??? How does, "Construction of a pH profile for the middle Eocene tropical Pacific Ocean shows that atmospheric pCO2 was PROBABLY similar to modern concentrations or slightly higher," turn into support for an alarmist position?
"DOI: 10.1038/425365a"
Same thing again. We read, "We find that oceanic absorption of CO2 from fossil fuels MAY result in larger pH changes over the next several centuries than any inferred from the geological record of the past 300 million years, with the possible exception of those resulting from rare, extreme events such as bolide impacts or catastrophic methane hydrate degassing." Sorry but you are going to have to do much better than that. You are confusing model output with empirical evidence.
"It seems that no matter how many times we ask you for specific data and citations, you're unable to provide it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought that I had provided the papers. Here you go. This should be sufficient to support my point.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028983
We read:
".....Here, we present a compilation of continuous, high-resolution time series of upper ocean pH, collected using autonomous sensors, over a variety of ecosystems ranging from polar to tropical, open-ocean to coastal, kelp forest to coral reef. These observations reveal a continuum of month-long pH variability with standard deviations from 0.004 to 0.277 and ranges spanning 0.024 to 1.430 pH units. The nature of the observed variability was also highly site-dependent, with characteristic diel, semi-diurnal, and stochastic patterns of varying amplitudes. These biome-specific pH signatures disclose current levels of exposure to both high and low dissolved CO2, often demonstrating that resident organisms are already experiencing pH regimes that are not predicted until 2100......"
Note that these are real measurements, not models or reconstructions from sparse data using various assumptions that may or may not be valid. The measurements show huge variation in pH, as would be expected in a dynamic system like the Earth's ocean. If you want to be taken seriously stick with the empirical data, not indefensible narrative.
Somewhere I have a comprehensive seven year study re Co2 & vegetation. It is quite enlightening & based on careful actual tests & observations. Will see if I can find it during my spare time. I am in my seventies & still operating a small business as well as having a wide range of other interests.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/14/now-its-more-co2-that-will-threaten-crops/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle, if it's poor cost/return you're worried about then I share some of your concerns.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe biofuel fiasco is exactly what happens when careful, cautious science is thrown to the wind. Now don't get me wrong, enthusiasm has its place, but if there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that there are rampant alarmists out there, who literally think the sky is falling (eg: Hansen's "Obama has four years to save the world" comment), and honestly do no favors.
There are thousands of authors out there on climate science, ecological impacts of climate, crop reponses, all sorts of great stuff, and the majority of them are probably good scientists, not because I have faith in human nature, but rather because scientists are ruthlessly competitive, and bad work by one can make the career of another at the first person's expense. Grad students are the worst; they're like sharks sniffing for blood, because dismantling a senior scientist's work is a GREAT way to make your career (at their expense, but who cares?).
That said, there's also a very vocal majority of really bad scientists, in every field, who tend to give almost every field a bad name. My field has them too; from what you've said in previous discusssion, you're probably old enough to remember Rachel Carson.
"http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/14/now-its-more-co2-that-will-threaten-crops/"
Yeah, I can't comment on specifics without reading the paper, but from what I know, it pretty much sounds like nonsense.
I mean, even the paper I was referring to earlier (found it http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/05/04/science.1204531) suggested, iirc, that plants were responding positively to more CO2, just not quite as much as had been hoped.
The paper is interesting because the climatic effects are all over the place. Some crops hate the rising temperatures (coffee's doing pretty badly right now as I understand it), some just don't care, and while this study was limited to only the four largest, some probably love rising temperatures.
Still, the UC Davis study doesn't seem supported here by this and other previous research. Now, again, MAYBE it's still good, I don't know, but I'm skeptical to say the least.
I meant to say alarmists do no favors for the science
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisalso, "That said, there's also a very vocal majority of really bad scientist" should read minority.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee? This is what happens when my only times to have internet discussions between classes are on days when I run on four hours of sleep.
Anyways
@Vangel
I admit, your paper on pH variation is very interesting. No, I don't believe it had been linked before, but it does add some interesting considerations. I'll go through some of it and responding research at another time.
"In other words, you're again launching vague personal attacks on environmentalists rather than actually addressing science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have addressed the science while I have mostly gotten narrative from you. Note that I provide actual links to papers that use real world observations and empirical evidence to support my case. But the AGW case is mostly based on narrative. After more than two decades and more than $100 billion in spending there is still no single paper that uses empirical evidence to show that human emissions of CO2 are a material driver of temperature trends. In fact, the evidence is now clear; most of the claims and predictions made by the AGW proponents has clearly been proven to be wrong.
There has been no material change in the amount of sea ice cover over the past three decades.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Polar bear populations are not falling.
Contrary to the grey literature that the IPCC was hyping, there is no material loss in Himalayan glacier ice.
doi:10.1038/nature10847
Sea levels are not rising catastrophically. In fact, the sea level is lower than it eight years ago.
The Sahel is getting greener.
doi:10.1029/2002GL016772
The predicted more frequent and more intense Australian drought conditions have not turned out very well.
Hurricane activity has not gone up. The Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) Index is closer to its lows than to any new highs.
Observations of the sea water temperature show that the upper ocean has not warmed since 2003.
doi:10.4236/ijg2010.00000
The radiosonde and satellite data is showing that the predicted equatorial mid-troposphere hot spot is not there.
CCSP. 2006. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1, Temperature Trends in
the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences.
doi:10.1029/2004GL020103
The IPCC assumption that a warmer planet will mean amplification due to an increase in water vapour content is clearly wrong.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00003.1
The character of liquid precipitation (defined as a combination of accumulation, frequency, and intensity) over the global oceans is significantly different from the character of liquid precipitation produced by global weather and climate models.
doi:10.1029/2010JD014532
I could go on and on but I trust that I have made my point. The IPCC has made many claims by citing scientists who rely on models rather than empirical data. The real science shows them in error.
Sadly, I won't have time for further responses like I would have liked for a few weeks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe'll pick this up another time, in another place.
Also, Vangel's quoted emails are interesting (more interesting than that last guy's). I'll look into them more as well. Some time, we really need to have a dedicated discussion on nothing but those.
Here's what I will say though, I've already said, and maintain, that, there's dishonesty on both sides of almost any scientific issue, but that's what makes some of this hypocritical.
Even if Mann's work, for instance, was dishonest, I can very easily demonstrate dishonesty, with much better evidence than a couple of emails for almost every skeptical scientist out there (seriously, just look at Michaels' 1998 presentation to Congress). Don't even get me started on people like Plimer (Carlyle and I have had our discussions there already).
It's extremely hypocritical to point out dishonesty in one group, and then just completely gloss over dishonesty in the other.
Also, Mann's work is not require for AGW theory, because while his work isn't the only work showing that we're unusually warm in the past 1,000 years, it's a moot point.
We don't HAVE to show that natural processes didn't cause huge climatic changes in the past, because every climate scientist out there already agrees that THEY HAVE. WHO CARES if they did during the MWP or not? They have at other points regardless.
So why couldn't those same influences be at work here? Who says they couldn't? The sun already was responsible for most of the early 20th century warming.
We just haven't found a natural forcing that's been acting up, and sorry, but Svensmark's laughable paper in which he completely dismisses station data for no other reason than because it doesn't back him isn't cutting it, and then removes half the temperature data (getting rid of the "inconvenient" rising trend). There's still no NET change in cosmic rays; all the data manipulation in the world isn't going to change that. There's also still no evidence for nucleation (ionazation is NOT the formation of CCNs; the difference is particle size is FIVE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE (and change).
All Svensmark's paper shows is that cosmic ray fluctuations contribute to temperature fluctuations. He still hasn't shown how they cause an overall rising trend, which is why he removes that trend from the temp data to make his fit.
His own paper basically shows that something else is causing that rising trend (because CRs only fit when you remove that trend).
Anyways, have fun you guys.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe'll have to pick this up another time; it's been interesting.
"Do you not realize that AGW is one issues among a myriad I study and frequently comment on?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I have pointed out before, I don't care about what other things you may be right on because the issue is your being wrong on the AGW fraud. Human emissions of CO2 are not a material driver of temperature change. End of story.
Now if you want to discuss other issues I have no problem agreeing or disagreeing with you on each specific one. I am just tired of all of the lies being ignored by an institution that should care about the scientific method and by intelligent individuals who would rather believe narratives than look at facts.
"It has been shown that corals, at least on the Great Barrier Reef, have adapted to the pH changes in the local ocean which have so far been observed."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy problem with this statement is that there is so much variation that there is no trend observed for the Great Barrier Reef. Science requires a great deal of simple but hard work as well as a sound analytical approach. Sorry but I do not see any data that would have me believe that we have much of a clue about what is really going on. As I have pointed out elsewhere, there are many papers that show a huge amount of natural variation in pH in many locations around the globe. The observations point out just how much work that needs to be done before we can say anything with any degree of certainty. That is why Scientific American needs to stop spinning narratives and start disclosing just how little we still know about a subject that we like to talk so much about.
"-What is the strength of and climate sensitivity to the CO2 forcing, and what is your overall estimation of the forcings"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClearly not what the IPCC models say it is. Actually, here is what Tom Wigley writes to Briffa about the subject:
"Quantifying climate sensitivity from real world data cannot even be done using present-day data, including satellite data. If you think that one could do better with paleo data, then you’re fooling yourself. This is fine, but there is no need to try to fool others by making extravagant claims."
"-What do you attribute post-1970 warming to, if not anthropogenic CO2 increases"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe PDO flipped into its warm phase. There is nothing unusual about the post-1970 warming. In fact, not all that long ago Hansen admitted that even after the NA warming after the 1970s the year 1934 still remained the warmest year for the US.
And keep in mind that an 'average' temperature is meaningless. You can get a high reading by having a mild winter, early spring, and late fall, even if the summer is below average. That means that you can have a supposedly 'hot' year even with a cool summer. The reporting of such averages is totally meaningless and I have yet to see any paper that tries to explain why we should care about 'average temperatures' particularly when they are supposedly global and have even less meaning than local averages.
"What a ridiculous response. I was pointing out that just because something is peer reviewed, it does not follow that it is fact."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe climate fraud should have exposed just how poor the peer review process really is. When you have a terrible methodology in a paper like MBH98 and MBH99 produce hockey sticks out of random data being accepted without question even though it was used to evaluate proxies that the NRC had concluded inappropriate shows just how lousy the review process works. How the hell is it possible that a retired mining engineer can look through reams of data and in just a few hours spot obvious flaws that scientists who worked for months on a paper and all the reviewers missed?
And why exactly are the reviewers ignoring obvious questions about data integrity, uncertainties, or even the meaning of the reported reconstructions? When it comes down to it this whole process is driven by money, not a quest for truth.
"Do you guys understand that there's a LITERAL MOUNTAIN of scientific papers supporting the fact that humans are messing up the climate with our CO2 emissions?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me make it easy for you. Cite a single paper that uses EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to show that HUMAN EMISSIONS of CO2 are a MATERIAL DRIVER OF TEMPERATURE.
If such a paper existed why would Phil Jones, when asked by the BBC, "If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made," answer with, "The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing," instead of citing real evidence?
See your problem? There is no paper that uses empirical data. All that we have are models that even the believers admit are so bad that they do not make predictions (which would mean falsification) but deal in 'scenarios'.
And we already have e-mails from the big players in the AGW con in which they admit that:
1. Quantifying climate sensitivity from real world data can't be done using present-day data.
2. There have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.
3. No matter how much work is done by the contributing scientists the big decisions are made right before publication by a select core group of insiders.
4. Previous work has to be well hidden from independent review.
5. The basic problem is that all models are wrong.
http://foia2011.org/
The bottom line is that your claim is wrong. There isn't a LITERAL MOUNTAIN of scientific papers supporting the fact that humans are messing up the climate with our CO2 emissions. Models are not evidence, particularly when those cite them do not believe them to be accurate. This is not supposed to be econometrics. It is supposed to be actual science. And in actual science empirical evidence and the scientific method are what really matter.
"How do different lines of evidence such as atmospheric physics, marine biology, glaciology, Ice Cores, Ocean sediment cores, tree rings, glacier sediments, glacier retreat, and the Earth's energy balance ALL point to the fact that our CO2 emissions are changing the climate? "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet us take it one at a time.
1. The atmospheric observations show that the predicted mid-tropospheric hot spot is not observed. That falsifies the AGW theory on its own. But let us move on.
2. I am glad you brought up marine biology. The real world observations show that the acidification argument is unfounded. Not only did sea life evolve during a period of high CO2 concentration in the atmosphere it is perfectly capable of handling the high changes in pH that are being observed by the real world measurements.
3. Glaciology. Glacier sediments, glacier retreat? What about them? If you dig under the leading edges of mountain glaciers you find that is plenty of organic material that is less than 2,000 years old. This means that the glaciers are not a permanent feature but grow and shrink due to natural factors. Keep in mind that we have found plenty of artifacts in recently open mountain passes that date from Medieval and Roman Times. The artifacts show that those passes were open during warmer periods in recent history.
As for Greenland, it is hard to argue for shrinking glaciers when airplanes that were abandoned on the ice surface were found more than 100 feet under it half a century later. The same is true of Antarctica. Most of the old research stations are buried under the ice.
4 Ice Cores? Wonderful example. These show that CO2 concentrations follow the changes in temperature trend with a lag of around 800 years. That makes CO2 concentration the effect, not the cause of temperature change.
5. Ocean sediment cores? These have shown a warm MWP and equatorial glaciation during periods when the earth had 10 times the current CO2 levels.
6. Tree rings? Bad news on this front as well. The tree rings diverge from the temperature record. And many of the proxies used were not acceptable if the NRC is to be believed because they respond to CO2 fertilization as well as temperature change.
It seems to me that you have not been paying much attention to the literature. Try reading it.
"How can the thousands of scientists in these fields be in on a massive conspiracy to fudge data, get it to agree with AGW, and then keep everybody quiet?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is the problem. The actual empirical data does not agree with the AGW theory. And 'most scientists' do not believe that the argument is anywhere near being settled. Note that I did not begin by pointing out the obvious point that what 'most scientists' believe is not important because real science has never been about consensus. Or that if the AGW proponents were so certain of their position they would not be running away from debating the skeptics? Or that many of the brightest minds in science are on the skeptical side and certainly do not accept the arguments given by the alarmists?
As I said before, all you have to do is provide a single example where EMPIRICAL DATA suggests that HUMAN EMISSIONS of CO2 are a MATERIAL DRIVER of temperature trends. If you can't do that all you have is narrative on your side of the debate.
"So what, increased rainfall variability due to climate change causes a dam to fail...News at 11..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut that is not what the models predicted. 'Climate scientists' were telling us that winter snow would be rare and that Australia would not need to build more dams because there would be much less rain in the future. That is why a dam that was overfilling was not permitted to release its water until it was too late; the simpletons who were responsible for making the call actually believed their own propaganda.
"What I said was that I didn't draw a sweeping conclusion either way, and then I CHALLENGED you to show that there was something of substance, a challenge you utterly failed to meet, because you don't actually present evidence to back your positions."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut others did. The e-mails clearly showed that behind the scene the alarmists were quite skeptical. We read:
Wigley:
"Quantifying climate sensitivity from real world data cannot even be done using present-day data, including satellite data. If you think that one could do better with paleo data, then you’re fooling yourself. This is fine, but there is no need to try to fool others by making extravagant claims."
"...there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC..."
Jones:
"Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds."
Thorne:
"Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest...."
"I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run."
Carter:
"It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group."
You can't spin this as a nothing story. What you have are frauds admitting that they are biased and working to promote a cause rather than act as impartial researchers.
"Yes, Jones though MM05 was a junk paper, and yes, he made a quip about keeping it out. Does that mean he actually meant it, and is capaple of corrupting peer-review in such a fashion, or even the IPCC's inclusion process, to keep any and all research out by those authors, or skeptical research in general?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbsolutely. The AGW alarmists can get a paper into print in a few months. There are few skeptics asked to review these papers and when there are their questions and recommendations are ignored. The skeptics are asked to keep making change after change until they get fed up and find another journal that will actually publish the work.
I find it interesting that the skeptics wind up being right and the alarmists just ignore their previous papers, make some 'adjustment' and move on. Notice that once the Polar Ural data was finally archived as the full set of proxies became available the alarmists stopped using it? The reason was obvious; the data no loner supported the conclusions reached when a cherry picked subset of it was used selectively. We have already seen this pattern many times. One paper is published. SM or someone like him finds errors that show that the conclusions were invalid. Instead of dealing to resolve the problem the AGW 'team' simply moves on by writing another paper that was pal reviewed but has very similar problems and flawed conclusions. But because the alarmists have better access to the journals and more pal reviews they can play the game even as the previous foundation for their work is shown to be invalid.
This is only possible because the journal editors act as enablers. Had they actually used independent reviewers and insisted that data and algorithms were disclosed the game would quickly grind to a halt.
"Even if Mann's work, for instance, was dishonest, I can very easily demonstrate dishonesty, with much better evidence than a couple of emails for almost every skeptical scientist out there (seriously, just look at Michaels' 1998 presentation to Congress). Don't even get me started on people like Plimer (Carlyle and I have had our discussions there already)."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue is AGW, not anything else. My point is a simple one. There is no single paper or sets of papers that have ever used empirical evidence to suggest that HUMAN EMISSIONS of CO2 were responsible for changes in the temperature trends. The IPCC has been arguing about human impact since the 1950s. (Note that the claim first came up after Ben Santer made a change AFTER the scientists working on the 1996 AR agreed that there was no such evidence.) My point is that unless you make all kinds of unjustified 'adjustments' you can't even get the recent temperatures to be as high as the temperatures measured in the 1930s. My other point is that you can't possibly be presenting numbers that are within 0.01 C when you don't have enough measurements for the 19th century and when audits of the present system show that most of the stations show an artificial bias of 2C or more. We do not have the luxury of betting on an alarmist story about warming being true when that story has been based on so much deception by the IPCC and the AGW industry. What we need is real empirical evidence and actual transparency. When I read Jones and Mann discussing how to hide previous work, delete e-mails, or do a dump by setting up incomprehensible files I have a problem with their integrity. And when I read Wigley admit that there is no way to determine the feedback even using the recent satellite data I have a hard time with Jones/Mann/Briffa telling us that they can do it by cherry picking proxies that they do not even know how to use properly. (You should look at the problems with the upside down Tiljander sediment series. This only goes to show that if SM is not a reviewer you should ignore any reconstruction papers. How many times will these morons be allowed to make such simple errors before they are called into account by people who care about the science?)
There is no charitable way to put it. By defending the people exposed in the email scandal Catamount & Sault are actively complicit in this abomination that calls itself science. The tragedy is that Catamount is a teacher & is undoubtedly perpetrating the dishonesty amongst his impressionable students. This situation is disgraceful. I hope he develops a conscience & realizes that he is propagating dangerous propaganda. I called my initial question to Catamount about his attitude to the email scandal, a litmus test. It is. Those who seek to explain it away are morally complicit in the fraud & are to be condemned. Initially I refused to further engage in debate with him. I am glad you did. You offered a more eloquent, reasoned & knowledgeable response than I would have been capable of. Somehow, these lies & fraud must be exposed at every opportunity. If they are left unanswered, they will continue to infest the less well informed. I have linked this debate to another blog & would like others to do the same. It deserves to be widely read.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI withdraw my claim that Catamount is a teacher. He denies that this is so. I was sure that he had claimed to be, but I am unable to find such a claim & concede I must have been mistaken.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf only you had something to contribute besides such personal attacks in the first place, it wouldn't be a necessary admission in the first place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToo bad actually commenting on the topic at hand is apparently too much for you.
At least Vangel might still be around in a bit to carry this on later. There's actually some attempt at reason in his position, which, right or wrong, at least means he's trying to contribute to an actual discussion.
Surely the credibility of climate scientists at the heart of the IPCC reports is core to the issue. They are not credible as they reveal in the emails. It is incomprehensible to me that you can not understand this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou refuse to respond to this aspect of the debate. What is so hard to understand? A person of your education & intelligence unable to understand what these people wrote. Why? The language was straightforward. No ambiguity. A multibillion house of cards built on falsehoods & you can not see it. What point trying to argue other aspects with you when you can not grasp this simple reality? No wonder the AGW movement is likened to a religion.
I have re read your posts & realise you are a student. Your reference to taking classes was taken by me to mean you were a teacher or lecturer rather than receiving instruction. Your lecturers have a lot to answer for. Unfortunately they will love your uncritical acceptance of the prevailing academic narrative.
"There is no charitable way to put it. By defending the people exposed in the email scandal Catamount & Sault are actively complicit in this abomination that calls itself science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is my problem. Although I may come across as someone who is being personally aggressive against some of my commentators because English is not my native language my real focus is on the fact that too many intelligent people who are more than capable of assessing the 'climate science' literature accurately.
Because I grew up behind the Iron Curtain I have a distrust for official pronouncements and have a tendency to look at everything in detail before I choose to accept, reject the conclusions provided. Rejection does not mean disbelief. It only means that the author has failed to convince.
On the AGW issue you would think that intelligent people could cut through the noise and focus on what is important. Did you notice that we have yet to get a single reference to a single paper that has used EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to show that HUMAN EMISSIONS of CO2 may be a material driver of climate change? You would think that intelligent people would question why it is that someone like Phil Jones would say that it must be man's fault because the models could not identify other natural factors that could be responsible. Keep in mind that these are the same models that the AGW proponents admit are useless in their own private correspondence.
What this means is that the editors at Scientific American (and some of the readers) expect us to believe that human emissions of CO2 have to be responsible for the 30 years of warming that we have observed because the IPCC's worthless models can't point to something else. Since when is that scientific?
"This situation is disgraceful. I hope he develops a conscience & realizes that he is propagating dangerous propaganda."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople make mistakes when they don't have all of the facts and when their emotions get in the way. Our approach should be to shed light on the debate not to turn up the emotional temperature.
You have to give our friend the opportunity to look at things for himself. I suspect that most of his information comes from sources that care more about promotion than illumination. The IPCC and governments have spent a lot of money promoting the idea of taxing and controlling carbon. The activists who receive funding to promote the issue have set up many web sites to spread the narrative. Unless you have the time and have a very open mind it is difficult to find the information that opposes the AGW narrative. The information is there but because there have been so many attacks on the skeptics who produce it many intelligent people do not bother even looking at it.
A better approach is to take the well known pronouncements by the IPCC and the leading AGW promoters and show that they not accurate. Point to the predictions and show that they were wrong. While the believers will make excuses for a while eventually reality will sink in and they will change their mind.
Look around you. We have already seen people in Australia, NZ, UK, and Germany turn away from the AGW fraud. In the US a survey of TV weathermen showed that only a third believed in AGW. The AGW promoters are running from debate everywhere you look and getting trounced in debates where the skeptics are given a fair opportunity to explain their position and evaluate the science. The AGW movement is dying. That is why we saw a transition from 'global warming' to 'climate change' to 'catastrophic climate change' to whatever the latest term is. And that is why the activists, who like their taxpayer financed trips to Tahiti to continue, have tried to talk about biodiversity, acidification, sustainable development, and see which issue would stick. But given what has happened in the past few years the average voter is pi**ed off at the politicians who hiked their taxes, used regulations to transfer money from consumers to the green industry, and lied about the facts. The faith of the voter has been shattered and without faith there is nothing left to support the AGW movement.