BBC on global warming

[Oberon]

Whatever, Oberon. You have no credibility with me after that other thread, especially since you're still using the same dishonest arguments and tactics and haven't learned a thing despite themadhair's considerable efforts to educate you on the subject.

No one who disagrees with your views has any credibility with you. They are all "stooges" for "big oil" or some other bunk. Thankfully for me, I am not posting to convince those who have convinced themselves apart from (and despite of) actual evidence. I provide data which may be checked out by anyone for the sake of those who aren't beyond checking the evidence to form their viewpoint. Themadhair is certainly not without support when it comes to the relevant issues, but neither am I. I can cite peer-reviewed research for any point I make, and there is a great deal to support me. So I post for those willing to look at the evidence, not those who rely on wiki and sourcewatch.com.

 

[themadhair]

Why, because I argue that the not only the data but interpretation of the data is disagreed on by experts, does that mean I am arguing one group is lying?

Take it up with the NAS.

This is an incredibly difficult and complicated procedure, and all of it is guesswork, so naturally different studies have come to different conclusions, and some have recently favored a warmer MWP than the current climate.

Take it up with the NAS.

If comparable warming occured prior to massive CO2 emissions, and without the UHI factor, than AGW isn't necessary to explain the current trend.

Here is the problem Oberon – the previous warming isn’t comparable. The rates of temperature increase is not comparable. The levels of GHG’s are not comparable. That the recent trend cannot be explained solely with natural variability (Crowley 2000) but it can be explained by models incorporating AGW is what is relevant here – and why the MWP argument fails.

You still seem to misunderstand how satellites work.

You are still ignoring stored heat in ocean and land.

Yet it is precisely in the atmosphere that the least amount of warming (and sometimes cooling) is observed. To date, this is still a serious issue in climate science (and the reason why Hansen, despite working for NASA, would rather use surface data).

I think you have misrepresented what the satellite data supports. See below.

Hardly. Take the recent remark (2009) made in an article in the Journal of Climate:"The Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) on board the NOAA polar-orbiting satellites is uniquely positioned to provide the global coverage needed for measuring atmospheric temperature trends. However, temperature trends obtained from these observations are still under debate; different results are obtained by different
investigators. Further investigation is required to reconcile these differences." p. 1662.

This quote in no way supports your earlier assertion which was:” However, these instruments have been around since 1978, don't show evidence of global warming, and even the National Academy of Sciences writes that they don't understand why the satellites don't cohere with surface temperature readings. ”

Care to try again? Preferably with something that reverses the 2005 papers which put the satellite records in line with the surface data.

Yes, and I presented you with an study showing that the UHI effect is underestimated in temperature reconstructions:

I refer you to the IPCC. Note what I actually wrote was “ I have already presented you with why the UHI is not a significant contributor to climate change” so I would appreciate if you addressed what I actually wrote.

UHI studies continue to be done even now, so to call the issue "closed" because of a IPCC article is not only naive it mistakes how research in climatology is being done.

I reiterate: “I have already presented you with why the UHI is not a significant contributor to climate change” and refer you to the same material referenced previously. I’d love to know why Parker 2006 hasn’t settled this debate. Can you think of a better disproof of the UHI claim?

 

[Oberon]

Take it up with the NAS.

Take it up with the NAS.

Again, making the same mistake with science. The NAS can issue all the statements they want. Research is ongoing and exists apart from them. Moreoever, I have already seen how lead authors of the IPCC can disagree with the "statements" made by the IPCC. So saying "take it up with the NAS" is misleadingly, as I seriously doubt all those who are a part of the NAS agree with such statements. Many members of the IPCC, including lead authors, are in disagreement with public statements by that orginazation.

Here is the problem Oberon – the previous warming isn’t comparable.

Even by Mann, it is comparable. This is especially true given the UHI. Look at Mann's graph. Then factor in massive urbanization. The UHI accounts for the difference.

The levels of GHG’s are not comparable. That the recent trend cannot be explained solely with natural variability (Crowley 2000) but it can be explained by models incorporating AGW is what is relevant here – and why the MWP argument fails.

Only there are plenty of studies which disagree, including those I have cited. Moreover, not every reconstruction of past temperatures agrees with Mann. Some posit a WARMER MWP.

You are still ignoring stored heat in ocean and land.

Which don't matter. The theory of global warming posits an increase of atmospheric temperatures due to greenhouse gasses. The satellites remain the MOST accurate way to measure those temperatures, and (suprise) they do not reveal the warming trend shown by surface reconstruction averages.

I think you have misrepresented what the satellite data supports. See below.

Wrong. The you can check out the RSS and MHU/aMHU data yourself.

This quote in no way supports your earlier assertion which was:” However, these instruments have been around since 1978, don't show evidence of global warming, and even the National Academy of Sciences writes that they don't understand why the satellites don't cohere with surface temperature readings. ”

The NAS statment was issued in 2001, so I didn't bother to cite it again given your previous post. However, you quote older studies than the one I cited and state that "I was under the impression that three papers in 2005 sorted all this out." Only, as the article I cited from 2009 clearly states, this is not the case. Even the link you posted (which it appears you never read) does not support your view. It is merely on attempt to reconcile the differences. Nice try.

Care to try again? Preferably with something that reverses the 2005 papers which put the satellite records in line with the surface data.

It isn't a matter of reversal. Had you read the study your link cites, you would know they accounted for the differences mainly by "adjusting" the data to the other models. Plenty of modern studies show that the problem is an ongoing one, including the study I cited, which indicates that their is massive disagreement on how to read this data. In addition (just picking one study) Mears' and Wentz's study from 2008 in the Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology shows that the satellite data show cooling (even extreme cooling) in at least the southern part of the globe.

I refer you to the IPCC.

Again, the IPCC isn't the be all end all of research. They merely go over what research has shown, and then (and it appears this is all you have read) "summarize" that data for the public and for policy makers. Which explains why so many lead IPCC authors disagree with IPCC conclusions.

Note what I actually wrote was “ I have already presented you with why the UHI is not a significant contributor to climate change” so I would appreciate if you addressed what I actually wrote.

I have. The IPCC bases its conclusion on studies which underestimated the UHI effect.

Can you think of a better disproof of the UHI claim?

Absolutely. You didn't read the study did you?
A Demonstration That Large-Scale Warming Is Not Urban by Parker attempted one way to account for the UHI, and then determined it wasn't an issue. However, several issues are present in the study (which you obviously didn't read). For one thing, his starting premise that "urban heat islands are strongest in calm conditions but are largely absent in windy weather" is incorrect. As such, the rest of his data is problematic, and is called into question by other researchers whose studies do not conform to his.

 

[themadhair]

The NAS can issue all the statements they want.

I wasn’t referring to any statement they issued. I referred to the research they conducted when asked to weigh in on the Mann issue.

Even by Mann, it is comparable.

Why did you ignore the two factors I used to highlight why it isn’t comparable?

The UHI accounts for the difference.

It doesn’t and comes nowhere close.

Only there are plenty of studies which disagree,

The NAS has already weighed in. Take it up with them.

Which don't matter.

You continue to ignore that which is inconvenient.

The satellites remain the MOST accurate way to measure those temperatures, and (suprise) they do not reveal the warming trend shown by surface reconstruction averages.

Care to explain where the 2005 papers which reconciled this were wrong?

The you can check out the RSS and MHU/aMHU data yourself.

This is just what the 2005 papers did.

The NAS statment was issued in 2001, so I didn't bother to cite it again given your previous post.

Because the satellite data was resolved in 2005.

Only, as the article I cited from 2009 clearly states, this is not the case.

Except it doesn’t. The article you cited does not support your original claim.

It is merely on attempt to reconcile the differences.

It appears to have succeeded. I am unaware of any research that showed the attempt to be unsuccessful.

Plenty of modern studies show that the problem is an ongoing one, including the study I cited,

It shows no such thing. The study pointed out the discrepancy between the satellite sources which was different than what you originally claimed.

Mears' and Wentz's study from 2008

Here is an interesting paper on which these two were co-authors on:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.143.4372&rep=rep1&type=pdf
This paper argues that the models and satellite data are in agreement.

But the point you are raising moot since we are interested in the global average rather than localised reads.

For one thing, his starting premise that "urban heat islands are strongest in calm conditions but are largely absent in windy weather" is incorrect.

I’d love to see why this is false.

 

[Alceste]

No one who disagrees with your views has any credibility with you. They are all "stooges" for "big oil" or some other bunk. Thankfully for me, I am not posting to convince those who have convinced themselves apart from (and despite of) actual evidence. I provide data which may be checked out by anyone for the sake of those who aren't beyond checking the evidence to form their viewpoint. Themadhair is certainly not without support when it comes to the relevant issues, but neither am I. I can cite peer-reviewed research for any point I make, and there is a great deal to support me. So I post for those willing to look at the evidence, not those who rely on wiki and sourcewatch.com.

Baloney. I simply accept the consensus of professionals who are qualified to offer an opinion. It would be foolish to do otherwise.

 

[Dunemeister]

Baloney. I simply accept the consensus of professionals who are qualified to offer an opinion. It would be foolish to do otherwise.

Well, I guess it's the word "consensus" that Oberon is taking issue with. It seems to me that experimentation and data collection are both (a) ongoing and (b) contested enough to make the word "consensus" problematic.

 

[Alceste]

Well, I guess it's the word "consensus" that Oberon is taking issue with. It seems to me that experimentation and data collection are both (a) ongoing and (b) contested enough to make the word "consensus" problematic.

No, Oberon lies. I've caught him in this particular lie before, and he's perpetuating it anyway. The only "conflict" (which is a HUGE overstatement) between climatologists is the inevitable result of the complexity of their field of study. Some are studying trees, some are studying reefs, some are studying ocean surface temperatures, some are studying ice cores. Some models predict faster warming, some predict slower warming. The estimates of the severity of the problem vary from one scientist to another, and yet ALL OF THEM, (apart from a very insignificant and disproportionately represented) few, agree that global warming is occurring, that it is to a large extent anthropogenic, and that the consequences will be severe enough to merit immediate, globally coordinated action.

 

[Oberon]

Well, I guess it's the word "consensus" that Oberon is taking issue with.

Not exactly. There is probably a consensus for AGW. What I take issue with is whether the issue is solved, whether the evidence actually supports the theory (and, as Alceste's survey shows, many scientists agree with the theory, but don't agree that the evidence supports it, which is very strange for scientists unless they are politically motivated), and most importantly what the real dangers are and what the solutions should be.

 

[Oberon]

Baloney. I simply accept the consensus of professionals who are qualified to offer an opinion. It would be foolish to do otherwise.

That is a blatant lie. You disqualified multiple experts, even lead IPCC authors, because you checked sourcewatch.com, which not only did not provide sources for allegations, but is hardly an unbiased and authoritative sources.

The only "conflict" (which is a HUGE overstatement) between climatologists is the inevitable result of the complexity of their field of study.

Utterly false. According you your last survey, 46% believe that the current warming is within normal range. Also, I have cited (in the other thread) multiple experts, even IPCC authors, who disagree with AGW, or at least the evidence for it.

Some models predict faster warming, some predict slower warming.

And to date, none of the models have been very accurate in predicting the future. For example, we haven't had evidence of a warming trend for the last decade, which was part of none of the models.

and yet ALL OF THEM, (apart from a very insignificant and disproportionately represented) few, agree that global warming is occurring, that it is to a large extent anthropogenic, and that the consequences will be severe enough to merit immediate, globally coordinated action.

Wrong on every point. For one thing, even scientists who agree that AGW is occuring do not agree in steps like Kyoto. For another, there is a large minority who don't consider the problem as dire as you suggest, and the majority of experts (according to your survey) don't even think the science is mature.

 

[Oberon]

I wasn’t referring to any statement they issued. I referred to the research they conducted when asked to weigh in on the Mann issue.

I said research and statements. NAS isn't the only one doing research. I have produced, and will produce more, which disagrees. You continue to act as if a particular study or review of studies which supports you view (especially if it is from the IPCC) closes the matter. This is probably because you neglect to read the relevant studies which contradict them. The point is, research on the satellites and how to interpret the data, as the study from 2009 I quoted states, is ongoing, as is research into how to assess the UHI effect. The fact that various studies and reviews have found X result which supports you in no way makes the issue decided, while studies showing Y exist and are still being done.

Why did you ignore the two factors I used to highlight why it isn’t comparable?

I'm not ignoring it. I am questioning whether Mann or the NAS adequately accounted for all factors, including the UHI.

It doesn’t and comes nowhere close.

Only because there are various models on how to account for the UHI effect. Moreoever, the studies you cite which conclude that the current warming is not significantly contributed to by the UHI (and these studies are by no means the final word, see below) do not deny that the UHI contribute to temperatures. They just deny the UHI is a significant facor. However, as Mann shows, the earth naturally warms and cools. You have yet to cite a study which shows that, even if the UHI is not a significant factor in the current warming, it is not enough to explain the difference between the MWP as reconstructed in Mann and the current warming.

The NAS has already weighed in. Take it up with them.

I don't have to. Other studies are doing just that.

You continue to ignore that which is inconvenient.

Wrong. Surfaces temperatures are primarily (according to AGW theory) a RESULT of atmospheric warming. This is where the warming should be occuring most.

This is just what the 2005 papers did.
Because the satellite data was resolved in 2005.

Yet a 2009 studies states the data, and how to interpret it, is still an unsettled issue.

Except it doesn’t. The article you cited does not support your original claim.
It appears to have succeeded. I am unaware of any research that showed the attempt to be unsuccessful.

Obviously you are unaware. Yet somehow the 2009 study I cited is another attempt to understand the satellite data because: "However, temperature trends obtained from these observations are still under debate; different results are obtained by different investigators. Further investigation is required to reconcile
these differences." and "Despite the enhanced understanding of MSU data processing, differences in trend results still exist among different research groups."

Additionally, this study (figure 6c) shows MASSIVE cooling from 1987 to 2006 in the lower stratosphere, although more warming than cooling other in T4 and T3.

The point remains, however, that by no means is the matter settled by your 2005 citations (see, for another example, the article by Christy and Norris, 2009 vol. 26 of the Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology which attempts to correct for the disparity in radiosonde and satellite data). If we are still trying to understand the satellite data in 2009, as well as how to correct for discrepencies between this data and other models (e.g. radiosonde above) your 2005 research can hardly be said to have "clinched" the issue.

It shows no such thing. The study pointed out the discrepancy between the satellite sources which was different than what you originally claimed.

I didn't cite that study to support the claim of a lack of a warming trend in satellite data, but to refute your claim that this was settled in 2005.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Not exactly. There is probably a consensus for AGW. What I take issue with is whether the issue is solved, whether the evidence actually supports the theory (and, as Alceste's survey shows, many scientists agree with the theory, but don't agree that the evidence supports it, which is very strange for scientists unless they are politically motivated), and most importantly what the real dangers are and what the solutions should be.

I can see how Exxon Mobil is financially motivated, but can you explain how (say) a physicist is "politically motivated"? Global climate change would be a big deal, worth studying and spending lots of research dollars on, whether human activities contributed or not. I see climatologists getting lots of funding as long as climate change is real and affecting the entire planet on decades time-scales, no matter what the cause.

On the other hand corporations have a real stake in this and it is trivial to predict, and trivial to confirm, that they have directed research dollars to any scientist who will whore himself out and say global climate change is just a natural cycle, nothing to do with the gas/oil/energy industries.

So I see a lot of trivially obvious "political motivation" on one side of this issue, not much on the other side, except the motivation to preserve the species.

 

[Oberon]

I can see how Exxon Mobil is financially motivated, but can you explain how (say) a physicist is "politically motivated"?

Everyone has their biases. Scientists do not live in a vacuum. Alceste's survey reported that their was over a 10% disparity between those scientists who believed in AGW and those who believed the evidence supported such conclusions.

Global climate change would be a big deal, worth studying and spending lots of research dollars on, whether human activities contributed or not.

How much funding do you think research groups would get if global warming was found not to be an issue?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

"Assuming that the strongest heat islands develop at night under calm conditions, it has been implied that cities do not affect large-scale warming. However, most urban weather stations used in the study are located in parks or airports away from signal contamination by the built environment, consequently missing heat islands effects. The similarity of minimum temperature trends on windy and calm nights might simply reflect near similar heat fluxes regimes at rural and urban weather stations. In most cities, the weather station network is too sparse to accurately record the temperature variations associated with heat islands. Those are best resolved by satellite sensing, as seen in the thermal images series over London and Paris in August 2003. Both cities experienced significant heat islands up to 8 - 10ºC, centered in downtown at nighttime, and scattered over industrial and densely built suburbs at daytime. In Paris, contrary to prevailing concepts, the magnitudes of temperature anomalies were larger in daytime than at nighttime. The influence of urban warming on large scale air surface temperature has yet to be demonstrated. However, urban contribution to regional climate change has already been observed using satellite remote sensing techniques, and twenty five years of archived data are available to study the climate trends of urbanization, and its impact"

This does not seem to support your assertion,

"For one thing, his starting premise that "urban heat islands are strongest in calm conditions but are largely absent in windy weather" is incorrect. "
​

The main point of the quote you just gave is....

"t has been implied that cities do not affect large-scale warming. However, ... the influence of urban warming on large scale air surface temperature has yet to be demonstrated."
​

I'm not seeing how this is incompatible with the claim that "urban heat islands are strongest in calm conditions but are largely absent in windy weather".

 

[Oberon]

This does not seem to support your assertion, .

It doesn't, and I meant to start a different section (which I will below). The important part is the first line of that conferance: "The influence of urban warming on large-scale air surface temperature trends is actively debated." This is true even in 2009.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Everyone has their biases. Scientists do not live in a vacuum. Alceste's survey reported that their was over a 10% disparity between those scientists who believed in AGW and those who believed the evidence supported such conclusions.

Okay so explain those biases, and how they could possibly compare to the bias of industries making billions of dollars per quarter. No doubt scientists are people, but you're saying scientists are biased against CO2 for no reason, why aren't they biased against ethyl alcohol, or phosphate buffers, or sunspots?

How much funding do you think research groups would get if global warming was found not to be an issue?

They would probably get less funding. (The Department of Defense would probably get less funding if nuclear weapons turned out to be harmless, by the way, and this means precisely nothing.) But you avoided my point. Global climate change is a serious issue, everyone acknowledges that. The supposed controversy is about anthropogenic causes. Researchers would get funding no matter what the causes turned out to be. In fact, they would get more funding for going after "natural" causes because the enormous funding available from corporations is directed towards that, for painfully obvious reasons.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It doesn't, and I meant to start a different section (which I will below). The important part is the first line of that conferance: "The influence of urban warming on large-scale air surface temperature trends is actively debated." This is true even in 2009.

That's science for you, virtually everything is actively debated. The role of DNA mutations in protein transcription and cancer is actively debated. I would still heed the advice of those "activist scientists" who warn against UV rays, however. Sure, they MIGHT have some irrational bias against UV rays, but not cell phones or power lines.....I mean, we are all biased against certain inanimate objects, I suppose....I think the color purple causes starvation personally, but that's just my political bias shining through.....

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Also...

It doesn't, and I meant to start a different section (which I will below). The important part is the first line of that conferance: "The influence of urban warming on large-scale air surface temperature trends is actively debated." This is true even in 2009.

I think the important part is your claim, and why you were claiming it with such certainty unless you can support it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Of course I should have said protein translation, not transcription, (ultimately) from DNA.

 

[Oberon]

I’d love to see why this is false.

From Parker (2006): Accordingly, an analysis of trends of worldwide land surface air temperature on windy, cloudy days and nights is most likely to be free of urban biases..."

"Satellite-measured skin temperatures are related to the surface air temperatures but do not necessarily have the same seasonal and diurnal variations, since they
are more coupled to surface energy exchange processes and less to the overlying atmospheric column. Consequently, the UHI effects from skin temperature are shown to be pronounced at both daytime and nighttime, rather than at night as previously suggested from surface air temperature measurements.​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

"

Jin, Dickinson, and Jane "The Footprint of Urban Areas on Global Climate as Characterized by MODIS" Journal of Climate 18​

 

[Mr Spinkles]

From Parker (2006): Accordingly, an analysis of trends of worldwide land surface air temperature on windy, cloudy days and nights is most likely to be free of urban biases..."

"Satellite-measured skin temperatures are related to the surface air temperatures but do not necessarily have the same seasonal and diurnal variations, since they
are more coupled to surface energy exchange processes and less to the overlying atmospheric column. Consequently, the UHI effects from skin temperature are shown to be pronounced at both daytime and nighttime, rather than at night as previously suggested from surface air temperature measurements.​

"

Jin, Dickinson, and Jane "The Footprint of Urban Areas on Global Climate as Characterized by MODIS" Journal of Climate 18​

Again, not seeing the contradiction. It is possible for an effect to be "pronounced at both daytime and nighttime" as well as absent "on windy, cloudy days and nights". What am I missing?