BBC on global warming

[Oberon]

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?

Parker built his case on assuming when the biases produced by the UHI to surface readings would be less pronounced, i.e. during certain days (windy and cloudy) as well as nights. His study is built on these assumptions, and at least half of them (bias most absent at night) are incorrect. Both day and night show pronounced bias from the UHI effect.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No he didn't say "certain days (windy and cloudy) as well as nights". He said windy, cloudy days and nights. The quote you gave addresses the issue of

nighttime
VS.
daytime
​

But it says nothing about

windy/cloudy days and nights
VS.
calm/clear days and nights.​

 

[Oberon]

Okay so explain those biases, and how they could possibly compare to the bias of industries making billions of dollars per quarter.

Are you really suggesting that only wealth can create ideologies? Environmentalism is not only a science. There is an ideological component which exists apart from the science (and is often opposed to it). Scientists have their own ideological biases, and ideology can be every bit as strong as greed.

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?

The question is how many and to what extend environmental scientists adhere to ideologies that cloud their judgment. According to several scientists who have worked for groups like the IPCC or NASA, there are scientists who would like to see kyoto signed even if AGW was completely false. There are those who believe that humans are a cancer and hold to the gaia hypothesis and who are biased against all man-made effects. For example, the vast majority of carcinogenic tests are done on synthetic chemicals. Yet those which are done on natural fruits and vegetables, for example, reveal similar levels of carcinogens. Yet everyone fears the synthetic chemicals.

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.

No, they wouldn't. If the warming is part of natural fluctuations, then it isn't much of a big deal.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Okay. Supporting quotation, please.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

(Sorry for late edits above).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And again, how did scientists acquire a "political bias" against CO2, not sunspots or microwave radiation (say)?

 

[Oberon]

No he didn't say "certain days (windy and cloudy) as well as nights". He said windy, cloudy days and nights. The quote you gave addresses the issue of

nighttime

​

VS.

daytime​

But it says nothing about

windy/cloudy days and nights

​

VS.

calm/clear days and nights.​

​

Then let us address wind first:

A study in 2000 by Stewart, I.D. 2000: Influence of meteorological conditions on the intensity and form of the urban heat island effect in Regina. CanadianGeographer 44(3), 271–85.

"Although both wind and cloud are primary factors affecting heat island
formation, their relative importance is clearly a function of time. In the
12 hours preceding a heat island event in Regina, cloud cover is
unequivocally a more important antecedent variable than wind speed in
explaining variance in heat island intensity. Wind speed, on the other
hand, is more effective as a coincident, rather than antecedent, control
of nocturnal heat island intensity... Unlike cloud cover, day-time wind
conditions have little effect on the nocturnal distribution of surface and
air temperatures within the urban canopy layer."

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Are you really suggesting that only wealth can create ideologies? Environmentalism is not only a science. There is an ideological component which exists apart from the science (and is often opposed to it). Scientists have their own ideological biases, and ideology can be every bit as strong as greed.

No, of course I'm not suggesting only wealth can create ideologies. What I asked was, "explain those biases, and how they could possibly compare to the bias of industries making billions of dollars per quarter". It happens that I do not know any physicists who have the ideological bias you suggest. They aren't activists against man-made nuclear power, chemicals and isotopes, they laugh at people who worry the LHC will destroy the Earth. They think solar power (a man-made thing) is good but coal burning (another man-made thing) is bad. Why do you think that is?

Every semester an eminent physicist, many quite conservative (by many standards) older white men, former CEOs, etc. give a seminar about global climate change. The evidence that anthropogenic causes contribute is run through briefly at the beginning, then on to the real issues, like what to do about it. I'm going to one such seminar this afternoon.

So I'm sorry, I just haven't encountered these irrational ideologues you are talking about, not in physics anyway. I do hear about them, via my conservative friends, from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

The question is how many and to what extend environmental scientists adhere to ideologies that cloud their judgment. According to several scientists who have worked for groups like the IPCC or NASA, there are scientists who would like to see kyoto signed even if AGW was completely false. There are those who believe that humans are a cancer and hold to the gaia hypothesis and who are biased against all man-made effects. For example, the vast majority of carcinogenic tests are done on synthetic chemicals. Yet those which are done on natural fruits and vegetables, for example, reveal similar levels of carcinogens. Yet everyone fears the synthetic chemicals.

You mean, like the latex and nitrile synthetic plastics they wear on their hands every day in the lab. Like the chemical buffers and denaturants and fluorescent dyes. And the synthetic radiation and isotopes. Yep, scientists have an irrational fear of technology and synthetically-made things, alright.

I agree with you there is in the public a somewhat looney environmentalist idea that everything man-made = bad for you....I simply have not seen this idea among scientists. Just the bad stuff is bad for you.

No, they wouldn't. If the warming is part of natural fluctuations, then it isn't much of a big deal.

Kind of like how the seasonal flu and other epidemics are not man-made, part of natural fluctuations. Therefore, it's not a big deal and researchers don't get funding to study it.

Except, they do....I know because a friend just got approved for funding to study it yesterday.

They would definitely get funding to study global warming if it were caused by sunspots (say) just as they definitely have well-funded research collaborations in Houston studying how sunspots affect space weather. Space weather: natural fluctuations, not man-made, but definitely a big deal and definitely well-funded. So you're just wrong.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Then let us address wind first:

Before we address anything else, we should establish whether you accurately interpreted the quotations in question.

 

[Oberon]

Before we address anything else, we should establish whether you accurately interpreted the quotations in question.

In all honesty, when when I first linked to themadhair's article, I stopped reading after the first line, as I knew the entire premise was wrong. Unfortunately for me, this was due to misreading it (I actually read the opposite of what it states). I realized my mistake almost immediately after replying to themadhair's comment "i'd love to see the evidence for this." I supplied a recent summary which you quoted which I thought would eradicate the premise, but deleted it as soon as I realized I misread the abstract. Unfortunately for me, you caught that before I deleted it.

I still intend to go over the entire study (now that I have taken the time to read it in its entirety) as well as go over other recent studies which contradict or at least undermine the conclusions reached by Parker.

However, my last quote on the importance of cloud coverage rather than wind is important. Parker, because of the difficulty involved, did not actually measure cloud coverage, but rather incoporated an "estimate" model. Yet cloud coverage is far more important than wind.

It happens that I do not know any physicists who have the ideological bias you suggest.

I don't know why you are limiting this to physicists. Climate scientists are specialists in all sorts of fields. And there have been numerous people who have complained about political ideology among climatologists. I outlined these in another thread, but will rehash if you wish.

You mean, like the latex and nitrile synthetic plastics they wear on their hands every day in the lab. Like the chemical buffers and denaturants and fluorescent dyes. And the synthetic radiation and isotopes. Yep, scientists have an irrational fear of technology and synthetically-made things, alright.

I didn't say they have a fear of technology. What I said was it is more common for people with a particular ideology (and this includes some scientists; actually R. Spencer, the former NASA employee and current UAH researcher goes over this in a recent publication) to have a particular view of nature wherein man is the "disease" of the planet. This explains, for example, why so many tests are done to ascertain the safety of man made medicine/pesticides/products/etc yet a the vastly smaller number of tests conducted on natural products reveals that many fruits and vegetables would fail the tests which are responsible for warning labels on various products. See Bruce Ames on this subject in particular.

Kind of like how the seasonal flu and other epidemics are not man-made, part of natural fluctuations. Therefore, it's not a big deal and researchers don't get funding to study it.

Foolishness. Moderate warming, within normal trends, is in most ways better for us. More people die from cold than warmth. The MWP allowed farming and settlements in Iceland which were later abandoned during a cooling cycle. As for which epidemics receive the most study, guess what? It is not based on the largest killers, but on the most advocated diseases. Diseases like Breast Cancer receive more funding than larger killers because of the politics behind the disease. The government and environmental groups (which, by the way, receive enormous contributions from "big business") spend enormous amounts of money on global warming precisely because of all the "scare" involved, and because we are causing it. If it were discovered "oh, actually this is a natural cycle and we have little to nothing to do with it" many, many, many people lose their jobs.

 

[Alceste]

Foolishness. Moderate warming, within normal trends, is in most ways better for us. More people die from cold than warmth. The MWP allowed farming and settlements in Iceland which were later abandoned during a cooling cycle.

Don't be stupid. Where do you think the majority of the world's population currently lives. Iceland?

 

[themadhair]

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.

As long as they continue to be representative of the consensus research, and that research continues to stand unrefuted, then I tend to take the NAS and IPCC as folks to go to for the latest on this.

The point is, research on the satellites and how to interpret the data, as the study from 2009 I quoted states, is ongoing,

Recap of the argument.
1) You claim that the models are in disagreement the satellite data.
2) I link to one of the three papers from 2005 which reconciled this difference.
3) You link to a 2009 paper which deals with discrepancies between satellite sources.

How does 3 actually refute 2 here? Oh that’s right – it doesn’t and was a red herring on your part.

as is research into how to assess the UHI effect.

And the research is still siding with the view that UHI is an insignificant contributor.

studies showing Y exist and are still being done.

Except this isn’t the case. Your 2009 paper doesn’t have any relevance to support your original claim regarding the models and satellite data being contradictory for example.

I am questioning whether Mann or the NAS adequately accounted for all factors, including the UHI.

***???? Seriously??? You are going to have to explain to me where Mann or the NAS review of Mann should have involved UHI because I missed that part. You seem determined to take pieces of relevant data in isolation while ignoring other relevant factors that collectively lead climatologists to conclude AGW.

They just deny the UHI is a significant facor.

Yes. And this appears to be the view supported by the majority of the research.

However, as Mann shows, the earth naturally warms and cools.

Except the small bit where the warming in the last century is faster than can be accounted for by natural factors.

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.

Try here - IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Other studies are doing just that.

Except they aren’t. You do know how proxies work don’t you? Each individual proxy is only representative of the area that proxy relates to. Mann’s work was an attempt to quantify the temperature record on a global scale. Developing a global temperature record to contextualise current warming is obviously an important piece of data. Due to the controversy over Mann’s work Congress asked the NAS to weigh in. They verified Mann’s result. To my knowledge I am unaware of any study done since that accumulated sufficient proxy data for global modelling that showed Mann or the NAS to be wrong. Localised proxies on their own are insufficient for determining/modelling a global trend.

Surfaces temperatures are primarily (according to AGW theory) a RESULT of atmospheric warming.

As the 2005 papers showed, the satellite data is not contradictory to the models.

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

Except that this study was to do with fluctuations between satellite sources. The satellite data, within error margins, are in accord with the models.

It is actually surreal when you argue like this. If I claimed that gravity was the primary reason for objects remaining on the earth would your citing of a study on an unpredicted wobbling of Mercury refute my claim? Of course not, but it is fundamentally the same error of logic.

"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."

The differences that still exist in the satellite data is an ongoing problem. This doesn’t have much to do with reconciliation with the models other than requiring a wider error bar. Remember what you originally claimed “ 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. ” and how your 2009 study in no way helps support your claim nor refute the 2005 papers?

The point remains, however, that by no means is the matter settled by your 2005 citations

Then kindly present something that shows the models and satellite data have not been resolved. You practically quote-mined the 2009 paper to apply it to a context for which the paper was not intended to addres.

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)

Radiosondes (aka weather balloons) is a source of data and not a model as you seem to think. As resolution of these data sources increases so does the need for more accurate reconciliations. This is what happens in science – but this offers you no support to your claim that the surface readings, models and satellite data are not in agreement.

your 2005 research can hardly be said to have "clinched" the issue.

Still waiting for you to produce research showing that those papers have been refuted. The whole “science is unsettled” approach you use is getting old and not really addressing the issue.

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.

And you failed for the reasons mentioned above.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

In all honesty, when when I first linked to themadhair's article, I stopped reading after the first line, as I knew the entire premise was wrong. Unfortunately for me, this was due to misreading it (I actually read the opposite of what it states). I realized my mistake almost immediately after replying to themadhair's comment "i'd love to see the evidence for this." I supplied a recent summary which you quoted which I thought would eradicate the premise, but deleted it as soon as I realized I misread the abstract. Unfortunately for me, you caught that before I deleted it.

So....you stopped reading themadhair's article after the first line, which you misread, then you realized you misread it and instead of admitting it you supplied a summary of a study you hadn't read, except for the abstract, which you misread. But you still know the entire premise of the article whose first line you misread is wrong.

Kudos for being honest, but....not good.

I don't know why you are limiting this to physicists.

I'm just speaking from my own experience.

I didn't say they have a fear of technology. What I said was it is more common for people with a particular ideology (and this includes some scientists; actually R. Spencer, the former NASA employee and current UAH researcher goes over this in a recent publication) to have a particular view of nature wherein man is the "disease" of the planet.

You said:

There are those who believe that humans are a cancer and hold to the gaia hypothesis and who are biased against all man-made effects. For example, ... everyone fears the synthetic chemicals.​

I am sure "there are those" who believe as you say, and I'm totally with you on this -- there's nothing inherently evil about human effects or synthetic chemicals. But most scientists accept AGW, and most scientists do not think humans are a cancer and do not seem too biased against the synthetic chemicals they use every day in the lab -- unless nitrile gloves, goggles and a fume hood count as "bias".

This is why I keep asking you about CO2. Why CO2, and why not, say, radio wavelength electromagnetic radiation? Both are produced by humans. Both contaminate our environment. Yet scientists are "biased" against one and not the other. Why do you think that is? Politics?

By the way, evolutionary biologists are more likely to have a particular view of nature wherein there is no intelligent designer or god. And this tells us what, exactly, about the validity of evolution? Nothing. It's possible the evidence for evolution encourages/attracts people who subscribe to a particular ideology. It's also possible the evidence for human-caused environmental problems encourages/attracts a particular ideology, too. Therefore, we can conclude the following:
________**** This space intentionally left blank ****___________.

Foolishness. Moderate warming, within normal trends, is in most ways better for us.

"Moderate warming within normal trends" ... good one. Just to recap, you said:

No, they [climate researchers] wouldn't [get funding to study the climate]. If the warming is part of natural fluctuations, then it isn't much of a big deal.​

(Emphasis added). I leave it to others to judge whether or not that logic follows.

More people die from cold than warmth.

Okay. Therefore, immoderate warming outside normal trends "isn't much of a big deal"?

As for which epidemics receive the most study, guess what? It is not based on the largest killers, but on the most advocated diseases.

Obviously there are many factors that go into how much funding goes to research which topics. But you've moved the goal posts. Cancers, old age, seasonal flu and space weather are all due to natural fluctuations. Yet they still get funding. Why don't scientists claim space weather storms are caused by human activities? They would get more funding, according to your view, and satisfy their desire to prove we are all a cancer (not only in the world, but the universe!)

The government and environmental groups (which, by the way, receive enormous contributions from "big business") spend enormous amounts of money on global warming precisely because of all the "scare" involved, and because we are causing it. If it were discovered "oh, actually this is a natural cycle and we have little to nothing to do with it" many, many, many people lose their jobs.

Perhaps, but

1. That can be said of many things, it doesn't mean much (e.g. many biologists would lose their jobs if evolution was false, many physicists would lose their jobs if black holes or the big bang did not exist),
2. Paradigms do change in science and scientists do lose their jobs, just ask a particle physicist
3. Most scientists will not lose their jobs if AGW is false, most were skeptical at first yet most scientists now accept AGW as the data gets better
4. How many climatologists are there in the world? If you add up all those jobs, how does it compare to the worldwide oil, gas, and coal industries?

 

[Oberon]

To all those I am currently debating on the subject of AGW:

This thread was supposed to consist merely of the bbc report. Obviously, it has become much more involved. For this reason, and because of my very embarrasing misreading of the Parker study cited by themadhair, I will continue what I consider to be the three main issues of contention in three seperate threads:

1. UHI and non GHG (greenhouse gas) climate forcings, and their implications for climate change theory
2. Satellite data: what they are and how they impact climate theory
3. Politics in global warming

I have spent the last few days reading dozens of recent studies and reviews of research on non-GHG forcings, and this will be the first thread I start. Hopefully the others will follow soon. I will also address all the as yet unaddressed comments made in this thread in the relevant new threads. I hope those interested (and by interested I mean actually interested in viewing research and not rhetoric) will continue to participate and debate.

 

[Alceste]

You might want to start your thread in the "Debate" section, since this is not the appropriate forum for AGW deniers to trot out their tedious side-show to the main event, which is global consensus on the seriousness of AGW and the necessity of urgent action.