Scientists agree ... Consensus on Global Warming
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:42
VIEWED: 22755
PAGE 15 of 21
FROM THE AAAS ("Science") meeting, excerpted from the CNN article:
Global warming is real
CNN February 18, 2005; 0959 GMT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Studies looking at the oceans and melting Arctic ice leave no room for doubt that it is getting warmer, people are to blame, and the weather is going to suffer, climate experts have said.
New computer models that look at ocean temperatures instead of the atmosphere show the clearest signal yet that global warming is well under way, Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography said.
His team used millions of temperature readings made by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to calculate steady ocean warming.
"The debate over whether or not there is a global warming signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.... "Could a climate system simply do this on its own? The answer is clearly no," Barnett said.
Ruth Curry of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution found that melting ice was changing the water cycle, which in turn affects ocean currents and, ultimately, climate.
"As the Earth warms, its water cycle is changing, being pushed out of kilter," she said. "Ice is in decline everywhere on the planet." A circulation system called the Ocean Conveyer Belt is in danger of shutting down, she said ... changes are already causing droughts in the U.S. west.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you’ve ever read Nature you’d understand where I got this idea. I’m not sure what is so important about this, but if you’re going to through a fit if I don’t post a supporting statement here it is. Have fun, I’m done with this point. If you have any more questions about Nature or Science, I suggest you get a subscription.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, just because you say something twice doesn't make it so. Show me the data that supports the statement "In fact, I think about a third to over half of most articles published in Nature or Science are not peer-reviewed at all."
“There are journals with a wide readership, which represent very few of the total number of journals but they are the most well-known. Some cover several fields of scientific research, such as Nature and Science, and there are also wide-spectrum clinical journals, such as The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine. Peer-reviewed papers are only part of their content: up to between one-third and two-thirds of each issue is made up of comments, news and features, which are not usually subject to peer review.”
“Peer Review and the Acceptance of New Scientific Ideas”, Sense About Science, page 12
www.senseaboutscience.org
Quote:According to this data, but other evidence contests it, and this has already been discussed.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Look at the graphs. There is clearly a line bouncing around a certain temp. then there is a spike at the end.
hxxp:// www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm
So, the past dictates a bound, but, recently there clearly is a break of that bound. The trend is now increaseing... sharply.
Quote:I’ve also already provided this evidence.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Also, provide evidence that this increase in temp was prior to increase in CO_2. Basically, just because you say something doesn't make it true.
You’re a couple of chapters behind the discussion.
Quote:That’s a poor comparison. Newtonian physics is valid. It didn’t just break down one day and we all switched to Relativistic Mechanics. Newtonian theory remains the bedrock of mechanical engineering; it simply has been demonstrated to have limits to how it can be applied.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
There never will be totally conclusive evidence for anything. We all thought that Newtonian mechanics was it until it broke down. Then along came SR, then GR. There are still problems with those and the Physicists are working on them.
The question concerning Climate Change is whether or not the models are valid at all. You claim that “we have models that predict the climate that work,” but how do you know this, and what the hell does that mean? Some of rue’s omniscience has brushed off on you? I’ve never seen a GCM that predicts the climate well enough to make the kinds of conclusion that global warming advocates want to make. If you know of one, then I’d like to see the paper that inevitably would have been published, since it certainly would be groundbreaking science.
Quote:Ah, yes, of course. We shouldn’t concern ourselves with such petty things as the conclusiveness of the data. As the all-knowing SigmaNunki will tell us all what we should know and what we shouldn’t know. Science is not an authoritarian philosophy. It is completely dependent on the conclusiveness of its data for its conclusion.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Your insistence of requiring conclusive proof is a clear indicator that you have no clue how science actually works. You should work on that.
Quote:Well, that’s Barnett’s opinion according to CNN. I base my opinions on the data however, not on CNN’s portrayal of Barnett’s opinion.
Originally posted by SignyM:
"The debate over whether or not there is a global warming signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.... "Could a climate system simply do this on its own? The answer is clearly no," Barnett said.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SigmaNunki
Quote:I laughed out loud. Thanks.
Your insistence of requiring conclusive proof is a clear indicator that you have no clue how science actually works. You should work on that.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"If you have any more questions about Nature or Science, I suggest you get a subscription... Peer-reviewed papers are only part of their content: up to between one-third and two-thirds of each issue is made up of comments, news and features, which are not usually subject to peer review.”
I was talking about research papers, which BTW is the topic of this discussion. YOU are talking about "content". Are you telling me that you can't tell the difference? If so, I sugggest that YOU subscribe to Nature and Science, since I already do.
-------------------
"The question concerning Climate Change is whether or not the models are valid at all."
ALL science is "models". Newtonian mechanics is a simply a mathematical model of large bodies moving at slow speeds.
-------------------
"I’ve never seen a GCM that predicts the climate well enough to make the kinds of conclusion that global warming advocates want to make."
Then I suggest that you subscribe to Science, Nature, Eos or other relevant magazines, or perhaps you should actually follow up some of the links and read them. You either haven't been looking, or you have been filtering your data rather severely.
-------------------
"We shouldn’t concern ourselves with such petty things as the conclusiveness of the data."
You, of course, have conclusive proof that climate is not warming, that CO2 has nothing to do with it, that we aren't going to face economic consequences, and that disrupting the SUV culture is tragic.
-----------------
"Well, that’s Barnett’s opinion according to CNN."
Try reading the paper, then come back and tell me about it. So far, everything you said is irrelevant.
Totally irrelevant.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't expect the ads to be peer-reviewed either. But we are not talking about the comments, news, features, or ads. We are talking about research papers, those things that DO determine if a publication is a peer reviewed publication. Unless you want to talk about the ads. It would be silly, but we could do that.
comments, news and features, ... are not usually subject to peer review
Quote:You know, if the graph went back to the last ice age, I would agree with you and we'd have something to talk about. But the graph doesn't, and your description of it is wrong.
The graph clearly demonstrates that the bulk of the warming occurred prior to the bulk of the Carbon Dioxide.
Skipping ahead,
Quote:The issue with tropospheric temperatures is deeper than the models you like to pick on. It has to do with the actual measurements themselves. http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~mnew/teaching/Online_Articles/Christy_etal_M
models predict a positive temperature trend that is greater for the troposphere than the surface. This predicted positive trend increases in value with altitude until it reaches a maximum ratio with respect to the surface of as much as 1.5 to 2.0 at about 200–400 hPa. However, the temperature trends from several independent observational data sets show decreasing as well as mostly negative values.
SUv5_JAOT2003.pdf
Quote:This is just one attempt to take the actual temperature of the troposphere. There are many. Using the same data, people can find a distinct rise in temps that happens to be lower than surface data, or a tropo rise that is greater than surface. As I said many, many times before, the tropospheric data is equivocal. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/9 says the same convincingly. Both radiosonde and satellite data have too much uncertainty to conclude anything significant about tropospheric temperatures.
In version A, a simple bias removal was performed between the satellite records. In version B, a linear approximation for NOAA-11 diurnal drift, at the time only recently discovered, was applied (along with other minor adjustments.) In Christy (version C) further diurnal adjustments were applied to the other satellites, a filtering procedure employed, and error analyses were performed. A full description of the construction techniques applied to version D is found in CSB where adjustments for orbital decay and instrument calibration were applied. The satellite products described below will be referred to as version 5.0
OTOH, the GCM DOES predict surface warming, which we are undoubtedly seeing through multiple significant measurements.
And yes, feel free to point out my 'dozens' of mistakes. In fact, I encourage you to do so. It would give me the chance to answer your character assasination of me.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh Rue, don't you know that to Finn papers, ads, and editorials are all the same? As is troposphere and stratosphere?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This statement is a lie. I never claimed to have proof either way.
Originally posted by SignyM:
You, of course, have conclusive proof that climate is not warming, that CO2 has nothing to do with it, that we aren't going to face economic consequences, and that disrupting the SUV culture is tragic.
Quote:You mean the CNN article. CNN quotes someone as saying something about their opinion on climate change, and you think this makes everything I’ve said irrelevant? While we are elevating CNN articles to the level of peer-reviewed scientific journals perhaps we could get CNN’s ‘scientific’ opinion on GUTs or M-theory? I’ve been working on missile plume dynamics, perhaps CNN or maybe the New York Times could offer something in the way of a rigorous mathematical treatment of nozzle boundary layer transitions?
Originally posted by SignyM:
Try reading the paper, then come back and tell me about it. So far, everything you said is irrelevant.
Totally irrelevant.
If you want me to read your article so bad, then get me a paper from a noted scientific journal that describes a GCM that completely models all greenhouse forcing, both negative and positive feedback and accurately predicts temperature on the surface, the oceans and the atmosphere. I will read it in earnest. I’m not an atmospheric scientist. If such models exist then it should be pretty easy to convince me, but CNN articles aren’t going to do the job in this arena.
Quote:That doesn’t make any sense. What difference does it make how far it goes back, the time period in question is between the late 19th century and the 1940s.
Originally posted by rue:
You know, if the graph went back to the last ice age, I would agree with you and we'd have something to talk about. But the graph doesn't, and your description of it is wrong.
Skipping ahead,
Quote:Maybe. I’ll consider the article.
Originally posted by rue:
The issue with tropospheric temperatures is deeper than the models you like to pick on. It has to do with the actual measurements themselves. http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~mnew/teaching/Online_Articles/Christy_etal_M
SUv5_JAOT2003.pdf
Quote:Maybe. But this leads us where? You’ve presented further evidence of the inconclusiveness of the data? Although I’m a little skeptical of this sudden need to recalculate the satellite data, because it reeks of a desire to find numbers that support the simulation and that’s not the direction we should be going. The models should predict the data, not the other way around. However, if the satellite data has been in error, and that can be shown, and the GCMs have been correct, then that could be the conclusive data that global warming advocates have been hoping for. But that’s not evident to me just yet.
Originally posted by rue:
Both radiosonde and satellite data have too much uncertainty to conclude anything significant about tropospheric temperatures.
Addendum:
I started reading the paper rue referenced and I realized this was one that I've read before. It talks about the uncertainty in the satellite data, but it doesn’t say what rue seems to think it says. It certainly claims that there is an uncertainty in the upper atmospheric measurements, but it doesn’t say that this uncertainty is more then what we see in the surface temperature measurements.
What rue seems to be saying is that since the surface temperature measurements seem to show an increase in mean global temperature and the satellite measurements have uncertainty, therefore the surface temperature should take precedent. Rue is comparing apples to oranges. She’s comparing the trend in the surface temperature measurements with the uncertainty in the satellite temperature measurements. There is uncertainty in both measurements. But the end result is that, according to Christy et al, there is little to no warming observed in the satellite data. And according to Douglas et al, that warming is still not predicted by the GCMs
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"This statement is a lie. I never claimed to have proof either way."
Irrelevant. Please look up hypothesis testing.
"If you want me to read your article so bad, then get me a paper from a noted scientific journal that describes a GCM that completely models all greenhouse forcing, both negative and positive feedback and accurately predicts temperature on the surface, the oceans and the atmosphere."
When dealing with complex systems that inlcude many inputs (say epidemics) all models will have an error band. Models don't have to be complete or completely accurate to be useful. Apparently, you don't understand modeling. Because of your insistance on the impossible, this comment is irrelevant.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Please look up lie.
Originally posted by SignyM:
"This statement is a lie. I never claimed to have proof either way."
Irrelevant. Please look up hypothesis testing.
Quote:First I work on computer models. Second, I never said the models weren’t useful. I’m sure they have they many uses in a theoretical context, but before they can be used as a basis for establishing policy, they must be able to at least accurately predict the present, which they cannot. What’s impossible is demanding an incomplete model that doesn’t work right now to predict the future, and then claim that we are going to establish international policy and scientific theory based on a computer model that doesn’t work. Not only is that impossible, but it’s insane.
Originally posted by SignyM:
When dealing with complex systems that inlcude many inputs (say epidemics) all models will have an error band. Models don't have to be complete or completely accurate to be useful. Apparently, you don't understand modeling. Because of your insistance on the impossible, this comment is irrelevant.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, if you knew anything about the scientific method, you'd know that you can "prove" anything, you can only disprove. Your insistence on conclusive proof is impossible to perform scientifically.
That is why I said you were irrelvant. I'm sorry, but those are the facts. You keep talking yourself into irrelevance.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME