The science against climate change

[Saigon]

I thought it might be good to have a thread where those who do not believe humans play a role in climate change could present their science.

Much of the debate here seems political to me, which at the end of the day does not prove anything. We know polar ice is melting, we know glacier are retreating - what I want to know is why, and what will happen next.

Please leave the politics to one side here, and stick to strong scientific reasoning.

 

[IanC]

I thought it might be good to have a thread where those who do not believe humans play a role in climate change could present their science.

Much of the debate here seems political to me, which at the end of the day does not prove anything. We know polar ice is melting, we know glacier are retreating - what I want to know is why, and what will happen next.

Please leave the politics to one side here, and stick to strong scientific reasoning.

skeptics dont believe that humans have a dominant role in climate change. presumably everything in the environment has an effect on the climate system.

artctic sea ice is shrinking, antarctic sea ice is growing, glaciers and ice caps grow or retreat due to temperature and local conditions. blaming CO2 for such things is a non sequitur. the majority of glacial retreat happened before we started pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the air. why are you so sure that the natural cause for melting stopped and the unnatural CO2 seemlessly took its place?

if we put politics to the side and stuck to strong scientific reasoning there would be no claims of CAGW in the first place.

 

[Saigon]

Thanks, Ian, those are interesting points.

The case might be stronger in Antarctic ice were growing, whereas unfortunately it is only growing and cooling in Eastern Antarctica. The Western Antarctic is experiencing unprecedented calving and warming, meaning the net effect is negative.

You mention temperature and local condititions, but when was the last time we saw glacial retreat and polar melting on a global level, and with apparently increasing speed?

Some 97% of the world's glaciers are in retreat, in Alaska, South America, Europe and Asia. The Arctic ice hit new lows this year. Temperatures are becoming more extreme.

These are global trends, with local weather patterns acting on top of those wider trends.

As for CO2, the science is not now terribly new. I believe it was first suggested in the 1860s, and we have a fairly clear picture of CO2 levels in the atmopshere going back several thousand years.

We certainly know that the CO2 level is increasing dramatically, of course.

When I look at these charts:

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

it seems clear that there is a link between CO2 and temperature.

Yes, temperatures have risen before, but not at this rate, and not with this apparent acceleration.

Of course there have always been natural cycles and high and lows - but they alone do not describe the trend we see in the chart linked above.

If the current trends are not unprecedented, they are certainly unprecedented in recorded history as we know it, anyway.

 

[IanC]

saigon- surely you are not saying the rate of retreat of glaciers is faster now than it was 150-100 years ago? it was obviously much more massive in nature back then.

I spoke of sea ice. apples to apples. planes and satellites can accurately measure sea ice. the two poles seem to balance each other out.

WAIS is warming, the rest of the continent is cooling. that much is agreed upon. whether the effect is net negative is not. GRACE is a wonderful tool but it hasnt been around long enough to work out the bugs in the calculations, corrections and conclusions.

you seem to think glacial retreat and sea ice shrinking has never happened before. what about the MWP or the RWP, etc? weather extremes? why dont you guys read some history. the last 50 years has been some of the most benign weather in written records.

the real point is how much do you think CO2 has changed the equilibrium temperature of the earth's surface, at which latitudes, and to what extent that affects local conditions. equatorial regions receive the bulk of the sun's energy, have the smallest temperature increases, and the most efficient ways of shedding energy(ie. radiation is not that important, many other pathways are available, some of which are triggered by *increased temperatures*). the cell systems which carry energy from the equator to the poles are driven by temperature differentials. if the poles warm and the equator stays the same there is less energy to power weather patterns.

 

[Saigon]

I agree that the real issue is with CO2, but just to look at a few of the other points you touch on here:

surely you are not saying the rate of retreat of glaciers is faster now than it was 150-100 years ago?

I am. I believe that this trend is unprecedented in both scale and for how global it is.

The Little Ice Age was a period from about 1550 to 1850 when the world experienced relatively cooler temperatures compared to the present. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed substantially. Glacial retreat slowed and even reversed temporarily, in many cases, between 1950 and 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred. Since 1980, a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existence of a great number of the remaining glaciers of the world is threatened.

Retreat of glaciers since 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thi graphic shows the historical curve going back to 1500. The falls in the 1850s were severe, but also relatively brief, although many glaciers never entirely recovered. You might also ask yourself if the industrial revolution played any part in that.

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other

 

[Saigon]

the real point is how much do you think CO2 has changed the equilibrium temperature of the earth's surface, at which latitudes, and to what extent that affects local conditions

I agree, and of course this is not an easy thing to measure accurately. There is a subjective element to this at the moment, although hopefully we will see clearer patterns emerging as time passes.

But I call this pattern alarming:

If it is not caused by CO2 - what is it?

Is this really part of a normal cycle that happens to coincide with a rise in the concentration of atmospheric CO2?

 

[IanC]

I think if you compare the amount of retreat up to 1950 compared to the supposedly CO2-induced recent retreat, you will find the overwhelming majority of the loss was in the earlier era.

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

In Alaska that may well be.

But the IPCC link above alo includes glaciers from Europe, NZ, South America and Asia.

 

[IanC]

the real point is how much do you think CO2 has changed the equilibrium temperature of the earth's surface, at which latitudes, and to what extent that affects local conditions

I agree, and of course this is not an easy thing to measure accurately. There is a subjective element to this at the moment, although hopefully we will see clearer patterns emerging as time passes.

But I call this pattern alarming:

If it is not caused by CO2 - what is it?

Is this really part of a normal cycle that happens to coincide with a rise in the concentration of atmospheric CO2?

there have been dozens of threads about the actual measuring of global temperatures. much of the increase is simply 'adjustments' to the raw data, and changes to the weightings of individual areas. I really dont want to rehash the same points over and over again. global temperature is almost a useless concept except to create fear by massively overstating the precision and accuracy of the readings , and hiding the methodologies of the adjustments.

 

[IanC]

Ian C -

In Alaska that may well be.

But the IPCC link above alo includes glaciers from Europe, NZ, South America and Asia.

great- hook me up with a handful of maps showing the actual measured retreat of those glaciers over the last 150 years. thanks in advance.


on a slightly different tack, why do you think glacier melt is intimately conected with CO2? is it just the temperature component over and above whatever the temp would have been without CO2. or do you think CO2 actually affects the local conditions as well?

are you worried about land use change and particulate effects as well? where does human population fall in your worldview?

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

In Alaska that may well be.

But the IPCC link above alo includes glaciers from Europe, NZ, South America and Asia.

great- hook me up with a handful of maps showing the actual measured retreat of those glaciers over the last 150 years. thanks in advance.


on a slightly different tack, why do you think glacier melt is intimately conected with CO2? is it just the temperature component over and above whatever the temp would have been without CO2. or do you think CO2 actually affects the local conditions as well?

are you worried about land use change and particulate effects as well? where does human population fall in your worldview?

I'm sure each glacier has map available - certainly the ones that I have visited have usually had them in the visitors centers, but I am not going to spend an hour finding links of them for you. If you want to see them I'm sure you'll find them.

My take on this topic is largely from spending time in countries like Chile and Argentina where glacial retreats have been dramatic, and have had a dramati effect on local people. In parts of Peru growing vegetables is much harder now than 20 years ago because each there is less snow-melt for them to use in irrigation.

Of course urbanisation and rising populations stress the environment in many ways, but in the upper reaches of the Andes there really are no people and no land use. When a glacier collapse there, it does so without any direct influence from very local factors such as farming.

I believe CO2 is the key factor here because I have not yet seen any rational alternative presented. Also because graphs showing the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere so closely correspond to the rise in temperatures.

 

[Saigon]

there have been dozens of threads about the actual measuring of global temperatures. much of the increase is simply 'adjustments' to the raw data, and changes to the weightings of individual areas. I really dont want to rehash the same points over and over again. global temperature is almost a useless concept except to create fear by massively overstating the precision and accuracy of the readings , and hiding the methodologies of the adjustments.

Thi may have been true in the 1970s when the science was still learning as it went along (e.g. by learning not to place urban thermometers directly over subway vents!!) but it is absolutely not the case today.

This chart produced by the UK Met Office is very useful here:

Climate monitoring - Met Office

The Met Office uses three entirely different set of data:

Met Office scientists have compared the three datasets. The long-term trends and large-scale patterns of temperature are similar, but the three analyses do not agree on all the details. These differences arise from slight differences in source data and the different choices made by the three centres in processing the data. The charts also show el Nino effects.

I do not consider this chart represents a "useless concept. "

 

[IanC]

there have been dozens of threads about the actual measuring of global temperatures. much of the increase is simply 'adjustments' to the raw data, and changes to the weightings of individual areas. I really dont want to rehash the same points over and over again. global temperature is almost a useless concept except to create fear by massively overstating the precision and accuracy of the readings , and hiding the methodologies of the adjustments.

Thi may have been true in the 1970s when the science was still learning as it went along (e.g. by learning not to place urban thermometers directly over subway vents!!) but it is absolutely not the case today.

This chart produced by the UK Met Office is very useful here:

Climate monitoring - Met Office

The Met Office uses three entirely different set of data:

Met Office scientists have compared the three datasets. The long-term trends and large-scale patterns of temperature are similar, but the three analyses do not agree on all the details. These differences arise from slight differences in source data and the different choices made by the three centres in processing the data. The charts also show el Nino effects.

I do not consider this chart represents a "useless concept. "

sorry, your MO link doesnt work for me. I am somewhat dubious that the MO uses 3 'entirely different set of data'. all of the datasets use different combinations of the same measurements with their own version of adjustments.

GHCN and GISS have been especially volatile during the last year. here is a link (GHCN adjustments) to get you started on just how unreliable many of the station data are. there are also a few embedded links, many to Paul Homewood's site, that illustrate the mess we are in with respect to data presentation.

of course I dont really expect you to look into it. hahaha it would mean that you would have serious doubts in one area. and that would lead you to examine another area which would also have discrepancies causing more doubt. etc. more discrepancies, more doubts....

every chain of evidence proposed by CAGW wildly diverges from the simple data at one end to the rapidly escalating claims of catastrophe at the other end. temperature, sea level, energy budget, proxies, renewable energy sources....none of the evidence supports the conclusions they want you to draw.

 

[Saigon]

of course I dont really expect you to look into it. hahaha it would mean that you would have serious doubts in one area. and that would lead you to examine another area which would also have discrepancies causing more doubt. etc. more discrepancies, more doubts....

I'll look at anything that looks credible and coherent, and I don't know why anyone wouldn't.

The material looks fine, but if you prefer to discount the GHCN data entirely and use only the other two sources, then go with that. Even assuming the site you link to is correct (and honestly, I have no idea either way. It's impossible to tell without spending weeks studying the material) I don't see that it changes much of what we know about global temperatures.

It is not as if what we know about climate change is based an temperature alone.

Consider these factors a being the main element of climate change:

- arctic and antarctic ice melt
- ocean PH
- global mean temperatures
- glacial melt
- drought patterns
- storm patterns
- changes to wind patterns and the gulf stream

and you have a lot of science, a lot of data, and a lot of material and models. Within that, there will undoubtedly be some variations, some errors and so forth.

But what we see from those is a very clear general trend, and a very clear pictured painted from a thousand different sources and researchers.

I don't see that questioning data from one station in Iceland means much - simply ignore it, and look at others you consider more reliable.

As for alarmists - of course some website (in particular) have made ridiculous claims, and I think that is unfortunate. But actually most scientific papers do not make claims, becaue that isn't their brief. Most stuff I have read on glaciers stops shorting of claiming anything not specifically measured in their research. I think it is widely understood that the world is not going to end next year or the year after - but that does not mean we should just assume everything science record is normal and has precedent. It isn't, and it doen't.

 

[AVG-JOE]

None of it matters.

Less pollution is better. Period.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ian C -

In Alaska that may well be.

But the IPCC link above alo includes glaciers from Europe, NZ, South America and Asia.

great- hook me up with a handful of maps showing the actual measured retreat of those glaciers over the last 150 years. thanks in advance.


on a slightly different tack, why do you think glacier melt is intimately conected with CO2? is it just the temperature component over and above whatever the temp would have been without CO2. or do you think CO2 actually affects the local conditions as well?

are you worried about land use change and particulate effects as well? where does human population fall in your worldview?

We can start here;

USGS Repeat Photography Project Documents Retreating Glaciers in Glacier National Park | Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK)

Sizing Up the Earth's Glaciers : Feature Articles

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2011/glaciers19.pdf

BBC News - Rivers of ice: Vanishing glaciers

POET IN RESIDENCE: Austria's vanishing glaciers

Bavarian Glaciers to Melt Within the Next 30 Years - SPIEGEL ONLINE

And I have not even posted the effects visible from my home on the glaciers in the Cascades.

 

[Old Rocks]

the real point is how much do you think CO2 has changed the equilibrium temperature of the earth's surface, at which latitudes, and to what extent that affects local conditions

I agree, and of course this is not an easy thing to measure accurately. There is a subjective element to this at the moment, although hopefully we will see clearer patterns emerging as time passes.

But I call this pattern alarming:

If it is not caused by CO2 - what is it?

Is this really part of a normal cycle that happens to coincide with a rise in the concentration of atmospheric CO2?

there have been dozens of threads about the actual measuring of global temperatures. much of the increase is simply 'adjustments' to the raw data, and changes to the weightings of individual areas. I really dont want to rehash the same points over and over again. global temperature is almost a useless concept except to create fear by massively overstating the precision and accuracy of the readings , and hiding the methodologies of the adjustments.

Now Ian, I am calling bullshit on you. When Muller started his study, you were posting how that would settle, at last, the debate on the accuracy of the temperature measurements of the ground stations. Then, when he finished his study, and stated that the study had found the temperatures stated were accurate, and that the temperature increase was as Hansen and the rest stated, you immediatly disavowed Muller.

You, like the all the rest that would deny reality because you do not like the results, will not accept the truth.

The present rapidly increasing warming is driven almost entirely by GHGs, GHGs that we humans are responsible for. And we are now in the consequence phase of this global experiment.

 

[edthecynic]

the real point is how much do you think CO2 has changed the equilibrium temperature of the earth's surface, at which latitudes, and to what extent that affects local conditions

I agree, and of course this is not an easy thing to measure accurately. There is a subjective element to this at the moment, although hopefully we will see clearer patterns emerging as time passes.

But I call this pattern alarming:

If it is not caused by CO2 - what is it?

Is this really part of a normal cycle that happens to coincide with a rise in the concentration of atmospheric CO2?

there have been dozens of threads about the actual measuring of global temperatures. much of the increase is simply 'adjustments' to the raw data, and changes to the weightings of individual areas. I really dont want to rehash the same points over and over again. global temperature is almost a useless concept except to create fear by massively overstating the precision and accuracy of the readings , and hiding the methodologies of the adjustments.

Yeah, you don't want to rehash your bullshit, you just want to restate it unchallenged!

How many times have we heard the deniers bitch about measuring stations being located near heat sources and that they should be removed and the data stricken and adjusted without them. Then when the stations are removed and the data adjusted these same deniers bitch about fewer stations and adjusted data. These morons, who have no understanding of how anomalies work, expected the temps to go down when data from stations near heat sources was removed and then cried foul when the temps rose with the more accurate data.

Anomalies are measured against a 30 year average and if the station is near a heat source the 30 year average measuring stick will be higher giving lower current readings. Removing these false lows, as the deniers demanded, gives higher and more accurate warming trends, but the deniers never wanted more accurate data so they whine and cry like little babies that the more accurate data that they demanded is fudged because it was adjusted according to their demands!

 

[IanC]

I agree, and of course this is not an easy thing to measure accurately. There is a subjective element to this at the moment, although hopefully we will see clearer patterns emerging as time passes.

But I call this pattern alarming:

If it is not caused by CO2 - what is it?

Is this really part of a normal cycle that happens to coincide with a rise in the concentration of atmospheric CO2?

there have been dozens of threads about the actual measuring of global temperatures. much of the increase is simply 'adjustments' to the raw data, and changes to the weightings of individual areas. I really dont want to rehash the same points over and over again. global temperature is almost a useless concept except to create fear by massively overstating the precision and accuracy of the readings , and hiding the methodologies of the adjustments.

Now Ian, I am calling bullshit on you. When Muller started his study, you were posting how that would settle, at last, the debate on the accuracy of the temperature measurements of the ground stations. Then, when he finished his study, and stated that the study had found the temperatures stated were accurate, and that the temperature increase was as Hansen and the rest stated, you immediatly disavowed Muller.

You, like the all the rest that would deny reality because you do not like the results, will not accept the truth.

The present rapidly increasing warming is driven almost entirely by GHGs, GHGs that we humans are responsible for. And we are now in the consequence phase of this global experiment.

finished his study??????

none of the four papers has even completed peer review!!!!

it has been over a year since they were submitted, I can only assume there have been serious problems to be overcome. I hope they manage to do it right the first time, unlike so many climate papers that have come out lately only to be retracted.

 

[IanC]

I agree, and of course this is not an easy thing to measure accurately. There is a subjective element to this at the moment, although hopefully we will see clearer patterns emerging as time passes.

But I call this pattern alarming:

If it is not caused by CO2 - what is it?

Is this really part of a normal cycle that happens to coincide with a rise in the concentration of atmospheric CO2?

there have been dozens of threads about the actual measuring of global temperatures. much of the increase is simply 'adjustments' to the raw data, and changes to the weightings of individual areas. I really dont want to rehash the same points over and over again. global temperature is almost a useless concept except to create fear by massively overstating the precision and accuracy of the readings , and hiding the methodologies of the adjustments.

Yeah, you don't want to rehash your bullshit, you just want to restate it unchallenged!

How many times have we heard the deniers bitch about measuring stations being located near heat sources and that they should be removed and the data stricken and adjusted without them. Then when the stations are removed and the data adjusted these same deniers bitch about fewer stations and adjusted data. These morons, who have no understanding of how anomalies work, expected the temps to go down when data from stations near heat sources was removed and then cried foul when the temps rose with the more accurate data.

Anomalies are measured against a 30 year average and if the station is near a heat source the 30 year average measuring stick will be higher giving lower current readings. Removing these false lows, as the deniers demanded, gives higher and more accurate warming trends, but the deniers never wanted more accurate data so they whine and cry like little babies that the more accurate data that they demanded is fudged because it was adjusted according to their demands!

You are conflating two. Problems. Bad siting and a meat grinder set of adjustments that spit out warming trends regardless of the input.. Both are important and relevant