Is the warming in the 20th century extraordinary?

[IanC]

if you check the altimetry measured sea level map you see an area of large change around P-NG. but is the rise because of global warming or because of seismic activity and underground volcanoes? water doesnt gather and stay in one area without a reason, like gravity effects from changing sea floors.

is it only me who notices that there is a high level of sea rise in the most seismically active area of the world? I cant help but think that melting icecaps arent the main reason for the rise there. and if you take that area out of the equation it doesnt leave much of a rise in the rest of the world.

 

[IanC]

Code- I dont really know your position on this whole global warming thing. did McIntyre's lecture change your opinions on anything? it really amazes me that there has been so little traction, both with the public and with scientists, on the horrible quality control and reproducibilty of temperature proxies.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A good point here is that while the 20th century warming was major, it will pale beside what we are going to see in the next 30 years. Even the last 10 years has been extroidinery. Look at the graph in Ian's avatar. Note that the running mean from 2002 to 2007 was higher than any previous high point in the running mean except that of 1998. In fact, for 8 of the 10 years from 2001 to 2010, this has been the case.

UAH Temperature Update for April, 2011: +0.12 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

The facts continue to mock your "Theory"

 

[code1211]

Code- I dont really know your position on this whole global warming thing. did McIntyre's lecture change your opinions on anything? it really amazes me that there has been so little traction, both with the public and with scientists, on the horrible quality control and reproducibilty of temperature proxies.

Hi Ian,

My position is a very uneducated one. It is more based on analysis techniques that would be used in a business to check trends. By that standard, I see that temperature seems to have increased over the last 2 or 3 thousand years, but seems to have decreased over the last 6 or 7 thousand years.

It seems that CO2 has been much, much higher than it is today and that it is higher today than it was 500 years ago.

It seems that the warming trend that we currently enjoy predates the increase of CO2 by about 100 years.

NASA seems to have morphed into a AGW Proponent agency rather than a space exploratin agency. Cap and Trade is obviously a wealth redistribution plan and not an ecologically driven campaign. Most of those who support the idea of AGW seem to be in favor of preserving the planet and uninformed as to the actual information of the history of the climate.

CO2 being a trace gas in the air and a trace gas in the overall mix of GHG's is not a likely driver of climate and, as a bit player in this little passion play, does not deserve the attention it recieves.

The Anthropogenic contribution to CO2 is so insignificant as a mix of the whole atmosphere that it hardly seems worth discussing. As I understand it, this is 3% of the 4% of the 5%. This about 2% of the CO2 content of the breath we exhale.

Anyway, I was once a firm supporter of AGW and now am a firm skeptic. It seems obvious that the Global Climate rises and falls and that the major causes have to do with the Sun and the proximity of the Earth to the Sun. The Science of the AGW proponents seems more akin the sale of snake oil than it does to the explanation of natural occurrances.

So, my position on the whole Global warming thing is:

The rise of Global temperature need not be caused by mankind for it to happen. The proof of AGW needs to be firmly proven to be actually proven and the current state of proof is incomplete, politically driven, cherry picked propoganda that is edited and packaged for the consumption of the gullible.

 

[IanC]

Code- I dont really know your position on this whole global warming thing. did McIntyre's lecture change your opinions on anything? it really amazes me that there has been so little traction, both with the public and with scientists, on the horrible quality control and reproducibilty of temperature proxies.

Hi Ian,

My position is a very uneducated one. It is more based on analysis techniques that would be used in a business to check trends. By that standard, I see that temperature seems to have increased over the last 2 or 3 thousand years, but seems to have decreased over the last 6 or 7 thousand years.

It seems that CO2 has been much, much higher than it is today and that it is higher today than it was 500 years ago.

It seems that the warming trend that we currently enjoy predates the increase of CO2 by about 100 years.

NASA seems to have morphed into a AGW Proponent agency rather than a space exploratin agency. Cap and Trade is obviously a wealth redistribution plan and not an ecologically driven campaign. Most of those who support the idea of AGW seem to be in favor of preserving the planet and uninformed as to the actual information of the history of the climate.

CO2 being a trace gas in the air and a trace gas in the overall mix of GHG's is not a likely driver of climate and, as a bit player in this little passion play, does not deserve the attention it recieves.

The Anthropogenic contribution to CO2 is so insignificant as a mix of the whole atmosphere that it hardly seems worth discussing. As I understand it, this is 3% of the 4% of the 5%. This about 2% of the CO2 content of the breath we exhale.

Anyway, I was once a firm supporter of AGW and now am a firm skeptic. It seems obvious that the Global Climate rises and falls and that the major causes have to do with the Sun and the proximity of the Earth to the Sun. The Science of the AGW proponents seems more akin the sale of snake oil than it does to the explanation of natural occurrances.

So, my position on the whole Global warming thing is:

The rise of Global temperature need not be caused by mankind for it to happen. The proof of AGW needs to be firmly proven to be actually proven and the current state of proof is incomplete, politically driven, cherry picked propoganda that is edited and packaged for the consumption of the gullible.

that seems pretty reasonable to me. BTW, dont toss out all of NASA, or even of GISS, because of the Hansen travesty. I have read some of their papers on cloud and water vapour feedbacks and also Urban Heat Island effects that are directly opposite to Hansen and the IPCC>

 

[edthecynic]

if you check the altimetry measured sea level map you see an area of large change around P-NG. but is the rise because of global warming or because of seismic activity and underground volcanoes? water doesnt gather and stay in one area without a reason, like gravity effects from changing sea floors.

is it only me who notices that there is a high level of sea rise in the most seismically active area of the world? I cant help but think that melting icecaps arent the main reason for the rise there. and if you take that area out of the equation it doesnt leave much of a rise in the rest of the world.

I think it's just the opposite. Looking at your chart, practically the whole oceans are gold colored with almost no blue and it's hard to imagine that the one small area you focus on can account for the rise in the oceans thousands of miles away. I would ask how it is affecting the rise in the Atlantic, for example? More likely the volcanic activity ADDED to the rise from global warming in that one small area rather than that one small area accounts for the global rise.

 

[IanC]

if you check the altimetry measured sea level map you see an area of large change around P-NG. but is the rise because of global warming or because of seismic activity and underground volcanoes? water doesnt gather and stay in one area without a reason, like gravity effects from changing sea floors.

is it only me who notices that there is a high level of sea rise in the most seismically active area of the world? I cant help but think that melting icecaps arent the main reason for the rise there. and if you take that area out of the equation it doesnt leave much of a rise in the rest of the world.

I think it's just the opposite. Looking at your chart, practically the whole oceans are gold colored with almost no blue and it's hard to imagine that the one small area you focus on can account for the rise in the oceans thousands of miles away. I would ask how it is affecting the rise in the Atlantic, for example? More likely the volcanic activity ADDED to the rise from global warming in that one small area rather than that one small area accounts for the global rise.

the sea level rise is supposed to be about 2mm/yr. so any gray or blue is less than average. the area of red and purple is about 10mm/yr. that goes a long way to explain the difference between tide gauges and altimetry.

 

[westwall]

So, dear girl, a 5 inch rise in sea level has absolutely no effect on erosion.

No, dear boy it would....if it existed. So far there is no evidence for a five inch rise in ocean level since the alarmists began their bleating. In fact all evidence shows that the ocean levels have remained fairly constant for the last one hundred years or so. A millimeter up here, a milimeter down there. In other words, so small a swing that you can't even see it.

Do you expect people to get worked up over that?

Hardly.

So, dear girl, the study that you agree with that claims that 80% of the islands are the same size or bigger in spite of a 5 inch rise in ocean level is off by a factor of about 25.

What was that silly person? Where did I say I agreed with the study? If you want to look at a cuckoo look in the mirror. I was using the figure and quotes from the study that YOU were using to illustrate your point. I'm sorry that you recieved such a poor education but in the future do try to keep up.

The study claims a 5 inch rise. Show us tide gauge data from anywhere on the planet that shows the same. The study says that 23 islands are growing while only four are shrinking. Think real hard (but please not enough to explode your head, that would be messy) and tell us how the overwhelming majority of islands in the group are growing when your folks are trying to tell us they are disappearing.

Tell us just exactly how that propaganda works.

 

[westwall]

Code- I dont really know your position on this whole global warming thing. did McIntyre's lecture change your opinions on anything? it really amazes me that there has been so little traction, both with the public and with scientists, on the horrible quality control and reproducibilty of temperature proxies.

Code is very much a sceptic...and a scientifically literate one as well. Maybe not an educated sceptic but one who is able to decipher things well.

 

[edthecynic]

No, dear boy it would....if it existed. So far there is no evidence for a five inch rise in ocean level since the alarmists began their bleating. In fact all evidence shows that the ocean levels have remained fairly constant for the last one hundred years or so. A millimeter up here, a milimeter down there. In other words, so small a swing that you can't even see it.

Do you expect people to get worked up over that?

Hardly.

So, dear girl, the study that you agree with that claims that 80% of the islands are the same size or bigger in spite of a 5 inch rise in ocean level is off by a factor of about 25.

What was that silly person? Where did I say I agreed with the study? If you want to look at a cuckoo look in the mirror. I was using the figure and quotes from the study that YOU were using to illustrate your point. I'm sorry that you recieved such a poor education but in the future do try to keep up.

The study claims a 5 inch rise. Show us tide gauge data from anywhere on the planet that shows the same. The study says that 23 islands are growing while only four are shrinking. Think real hard (but please not enough to explode your head, that would be messy) and tell us how the overwhelming majority of islands in the group are growing when your folks are trying to tell us they are disappearing.

Tell us just exactly how that propaganda works.

Well there dishonest person, you may have a point there. You changed what the study posted by one of your fellow deniers, and you agreed with your change. The study actually said that 23 islands "STAYED THE SAME or grew" which you dishonestly changed into all 23 grew. And since you have such a superior education compared to me and I understood that it said "STAYED THE SAME or grew" your alteration had to be deliberately dishonest. Which is how denier propaganda works.

And here is a chart from another of your fellow deniers of global tide increases, and it does not support YOUR silly millimeter crapaganda!

 

[westwall]

So, dear girl, the study that you agree with that claims that 80% of the islands are the same size or bigger in spite of a 5 inch rise in ocean level is off by a factor of about 25.

What was that silly person? Where did I say I agreed with the study? If you want to look at a cuckoo look in the mirror. I was using the figure and quotes from the study that YOU were using to illustrate your point. I'm sorry that you recieved such a poor education but in the future do try to keep up.

The study claims a 5 inch rise. Show us tide gauge data from anywhere on the planet that shows the same. The study says that 23 islands are growing while only four are shrinking. Think real hard (but please not enough to explode your head, that would be messy) and tell us how the overwhelming majority of islands in the group are growing when your folks are trying to tell us they are disappearing.

Tell us just exactly how that propaganda works.

Well there dishonest person, you may have a point there. You changed what the study posted by one of your fellow deniers, and you agreed with your change. The study actually said that 23 islands "STAYED THE SAME or grew" which you dishonestly changed into all 23 grew. And since you have such a superior education compared to me and I understood that it said "STAYED THE SAME or grew" your alteration had to be deliberately dishonest. Which is how denier propaganda works.

And here is a chart from another of your fellow deniers of global tide increases, and it does not support YOUR silly millimeter crapaganda!

Show us where I changed the posting.

 

[edthecynic]

What was that silly person? Where did I say I agreed with the study? If you want to look at a cuckoo look in the mirror. I was using the figure and quotes from the study that YOU were using to illustrate your point. I'm sorry that you recieved such a poor education but in the future do try to keep up.

The study claims a 5 inch rise. Show us tide gauge data from anywhere on the planet that shows the same. The study says that 23 islands are growing while only four are shrinking. Think real hard (but please not enough to explode your head, that would be messy) and tell us how the overwhelming majority of islands in the group are growing when your folks are trying to tell us they are disappearing.

Tell us just exactly how that propaganda works.

Well there dishonest person, you may have a point there. You changed what the study posted by one of your fellow deniers, and you agreed with your change. The study actually said that 23 islands "STAYED THE SAME or grew" which you dishonestly changed into all 23 grew. And since you have such a superior education compared to me and I understood that it said "STAYED THE SAME or grew" your alteration had to be deliberately dishonest. Which is how denier propaganda works.

And here is a chart from another of your fellow deniers of global tide increases, and it does not support YOUR silly millimeter crapaganda!

Show us where I changed the posting.

When a CONdescending CON$ervative gets caught with his superior educated foot in his lying mouth, he plays dumb even if his lie was highlighted already. The superior educated CON$ervative pretends to be too dumb to have understood the highlighting.

 

[westwall]

Well there dishonest person, you may have a point there. You changed what the study posted by one of your fellow deniers, and you agreed with your change. The study actually said that 23 islands "STAYED THE SAME or grew" which you dishonestly changed into all 23 grew. And since you have such a superior education compared to me and I understood that it said "STAYED THE SAME or grew" your alteration had to be deliberately dishonest. Which is how denier propaganda works.

And here is a chart from another of your fellow deniers of global tide increases, and it does not support YOUR silly millimeter crapaganda!

Show us where I changed the posting.

When a CONdescending CON$ervative gets caught with his superior educated foot in his lying mouth, he plays dumb even if his lie was highlighted already. The superior educated CON$ervative pretends to be too dumb to have understood the highlighting.

Soooooo show me where I said an untrue thing. I paraphrased a section and last time I checked that is OK with the academic world...not that you know anything of it, nor do you understand paraphrasing I am guessing. Nothing new there, you don't understand most things.

 

[edthecynic]

Show us where I changed the posting.

When a CONdescending CON$ervative gets caught with his superior educated foot in his lying mouth, he plays dumb even if his lie was highlighted already. The superior educated CON$ervative pretends to be too dumb to have understood the highlighting.

Soooooo show me where I said an untrue thing. I paraphrased a section and last time I checked that is OK with the academic world...not that you know anything of it, nor do you understand paraphrasing I am guessing. Nothing new there, you don't understand most things.

Now you are milking the dumb act to the point of ridiculousness!

I already showed you with highlighting, and then again with colored highlighting. If you haven't figured it out by now how you "paraphrased" it into something different, then you are too stupid to ever get it!!

 

[Colin]

Pollution is pollution is pollution, denying that reality and its potential consequences is irresponsible and kinda stupid. U.S.: Climate Change May Pose Biggest Security Threat - IPS ipsnews.net

One would have to demonstrate that the climate change is man made. The science has not.

So, your post has zero meaning.

Hush now! You can't say things that will compromise the excuses governments around the world use to raise even more taxes!

 

[westwall]

When a CONdescending CON$ervative gets caught with his superior educated foot in his lying mouth, he plays dumb even if his lie was highlighted already. The superior educated CON$ervative pretends to be too dumb to have understood the highlighting.

Soooooo show me where I said an untrue thing. I paraphrased a section and last time I checked that is OK with the academic world...not that you know anything of it, nor do you understand paraphrasing I am guessing. Nothing new there, you don't understand most things.

Now you are milking the dumb act to the point of ridiculousness!

I already showed you with highlighting, and then again with colored highlighting. If you haven't figured it out by now how you "paraphrased" it into something different, then you are too stupid to ever get it!!

No, you're just highlighting your particular form of insanity and for that we thank you! With all do credit to Daniel Tosh for the saying I just ripped off.

Edit: Ahhh, now that I am fresh and am able to work through your visual diarhea I see where i made the mistake. So here's the difference between me and you ed, I will admit when i make an error. You never will. So yes i did omit a small section of the original post (I did a quick paraphrase and neglected to proofread it) and that has a major impact on what it says. My central point however still remains. The majority of the islands under study have not decreased in size they have either maintained their size or increased.

 

[IanC]

First of all, that was very selective editing, but even your blurb admits that 20% of the islands are shrinking.

Here are some tidbits you left out:

From your quote 4 islands have decreased in size. 23 have INCREASED in size. There is a claim of a five inch rise in sea level that is not supported by tide gauges. More importantly the quote

"no one should be lulled into thinking erosion and inundation were not taking their toll on the islands."


is the true money quote. Erosion is constant. As erosion continues its ever present destruction of land (where do you think beach sand and mud come from?) it lowers the overall height of an island to where inundation occurs. Another way of looking at it is take a look at an underwater map of the Pacific Ocean. Look at Hawaii. See those little underwater mountains that tail away from Hawaii? They used to be islands. Erosion and inundation have completely destroyed them, that is what happens to volcanic islands when the volcano stops.

That is what is happening here. Mankind is just so narrow minded that he thinks that because he is now on the planet and semi aware the natural processes stop. Guess what Joe, it just aint so.

So the article's numbers are correct where you agree with them but incorrect where you don't. Why am I not surprised?

 

[flacaltenn]

Just sipping coffee and reading thru.. Congrats on the "better tone". Seems we've come a long way since betting the farm on tree ring data that was cherry-picked from CERTAIN trees at a limited number of sites. But I find it strange that the pro-side (who once defended those local proxies) are now the skeptics about local proxies of anything..

I can understand enough of this analysis to get the creepy feeling that the more condensed the data space is -- the less informative it is.. Taking GLOBAL mean temperature or GLOBAL MSL as the punchline is a dis-informative direction. After-all, we barely can control the calibration and variables for the MODERN era data. What do we REALLY KNOW about the historical data on a GLOBAL SCALE?

Pretty close to nothing.. All we got is extreme locations (ice) and tree rings (without calibration to any other measured variable of tree growth).

But I got IanC's point about the local variability in that Vostok ice data. That we learn SOMETHING from even LOCAL proxies. Since there were almost no excursions with a duration less than 50 years or so -- you can pretty confidently say that the excursion was likely to have been part of a bigger regional or global shift.

Here's what I gotta study to get educated.. HOW -- even with satellite data do you construct something like a Global Mean Annual Temperature? Limited number of observations. Satellites are not infinitely driveable. Are you even getting daily highs and lows at any locale with any regularity? What are the observation biases of the sampling?

I get the parts about sensor/observational corrections, but it's the mechanics of the flight path and sampling strategy that baffles me. Unless we're just using the satellites to make ground data conform to higher accuracy.

 

[wirebender]

The main flaw with this analysis is that Vostok temperature is not global temperature. Many of the short term temperature jumps and falls at vostok would have been local and not global. Temperature changes at vostok greatly exaggerate global changes as vostok temperature variation is particularly high.

The overwhelming evidence is that the changes observed in the vostok cores were, in fact, global. Name a part of the world that you believe did not warm during those periods and I will be happy to provide you with some peer reviewed studies that indicate the same sort of temperature rise or fall. Here, have a look and stop wringing your hands.

 

[wirebender]

A good point here is that while the 20th century warming was major, it will pale beside what we are going to see in the next 30 years. Even the last 10 years has been extroidinery. Look at the graph in Ian's avatar. Note that the running mean from 2002 to 2007 was higher than any previous high point in the running mean except that of 1998. In fact, for 8 of the 10 years from 2001 to 2010, this has been the case.

The last ten years has been without any statistically signifigant warming at all rocks. Even the hockey team admits that. If you would step outside the walls of the church of agw for just a minute and look around, what you would see is a very real concern for some very serious cooling over the next century or so.

Don't you think it is odd that your guys keep claiming that each year is a new record when there has been no warming?