Lets have a clean debate about AGW

[polarbear]

I hope I don`t regret my decision to post it here instead of the clean debate zone. So let`s keep the insults etc out of this debate.
Also please refrain from posting the same stuff over and over again, using over sized advertizement fonts.
Okay here it goes
Let`s start out by giving the AGW crowd here some slack and not discuss CO2 IR absorption facts and how these play out in an atmosphere where absorbed IR energy can raise temperature only if all other avenues such as H2O evaporation, gas expansion and convection are dis-allowed.
Like in a bottle full of CO2 in front of a heat lamp.
With the lab facilities that even the most professional researchers have at their disposal it is not fair to insist, that such an experiment is carried out on a representative scale.
Even though the burden of proof does rest on those who make the CO2==>global warming assertion.
Nobody is entitled to call another a "denier" who reminds climatologists of their duty

For now let us examine how reliable or unreliable the data is that has been gathered so far regarding observed temperature and how the "average temperature" has been calculated.

Before we go "global" it`s better to start with the northern half of North America:

Since records were collected the "average" has been calculated as the "geometric average".
It is defined as the nth root of the product of all n elements.
So for the map above you would have to convert all the C-temps into Kelvin first...else you get a zero, wiping everything else out as soon as you get to Halifax or multiplying 2 negative values will give you a false positive result.
Next multiply all the Kelvin degree numbers and then take the 19th root of the product.
Here are the Celsius numbers for the entire area:
-25 -29 -5 -11 -14 -15 10 12 -14 -17 -10 -3, 4 -3 -1 -7 -1, 2, 0
Don`t try a direct multiplication because you will cause an overflow with most "ALU"`s in most PC processors or handheld calculators when you multiply 19 3 digit numbers. The ALU will start rounding and deleting some pretty significant digits
Do the log of each number converted to Kelvin, add the log (K)`s then divide the sum by 19 in this case. Last get the exponent(ln) of the result and you got the "geometric average".
You can either use a standard spreadsheet to do that or use this quicky algorithm which is generic for most programming languages from C on down with only minor modifications.
It`s a lot less work than doing it with a spreadsheet:

[start]
input t
if t=999 then [end]
t=log(t)
tn=tn+t
n=n+1
goto [start]

[end]
b=tn/n
av=exp(b)
print av



===> geometric average of -6.89376625 C
The first thing a mathematician would tell you that the 2.nd last step in the above program should have been av=Int(av)
Which means that you are only entitled to use the integer because you only had integers in your original data. There was no fractional precision.
If you come up with say 6.5 degrees instead of 6 that`s called "artificial" precision" and that has no place in real science...neither has a graph where somebody explodes an artificial precision +0.5 "anomaly" so that goes right off the chart...in order to illustrate that doomsday is just around the corner

But let`s be generous about that for now and move on
Next run only the numbers in the area which is circled black:
-25 -29 -5 -11 -14 -12 -15 -12 -17 -10
==> -15.1 C

And now the much smaller area, where the hot spots are:
10, 4,-3 -3 -1 -1, 0, 2
===> + 1.25 C

If you drag the picture into a CAD to get the area for both,...which I did and got a ratio of 3.2 :1.
The area that was "on average" -15 C is 3.2 times larger than the warmer one which was at +1 C on average.
A few hot spots along the coast have raised the average for a continent sized area by a whopping 8 degrees negating the bulk of the area which was 16 C colder
So why even go into the rest of the AGW assertions before we do more realistic calculations when we compute the average temperature.
Today`s temperature over area distribution was no one day wonder.
It is like that all year long and that problem is not confined just to Canada:

Another major concern mathematicians and computer scientist have is that not even "super computers" have unlimited "bit precision" to do this kind of calculation for all the dots in the right hand picture. In fact each region does their own averages and submits these for a final calculation.
How "honest" they have been when they did that, we know from the e-mail scandal.
And from that mess we got computer projections that can at best show only a fraction of a degree trend-increase, which again is not only flawed by artificial precision but also nobody knows how much of that averaging was done on vintage PC`s that only had 16 bit processors...like most of those in general use before 1990. They had a signed bit range from −32 768 to 32 767....after that the CPU started using exponents and had to chop off all the least significant digits. Many of these PC`s are still in use even today and most climatologists who are part of the calculation pool aren`t even aware of these hardware limitations. A few years ago I registered in such a pool and noticed how many participants have complained that their PC "locks up" with error messages when they compute with the recommended "auto read in" programs from large .cvs files that are the raw data from just a single region.



The largest German Magazine "Der Spiegel" has become a public discussion forum place "wikileak" for scientists from all over the world to make disclosures like this one published just now.
It`s too long to post and translate while I`ve got to babysit 3 boys, but the main points are:
Phänomen "fehlende Wärme": Klimaforscher rätseln über Meereskälte - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Phänomen "fehlende Wärme": Klimaforscher rätseln über Meereskälte


Insbesondere auf der Südhalbkugel gab es bis 2002 tatsächlich nur spärlich Messungen. Erst seit 2003 observiert ein Heer von Bojen flächendeckend die Ozeane - mittlerweile dümpeln 3255 dieser Argo-Bojen übers Meer
Trenberth beharrt darauf, dass die Argo-Bojen ein "Stocken der Erwärmung" zeigen. Seit 2000 hätten zusätzliche Treibhausgase die Energieleistung in der Luft um rund ein Watt pro Kubikmeter erhöht - genug, um die Meere deutlich aufzuheizen, sagt Trenberth. Und mit dieser Haltung steht er nicht allein. "Ich teile diese Einschätzung im Wesentlichen", sagt Martin Visbeck vom IFM-Geomar. Die Energiebilanz des Klimas gehe nicht auf. Die Hälfte des Meerwassers liegt unter 2000 Meter Tiefe, und die Argo-Bojen liefern eben nur Daten bis 2000 Meter.
So bleibt tatsächlich Raum für Spekulationen.
Die Bojen-Messungen sind falsch. Es werde wohl noch einige Jahre dauern, bis die 3200 Argo-Bojen verlässliche Daten liefern, meint der Ozeanforscher Mojib Latíf vom IFM-Geomar. Am Ende würde die Energiebilanz des Klimas dann vermutlich aufgehen.
Der Energieeintrag der Sonne in die Atmosphäre wurde falsch berechnet. Auch bei den Satellitenmessungen zum Treibhauseffekt gibt es Unsicherheiten, die man berücksichtigen müsse, sagt Detlef Stammer, Klimaforscher an der Universität Hamburg. Die Strahlungsbilanz sei insgesamt zu ungenau bekannt

Translation:
Climate researches are baffled by "missing heat"
We have only 3255 buoys to cover all of our oceans at present and before 2003 we had none says NOAA`s Trenberth
Even though Trenberth now insists that these 3255 buoys did in fact register a hault in temperature increases from the surface down to a depth of 2000 meters...the sampling depth limit of the new Argo-buoys

Trenberth is not the only one troubled by these observations that now span an entire decade.
Martin Visbeck from IFM-Geomar Institute:
I share this conclusion and so far the global energy budget just does not add up to what we expected.
Mojib Latíf also from the IFM-Geomar Institute asserts that all these 3255 buoys observations might be wrong and if "corrected" then the global energy budget might conform with the predictions..

(My remark: Here we go again with the data tinkering...a.k.a."corrections")

Detlef Stammer, lead climatologist at the University of Hamburg is of the opinion that so far the impact of solar radiation has been seriously miscalculated in our computer models.
______________________________________________________________

Anyway the debate is far from over as Al Gore claimed it is.
It`s only just beginning...now that the media character assassinations and witch hunts stopped and that too many people realize that the facts on the ground are obviously not what consensus climatology said so far they were and projected as trend

I hope I caught all the typos. It wasn`t easy while my 3 grandsons had a wrestling match over the TV remote right behind me and every cartoon channel there is was at a top decibel level.
Now I`ll pull out the TV plug, get out a belt, scare the crap out of them and straighten up the place before my wife comes in the door

 

[SSDD]

The missing heat is the non existent greenhouse effect.

 

[polarbear]

The missing heat is the non existent greenhouse effect.

Yes but unless you go back and edit that so it reads the added CO2 greenhouse effect the word splitters will accuse of of denying that there is no "greenhouse effect" not even with a 100 % relative humidity air mass hovering all week long over a city where most of the ground is pavement.
I`m not a word twister and I know what you meant...
Thank You for responding.
What are your thoughts on artificial precision?
I would like to recall a story I heard about a computer programmer (in the banking system) has been convicted of fraud on a massive scale.
All he did is make use of artificial precision.
We don`t have a currency that can pay a fraction of a cent.
So what he did was that he funneled all the fractional cents form the interest calculations that the system processed into his own account.
Nothing was missing per say in the books but he had 10`s of $ millions in short order in his own account.
Maybe it was just an "urban legend" but it would have been "do-able" for real
It`s not inconceivable that some of the hardware climatologists have used can generate an enormous amount of artificial heat, just like the sidelined fractional cents this bank-systems manager collected.
I have a problem believing that 3255 buoys can all be wrong for an entire decade and nobody noticed.
See all that ice in my pictures? That`s the Lincoln sea and the North Pole is just 400 miles from there.
We have been planting pretty much the same type Argo-buoys all over the place out there for the Navy.
They need to know the temperature and salinity on a daily level in the polar region. Many of their subs hang out there full time.
These buoys are pretty accurate and seldom need re-calibration!
I hope this thread stays clean...so far so good!

 

[SSDD]

I don't believe there is a greenhouse effect. There is an atmospheric thermal effect that is much larger than the claimed greenhouse effect, but it doesn't care what the atmosphere is composed of beyond the specific gravity of the various gasses.


As to getting artificial heat out of a computer model...you can get whatever you want out of a computer model. That is why climate science relies on computer models rather than actual observation. Observation is so messy...like all those buoys that refuse to find all that missing heat in the ocean and all those radiosondes that refuse to find a hot spot in the atmosphere even though the models swear that it must be up there somewhere.

 

[polarbear]

I don't believe there is a greenhouse effect. There is an atmospheric thermal effect that is much larger than the claimed greenhouse effect, but it doesn't care what the atmosphere is composed of beyond the specific gravity of the various gasses.


As to getting artificial heat out of a computer model...you can get whatever you want out of a computer model. That is why climate science relies on computer models rather than actual observation. Observation is so messy...like all those buoys that refuse to find all that missing heat in the ocean and all those radiosondes that refuse to find a hot spot in the atmosphere even though the models swear that it must be up there somewhere.

So by "greenhouse effect" you mean the "back radiation" effect right...?
Now imagine how much artificial heat these computer models generated with "artificial precision" AND where all the rest of the land based stations are located:

A good place to start is assigning an area to each station and weight the significance by the size of the area it represents.
It`s not just the oceans with the few buoys that contributed to massive errors if you do a simple average.
If there were only a fraction of the stations that are in the U.S. up in the arctic nobody would have been able to show an increase all along.
Now that climatologists have a "missing heat" or a "stall" for 10 years in the oceans that`s the first time they even discuss the station distribution.
Just by piling in more and more stations into the hot spots while not adding any up north will result in an apparent average temperature increase.
If you would plot a graph of "average global temperature" and the number of stations we added south of Canada since 1900 you would get a better correlation than with the CO2 that we added since then

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The world has warmed a very small amount, no doubt about it. No one on the side of the supposed green house effect or man caused it have provided a single shred of convincing evidence that it is nothing more then nature at play. No evidence man caused it and no evidence it will continue until we all die either.

In fact the warming has stopped and been stopped for over 10 years.

Unless they can convince us that man caused it, then there is little man can do about a paltry 1. 5 point degree raise in temperature over a century. Unless they can provide some confirm-able tests that show it will continue unabated for the next 50 or more years they have nothing to stand on as to the clain we are in any danger.

So until or unless they actually provide conclusive evidence that man is causing the warming or that the warming will continue unabated for a prolonged time, there is nothing to debate.

 

[SSDD]

So by "greenhouse effect" you mean the "back radiation" effect right...?

Correct. The ideal gas laws and incoming solar radiation tell you just about everything you need to know about why the temperature of the earth is what it is.

f there were only a fraction of the stations that are in the U.S. up in the arctic nobody would have been able to show an increase all along.

It isn't coincidence that some of the places on earth that are claimed to be warming the fastest are also places with the fewest data collection stations.

Now that climatologists have a "missing heat" or a "stall" for 10 years in the oceans that`s the first time they even discuss the station distribution.
Just by piling in more and more stations into the hot spots while not adding any up north will result in an apparent average temperature increase.

Missing heat is just climatologist lingo for "we don't know what the hell is going on but we damned sure aren't going to admit that and take a chance of losing all this river of money we have tapped into".

If you would plot a graph of "average global temperature" and the number of stations we added south of Canada since 1900 you would get a better correlation than with the CO2 that we added since then

If you plot as far back as 1900, you probably would lose any corelation and the further back you plot the less llikelyhood you will have of making the claim of CO2 induced AGW stick. It is evident in the amount of cooling that they have done to the pre 1960 temperature record.

 

[SSDD]

Unless they can convince us that man caused it, then there is little man can do about a paltry 1. 5 point degree raise in temperature over a century.

The bulk of that 1.5 degrees is the result of a combination of systematically lowering the pre 1960 temperature record, raising the temperature of the post 1959 record, drastically reducing the number of data collection stations globally, and poor sitting of the stations that are left resulting is a serious bias towards war,omg/

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, there has definately been a bit of melting of the Arctic Sea Ice;

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

 

[Old Rocks]

Glaciers of Washington | Glaciers of the American West

 

[SSDD]

OK, there has definately been a bit of melting of the Arctic Sea Ice;

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

And do you think that melting ice in the arctic is something new? Do you think it never happened before? Do you think there was more ice than at present during the Medieval Warm period? How about during the Roman warm period? How about during the Holocene maximum? Do you think there has ever been a time in earth's history where temperatures were warmer and there was less ice than there is now?

 

[SSDD]

Glaciers of Washington | Glaciers of the American West

Do you think those glaciers have always been there? Do you think they might have melted back further during the Medieval warm period? The Roman warm period? The Holocene maximum? Do you think that they have ever melted back as far as present?

Tell me, what evidence do we find in the glacier's path after the ice has retreated that would indicate that the ice has never retreated this far before? We have found evidence of human settlement in the path's of some european retreating glaciers that clearly indicate that the ice has melted back much further than the present today. What is different about American glaciers that would keep them advancing while european glaciers had retreated so far?

 

[Old Rocks]

How rapidly is permafrost changing - Romanovsky

Significant amounts of carbon are now sequestered in perennially frozen soils (permafrost) and within the active layer, which thaw every summer but completely re-freeze during the following winter, where the organic matter decomposition is slow. That is why the majority of northern ecosystems are apparently carbon sinks at present time. Climate warming and drying caused by this warming permafrost degradation will change this situation. A thicker, warmer and dryer active layer will be much friendlier for microbial activities during the summer. Significantly later freeze-up of this layer in winter and warmer winter temperatures (that means much more unfrozen water in it) will considerably enhance the microbial activities during the winter. So, the arctic and sub-arctic ecosystems could turn into a source of CO2 (especially on an annual basis) very soon. Further permafrost degradation and formation of taliks will amplify these changes because a layer that will not freeze during the entire winter (talik) will appear above the permafrost, where microbial activities will not cease during the winter. In the area of "wet thermokarst" formation, new and significant sources of CH4 will be developing.

 

[Old Rocks]

A23A

A presentation at the 2009 AGU conferance by Dr. Richard Alley

 

[Old Rocks]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg]Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Jennifer Francis - YouTube[/ame]

A presentation by Dr. Jennifer Francis about the effect of the Arctic Sea Ice melt on the jet stream and Rossby waves.

 

[SSDD]

How rapidly is permafrost changing - Romanovsky

And do you think that melting permafrost in the arctic is something new? Do you think it never happened before? Do you think that it never had carbon sequestered before? Do you think the permafrost was more stable than at present during the Medieval Warm period? How about during the Roman warm period? How about during the Holocene maximum? Do you think there has ever been a time in earth's history where temperatures were warmer and the permafrost less stable than now?

 

[SSDD]

A23A

A presentation at the 2009 AGU conferance by Dr. Richard Alley

What is the time stamp of any actual proof in that presentation. I have watched it all the way through and saw nothing that would substantiate the claims he makes. If there is more than one time stamp, then give me all of them and I will gladly go back and watch again.

We both know that no time stamp will be forthcoming because we both know that there is nothing there that would be considered proof of anything by a rational human being. But if you believe it is there, then say where you think it is.

 

[SSDD]

Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Jennifer Francis - YouTube

A presentation by Dr. Jennifer Francis about the effect of the Arctic Sea Ice melt on the jet stream and Rossby waves.

Did the same thing happen when the ice melted during the medieval warm period, the roman warm period, and the holocene maximum as well as all of the other times arctic ice has melted? Do you have any actual proof that the results of melting ice in the arctic happened during those times when we know that there was less ice than at present?

It is easy to stand in front of a camera and make claims...it is an entirely different matter to substantiate those claims.

 

[Old Rocks]

Satellite data reveals extent of Andean glacier melt

Andean glaciers are also dissappearing with devastating consequences for the agriculture that depends on them.

 

[Old Rocks]

A23A

A presentation at the 2009 AGU conferance by Dr. Richard Alley

What is the time stamp of any actual proof in that presentation. I have watched it all the way through and saw nothing that would substantiate the claims he makes. If there is more than one time stamp, then give me all of them and I will gladly go back and watch again.

We both know that no time stamp will be forthcoming because we both know that there is nothing there that would be considered proof of anything by a rational human being. But if you believe it is there, then say where you think it is.

Since that is an hour long lecture, which I posted at 6:25, and you answered at 6:33, stating that you had watched it all the way through, something is amiss in your statement.