Thread: Global warming

are the recent snowstorms that apparently stockpiled well more than 60cm of snow, a feat of global warming? because i have never heard of such colossal amount of snow that ever poured down in the US so far in my life.
anything you guys know about this??

Originally Posted by Heinsbergrelatz

are the recent snowstorms that apparently stockpiled well more than 60cm of snow, a feat of global warming? because i have never heard of such colossal amount of snow that ever poured down in the US so far in my life.
anything you guy know about this??

There are longer term natural cycles that this is probably a part of. In January 1979, we had the worse freezing rain I have ever seen in my area. I see this as simply part of a natural approximate 20-30 year cycle. We had a freezing rain almost as bad in the late 90's and the greatest snowfall I have ever seen here in Portland, OR for the 2008-09 winter. I think it it was November just a few months ago, we had a record cold for that particular day.

Those advocating global warming seem to refuse to acknowledge these natural longer term cycles, and that what they say is likely wrong.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Those advocating global warming seem to refuse to acknowledge these natural longer term cycles, and that what they say is likely wrong.

While I agree the hype over recent weather patterns is very obviously an over-reaction to a popular social issue at the moment, I don't think it disproves global warming as a scientific concept. The actual scientists 'advocating global warming' (as opposed to celebrities etc.) never say that we are on the edge of a global meltdown. They all admit it is an extremely long term process, but one that is brought up now because of the rate at which we are accelerating that process.

Originally Posted by cobra

Those advocating global warming seem to refuse to acknowledge these natural longer term cycles,

No they don't.

The only people I have seen refusing to acknowledge natural cycles are the "denialists" who start talking about the end of global warming and such every time they see a cold winter or an increase in some ice pack somewhere.

BTW: It's easy enough to wave one's hands and say the words "natural cycle" - but exactly what cycle is responsible, and how, often proves another matter entirely.

Originally Posted by Heinsbergrelatz

are the recent snowstorms that apparently stockpiled well more than 60cm of snow, a feat of global warming? because i have never heard of such colossal amount of snow that ever poured down in the US so far in my life.
anything you guy know about this??

Rarely should any single weather event can be attributed global climate change--this is no exception.

Large storms along the East Coast aren't all that unusual--even in recent years the Northern side of the Washington beltway to New York was blanketed in just about as large a storm several times. Here's a record of large storms for Washington and Baltimore.
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/lwx/Historic_Events/snohist.htm

Also consider that maximum snow fall happens at a surface temperature 35F, so even large seasonal snowfalls in cold locations doesn't necessarily mean a winter colder than usual.

There is weather and there is climate and they ain't the same turkey.

so basically global warming is alot exaggerated than the real phenomena.

I wouldn't go that far, Heinsbergrelatz.

It absolutely is happening, and all indicators suggest that humans are the primary driver right now... despite what you hear from the "denialist" community. The average temperatures around the globe have been rising, and are continuing to rise.

We also KNOW that the increasing average global temperatures will lead to more severe weather... More intense storms... stronger hurricanes... more drought conditions in places not normally prone to drought... heavy rains in areas that don't usually receive torrential rains... heavier snows, for example.

The thing to remember, though, is that we can't just look at the snow from last weekend, or at something like Hurricane Katrina and say, "Yep... That's because of global warming." It's a lot more complex than that.

However, it is VERY possible that the warming temperatures played a role. We just have to acknowledge that it's about much more than just that. For example, without warming, there may have still been a storm, but maybe they would have only gotten a foot and a half of snow instead of two feet... something like that. We just don't know. We can look at trends and understand root causes, but looking for a root cause of a specific event like last weekends snow is rather difficult.

Does that make sense? You are asking a climate-based question in context of a weather-based phenomenon.

I have used this analogy in the past to help understand my point as pertains to modeling climate versus modeling weather:

Think of waves hitting a wall at the beach. Every minute many waves hit a certain height on that wall. When the tides come in, the spot the waves reach is higher, and when the tides go back out, the spot they reach on that wall is lower.

Now, I may not be able to point to an exact spot on that wall and say, "The next wave will hit exactly here, and the wave after that will hit exactly there," but what I can do with incredible accuracy is to say, "The average height the waves will hit over the next 24 hours is here."

This is the difference between modeling weather and modeling climate, and it's a very important distinction for you to try to wrap your head around.

Originally Posted by Jacques.X

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Those advocating global warming seem to refuse to acknowledge these natural longer term cycles, and that what they say is likely wrong.

While I agree the hype over recent weather patterns is very obviously an over-reaction to a popular social issue at the moment, I don't think it disproves global warming as a scientific concept.

I never meant to imply that global warming isn't real. If you have read my various posts on the topic, I simply claim the man-made component is far weaker than claimed.

Originally Posted by Jacques.X

The actual scientists 'advocating global warming' (as opposed to celebrities etc.) never say that we are on the edge of a global meltdown. They all admit it is an extremely long term process, but one that is brought up now because of the rate at which we are accelerating that process.

If it were just that simple.

The earth is a very large system, and has numerous climate inputs, numerous feedbacks, and very long lags for effects from oceanic changes. It is pretty hard to quantify when the full effect of the huge solar warming during the first half of the 20th century comes full circle. So much extra latent heat starting about 1900.

Originally Posted by cobra

It is pretty hard to quantify when the full effect of the huge solar warming during the first half of the 20th century comes full circle. So much extra latent heat starting about 1900.

You are going to have to choose: either you are applying the extra solar flux to current temp boosting, and overriding the professionals' claims that it is inadequate by putting all of it into the higher temps (in which case it does not explain the lack of correlation these past thirty years);

or you are storing the extra solar flux in the ocean somewhere as latent heat, not measured by the oceanographers because they are indoctrinated against accurate measurements of water temperature (in which case it does not explain the warming trend we are already experiencing).

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by cobra

It is pretty hard to quantify when the full effect of the huge solar warming during the first half of the 20th century comes full circle. So much extra latent heat starting about 1900.

You are going to have to choose: either you are applying the extra solar flux to current temp boosting, and overriding the professionals' claims that it is inadequate by putting all of it into the higher temps (in which case it does not explain the lack of correlation these past thirty years);

or you are storing the extra solar flux in the ocean somewhere as latent heat, not measured by the oceanographers because they are indoctrinated against accurate measurements of water temperature (in which case it does not explain the warming trend we are already experiencing).

Wow...

Mutual exclusion....

How does such a science apply here?

Do you realize how unscientific you have become?

alright sorry for the inconvenience, yes i fully comprehend your point inow.

Originally Posted by cobra

Mutual exclusion....

How does such a science apply here?

I have no idea.

But feel free to explain, at your convenience. You have a certain amount of solar flux, and a certain pattern of events. In the recent past, you have explained some features of the pattern of events by shuttling this flux - in its entirety, essentially - from one explanatory reservoir to another. But the mechanism by which this shuttling is accomplished in the real world remains hidden from us.

Originally Posted by inow

We also KNOW that the increasing average global temperatures will lead to more severe weather... More intense storms... stronger hurricanes... more drought conditions in places not normally prone to drought... heavy rains in areas that don't usually receive torrential rains... heavier snows, for example.

The mild climates of some places however owe to the culmination of severe weather elsewhere. For example: wind and heat over central Asia and the tropical Pacific combines and resolves as year-round temperate, cloud-dominated climate where Wild Cobra and I live. We actually benefit when others are hurting from typhoons and dust storms. Apparently not everything that comes around goes around!



Weather does effect climate. For example about 5m per second wind speed is necessary to break (foam) the ocean surface. This is a true/false condition: The ocean mixes with the atmosphere or it practically doesn't. Without this ocean-atmosphere interface climates would be very different, yet it depends on weather... changing & chaotic weather especially.

Uhmmm... ok. My point stands. The warming average global temperature is going to result in a higher frequency of intense storm events... and already has. I don't really care much that some places are going to benefit from the warming itself... Like arctic Russia having melted ice and whatnot... This thread was about extreme weather events, not how sunny it is in Missouri in February thanks to our warmer annual temperature averages.

Yes, globally. A few areas can expect less severe weather, because of severe weather elsewhere. Of course I'm speaking from probably the most absurdly placid & temperate region on Earth.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It is pretty hard to quantify when the full effect of the huge solar warming during the first half of the 20th century comes full circle. So much extra latent heat starting about 1900.

While there is no doubt that the oceans hold enormous thermal inertia, there's little evidence that excess heat that will only express itself much later. It's more likely that excess expresses itself much like exponential decay, with most of the effect in the near term with lingering decreased expression in the long term. For the near surface waters most is given off in the next season, hence the 30+ day delay in max temperature from seasonal solar max for the Northern Hemisphere, and 45+ day max temperature in the Southern Hemisphere. To much less of a degree heat is probably increasing for mid ocean depths and release on the order of a couple decades. The little water that makes it to the deepest waters could take centuries, but there's little evidence to suggest it's significant compared to the total thermal budget changes at the surface. I wouldn't really called it lag because there's no big pulse of ocean heat we expect to be released from 100 years ago or something like that. Most of the annual excess heat due to increased solar and green house forcing at the surface is being released in less than a decade with small amounts lasting a couple decades and tiniest amounts in perhaps a few centuries.

If there are any big surprises they'll be due to chemistry or fundamental circulation changes—not due to thermal inertia.

Originally Posted by Jacques.X

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Those advocating global warming seem to refuse to acknowledge these natural longer term cycles, and that what they say is likely wrong.

While I agree the hype over recent weather patterns is very obviously an over-reaction to a popular social issue at the moment, I don't think it disproves global warming as a scientific concept.

Nor does WC or myself nor many other skeptics. It does however provide indicatoin that increases in trace concentrations of GHG's may not be the strong drivers many scientists claim they are.

The actual scientists 'advocating global warming' (as opposed to celebrities etc.) never say that we are on the edge of a global meltdown. They all admit it is an extremely long term process, but one that is brought up now because of the rate at which we are accelerating that process.

This is simply false. Hanson, head of GISS in interviews about 15 years ago predicted temperatures much higher (<1C) than we see today and ocean levels about a meter higher than we are now experiencing. Likewise, the IPCC reports, have in the past made, and continue to make a string of agressive predictions, suposedly peer-reviewed, and several are clearly false. I routinely hear scientists claim that we must act now or face a future catastrophy. The summary provided to for the Copenhagen summit made this point.

I've seen several recient reports of ocean energy distribution cycles lasting anywhere from 18 months to greater than 50 years with impacts to global average temperature ranging from 0.3 to 0.7degrees centigrade. How one chooses to describe these cycles (lag, oscillations, etc. ) seems less important.

What is important is that they exist and that the magnitude is consistent with the magnitude of warming often atributed to increases in CO2 concentration. I am left to wonder why some prefer to jump to conclusions when we are quite aware from historical data that these events occur regularly and are in play today.

Originally Posted by cypress

This is simply false. Hanson, head of GISS in interviews about 15 years ago predicted temperatures much higher (<1C) than we see today and ocean levels about a meter higher than we are now experiencing.

Not sure what you mean. If you mean he predicted more than 1C higher and 1 meter higher than today as of today, than I think you're just throwing out BS, which no doubt you'll never provide a reference for or non understand the context for (as usual).

If you meant we'll eventually have sea-levels 1 meter higher and 1C higher due to AGW than he was being pretty darn conservative compared to what the science is telling us.

--

This thread was about extreme weather events, not how sunny it is in Missouri in February thanks to our warmer annual temperature averages.

You're quite right--though endless summers of parched earth which used to be Iowa corn fields might also qualify.

Along the East Coast or the US, milder winters should translate into fewer big snow events as they are replaced by big rain events instead. Considering though even areas in the deep South occasionally see big snows up against the mountains I'm pretty sure there continue to be heavy snows in the Capital once in a great while even in a warmer world.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by cypress

This is simply false. Hanson, head of GISS in interviews about 15 years ago predicted temperatures much higher (<1C) than we see today and ocean levels about a meter higher than we are now experiencing.

Not sure what you mean. If you mean he predicted more than 1C higher and 1 meter higher than today as of today, than I think you're just throwing out BS, which no doubt you'll never provide a reference for or non understand the context for (as usual).

I mean as of today. I suspect Hansen is not proud of his predictions now.

http://www.lesjones.com/2009/01/15/j...ns-vs-reality/

As for high sea level predictions, here is a reference to the interview I was thinking of when I made this comment.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/2...-james-hansen/

If you meant we'll eventually have sea-levels 1 meter higher and 1C higher due to AGW than he was being pretty darn conservative compared to what the science is telling us.

Exactly what science is telling us this? Do you mean the opinions the designers and developers of the GCM's are generating with their predictive models? Predictions don't count as evidence. What science (evidence, facts, data, repeatable tests, etc.) can you point to that tells us such things?

Originally Posted by cypress

What is important is that they exist and that the magnitude is consistent with the magnitude of warming often atributed to increases in CO2 concentration.

The magnitude only even approaches sufficiency if you divert into the hypothesized longer cycles the energy you were using to explain the shorter tracking.

You only have so much solar flux variation to use. If you are assigning the warming from 1900 until the solar boost faded to that solar boost (in defiance of the calculations that indicate insufficiency), you don't have any left over to assign to the mysterious and unspecified (which body of water, specifically?) latent heat boost that so conveniently made up exactly the drop in the direct solar boost - in timing and in magnitude and in geographic distribution.

And neither use explains the pattern of the warming - its concentration in high latitudes, night, and winter.

And neither one accounts for the mysterious absence of the forcing one would expect from the CO2 boost - what happened to it?

Originally Posted by iceaura

And neither use explains the pattern of the warming - its concentration in high latitudes, night, and winter.

And neither one accounts for the mysterious absence of the forcing one would expect from the CO2 boost - what happened to it?

Or the cooling measured from the stratosphere up to the ionosphere which is not only consistent with increased green house forcing but exactly the opposite trend of that expected due to increased solar forcing.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Or the cooling measured from the stratosphere up to the ionosphere which is not only consistent with increased green house forcing but exactly the opposite trend of that expected due to increased solar forcing.

Isn't the cooling also consistent with the slow diminishing fluorocarbons?

Now remember, the major solar activity increases ended in the 50's. Nobody here has said or implied solar forcing the way you seem to think we do, or improperly try to say we do.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by iceaura

And neither use explains the pattern of the warming - its concentration in high latitudes, night, and winter.

And neither one accounts for the mysterious absence of the forcing one would expect from the CO2 boost - what happened to it?

Or the cooling measured from the stratosphere up to the ionosphere which is not only consistent with increased green house forcing but exactly the opposite trend of that expected due to increased solar forcing.

I have not seen good data supporting a consistent long term trend of heating in high latitudes. The apparent warming trends in high latitudes reported by GISS appears to be an artificial characteristic of their policy to selectively remove reporting stations from the data set used to generate their temperature anomaly maps. This policy has had the affect of biasing their results to show warmer temperatures across geographic areas where recording stations have been removed. The pattern of removed stations is also biased where a higher percentage of high latitude and high altitude stations have been excluded from the data set.

When one goes back and adds the stations back into the data set then recalculates geographic anomalies, the disproportionate warming is gone for both high latitudes and night temperatures. I would like to see someone provide a data set, free of bias, that shows these trends of higher night time, winter and high latitude warming patterns. Biased results can lead to biased conclusions and I have not seen good unbiased results.

Solar activity peaked in 1983, dropped slightly and remained fairly constant through 2002 , thus I would expect the stratosphere to show slight cooling beginning in the early 80's that continues today. We should be seeing some acceleration of cooling post 2002. Adding the additional factors WC alluded to and provided by Dr. Lu in his work on fluorocarbons, ozone, uv energy and cosmic rays and we have several good explanations for this behavior.

Can you show us that the stratosphere cooled while sun activity increased and peaked prior to 1983? This is the claim you are making. Citation of data after 1983 does not support your claim because sun activity peaked after 1983.

Originally Posted by cypress

Solar activity peaked in 1983, dropped slightly and remained fairly constant through 2002 ,.

No where close to true (see below)....the solar cycle is pretty obvious.

In the lower stratosphere, except for years of large volcanic emissions, you can't even see the solar cycle yet temperatures follow a pretty constant drop as expected from increased Co2 forcing.(see upper panel of lower image, below)

[/img]

Cypress, the 1983 peak is insignificantly larger than any of the other peaks till you get several years back. That small amount of change is insignificant. However, look at the change from about 1900 to about 1950:

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by cypress

Solar activity peaked in 1983, dropped slightly and remained fairly constant through 2002 ,.

No where close to true (see below)....the solar cycle is pretty obvious.

When speaking of solar activity the +/-11 year cycle is generally taken for granted. I am quite sure you are aware of that. After making the usual adjustments for solar cycles, my statements are correct.

Solar activity was at a recent minimum in the 1600's then increased fairly regularly through the 1700's then continued to meander upward and peaked in 1983 remained steady through 2002 and is now declining. Here are some graphics of proxies for solar energy.



Reference: The Carbon Dioxide Thermometer and the Cause of Global Warming; Nigel Calder,-- Presented at a SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research) seminar, University of Sussex, Brighton, England, October 6, 1998. Solar wind is used here as a measure of sun intensity.



Can you now please show us that Stratsospheric temperatures have declined while solar activity increased? In other words, does it display a pattern in contradiction to the graphic I provided? I think not.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Cypress, the 1983 peak is insignificantly larger than any of the other peaks till you get several years back. That small amount of change is insignificant. However, look at the change from about 1900 to about 1950:

True enough, using this proxy. The proxy measures used to generate this irradiance estimate are not the only nor is are they necessarily the best proxy for solar energy absorbed by the earth's atmosphere and surface, though I admit I don't know which are best. The solar wind proxy shows another view. They of course track well with differences only in short term intervals. It is possible that your graphic is closer to reality than the other, and if so my description may need a bit of alteration, though your 11 year moving average is very similar to the solar wind 11 year average. (I linked in both just show the contrast, though your graphic is better than mine).

Originally Posted by cypress

When one goes back and adds the stations back into the data set then recalculates geographic anomalies, the disproportionate warming is gone for both high latitudes and night temperatures.

That is false.

If you add back the dropped stations, you get the same trends and patterns only with much more noise - very large error bars. The disproportionate night and winter and high latitude warming is still there, only buried in the noise.

Originally Posted by cypress

I would like to see someone provide a data set, free of bias, that shows these trends of higher night time, winter and high latitude warming patterns.

You haven't been paying attention. The ice-out data on northern lakes, the migration data and flowering time records, the thawing of permafrost and Greenland ice, the maple sugar production records, the weather records from all other sources (not just GISS), agree in this matter. It's not getting as cold at night as it used to get, on the North American northern steppe and boreal forest.

Again: it rained in January in central Minnesota (45 latitude) again this year - rained at night - despite average daytime highs not much different from the long time norms. That makes more than a dozen consecutive years, of a phenomenon that requires unusually warm nights and was formerly very infrequent.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by cypress

When one goes back and adds the stations back into the data set then recalculates geographic anomalies, the disproportionate warming is gone for both high latitudes and night temperatures.

That is false.

If you add back the dropped stations, you get the same trends and patterns only with much more noise - very large error bars. The disproportionate night and winter and high latitude warming is still there, only buried in the noise.

Buried in what noise? Do you have a reference for this?

Here is a summary demonstrating how GISS composite temperatures contain bias.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAA...limategate.pdf

Originally Posted by cypress

I would like to see someone provide a data set, free of bias, that shows these trends of higher night time, winter and high latitude warming patterns.

You haven't been paying attention. The ice-out data on northern lakes, the migration data and flowering time records, the thawing of permafrost and Greenland ice, the maple sugar production records, the weather records from all other sources (not just GISS), agree in this matter. It's not getting as cold at night as it used to get, on the North American northern steppe and boreal forest.

This does not show disproportionate warming. The earth has generally warmed since 1600, everywhere. How is your description any different from the general trend? How can we establish that your description is free of bias? What data, free of bias demonstrates this?

Again: it rained in January in central Minnesota (45 latitude) again this year - rained at night - despite average daytime highs not much different from the long time norms. That makes more than a dozen consecutive years, of a phenomenon that requires unusually warm nights and was formerly very infrequent.

Data please.

Originally Posted by cypress

Can you now please show us that Stratospheric temperatures have declined while solar activity increased? In other words, does it display a pattern in contradiction to the graphic I provided? I think not.

Why. It's unnecessary. Both upswings of the last two solar cycles show relatively flat lower-stratospheric temperatures when they should have risen, while other overall trend is definitely lowering temperatures through the period just as they should be based on increased green house gases.

There's also nothing to suggest a pronounced lag, or dampened response of lower stratospheric temperature to solar forcing of even a few years.

--
"What data, free of bias demonstrates this? "
ROFL. Seriously hard to meet this standards to someone who immediately rejects the entire set of multidisciplinary evidence that supports significant AWG warming while simultaneously accepting hook line and sinker all arguments against the science though usually unpublished, not peer reviewed, and completely taken out of context by non atmospheric scientist.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by cypress

Can you now please show us that Stratospheric temperatures have declined while solar activity increased? In other words, does it display a pattern in contradiction to the graphic I provided? I think not.

Why. It's unnecessary. Both upswings of the last two solar cycles show relatively flat lower-stratospheric temperatures when they should have risen, while other overall trend is definitely lowering temperatures through the period just as they should be based on increased green house gases.

Do you presume stratospheric temperatures should follow an eleven year sun spot cycle and that if it does not therefore sun activity has no influence on temperature? That would be a poor assumption. To prove your point you need to show the trend is downward while sun activity is increasing. Your data show a downward trend while sun activity is downward as well.

"What data, free of bias demonstrates this? "
ROFL. Seriously hard to meet this standards to someone who immediately rejects the entire set of multidisciplinary evidence that supports significant AWG warming while simultaneously accepting hook line and sinker all arguments against the science though usually unpublished, not peer reviewed, and completely taken out of context by non atmospheric scientist.

You discredit yourself when you mischaracterize your opponent. I do not reject the science reports for what they say. I do reject the opinions and predictions of what they think might happen in the future. Science is based on evidence not on computer models that output the opinions of the designers.

Past predictions were woefully wrong, and the formulations of them have not changed much even today. You too have been wrong in your predictions of what documents and evidence I can provide. See again the false clam you made in the link I provided.

But please, show me some real evidence that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere above 280 ppm can and will increase surface temperature by more than 1 degree centigrade. Show me how much the increase from 280 ppm to 390 ppm has warmed surface temperature. Show me conclusively that it is more than 0.4 degrees C and that that these published reports implicating fluorocarbons, aerosols, long term sun cycles, and ocean oscillations are wrong. While you are at it have a look through the analysis provided regarding the NOAA and GISS data sets and show us that the composite temperatures do not contain the biases claimed.

edit: Thanks WC the link is fixed now.

Cypress, your link isn't working. Corrected:

SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY DRIVEN DECEPTION?

Originally Posted by cypress

You discredit yourself when you mischaracterize your opponent. I do not reject the science reports for what they say. I do reject the opinions and predictions of what they think might happen in the future. Science is based on evidence not on computer models that output the opinions of the designers.

Past predictions were woefully wrong, and the formulations of them have not changed much even today. You too have been wrong in your predictions of what documents and evidence I can provide. See again the false clam you made in the link I provided.

And you make my point. You reference a non-peer review paper, which deliberately only shows the worst case which was only one of three possible scenarios computed in the 1988 forecast (The A scenario). Because in 1988 he couldn't have possible anticipated the exact mix of AWG gases for the future, non of the three scenario have relevance much past 2000. Given that 20 year old primative model was able to do as well as it did between 1955 and 2000 (it does pretty well from 1880 - 2000 also) is a rather remarkable--not evidence of something flawed.

Than it goes on to another paragraph that identifies a trivial data mistake in the US temperature records first that turned out not only to be minor and had no significant change to the global record and was fixed rapidly.

Than the lower paragraph which makes the obvious mistake of trying to relate record low temperatures in tiny % of the globe as evidence that the global average wasn't wasn't warming. The it tries to claim that NASA didn't catch a mistake in an October Russian set of data, which was in fact: not NASA data, and completely fixed within a week or two.

It's the kind of inherently illogical argument and exaggeration minor mistakes facts that only a gullible person with a propensity to belief in impossibly complex conspiracy theories will except.

Yes science isn't perfect--that's why its science with peer-reviews, critical thinking and repetitive and redundant analysis.
Scientist document work for their own use--not spend the majority of their time fixing it up for convenient consumption by laymen and non-scientist. I doubt very much I could reproduce all the work of my published papers of the 1980s--Even if I had the tape drives available I probably couldn't find a machine to read them or they'd to far degraded to read anyhow. And it wouldn't matter how many freedom of information request one made, or claims of "hiding stuff" were made against me--it simply wouldn't be available. But such is being the focus of attention, and conspiracy theorist cleverly crafted message of a fossil fuel industry hell bent to preserve their profit margin. The message: ALL SCIENTIST ARE BAD.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

And you make my point. You reference a non-peer review paper,

Your point is a logical fallacy. It's making an appeal from authority. You dismiss them because of the source, not the content.

which deliberately only shows the worst case which was only one of three possible scenarios computed in the 1988 forecast (The A scenario). Because in 1988 he couldn't have possible anticipated the exact mix of AWG gases for the future, non of the three scenario have relevance much past 2000. Given that 20 year old primative model was able to do as well as it did between 1955 and 2000 (it does pretty well from 1880 - 2000 also) is a rather remarkable--not evidence of something flawed.

You are speaking of just one example of Hansen's many failed doomsday predictions. Scenario A is the only one relevant for comparison because it most closely matches atmospheric CO2 trends. But the provided scenarios are quite specific about CO2 and CH4 concentrations and human behavior changes. Unfortunately it is impossible to take the same model (because he refuses to release it) and run the actual numbers through it now. With the model we could compare it apples to apples. I wonder why he doesn't want to make that comparisons?

The fact that his model did well from 1955 through the date it was run in 1988 is not an accident because it was designed to track that time period. It was also designed to track from 1880 - 1988 reasonably well. The fact that it did not do real well should have told them the model was flawed. After 1988 it did very poorly because it is wrong. What is remarkable is that you accept computer models that expresses the opinions and prior commitments of the designers as science.

Either way, the sources I provided are correct about the facts surrounding these alarmist predictions of Hansen and you are completely wrong in your statement that scientists have not, and do not, make these alarmist predictions. In addition the article provided is correct that these models are failing. This is significant because AGW is based on computer models (the opinions of the designers) as opposed to experiments and results of scientific studies.

The reality is despite your protests, these articles are correct.

Than it goes on to another paragraph that identifies a trivial data mistake in the US temperature records first that turned out not only to be minor and had no significant change to the global record and was fixed rapidly.

Than the lower paragraph which makes the obvious mistake of trying to relate record low temperatures in tiny % of the globe as evidence that the global average wasn't wasn't warming. The it tries to claim that NASA didn't catch a mistake in an October Russian set of data, which was in fact: not NASA data, and completely fixed within a week or two.

It's the kind of inherently illogical argument and exaggeration minor mistakes facts that only a gullible person with a propensity to belief in impossibly complex conspiracy theories will except. .

No, the purpose of these paragraphs was to show that Hansen and his team frequently make mistakes, the purpose is to show that Hansen is often wrong so that one cannot say that he is extremely reliable, and therefore should be allowed this one error (the reality is that Hansen has been spectacularly wrong and often makes mistakes).

Yes science isn't perfect--that's why its science with peer-reviews, critical thinking and repetitive and redundant analysis.
Scientist document work for their own use--not spend the majority of their time fixing it up for convenient consumption by laymen and non-scientist. I doubt very much I could reproduce all the work of my published papers of the 1980s--Even if I had the tape drives available I probably couldn't find a machine to read them or they'd to far degraded to read anyhow. And it wouldn't matter how many freedom of information request one made, or claims of "hiding stuff" were made against me--it simply wouldn't be available. But such is being the focus of attention, and conspiracy theorist cleverly crafted message of a fossil fuel industry hell bent to preserve their profit margin. The message: ALL SCIENTIST ARE BAD.

Once again incorrect. Phil Jones, Mann, Hansen and their teams know quite well how important their work is and how important it is that the data and results are correct. They know this and that is why it must be available for review and independent analysis. If they don't have documentation or raw data, then it is critical to maintain credibility that they admit it immediately, and then remove that data or result from consideration since it is not verifiable (this is part of the scientific process). If someone asked you to produce your data or process or documentation, you would simply say you don't have it and your results would no longer be considered for use. Nobody would claim you were hiding stuff because nobody would continue to insist that it is correct and implore that global policy be decided based upon the unverifiable conclusions.

The idea that critical independent analysis of peer-reviewed or generally accepted scientific work must also be peer-reviewed is absurd. If the critique is faulty, then it can be safely ignored because there are people like you and me who will happily tear it apart. If it offers reasonable challenge, then it must, and should be addressed because by addressing it the science will be improved. To throw it out prejudicially as you are attempting is a logical error.

I have repeatedly said that many scientist do good work. I myself am a scientist. 98% of my work is based upon results of other scientists. I also know that when science gets mixed with political policy and/or ideology it often becomes more important to support the ideology than the science.

I do note that you focus a laser beam on very minor points of my post (such as these) and completely skip the main points (can you say red herring?) including the ever increasing critiques of GISS, NOAA, and HAD indicating that the apparent warming trend is largely bias just as I have claimed for 6 months now on this site. Note that this article names several prominent climate scientists (should impress you) and uses the same link I did earlier. Note also this article which now has Phil Jones (former head of the CRU) admitting that there has been no significant warming since 1995 (I said 2002, not too much different).

Originally Posted by cypress

Here is a summary demonstrating how GISS composite temperatures contain bias

There is no demonstration there, merely a series of assertions and innuendos, and the type of "question" we have become accustomed to on Fox News - when somebody wants to bring an accusation in but knows they can't back it up.

Originally Posted by cypress

This does not show disproportionate warming. The earth has generally warmed since 1600, everywhere.

So your complaints about the data showing warming are just last paragraph's bs? New paragraph, new mud - hoping something will stick?

Originally Posted by cypress

How can we establish that your description is free of bias?

You can't. If all of these researchers and data sets and reports and so forth are all from people in on the grand conspiracy, biased the same way for a hundred years and more, there is no way for you to tell.

Originally Posted by cypress

No, the purpose of these paragraphs was to show that Hansen and his team frequently make mistakes,

That would be NASA.

So your cabal of conspirers and incompetents includes now NASA, NOAA, GISS, CRU, HAD, and the relevant researchers at dozens of University biology, ecology, paleantology, geology, oceanography, and meteorology departments.

Originally Posted by cypress

Again: it rained in January in central Minnesota (45 latitude) again this year - rained at night - despite average daytime highs not much different from the long time norms. That makes more than a dozen consecutive years, of a phenomenon that requires unusually warm nights and was formerly very infrequent.


Data please.

It rained on my head, on my way to work on the night shift, again this year. I've been counting the consecutive years starting when I noticed the phenomenon, about seven years into it, partly brought to my attention by this guy http://www.mlmweather.com/. The count is at least 11, almost certainly more.

The previous frequency of January rain around here, as recorded in the records of various railroads and military establishments going back to the mid 1800s, was one year in seven. There's often a January thaw, but to get rain out if usually requires a warm night - not common, in Januaries of the past.

Originally Posted by cypress

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

And you make my point. You reference a non-peer review paper,

Your point is a logical fallacy. It's making an appeal from authority. You dismiss them because of the source, not the content.

If I rejected it out of hand you'd have a point. But I didn't and went on to explain the several problems with the blog excerpt you put up. And I just hit the tip of the iceberg of problems, which blogs completely ignore--the consistency with stratospheric (and higher) cooling, not accounting that Hanson's models didn't have the solar cycle, that Hanson couldn't predict the enormous explosion China's dirty industry along with wide scale global dimming it's created, and perhaps worst of all given the natural annual variability and the short period of verification the model results are well within the error bars and definitely suggest even that old model was providing meaningful results.
A basic tenant of determining the strength of an argument is evaluating the credibility of the source. Multidisciplinary sciences support the conclusion that adding green house gases boost surface temperatures. There's really no reason to doubt that generally broad conclusion and it's backed up by empirical data of the past several decades and thousands of papers. The nearly trivial errors in data processing that are usually immediately fixed, yet widely exaggerated to cast dispersions by the blogs, don’t degrade the basic science at all. The reality is atmospheric science data sets and research has almost an unprecedented level of openness compared to most sciences because it’s almost entirely government funded –heck most of the data is available near real time.

In any case we’re well beyond the discussion of relating regional Snow storms and climate—so I’m shutting this down.