Unrelated, but this part amused me in that it was probably intended to be an argument for the quality of the model:
>ModelE2 contains something on the order of 500,000 lines of code, ...
What's Really Warming the World?
251–260 of 549 posts
Re: What's Really Warming the World?
#252My only problem is that the planet is over 4 billion years old and as this shows, we've been collecting climate data for a little over 100 years. The natural skeptic in me isn't ok with establishing a trend based on 1/40,000,000 of the available data, the sample size is simply too small. Am I completely off-base with this?
There's a wealth of indirect data that corresponds with many of these variables and they show a direct correlation with the data in question.
Examples of this include ice core data, which has been gathered on multiple sites in the world, and the concentration of gases contained within is a really good indicator of how things were in the past.
Another thing that can be used is tree ring data and other information from proxies. You can study the fossils of fauna and flora deposited over different locations and periods of time to get a good idea of the climate conditions in each place.
An interesting correlated piece of data is examining human remains from people. Humans have been buried with foods at the time of their death, and the bones can help establish cause of death. If you go to Peru you can see that the food and living conditions of peoples during El Niño match the surrounding geological data very well.
Glaciers are also interesting indicators of climate phenomena, since they form and melt under specific conditions.
Re: What's Really Warming the World?
#253The chart at http://d1vn86fw4xmcz1.cloudfront.net/content/royptb/363/1501... (put together by The Royal Society) shows that most deforestation in Eastern Canada occurred over 400 years ago. This one http://mongabay-images.s3.amazonaws.com/12/1203all-time-defo... shows a shift starting about 300 years ago from temperate forest removal to tropical forest removal. Together, they start to paint a picture of massive defor…
"media propaganda".
You're right, it was silly of him to repeat himself
Re: What's Really Warming the World?
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
And other records do not show such a hiatus ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-not-slowing-i... ).
Did you even read the article? look at the university of York dataset, which clearly shows the 1960-2000 warming followed by the 2000-2010 hiatus. Note the York dataset is strictly observationally independent of the UAH dataset.
Evidently we were reading different articles,because the author emphatically doesn't concur with your interpetation of the York dataset.
Re: What's Really Warming the World?
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spencer is pretty out there. He's gone on record to say that warming proponents are advancing an argument that will lead to more deaths than the NSDAP's policies did, and is a signatory to the Evangelical Declaration on Climate Change, which suggests that this is largely a matter of faith for him...
He does also maintain one of the satellite records, which does show global warming over the period 1960-2000 (not so much the last 10 years because of the global warming hiatus).
Did any models predict the "global warming hiatus" ?
Re: What's Really Warming the World?
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a summary of research in those peer-reviewed journals, the summary being far better reviewed (by hundreds and thousands, as described) than the individual articles. I don't know about other HN readers, but I don't have time or expertise to keep up on individual articles. I doubt many climate scientists have the expertise in all those different fields.
I'm not afraid of looking at the source. Many times the "summaries" get distorted. Statements like "provide some evidence for" gets translated into "this proves". Popular press often does this. The actual raw data and original article and independent confirmation is the gold standard for science. I've chased down many stories reporting "proof" in many fields and , after examining the actual article, found that it act…
You're right, a HN commentator summarizing research papers is much different than thousands of scientists summarizing research papers.
Re: What's Really Warming the World?
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
That "zero trend" is only there if you use annual averages. Again: use decadal moving averages, and an entirely different picture comes up.
How do you use decadal moving averages from satellite data that has only existed since 1979? You'll get roughly the same trend as the full data set. Even so, the last two decades would still be flat, or very nearly so.
Hint: decades don't have to start with year 10*n+0.
Re: What's Really Warming the World?
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also question how we know the difference between nature/cycles and man-made pollution. Here is a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age "Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, an inherent variability in global climate, or decreases in the human population." It seems we don't even know how the little ice…
I bring up some simple questions and I am immediately silenced. I guess I didn't realize HN was anti-science and anti-intellectual.
Re: What's Really Warming the World?
#259Notably absent is con-trails. The jury is still out, but there is strong evidence that they can have a significant effect. The rise of jet travel has also coincided with hydrocarbon use. Water vapor is also a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.
Con-trail data would match the CO2 and temperature line. It would show another correlation that might call into question the validity of the absolute undeniable fact that CO2's correlation is causation.
There are people with simple minds that would then question CO2's role in Global Warming. We can't give those deniers anything else to hang their hat on.
It's the same reason we need to use the "Land Use" data instead of deforestation data. It would just confuse the non-believers. It's better to keep it simple and stay on message.
Re: What's Really Warming the World?
#260This repeats some buried comments but I think it's worthwhile: I'm not a climate scientist, but in my experience the absolute most reliable, most time-efficient way to learn about climate change is the IPCC reports. I wonder if there is anything written in any other field that compares: http://www.ipcc.ch/ Specifically, if you are short on time, read the 'Summaries for Policymakers', written at the level and attentio…
A couple years back I read the IPCC reports trying to find out if global warming was real or not. I noticed the Vostok ice core data in the earlier reports showed the temperature rose first and then the CO2 rose. Likewise, the temperature fell first and then the CO2 fell later on. They fixed this little inconvenient data problem in the later reports.
I'm sure the IPCC has flaws, like every other human institution (but what else do we have to work with?), but the original reports came out in 1990. Also, every data set ever produced has inconsitencies.
I don't feel that one inconsistency from 25 years ago, which might have a valid explanation or might be validly considered inconsequential, undermines the IPCC reports' credibility.