Climate Change 3of12: Atmospheric Temperature Data

[Scobo11]

you lost me at "hockey stick"... obsolete knowledge when based on a flawed fundamental

[gertomaniac]

i thought the drop was caused by aerosols?

[ovdtogt]

At least 2/3 of our current warming can be attributed to a positive PDO..

A NASA scientist has recently discover using data obtained from satellites and temperature measurements from ships that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation ( PDO) index shows a close correlation to the warming and cooling trends over the last century. A positive index correlates to global warming and a negative index to global cooling. CO2 apparently accounts for 1/3 of the warming.

[cthulhu11111111]

@ovdtogt

PDO was positive in the 1930s but today we are warmer than the 1930s. Also the PDO has been in a negative trend since 1980, ie becoming less positive and more negative. If PDO is supposed to relate to warming then it's been providing less and less warming since 1980, ie a cooling effect. Yet temperature has risen since 1980. If anything it seems PDO has been hiding the true rate of the recent warming.

[Dave26851]

The IPCC made up of 60 climate scientists is hardly a consensus.

[theinquisitor]

That's a strawman. The consensus is not limited to the members of the IPCC. The IPCC doesn't do it's own research. It produces reports based on the peer reviewed scientific literature.

People from over 130 countries contributed to the fourth IPCC report.

Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.

The majority of climate scientists support the findings of the IPCC. And we're all fucked because people are so ignorant.

[Dave26851]

Go and scare someone else. Despite the fact that the bones of the IPCC's reports looks as though it has been written by a tenth grader, with sloppy wording and cherry picked data, the other bodies you speak of, many privately dissent as you say.

However none of this is important as it is the evidence which decides what is true or not, not the authority.

This man is reasonably accurate but he is wrong in relation to 'climate sensitivity'.

[theinquisitor]

I'm not trying to scare, I'm just expressing my despair.

If you think the scientific consensus is meaningless, then why did you raise the supposed lack of consensus as a criticism of the IPCC's position?

Pointing to the scientific consensus isn't an argument from authority because there is a self-correcting peer-review process at it's heart.

I'm too depressed to argue anyway. None of it matters. There will never be enough public recognition until it's way too late. We're just fucked.

[Dave26851]

"If you think the scientific consensus is meaningless, then why did you raise the supposed lack of consensus as a criticism of the IPCC's position?"

I didn't you clearly didn't read my post, I said "the IPCC's reports looks as though it has been written by a tenth grader, with sloppy wording and cherry picked data"

There is a lack of political will as most of the policy advisors know that one, the science is falling to bits and two the public is becoming sceptical, as they should be!

[Dave26851]

I would suggest you read into the science before you scare yourself to death.  It really isn't as scary as Al Gore represents it.

[theinquisitor]

You're right about Al Gore. He did more damage to the argument than anyone else. He exaggerated an actual danger in an attempt to draw more attention to it, but only gave the other side something to point to as a way of dismissing everything. The professor in this video actually mentions this in a later part.

Unless you're a climate scientist, you're not qualified to analyse the data properly, so on what basis can you decide that it's bogus? Where do you get your information from?

[theinquisitor]

I'd love it if you were right, I really would. I just don't understand how you can accept the opinions of a minority of scientists and reject the majority.

"the science is falling to bits"

No really, where do you get your information from? I really actually want to know, that's not rhetorical.

[Dave26851]

Well as i said i'm in close agreement with this professor i think he is fair minded and accurate with most of what he says, however, it is unbecoming of him to have based some of what he says on IPCC conclusions.

"Unless you're a climate scientist, you're not qualified to analyse the data properly"

Tell the 2400+ people at the IPCC that. It just so happens i have a strong background in physics, however, everyone is sufficiently qualified to make judgements based on the data which is presented

[theinquisitor]

"everyone is sufficiently qualified to make judgements based on the data which is presented"

Are you serious? You think someone with no background in the subject and no understanding of the methods used to gather data, no understanding of the physics or statistics or anything to do with the subject is sufficiently qualified to make judgments?

If you don't know what's wrong with that statement, then I really don't know how to explain it to you. Expertise means nothing to you? GOATS ON FIRE!

[theinquisitor]

Just google something like "common statistics errors" and then tell me that no background in statistics is needed to analyse data.

[Dave26851]

You clearly didn't understand what i said. Again I see you appear to have a very short attention span.

"everyone is sufficiently qualified to make judgements based on the data which is presented"

I did in no way say that expertise means nothing, i do however believe that people must make informed decisions when responding to information presented to them. Scientists should certainly be invaluable sources of information but we should not blindly rely on their interpretations.

[Dave26851]

When the actual temperature data is not in keeping with the model prediction, it is plain that the models are inadequate.

Moreover, the computer models are overly simplistic childish simulations of the climate system, which demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of its complexities. In the IPCC's own report of climate forcings, the only natural climate forcing is solar irradiance, which is given 1/16th the weighting of CO2. They mention volcanic activity as a forcing, but fail to include it

[theinquisitor]

Well forgive me for assuming that you actually meant the words that you said, I guess that's just because of my short attention span somehow.

When you say everyone, I just naively assume that you mean everyone, including uninformed people.

I'm just wondering where you get your information from? Is it all your own analysis? If you really do have a science background, then you should know that even brilliant scientists can make egregious mistakes when looking at things outside their field.

[theinquisitor]

So I'll ask again very explicitly. Where do you get your information from? I'm actually asking, please tell me.

[Dave26851]

Geophysical research journals, Internet media, teachers, IPCC, various other scientific institutes.

One must therefore look at the facts. If you have a problem with my understanding of the facts, challenge that, not the man.

[cthulhu11111111]

@Dave26851

The IPCC forcings are since 1880 or similar. The volcanic forcing since then is insignificant that it cannot possibly change the result in any qualitive way to matter. Solar irradiance isn't arbitarily given 1/16th the weighting of co2, that is is how insignificnat the solar irradiance rise since the early 20th century has been compared to the co2 rise.

[Dave26851]

Can you explain why it is insignificant? Or perhaps why solar irradiance correlates well with global mean temperatures? Or why atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide does not?

Also, are you suggesting that the only two natural factors which affect global climate are solar irradiance or volcanic activity. If so you clearly need to take a look outside.

just a few include, - solar irradiance - clouds/ precipitation - cosmic rays - orbital aberration

- greenhouse effect h2o, co2, ch4

[cthulhu11111111]

it's insignificant becuase it hasn't increased much over the 20th century, wheras co2 has. Solar irradiance has been flat for the past 30 years, while both co2 and temperature has increased. So if anything the correlation between irradiance and temperature is far worse than between co2 and temperature.

Clouds/precipitation are not forcings. The effect of cosmics rays is not quantified (so the IPCC can't consider it). Orbital changes are too insignificant on short timescales.

[Dave26851]

absolutely clouds are forcings. Co2 over what ever timescale is shown to correlate poorly with temperatures. Moreover, atmospheric concentrations of co2 have probably not increased by much at all. Dr. Wolfgang Knorr (2009).

All i can say about other forcings is for you to do some research rather than blindly believing people with vested interests.

[cthulhu11111111]

@Dave26851

clouds are feedbacks not forcings. co2 correlates better than solar over the 20th century, especially so in the past 30 years. Knorr's work agrees that atmospheric co2 has increased over 30% in the past 100 years. As do I.

[Dave26851]

False and false. It is laughable the misinformation spread.

Clouds as shown by Dr. Roy Spencer and John Christy act as both a climate forcing that is they affect changes in the earth's climate, whilst also acting as a feedback for elements such as water vapour.

Knorr certainly not

QUOTE: It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. Knorr , W. et al. (2009)

[Dave26851]

Hey don't let the truth get in your way.

[cthulhu11111111]

@Dave26851

That isn't what a forcing is. Both forcing and feedbacks "affect changes in the earth's climate". Clouds are a feedback, in that they change in response to temperature change.

the "airborne fraction" in Knorr 09 refers to the ratio of human emissions that accumulate in the atmosphere each year as being constant. It's not saying co2 levels haven't risen in the atmosphere, quite the contrary.

[ohmbumichum]

@Dave26851 yup not to forget: moon orbit, gravity, and internal processes earth,

like mantle convection

[kingmike40]

How can we blame volcanos for the drop in temp in the 40's shouldn't the temp go up because volcanos release hugh amount of co2. Is there any historical record of which volcanos blew their top in the '40s.

[theinquisitor]

Volcanoes also release dust, which blocks out the sunlight. CO2 also plays a role, but apparently it was less significant than the role of the dust.

[Dave26851]

Spurious isn't it

[kingmike40]

In the 1800's or a little before the earth was coming out of a mini ice age. So to show a chart that has temps that are 2 degree cooler isn't a big deal. The medieval warm period was warmer and the polar bear and other animals survived it just fine.

[theinquisitor]

"The medieval warm period was warmer and the polar bear and other animals survived it just fine"

Polar bears can move north or south depending on the temperature, as does their food supply. As an agricultural species, we can't move our food production infrastructure north and south at will in response to changes in the climate. If we were still living a nomadic existence, climate changes like this wouldn't be so much of a problem, we could just move.

[Dave26851]

Any evidence that this would ever be a problem?

[maxdazeglio]

Thank you for having poseted this video man, I have now discovered the precious Berckley podcast. Thanks again!