More Global Warming

The data Warmers use most often comes from the UN’s IPCC, International Panel on Climate Change. In an ironic twist 20+ years into the debate more and more of the data used by skeptics comes from… yep the IPCC. If you are one that believes manmade warming is killing the planet, your beliefs are likely being fed by the mainstream media and the UN. If you’re a skeptic, you are either believing your friends or you are digging through reports and skeptic’s web sites.

Chart from Draft IPCC AR5

Chart from Draft IPCC AR5

You could look up the 1990 IPCC report and compare its predictions for coming years. We now have 20+ years of actual data since the report was written to look at. We can see how well the IPCC did at predicting the future, not very well. But, then you would have to get into the data and see how the IPCC has been adjusting it. Start with SurfaceStations.org to get the background on why adjustments are needed and in which direction adjustments should be made. 

Surface Stations was a grass roots citizen run check of the United States Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) and Global Historical Climatological Network (GHCN) surface stations. Read the site’s about page. Even the National Research Council (NRC) in 1997 called for an assessment of the US system of weather data collection. In 1999 they concluded the system was inadequate (US$34 – site includes a reference finder and the summary is free).

The interesting thing about this survey of climate sites is the photographs and documentation.

Surface Sites - Ideal

Surface Sites – Ideal

 

Surface Sites - Too Typical

Surface Sites – Too Typical – Marysville, CA. @ Fire Station

Photos courtesy of Anthony Watts, www.surfacestations.org 

The top photo shows how a climate station is supposed to look per NOAA specifications. The lower photo shows how too many of the stations look. Because of all the influences around the lower image’s measuring site, data from this site would need to be adjusted.

If you want to skip the research and go to the results, see: NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments.

The take away from the IPCC report predictions comparison to ‘adjusted’ temperature readings is: The scientific models of 1990’s First Assessment Report forecast temperatures would rise fast, reaching alarming levels by 2010. The mercury refused to cooperate with the warming hypothesis that year. In 2012, temperatures also were frostier than the generous assumptions in each of the group’s four previous reports.

Even though the official charts [from IPCC] show no significant warming trend in the past 15 years, the planet may be even cooler than the IPCC figures suggest. Mr. Watts, who runs the Watts Up With That website, points out that IPCC is using adjusted data. In a forthcoming scientific paper, he demonstrates that improper placement of weather stations has resulted in the temperature increase being overstated by 92 percent.

There are enormous sums of money at risk. So, get the leaked IPCC preliminary draft report before it disappears. Download IPCC Second Order Draft of AR5. The chart of most interest (opening image) is in Chapter 1 page 39.

I wonder how many people notice the different tactics in use by the Warmers and Skeptics? See Chilling climate-change news for the typical skeptic’s article on this leak. See Human role in climate change now virtually certain: leaked IPCC report and Misrepresentation of Leaked Review Draft IPCC Climate Assessment Report Shows Intellectual Bankruptcy of Global Warming Denialists.

In the current round of debate skeptics are talking about the recently leaked data and how it does not correspond to the 1990 IPCC projections. The skeptics are arguing that for 20+ years the IPCC has been exaggerating and this is another example of it.

Warmers say skeptics don’t understand the leaked draft and deny what it says. The Warmers talk about what the IPCC draft says and are not bothering to address what skeptics actually say, current measurements don’t match what was predicted.

Skeptics question all the data since the 2009 Climategate data fraud scandal.

An interesting development in the debate is satellite temperature data. You can read Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere and Trenberth takes on UAH satellite data in a new paper to see how complex it is to figure out temperature from the satellite data. What most Warmers aren’t discussing is the data has discrepancies yet to be resolved. Skeptics refer to the old data, early 2000’s, to back cooling claims. Neither side seems to want to be completely honest, which is why we have to dig through all the data and math.

Snowfall Chart

Snowfall Chart

While much of the mainstream media is reporting news like No Snow, No Jobs, No Fun serious meteorologists are reporting stories like 75% or more of the US will be snow covered by end of year. The snowiest years in the USA are 1977 most ever and 2010 second, 2011 third, 2008 forth, and 2003 fifth. Four of the most snowy years are post 2000 in spite of what the IPCC said would happen.  Already 2012 is at about eight snowiest or equal to 1982. 1981 is the least snowy year in the last 40+ years.

Polar bears ‘thriving as the Arctic warms up.

Don’t believe the mainstream media. The truth is out there.

10 thoughts on “More Global Warming

  1. Thing is, it’s very very hard to make conclusions.

    Back around 2005, a friend spoke to me about global warming, and i didn’t have an opinion. I was studying physics at the university at that time. I read the German ministry of education summary on the subject, which is about 20 pages and contains references to most often cited materials – the report has been written from the point of view that supports the man-made global warming theory, however it obviously left a few open questions.

    For one, it was obvious that data was pieced together, from long-term data gained by different means from current state of nature, and from man-made recordings of different kind for the last 50-100 years being the short term data. This begs a question how well can such data be calibrated against each other – is there even enough overlap between different data sources to correlate them? Possibility of man-made measurement skew has not been addressed.

    Second, the computer model, based on that data, it has shown itself to be true as to past events, having been able to demonstrate them – however i’m not sure how much value that demonstration has if it’s self-referential. The model is partially based on that very same data that it demonstrates, it cannot not be, because every new piece of data that the scientist receives from nature is evaluated and calibrated against the existing mass of knowledge, so even if you exclude one piece of data, it has still been cross-influencing other ones.

    Third, the model did not properly address the effect of vegetation, which could be deciding. They were planning to improve on that.

    And finally, the consequence is unclear. Let us assume, that because we suspect that we may be causing global warming, we will probably never know 100%, but the prudent thing to do would be to play it safe. And yet, what should we do in that case? It has not been demonstrated, what kind of changes one would need to implement to avert the catastrophe diagnosed by the model. If we all just stopped doing everything, took a pill, laid down and died, would this even avert the foretold catastrophe? How do you undo 100 years of man-made emissions, if significant, potentially catastrophe-bearing climate changes are predicted to happen within 50 years from now? Coming back to vegetation, maybe what we should really do is stop cutting down the rain-forest and the complete CO2 emission issue becomes moot? Also, what if climate change is taking place and will reach catastrophic dimensions soon, but is not primarily man-made, it doesn’t necessarily mean we don’t have to do anything about it, only in the case the long-term forecast is wrong and the climate is going to normalize do we need not do anything. Just because the nature thinks it’s a good idea to kill a bunch of humans doesn’t mean we should agree. Then again, do what?

    That at least the questions which the official paper caused me to come up with.

    So i started reading more papers, and a few weeks later i knew less than what i started with. So much data, so many conclusions. And i don’t even know: can i trust this scientist or has he been using data generally considered compromised because he has an agenda? In the end, you have to conclude, that neither me, nor you, nor a journalist or politician is qualified to have an opinion on that subject. We all have to trust someone, some people who have been studying the subject for their lifetime and thus have a qualified opinion on that. Who are they, whom to trust? I don’t know.

    • Your response very much states things as they are and I think is the conclusion any thinking, rational person comes to.

      I think it is hard to know who to trust. But, over time one can start to see who is running an agenda and who is looking at data and attempting to find the facts. One’s style of debate is often a key to my deciding. Do people debate the facts or quickly drop to ad hominem attacks?

      I only trust what I can understand and verify for myself. Too many people, governments, and agencies have agendas. Knowing the agendas gives me a clue to what I can believe. I read liberal blogs and conservative blogs because both have opposing apparent agendas. Once upon a time the mainstream media was the same. That gave people both sides of the political arguments. We have lost that in the mainstream media. To a large extent we have lost that in state/politically funded universities too.

      The planet has had numerous ice ages. Lord Mockton, a well known skeptic, points out repeatedly there is not anything we can likely do to stop an ice age or climate change caused by solar and orbital effects on climate. The most we can do is prepare for the change. The Canadian government has started looking more at what they can do to prepare for changes over the next 30 to 50 years. The US and Europe seems sold on the idea of controlling the climate via legislation and taxes. Many of us think that will consume the funds we need to prepare for climate changes.

  2. This is a good blog about Second Life issues and news. Please stop ruining it with tinfoil-hat conspiracies theories.

    • Diversity is a liberal ideal. The Global warming hoax as a conspiracy is not a theory. Climate-gate proved the top people in the field were conspiring to promote global warming ideas, even when they had to fake data, by a whistle blower publishing their emails. As to what the UN’s agenda is, that is no conspiracy or secret. They have published their agenda for the 21st century. That the IPCC has misrepresented climate data is well documented.

      Politics and the economy affect Second Life. If you want to avoid my occasional coverage of serious RL issues affecting our SL world, stick with Inara Pey’s blog. It is an excellent source for SL news too.

  3. Interesting article.

    I’ve looked at the models behind a lot of the projections you see reported in the media. Some of them try to take on the tiniest details in order to make the model more accurate. For instance, in response to higher temperatures, the leaves of plants tend to grow larger, which will tend to draw more CO2 out of the air. Or as polar ice melts, less energy is reflected back into space. Or as the ocean acidifies less CO2 is sequestered in the hard shells of tiny sea creatures. Or as ocean currents slow down the temperature differential will increase between the poles and the equator. etc…

    The problem is knowing not just that these things exist, but trying to figure out how large an impact they will have on the climate. The answer is, we have no idea. Climate skeptics then look at these models, see they don’t make great predictions, and conclude there is no global warming. What they should conclude is that our models suck.

    It is telling, I believe, that the best projections remain good old fashion simple linear regressions of CO2 level and temperature. These predicted, and continue to predict, an increase of about 1.5 degrees per century and have had the best success with matching the actual data.

    • Good points.

      Over the last 15 years atmospheric CO2 has increased by 9% while global temperature rise has stopped and possibly cooled in the same period.

      There is also a huge amount of scientific research and numerous papers showing C02 lags temperature by 800 years. The opposite of what Al Gore says. So, what we do now may not have an effect for 800 years…

      That atmospheric CO2 has been as high as 3,000 ppm and is currently 400+/- ppm suggests to me the CO2 content is that much more a natural variation caused by nature than it is something mankind is causing. That sea levels are only at three-quarters of their historic maximums suggests we are only 3/4′s of the way through this warming cycle.

      Your point that we don’t know is well taken. My problem is politicians want us to spend trillions and give up numerous freedoms to prevent something that may not be preventable and that all seems to benefit them more than it does citizens. I see it as very much a 1930′s rainmaker scam. I’ll only consider paying when someone can convince me they know what they are talking about.

      • You make a good point about whether or not we should be willing to pay, but I think 15 years is too small a time slice to give you useable information on the validity of climate predictions.

        Look at any sufficiently noisy graph of an upward trend and you can find long portions that go downwards. 15 years ago happens to have been one of the hottest years in recorded history. So you start from a very hot year, and add to that an effect of global warming estimated to be on the magnitude of +0.015 degrees per year. Random variations in weather are many magnitudes larger than that and can hide the effect. So while there has been no warming in the last 15 years, those 15 years are far hotter years than the 15 that preceded them. And while I wouldn’t bet money on whether next year will be hotter than this year, I would gladly bet that the next 15 years will on average be hotter than the last 15 years.

        • You are right that picking a beginning point allows one to show any trend they want, which Warmists do also by picking a starting place in the Little Ice age. That choice is deliberate to exaggerate recent warming. That was a time when the Potomac River was freezing over. Remember the pictures of George Washington crossing the Potomac in the 1700′s?

          I wrote about the last 15 years not to show the trend but to show that the UN’s predictions for that period were WAY off. So, you sort of missed the point I was making in the main article. I have no doubt that the world warms… and cools. I’m like Siana in that my belief is warmist people do not know what they are talking about. It is Chicken Little trying to sell Sky-Falling Insurance.

          Prior to the 1700′s Vikings were ranching and sort of farming in Greenland, 800-1200 A.D., which is known as the Medievil Warming Period. They were frozen out during the Little Ice Age, leaving or disappearing by 1500. We now have over 240 studies that show the 20th century is not the warmest period in the last millennium nor has it had the most radical weather. During the Pleistocene ice ages things were colder than today. During the Holocene they were warmer. The warmest since the Little Ice Age is 1934. NASA under Mr.Jim Hansen, of Climate-gate fame, adjusted the temperature records because of a year-2000 (Y2K) calculation error. Apparently the only known serious Y2K computer bug. If you dig through the news articles of 2000-2006 the you find that 2005 was supposed to be the hottest year in the last 200.

          When skeptics (McIntyre) questioned that (2007) and looked at the data they found a vertical step up in temperatures January 1, 2000. This lead to the data being re-adjusted to eliminate the calculation error. The first correcting adjustment was done and quickly published. Wow! 1934 was the hottest year in 200. Very quickly 2 or 3 more adjustments were made until 1998 was the warmest USA year and 2005 the warmest world wide year. Of course the world data came from the East Anglican University’s adjustments, which we later learn is at the heart of Climate-gate data fraud.

          See GeoTimes.org for the type of reporting that leaves out data details but covers the more emotional tones that confuse most people. The result is skeptics see Warmists as incompetent and hiding information. Wamists see Skeptics as whining about minor details in the face of a global disaster.

          But, the truth is out there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Human Verification: In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.