The REAL global warming

This is a discussion on The REAL global warming within the General Trading Chat forums, part of the Reception category; Originally Posted by montmorencyt2w http://www.spiegel.de/international/...662092,00.html Der Spiegal doesn't quite say it, but do come quite close to the denialists "argument" ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 27, 2009, 11:38pm   #51
Joined Nov 2004
Re: Something to add to the mix: Re: The REAL global warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by montmorencyt2w View Post
Der Spiegal doesn't quite say it, but do come quite close to the denialists "argument" that "it's cooling" because "the hottest year on record is 1998". An assertion the denialists then "illustrate" by showing a 10 year chart of the Hadley (UK) temperature record. Der Spiegal illustrates this with temperature delta map from 1999 to 2008.

As has been said time and time again by all climate scientists, it is quite possible that in the long term warming trend, no new high may be made for periods of ten years or even more. There are shorter term cyclical features of climate that affect temperature. Temperatures are well within the range of IPCC projections.


This silliness about 10 year cooling is analogous to a trader looking at an intraday chart, finding there has been little change in price between 12:00 PM and 12:15 PM and declaring "Told ya this stock ain't going up today!".


In any case, it is not entirely clear which is the year with the highest temperature (and it doesn't especially matter). The Hadley data says it's 1998, and the NASA data says it's 2005. A fact conveniently overlooked by the denialists. There is some discussion about the methodology used in compiling the two datasets - just discussion (no conspiracy!).

A couple of cyclical features of climate that have been influential in lowering temperature in the last few years have been La Nina and a low of the solar cycle. 2009 is showing a strong El Nino. NASA's forecast has been for 2009 to be the 5th hottest year on record, but that could go as high as the 2nd as El Nino develops.

A far better sense of what climate is doing can be had from this animation:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/an..._1998_2fps.mp4

Last edited by dcraig1; Nov 28, 2009 at 12:00am.
dcraig1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2009, 12:50am   #52
Joined Nov 2004
It's NOT Cooling

The attached shows 2009 temperature compared to 2007 and 2005. It also shows monthly change for each of the three years. For the latter part of 2009 this is pushing the all time highs.
Charts are from NASA:
Attached Thumbnails
2009_temp.png  
dcraig1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2009, 12:59am   #53
Joined Nov 2004
Re: The REAL global warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by montmorencyt2w View Post
Just for interest, how would you define a "highly desirable global temperature change" then? I mean, let's just imagine you were a real master of the universe (instead of just a trading one), and had your finger on the global thermostat, where now would you be setting it to?
Has all reason and common sense flown out the door? Do you really think that a 4C average rise in temperature would not have the most serious consequences? We're not adjusting the thermostat on an air conditioner.

Go and ask the survivors of last years Victorian bush fires what they think about an extra 4C. Not whether they like the idea, but whether they think they could actually survive.
dcraig1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2009, 2:21am   #54
Joined Dec 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

What is the evidence that the bush fires are caused by global warming and not, for example, by poor land and forestry management?

And post 51! We disagree, but I'm getting to really admire your style. It is not the holocaust deniers who point to short-term trends as evidence of anything - in fact, one of their main points is that one cannot tell anything meaningful from them, as short term cycles change all the time. Warming prior to the war (and oddly enough the large increase in CO2 emissions), cooling from the 40s to the 70s which led informed and expert opinion to fear catastrophic global cooling and so on.

Rather it is informed and expert opinion that seeks to use rare weather events and short term trends to stoke up fears over global warming. Which, according to the satellite measurements, is not happening. Admittedly, it is the msm which is the major culprit in the "unusually hot summer - we're all doomed" game, but this invariably in favour of the alarmist position.

It is nice of you to keep posting various charts, but the problem is people are rightly sceptical given the shocking sloppiness of much of the high profile "evidence" and data-gathering techniques. You must be aware of the scandal currently engulfing the CRU. A far greater scandal is its refusal to release data on spurious pretexts, and later admission that much of its own original data had been "lost" (whilst moving, wasn't it?).

Or the claim that the ice caps are melting? When the continent that holds over 90% of the world's ice is growing and not shrinking. Or presenting glacial calving as "melting". Or the snows of Kilimanjaro - is anyone still trying to pin that on global warming?

And who could forget Mann et al and the delightful hockey stick - one of the worst and most obvious frauds in recent and not so recent memory? Not to mention his persistent refusal to release his data because it might be used to "discredit" him.

Pity the poor people of Tuvalu, soon to drown beneath the ocean raised on Westerners' greed. Regrettably, repeated surveys have shown sea levels falling in that area, but no matter. Rent-seeking has little time for truth.

The list is endless.

You yourself have remarked upon the complexity and uncertainty in various areas of this subject. When one is contemplating the kind of costs that the experts wish to impose, "sentence first, verdict afterwards" will not serve.
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2009, 3:31am   #55
Joined Nov 2004
Re: The REAL global warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by maiden22 View Post
What is the evidence that the bush fires are caused by global warming and not, for example, by poor land and forestry management?
Nobody is saying that Australian bushfires are "caused" by global warming. And they are not "caused" by poor management either. I posed the question of their severity in the event of substantial temperature rise. And you chose to create a straw man.

Quote:
And post 51! We disagree, but I'm getting to really admire your style. It is not the holocaust deniers who point to short-term trends as evidence of anything - in fact, one of their main points is that one cannot tell anything meaningful from them, as short term cycles change all the time.
That is manifestly untrue. The last 10 year temperature charts from Hadley data are all over the denialist blogosphere presented as evidence of cooling.

Quote:
Warming prior to the war (and oddly enough the large increase in CO2 emissions), cooling from the 40s to the 70s which led informed and expert opinion to fear catastrophic global cooling and so on.
There was never a scientific consensus on cooling in the '70s. To maintain otherwise is a straight out lie. All the climate models address the cooling periods as well as the warming. And they all include negative forceings as well as positive. The negative forcings include atmospheric particulates including sulphur compounds. The models account for the cooling periods.

Quote:
Rather it is informed and expert opinion that seeks to use rare weather events and short term trends to stoke up fears over global warming.
Not true. It is politicians that do that.

Quote:
It is nice of you to keep posting various charts, but the problem is people are rightly sceptical given the shocking sloppiness of much of the high profile "evidence" and data-gathering techniques. You must be aware of the scandal currently engulfing the CRU. A far greater scandal is its refusal to release data on spurious pretexts, and later admission that much of its own original data had been "lost" (whilst moving, wasn't it?).
Well, most people aren't skeptical. Here in Australia, public opinion has consistently and repeatedly supported action to mitigate climate change. It very much looks like there will be a double dissolution (complete spill of all House of Reps and Senate seats) election early in the new year. And here is another prediction - the right wing loony deniers will be wiped out in an election that is fought on the single issue of climate change. This election may finish the right in Australia for a generation. And it may be the first election in the world contested on the issue of climate change - watch this space.

I'm not getting into a slanging match about the CRU emails. More openness in science would be a highly desirable goal. But no substantive evidence of scientific falsification has been put forward. Until it is, all this stuff is just noise.

In any case, if you want an alternate to CRU for models and data, they are available at NASA. Source code and all. So knock yourself stupid in an attempt to imply malfeasance on the part of the NASA researchers:
http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/
or here http://data.giss.nasa.gov/
Quote:
Or the claim that the ice caps are melting? When the continent that holds over 90% of the world's ice is growing and not shrinking. Or presenting glacial calving as "melting". Or the snows of Kilimanjaro - is anyone still trying to pin that on global warming?
Wrong again. The latest studies show both the West Antarctic and East Antarctic ice sheets losing mass. There is no dispute that Greenland ice sheet is losing mass and the polar ice is melting. http://www.skepticalscience.com/anta...aining-ice.htm
dcraig1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2009, 11:03pm   #56
Joined May 2004
Re: The REAL global warming

SAINT started this thread http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

Unfortunately the UEA don't hold onto the raw data and cannot pass it on under freedom of information.
SAINT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2009, 12:32am   #57
Joined Nov 2004
Re: The REAL global warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAINT View Post
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

Unfortunately the UEA don't hold onto the raw data and cannot pass it on under freedom of information.
It is my understanding that the national meteorological services from something like 150 countries are the origin of the raw data. They still hold this data and anybody is quite free to contact them and conclude the relevant agreements to obtain the data. So contrary to all the hysteria, the data still does exist.
dcraig1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2009, 2:12pm   #58
 
Gumping's Avatar
Joined Sep 2007
Re: The REAL global warming

Keep it going guys!!

I think this thread highlights the issue very well. Personally, I find alot of the science unconvincing from both sides: the deniers and the pro- . The problem is getting access to the raw data, rather than listening to the various people's interpretation of data. And of course, being ar$ed to do it at all.....
And the reality is that climate is too complex to be estimated in models based on what amount to minutiae, and various methods of 'smoothing' could probably be applied to data to reinforce the opinions of either side.
From my reading of the data, climate is moving within historical bounds, sea levels are within historical levels and atmospheric CO2 is at historically precedented levels. However, current anthropogenic activity is totally unprecedented.
I always find myself concerned that global warming lobbyists tend to be very left-wing, and the right is seen to be very anti- as implied in some of dcraig's posts: The 'politicisation' of the issue tends to run down very familiar paths.
I'm also struck by how much of the debate centres around wind, nuclear and solar energy plus a bit of wave. Why is geothermal never mentioned? Iceland gets a tremendous amount of it's power from geothermal energy, which is clean, renewable and unlike many of these energy sources, is constant day- and year- round. Yet it is never mentioned in any white papers, despite being extremely easy and cheap to install in homes. Maybe it doesn't create enough jobs.......

So we know there are places to go to see pro global warming arguments. There are places to go to see anti global warming arguments....where are the fence-sitters?
__________________
May Sir Francis Smile Upon You
Gumping is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2009, 3:15pm   #59
Joined Nov 2004
Re: The REAL global warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumping View Post
Keep it going guys!!

The problem is getting access to the raw data, rather than listening to the various people's interpretation of data.
Lack of access to data is largely a myth deliberately fostered by the anti AGW mob. RealClimate has assembled a partial list of data sources:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

The NASA GISS data and models (incl source) are available for download. All you need to run the models is a Unix workstation (eg a Linux PC). I reckon that you could probably get 'em to run on a Windows box under cygwin with fairly little effort.

Quote:
And the reality is that climate is too complex to be estimated in models based on what amount to minutiae, and various methods of 'smoothing' could probably be applied to data to reinforce the opinions of either side.
Purely your opinion. It is inevitable that models and simulations MUST be used. What is the alternative - construct a clone earth and conduct geo engineering on a vast scale? Climate scientists use models to help understanding as well as making projections.

In any case CO2 IS a green house gas. This has been known for a long, long time. Estimates of how an increase in CO2 affects temperature go back to the early part of the 20th century. It is fairly basic physics.

Quote:
From my reading of the data, climate is moving within historical bounds, sea levels are within historical levels and atmospheric CO2 is at historically precedented levels. However, current anthropogenic activity is totally unprecedented.
I suppose, if you move your historical bound far enough any amount of climate change will still fit into some sort of bounds. The issues of trend and rate of change are critical. And should we all sit around waiting for whatever bounds we may think reasonable to be exceeded?
Quote:
I always find myself concerned that global warming lobbyists tend to be very left-wing, and the right is seen to be very anti- as implied in some of dcraig's posts: The 'politicisation' of the issue tends to run down very familiar paths.
That's not entirely true, in any case what matters is the truth or as close to the truth as we can get. The politics of climate change is most certainly an interesting topic - for humans. The climate couldn't care less.
Quote:
I'm also struck by how much of the debate centres around wind, nuclear and solar energy plus a bit of wave. Why is geothermal never mentioned? Iceland gets a tremendous amount of it's power from geothermal energy, which is clean, renewable and unlike many of these energy sources, is constant day- and year- round. Yet it is never mentioned in any white papers, despite being extremely easy and cheap to install in homes. Maybe it doesn't create enough jobs.......
Possibly because they are the most mature technologies. There is current research into geothermal and not only in places like Iceland where the geology makes it much easier. The wildcard that hardly ever gets a mention is fusion, which could be the real holy grail. Nobody really knows when it might be, because it is probably the most difficult engineering task ever attempted. I watched a documentary on fusion presented by Brian Cox recently. It mentioned that the UK spends more on mobile ring tones than fusion research. Fusion may be well down the track, but that neglect just strikes me as idiotic.

Last edited by dcraig1; Dec 1, 2009 at 3:28pm.
dcraig1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2009, 3:23pm   #60
Joined Nov 2009
Re: The REAL global warming

The climate trends run in huge cycles that vary slightly because of specific variables. The northern US had higher than average temps this year. It is my opinion that there is very little proof that global warming is the huge threat is is posed to be and more a ploy for certain faction to profit from peoples fear.
jaspertrademaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Real Reason Most Traders Lose- The Real Odds of Winning at Trading: mrsoul Forex 75 May 8, 2011 12:29am
MF Global ukdaytrader General Trading Chat 1 Jun 4, 2009 2:52pm
The Great Global Warming Swindle Bigbusiness The Foyer 361 Jul 25, 2008 9:02am

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)