Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Researchers question key global-warming study
USA Today ^ | 10/28/2003 | Nick Schulz

Posted on 10/28/2003 7:10:41 PM PST by polemikos

Edited on 04/13/2004 1:41:19 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

An important new paper in the journal Energy & Environment upsets a key scientific claim about climate change. If it withstands scrutiny, the collective scientific understanding of recent global warming might need an overhaul.

A little background is needed to understand the importance of the new research behind this paper by Stephen McIntyre, a statistics expert who works in the mining industry, and Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Ontario. As scientists and governments have tried to understand mankind's influence on the environment, global warming has become a primary concern. Do mankind's activities especially burning fossil fuels to create energy affect climate? If so, how? What should be done?


(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climatechange; environment; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax
Soo-prise, Soo-prise, Soo-prise.
1 posted on 10/28/2003 7:10:41 PM PST by polemikos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: polemikos
McCain's web site says, "Global warming is a growing problem. ... The 10 warmest years (on record) have all occurred since 1987."

Hey, Algore cloned himself apparently.
2 posted on 10/28/2003 7:14:39 PM PST by polemikos (This Space for Rant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Global Warming Hoax
Indexing
3 posted on 10/28/2003 7:14:50 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Click Here for the RadioFR website!

Live NOW on RadioFreeRepublic!
ON FIRE! With Tom Adkins!
If you’ve never listened to Tom, tune in and find out why he’s called a cross between Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage!

7pm Pacific/10pm Eastern!

Click HERE to listen LIVE NOW while you FReep!

Would you like to receive a note when RadioFR is on the air? Send an email to radiofreerepublic-subscribe@radioactive.kicks-ass.net!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room!


4 posted on 10/28/2003 7:15:14 PM PST by Bob J (www.freerepublic.net www.radiofreerepublic.com...check them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
ping for paper
5 posted on 10/28/2003 7:16:48 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
Well these guys will have tough time gettin anymore research dollars...
6 posted on 10/28/2003 7:17:10 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
Just 30 years ago, the chicken-littles were claiming that we were headed for another ice age. Lying with statistics can be fun and profitable, too.
7 posted on 10/28/2003 7:26:19 PM PST by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
MODEL BUILDING:
Climate models are filled with assumptions, bad data, tweaks, simplifications, etc.
These parameters can be "tweaked" to force the model to show ANY desired result.

Projections of climate change are based on models and assumptions which
"are not only unknown, but unknowable within ranges relevant for policy-making"

Models fail to adequately handle clouds, water vapour, aerosols, precipitation,
ocean currents, solar effects, complex weather patterns, etc.

Model simulation of surface temperature appears to be little more than fortuitous
curve-fitting rather than a demonstration of human influence on global climate.

Temperature rise projections this century are "unknown and unknowable".

"Climate models [are] projections, story lines, [more aptly termed] fairy tales."
-- Hartwig Volz, geophysicist, RWE Research Laboratory, Germany

"Global warming projections [are] completely unrealistic...assuming extreme scenarios
of population growth and fossil fuel consumption"
-- S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist, University of Virginia, Environmental Policy Project

"The balance of evidence suggests that there has been no appreciable warming since 1940.
This would indicate that the human effects on climate must be quite small."
-- S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist, University of Virginia, Environmental Policy Project



PREDICTING THE PAST:
Climate models, which serve as the basis for long-term climate predictions,
have clearly failed when tested against observed climate data.

Models fail to reproduce the known difference in trends between the
lower troposphere and surface temperatures over the past 20 years.

They don't show the actual amount of temperature change at the Earth's surface
Models can't predict the recent past, let alone the long-term future.

Antarctica has been cooling since 1966, directly contradicting model results
that suggest that warming will be more pronounced in the Earth's polar regions.

-- Nature magazine

the Antarctic ice sheet is expanding rather than shrinking,
contrary to what global-warming enthusiasts would have us believe.

-- Science magazine



I'm thinking the global climate computer models are going to have to be "tweaked" some more ;-)
8 posted on 10/28/2003 7:27:57 PM PST by polemikos (This Space for Rant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
Ping for real science!

Gee, I wonder why the raw data was not published.

Uh....because it did not support the conclusion?

9 posted on 10/28/2003 7:34:40 PM PST by MonroeDNA (Please become a monthly donor!!! Just $3 a month--you won't miss it, and will feel proud!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: polemikos

I wonder what Mann's background is. Hidden agenda, no doubt. Won't publish his data. Why?
10 posted on 10/28/2003 7:36:40 PM PST by MonroeDNA (Please become a monthly donor!!! Just $3 a month--you won't miss it, and will feel proud!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
I remember seeing somewhere that the Mann 'hockey stick' curve was derived by stitching together selected data from uncorrelatable sources from before versus after the turn of the 20th century and then skewing the trendline to the limit of improbability to appear to agree with the global-warministas' agenda, something which is referred to as 'lying with statistics' by non-charlatans.


11 posted on 10/28/2003 7:44:33 PM PST by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
what does your posted ad have to do with this thread???

Does Jimrob now allow ads to be posted???

Are we getting "commercial" now???

I hope not.

Find a way to post your ad top level - not on individual threads.

LVM

12 posted on 10/28/2003 7:44:38 PM PST by LasVegasMac (You tell 'em I'm coming! And you tell 'em Hell is coming with me!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: polemikos; ancient_geezer; Grampa Dave; Lancey Howard
Ping.

More Mann-made warming meets the light of day.

Bet there's lots more too.

13 posted on 10/28/2003 7:46:43 PM PST by PeaceBeWithYou (De Oppresso Liber!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
You want to experience global warming? Come on down to Biloxi in August...Your sweat will sweat...
14 posted on 10/28/2003 7:47:23 PM PST by trebb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
I thought that we were due for another ice age? So. Do we worry about an ice sheet making Canada and Patagonia uninhabitable, or do we worry about global warming melting the polar ice caps and moving the coastline to Arizona? Some days I wish for that humongous asteroid...
15 posted on 10/28/2003 8:04:11 PM PST by Devlin (throwing my $0.004 in (after taxes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
We used to have a TV show called "The Six Million Dollar Man". When are we going to have a TV show about "The Six Hundred Quadrillion Dollars Liars"?
16 posted on 10/28/2003 8:07:30 PM PST by the lone wolf (Good Luck, and watch out for stobor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Devlin
Hang on, I am sitting in the spaceship. I'll get back to you shortly.
17 posted on 10/28/2003 8:12:40 PM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MonroeDNA
Gee, I wonder why the raw data was not published.

Uh....because it did not support the conclusion?

Hmm... Michael Mann is not related to Michael Besillies, is he?

18 posted on 10/28/2003 8:32:02 PM PST by Frohickey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
My favorite example of the weakness of these atmospheric models is how Carl Sagan made a fool out of himself after the first Gulf War, predicting a "nuclear winter" from the burning oil wells in Kuwait. These were of course the same models he was using to predict other doomsday scenarios.
19 posted on 10/28/2003 8:42:22 PM PST by Rocky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Frohickey
"Michael Mann is not related to Michael Besillies, is he?"

More likely related to Michael Moore.
20 posted on 10/28/2003 8:45:35 PM PST by Rocky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: polemikos; cogitator; *Global Warming Hoax
Link to McKitrick's website:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

Summary, Links to where to get a pdf copy of his paper & to the data sets & methods he used.

Result looks like this:



Sombody's got some splain'n tah do.

21 posted on 10/28/2003 9:04:03 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
Ten years after IPCC's founding, a paper from Michael Mann, now an assistant professor of environmental sciences...

Mann sure has made his way in the world.

22 posted on 10/28/2003 11:20:27 PM PST by Mike Darancette (No Taxation Without Respiration - Repeal Death Taxes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer; polemikos; *Global Warming Hoax
Sombody's got some splain'n tah do.

Sorry that I can't provide a lengthy reply to the solar variation issues on "Rushing to Judgement"; there is still much more to be said, and I hope to say more starting tomorrow and into next week. You have raised new points that deserve analysis (to the extent that I am capable).

Regarding the results of McIntyre and McKitrick, there is some ongoing discussion of it on this blog that is both interesting, confusing, and disturbing:

Quark Soup

Dr. Mann is indicating that McIntyre and McKitrick used an incorrectly compiled data set, which may well be true. McIntyre and McKitrick reply that Dr. Mann has not been particularly forthcoming in response to their requests, which may also be true. Mann indicates that other researchers have replicated his results independently, which also appears to be true. At this point about all that can be said is that the analysis of McIntyre and McKitrick, while perhaps a valid analysis, may not have been conducted on the proper data.

Which makes just about everybody involved look a bit messy.

23 posted on 10/30/2003 10:55:43 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer; polemikos; *Global Warming Hoax
Sorry for the additional commentary, but reading "Quark Soup" on this issue is too interesting. The blog provides a link to this figure:

The orange line is from a paper authored by Crowley and Lowery in Ambio in 2000. The red line is Mann et al.'s analysis, the one that is under the gun in the audit paper. The other lines are analyses are from this Web site:

The evolution of climate over the last millenium

One comment: if McIntyre and McKitrick really wanted to scare the h*ll out of the climate science community, they should have published their paper in a climate science journal, not Energy and Environment, which is making a specialty out of publishing papers written by the community of global warming skeptics. Now, the editorial slant of a journal is the right of its editors, but as long as Mann and his cohorts are publishing in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, etc., and the skeptics are all publishing in one little "place", they won't get their case heard by the wider scientific community. It doesn't serve the cause to aim low in terms of publishing, if the aim is to influence the viewpoint of the scientific community. If the aim is to influence public opinion, then they can publish wherever they want and let the media run with the story.

24 posted on 10/30/2003 11:21:13 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

At this point about all that can be said is that the analysis of McIntyre and McKitrick, while perhaps a valid analysis, may not have been conducted on the proper data.

Of interest is the data on which the analysis and audit was done was provided by Mann's people! The complaint that Mann appears to be responding to as not being the proper data, is the XL spreadsheet form, though the raw data was also sent to M&M in text form as well, and copy returned to Mann for verification.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

"The proxy data set we received from Mann (pcproxy.txt). The text version is just as received from Mann (and re-sent back to him to verify)."

 

From what I can determine from M&M's paper they made a initial run with the XL data and noticed large discrepensies, compared the XL spreadsheet data apparently with the orginal text dataset.

http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf

"This led to a systematic comparison of MBH98 data to original data, identifying obsolete versions and undisclosed truncation of time series. Independent calculations of the proxy principal components convinced us that those in MBH98 were erroneous we updated and corrected the database and then applied MBH98 methodology, as publicly disclosed,"

 

Mann's response as stated in Quark Soup:

http://www.davidappell.com/

"However, Mann said today, a transcription error was inadvertently made in preparation of the spreadsheet, in which some multiple data that should have appeared in multiple columns was mistakenly overwritten into some single columns. A dataset that should have contained 159 columns of data in fact only contained 112 columns. So when M&M slid this dataset into their calculations, the results that came out were naturally in error."

Something not Kosher here, the "spreadsheet" was apparently rebuilt by M&M using original data, and the analysis run on that "original data" is what provided M&M's final output, not the "spreadsheet" sent to them by Mann's office.

 

Which makes just about everybody involved look a bit messy.

As I noted, there needs to be some splain'n done by somebody.

25 posted on 10/30/2003 11:46:16 AM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

If the aim is to influence public opinion, then they can publish wherever they want and let the media run with the story.

Actually it is public opinion that needs to be addressed. The UN/IPCC "Global Warming" folks placed this in the political arena making it everybodies football.

I have no probs with anyone presenting their papers where they can be published and put into the debate pot, unfortunately Nature etc. are known to take their own license in what they allow to publish and have their own axes to grind.

As provided by M&M, their approach of publishing in Energy and Environment is consistant with who they are. Neither are in the Climate community and they do not claim to be doing original research, merely auditing the data and methods of Mann to determine reproducibility of Mann's result using Mann's dataset. They have provided exposure of both their papers, data used, methodology to the world via the internet, anyone may compare Mann's methods, results & data against M&M's claims. That seems sufficient to me.

26 posted on 10/30/2003 12:05:36 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer; polemikos; *Global Warming Hoax
I agree that there should be an explanation; I wonder if Dr. Mann will do it directly to McIntyre and McKitrick, since he apparently doesn't think much of their effort to analyze his data. Publishing the "audit" paper in Energy and Environment may cause Mann to not bother to reply, as he might figure that would lend more credence to their results than he wants to give them. Had they published in a a more established science journal, particularly one focused on climate science, he would have been obligated (=forced) to respond.

It will be interesting to see if the media pressure and the pressure from the skeptical community on him will be sufficient to get him to respond. He is definitely capable of responding; after the Soon, Baliunas (et al.) papers came out early this year, due to persistent inquiries from the press, he collaborated on a response that was in the American Geophysical Union Eos publication.

Mann makes a lot of stuff available on his personal home page; here's the Eos article (PDF). The first figure shows a bunch of climate reconstructions over the past 1000 years.

On Past Temperatures and Anomalous 20th-Century Warmth

A couple of years ago there was some attention paid to an analysis published by Esper et al. (to which Mann responded). Esper's data, which appears in the figure noted above, shows much deeper cold periods than Mann's data (Mann's data was multi-proxy temperature records; Esper's was only tree-ring data). Esper's data is spikier, and there are a couple of times when his temperature record is significantly higher (0.2-0.3 C) than Mann's. But the overall pattern is still the same. If Esper's data and analysis are truly independent of what Mann et al. have done (same goes for the Crowley and Lowery analysis), then the likelihood that McIntyre and McKitrick operated on an erroneous data set increases. But it certainly appears that most of the blame for them receiving a flawed data set falls squarely on Dr. Mann.

If he'd been smart, he would have made certain that they got the correct data, and if their analysis had not shown any errors, then nothing would have happened. Now Mann is in a mess of his own making. It will be interesting to see the way in which he responds now.

27 posted on 10/30/2003 12:12:34 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Noticed an error in my analysis in reply #100, for Rushing to Judgement;

You may wish to comment on or at least review the more accurate version here, there was a significant change in result as a consequence of the correction:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1002384/posts?page=105#105

28 posted on 10/30/2003 12:59:01 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer; polemikos; *Global Warming Hoax
After some work, I found a digital image version of the figure in the referenced article. Here it is, with caption. (Sorry it's so big.)

igure 1. Comparison of proxy-based NH temperature reconstructions [Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999; Crowley and Lowery, 2000] with model simulations of NH mean temperature changes over the past millennium based on estimated radiative forcing histories [Crowley, 2000; Gerber et al., 2002--results shown for both a 1.5°C/2*CO2 and 2.5°C/2*CO2 sensitivity; Bauer et al., 2003). Also shown are two independent reconstructions of warm-season extratropical continental NH temperatures [Briffa et al., 2001; Esper et al., 2002] and an extension back through the past two thousand years based on eight long reconstructions [Mann and Jones, 2003]. All reconstructions have been scaled to the annual, full Northern Hemisphere mean, over an overlapping period (1856-1980), using the NH instrumental record [Jones et al., 1999] for comparison, and have been smoothed on time scales of >40 years to highlight the long-term variations. The smoothed instrumental record (1856-2000) is also shown. The gray/red shading indicates estimated two-standard error uncertainties in the Mann et al. [1999] and Mann and Jones [2003] reconstructions. Also shown are reconstructions of ground surface temperatures (GST) based on appropriately areally-averaged [Briffa and Osborn, 2002; Mann et al., 2003] continental borehole data [Huang et al., 2000], and hemispheric surface air temperature trends, determined by optimal regression [Mann et al., 2003] from the GST estimates. All series are shown with respect to the 1961-90 base period.

This is from

Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia

29 posted on 10/30/2003 2:13:15 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Probably should throw in a 2400 year Vostok Ice Core record that tends to confirm the McIntyre and McKitrick's findings. Just for balance you know ;O)

Ice Ages & Astronomical Causes
Brief Introduction to the History of Climate
by Richard A. Muller


30 posted on 10/30/2003 4:19:24 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
AG, it does NOT confirm anything regarding global climate trends at this temporal resolution! The Vostok ice core is in Antarctica; it is not a global temperature record. The only way that you can have a global temperature record from regional proxy data is to create a combined/merged data set. That's the issue with these various analyses. If you look at the figure I posted, you can see that the Esper curve, which is only for tree-ring data in the Northern Hemisphere, is much noisier than the merged datasets from the other groups. Furthermore, continental Antarctica is actually cooling, whilst the Antarctic Peninsula, the coast, and the adjacent ocean waters are warming. That in part explains why the rise at the end of the Vostok record is not as dramatic as the instrumental surface data which appears at the end of the figure above. Finally, Vostok ice core proxy temperatures are based on the 18O/16O ratio in precipitation, which does not respond immediately to global temperature changes (the effect on the ratio has to propagate through the atmosphere and ultimately effect the isotopic composition of the water vapor that becomes rain, snow, and ice).

This mistake is made over and over and over again, and it's one of the ways that the "hockey stick" critics have tried to assess his data. Regional temperature variability is always going to be greater than a merged data set, because the peaks in one region may be partially or completely canceled by troughs in another region.

However, note something: the location of the warm and cold periods still generally coincides with the other records. The only point of dispute regards the magnitude of the warmest peaks around 400 and 900-1000 AD compared to the end of the ice core record.

By the way, at what year exactly is the Vostok ice core temperature record considered to end?

"The second graph (Data 3) is for the past 200 years. This time period includes all of the Industrial Revolution which began in the mid-1800s. The start of the Industrial Revolution marked the beginning of the large-scale exploitation of fossil fuels. The small dip in temperature in the early 1800s was caused by volcanic eruptions which reduced the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. CO2 inflection points are visible at around 1860, 1950 and 1975. After 1958, the data are from annual air measurements, not ice core proxies, and are therefore of higher quality."

So if this is correct, then in your plot the temperature data only goes to 1958. In which case the temperature rise over the last 40 years, which would increase the endpoint of your graph by at least 0.25 C, isn't shown.

It's useful to look at Vostok data over 400,000+ years, because on that scale what happens in 500-1000 years is integrated by the climate system into the precipitation signal. But in the modern timeframe, the Antarctic is partially decoupled from processes happening in the rest of the world.

As a final aside, Mann's multi-proxy data record includes six ice-core records, but does not include the Vostok ice core data. I have no idea if Vostok was excluded because of what I said above, or for other reasons.

31 posted on 10/31/2003 10:46:37 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

But in the modern timeframe, the Antarctic is partially decoupled from processes happening in the rest of the world.

LOL, that's one interpretation.

The other is global temperture dependance upon CO2 concentration is grossly overstated hence a perceived decoupling on the part of those wedded to a CO2->Global Warming dependancy.

 

CO2-Temperature Correlations

[ see also: Indermuhle et al. (2000), Monnin et al. (2001), Yokoyama et al. (2000), Clark and Mix (2000) ]

[see: Petit et al. (1999), Staufer et al. (1998), Cheddadi et al., (1998), Raymo et al., 1998, Pagani et al. (1999), Pearson and Palmer (1999), Pearson and Palmer, (2000) ]


 

Global warming and global dioxide emission and concentration:
a Granger causality analysis

http://isi-eh.usc.es/trabajos/122_41_fullpaper.pdf


32 posted on 10/31/2003 11:01:39 AM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

By the way, at what year exactly is the Vostok ice core temperature record considered to end?

149 years prior to 2000, so the temperature chart provided above from Muller's site includes additional studies all using 1950 temp as the relative baseline. Muller also includes current measured temperatures up around '95 in his chart set to complete the record.(may need to hit leftclick->show picture to see the graphics)

But then we can always fill in the last 140 years with direct surface temperature deviations so VOSTOK is hardly required at that point they merely need to be adjusted to the relative 1950 base line he uses:

 

Graph of solar activity versus climate
From Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, "Length of the solar cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate," Science, 254, 698-700, 1991.

33 posted on 10/31/2003 11:38:30 AM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
What's the source of the temperature data in that graph?

And do you see why the graph you posted doesn't allow a direct comparison to the graph of several temperature reconstruction histories that I posted, because it doesn't show the warming since the mid-1800s (which is 0.6-0.8 C in the surface instrumental record)?

And have you read this?

On the length of the solar cycle and Earth's climate (PDF document)

I have to leave it at that for today, as I have to get out into the twilight early with three sugar-craving toddlers.

34 posted on 10/31/2003 12:11:43 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
So, if I'm reading this right, the plotted (air?) temperature is flucating rapidly (and strongly!) recently, but WITH A TREND CENTERED ON 0.0 CHANGE; but the CO2 readings are simply and slowly rising.

In other words, average global air temperatures ARE NOT BEING affected by the measured CO2 changes, but demonstrable CO2 CHANGES have taken place.

---...---

Now, an open question to class ....

What is the predicted CO2 change that the global warmist eco-enviro's fear?

AS I inderstand their previous "crisis summaries", we have already gotten about 1/3 through the maximum rise in CO2 they fear.

But we've not seen any massive increase in temperatures. (Yet - temps (if they've risen - and that is debatable) are only up 1/2 -1/3 of a degree.)

Why then are they predicting so large a temp increase, if so little is already changed?

Do their computer models add a fudge factor to continue "ramping" temperature UP after the CO2 levels are stable? Or are they predicting massive failures of everything (global folloding, drought, feast, and famine) based on the 1 degree rise?
35 posted on 10/31/2003 12:20:32 PM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only support FR by donating monthly, but ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: polemikos; AAABEST; Ace2U; Alamo-Girl; Alas; amom; AndreaZingg; Anonymous2; ApesForEvolution; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

For real time political chat - Radio Free Republic chat room

36 posted on 10/31/2003 1:19:34 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

What's the source of the temperature data in that graph?

The Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen study uses average Northern Hemphisphere surface temperatures.

The webpage containing the graph is: http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/

it doesn't show the warming since the mid-1800s (which is 0.6-0.8 C in the surface instrumental record)?

You can always look at link I provided above to Muller's History of Climate introduction, which presents the full range of data he used right up to 1999 or thereabouts.

Beginning in the early 1900s, the climate of the world began to warm. This is evident in Figure 1-1, which shows the average Earth surface temperature from 1880 through 1999. The temperature is an area-weighted average over the land and ocean compiled by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, using an averaging technique devised by Quayle et al. ; see also . In the plot, "zero" temperature is defined as the temperature in 1950. The fine line shows the monthly temperatures; the thicker line shows the 12 month yearly averages.

 

But in the modern timeframe, the Antarctic is partially decoupled from processes happening in the rest of the world.

Actually I was wrong on the 2400 year data set, I didn't look to verify and assumed Vostok Data, after checking Muller's introduction, the actual data set used was

Data from a kilometer long core taken from the Greenland glacier, as part of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project "GISP2" , are shown in Figure 1-2. For comparison purposes, the zero of temperature scale for this plot was set to match that of the previous plot. For historical interest, we marked some events from European history.


37 posted on 10/31/2003 1:19:47 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
BTTT!!!!!
38 posted on 10/31/2003 1:27:39 PM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
I'll reply early next week. Too much to say for the available time today.

39 posted on 10/31/2003 1:32:56 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
Short note: that is interesting. I suspect that Mann has used GISP2 data, as his map of proxy data locations shows two ice core records from Greenland. But it would require significantly more work to be certain of that.

This makes the plot more interesting, because one of the reasons that Mann's data has been repeatedly criticized is that it eliminated the "Medieval Warm Period". If you look at the multi-record graph above, there is a warmer period roughly 900-1300 preceding the cooler period of about 1400-1800 (coldest around 1600-1750?). But because the data records are supposed to be global representations, the regional signals are reduced. The Medieval Warm Period was quite warm in Europe and the FennoScandian region, and some of this warmth may have transferred over to Greenland; thus, GISP2 has more pronounced warm periods in the "Medieval" range than the global records.

More next week.

40 posted on 10/31/2003 1:44:02 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
So, if I'm reading this right, the plotted (air?) temperature is flucating rapidly (and strongly!) recently, but WITH A TREND CENTERED ON 0.0 CHANGE; but the CO2 readings are simply and slowly rising.

In other words, average global air temperatures ARE NOT BEING affected by the measured CO2 changes, but demonstrable CO2 CHANGES have taken place.

It's not clear from the article from which the graph was obtained whether the temperature readings referenced are global or local to the Vostok ice core site; I suspect the latter because I don't think the globe has seen that much temperature variability over the last 40 years.

The question of whether or not average global atmospheric temperatures are being influenced by rising CO2 concentrations is the primary question being discussed. The fairly rapid increase in global temperatures over the past 25-28 years has been cited as a good indicator that the influence of GHGs due primarily to fossil fuel burning and other human activities is affecting the Earth's climate to some extent. Accurately attributing the amount of change due to the human influence vs. natural causes of variability is very difficult.

What is the predicted CO2 change that the global warmist eco-enviro's fear?

From my reading, an increase in global temperature more rapid than 2.5-3 degrees C per century is more likely to result in the collapse of natural ecosystems rather than the adaptation of natural ecosystems. I just wrote a bit on another thread about what "sensitive" means, but to be brief, a "sensitive" ecosystem will respond more rapidly and drastically to change in a climate factor than a non-sensitive ecosystem. How it changes depends on the ecosystem.

AS I inderstand their previous "crisis summaries", we have already gotten about 1/3 through the maximum rise in CO2 they fear.

That's hard to tell. Peak CO2 concentrations could be as high as 550 ppmv, but I think most models end up at 475-500 ppmv. We're at about 360 ppmv now, up from 280 ppmv. Your estimate is in the right range.

But we've not seen any massive increase in temperatures. (Yet - temps (if they've risen - and that is debatable) are only up 1/2 -1/3 of a degree.)

It's a cumulative effect. Say you lay down on a bed. You get covered with a sheet. That allows some heat retention. Then the sheet gets covered with a blanket. You'd stay warmer, correct? What would happen if the blanket was then covered with a down comforter?

We may just now be reaching the point where the temperature effect is noticeable.

Why then are they predicting so large a temp increase, if so little is already changed?

See above. The key phrase is "positive feedback"; quantifying that is still in its early stages and therefore quite uncertain.

Do their computer models add a fudge factor to continue "ramping" temperature UP after the CO2 levels are stable? Or are they predicting massive failures of everything (global folloding, drought, feast, and famine) based on the 1 degree rise?

Not sure on the first question, no to the second question. A total 1 degree C rise wouldn't be bad at all, even a 1 C rise in the 21st century over where we are now. But as I said, a 2.5-3 C change over 100 years is considered by many ecologists to be unadaptable by natural ecosystems.

41 posted on 11/04/2003 10:14:39 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Good response! Thanks.

Considering your "sheets" analogy, I'd consider though, that the effect is like predicting total catastrophy ( a fever of 107) if 3 sheets are present, but seeing (at best) merely questionable results when 1 sheet is present: a change equal to 98.6 to 98.65.

All the while, though the doctors are measuring the body's temperature due the sheet - and viciously attacking the sheet makers, the bankers, and the cotton farmers! - while ignoring the change in the radiated heat from the heat lamp plugged in the overhead socket that has an invisible rheostat.

Regrettably, the politics of anti-capital/anti-American/anti-Bush hatred must be removed from the study.

It pollutes the emotions (and judgement) of the research.
42 posted on 11/04/2003 1:07:07 PM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only support FR by donating monthly, but ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson