• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An Overview of Modern Global Warming

They used many of the same proxies. Since Hegerl did not bother to define the temporal resolution
of his proxies, we are left to speculate, if, or how he got more resolution out of the same proxies as other studies.
The bottom line is that including an instrumental record with a low resolution proxy record,
produces meaningless data, and adds nothing to the graph.
The calibration error alone, could exceed the entire measurement.
(just how accurate of a thermometer is a tree, and what is it calibrated to?)

What on Earth are you talking about? The Hegerl paper is entirely concerned with the determination of variability over the timescale in question. The temporal resolution is 10 years. That's what decadal means! (And, BTW, Gabriele Hegerl is a she, not a he, as you might have noticed had you actually bothered looking at the paper.)

Edit: Feel free to carry on rubbishing Jack's source though. It's no skin off my nose.
 
What on Earth are you talking about? The Hegerl paper is entirely concerned with the determination of variability over the timescale in question. The temporal resolution is 10 years. That's what decadal means! (
Where does it say in the paper that they have a 10 year temporal resolution?
The paper does bring up the concern of mixing various temporal resolution proxies,
A further concern is that some tree-ring data, which dominate the input to most high-resolution surface proxy composites, may not adequately recover low-frequency centennial–millennial-scale variability unless standardized to preserve low-frequency information
But then throws those concerns out the window, when they include the instrument record on the graph.
 
Where does it say in the paper that they have a 10 year temporal resolution?
The paper does bring up the concern of mixing various temporal resolution proxies,

But then throws those concerns out the window, when they include the instrument record on the graph.

Here’s the definitive paper on temperature proxies. Published 2017 with hundreds of proxies, and not in 2007 with a few.

A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era | Scientific Data

The high resolution proxies have a median resolution of five years.

a6d742b7c43e643be5fc3d6a5639e6a7.jpg



The resolution issue clearly isn’t one...

But I expect that Longview will use his ‘resolution argument’ again in many many threads in the future, hoping we all forgot.
 
Hmm, it looks like Jack's trusted sources have been up to their graph-doctoring tricks again.

This is the graph quoted by Jack's source (Javier) and attributed to G.C. Hegerl et al. 2007. J. Clim. 20, 4, 650-666:

figure-103.png


Whereas this is that actual graph from that paper:

i1520-0442-20-4-650-f02.jpeg


Looks like the instrument record was a little too inconvenient to include. Never mind, Photoshop to the rescue! :lol:

Here's a link to the original paper:

Detection of Human Influence on a New, Validated 1500-Year Temperature Reconstruction

I'm traveling at the moment so I'll check this out later today. Last time you claimed a graph had been doctored you turned out to be wrong. That will probably be the case this time too.
 
Here’s the definitive paper on temperature proxies. Published 2017 with hundreds of proxies, and not in 2007 with a few.

A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era | Scientific Data

The high resolution proxies have a median resolution of five years.

a6d742b7c43e643be5fc3d6a5639e6a7.jpg



The resolution issue clearly isn’t one...

But I expect that Longview will use his ‘resolution argument’ again in many many threads in the future, hoping we all forgot.
So did you get that figure from the paper you cited? which figure # was it?
https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788
I did not see it in the paper.
 
We can argue over minutiae but the reality is quite a bit different.
When we look at the known inputs to our climate system, there is almost no room left
for the predicted amplified feedbacks.
warming_sources.png
Averaged over 10 years the Hadcrut 4 warming since 1950 is about .9C.
The energy imbalance from the increase in CO2 is 2.04 Wm-2 which the forcing accounts for .612 C
The energy imbalance from the increase in CH4 is .47 Wm-2 or .141 C
and the energy imbalance from the increase in TSI is .308 Wm-2 or .092 C
This leaves warming from unknown sources at .055C for the last 167 years.
 
We can argue over minutiae but the reality is quite a bit different.
When we look at the known inputs to our climate system, there is almost no room left
for the predicted amplified feedbacks.
View attachment 67229321
Averaged over 10 years the Hadcrut 4 warming since 1950 is about .9C.
The energy imbalance from the increase in CO2 is 2.04 Wm-2 which the forcing accounts for .612 C
The energy imbalance from the increase in CH4 is .47 Wm-2 or .141 C
and the energy imbalance from the increase in TSI is .308 Wm-2 or .092 C
This leaves warming from unknown sources at .055C for the last 167 years.

Is that your work or from some paper?

And what is the result of a doubling of CO2 from that?
 
Is that your work or from some paper?

And what is the result of a doubling of CO2 from that?
A little of both, here are my sources.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html
ΔFCO2 = (5.35 W·m–2) ln(265/185) = 1.9 W·m–2
They then went on to say,
The radiative forcing for CH4 is determined in a way analogous to that for CO2.
For the increase of CH4 from about 375 to about 675 ppb, ΔFCH4 ≈ 0.3 W·m–2
I worked backwards from their CH4 number to arrive at
ΔFCH4= .510 X ln(CH4_high/CH4_Low)= .510 X ln(1822/792)=.42 W·m–2
(woops, my hand writing is bad, my .42 looked like .47 in my notebook. It changes the unknown to .07C)
For TSI I used a 10 year average from
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.txt
I am simply trying to see what the known sources add up to.
Here is the graph(after I found a mistake)
warming_sources.png
 
A little of both, here are my sources.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html

They then went on to say,

I worked backwards from their CH4 number to arrive at
ΔFCH4= .510 X ln(CH4_high/CH4_Low)= .510 X ln(1822/792)=.42 W·m–2
(woops, my hand writing is bad, my .42 looked like .47 in my notebook. It changes the unknown to .07C)
For TSI I used a 10 year average from
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.txt
I am simply trying to see what the known sources add up to.
Here is the graph(after I found a mistake)
View attachment 67229328

I'm impressed but sort of a bit beyond me. If I ever could do that maths I have forgotten it.

What is your figure for the ECS after a doubling of CO2?
 
Not s scientist, don’t understand the charts and terms here, but unless I missed it, couldn’t find a “therefore” on the posts. Do we burn more or less coal and oil?

Am left to conclude what I thought years ago when this issue first came up: that liberals, who don’t mind government or other regulations of the economy will tend to believe the science, and conservatives, who dislike regulations, will tend not to believe the science and support alternative theories. Fits a pattern on issues going back a century. But even if the climate science is faulty, shouldn’t we be limiting use of fossil fuels and seeking alternatives for other reasons?
 
I'm impressed but sort of a bit beyond me. If I ever could do that maths I have forgotten it.

What is your figure for the ECS after a doubling of CO2?
Just a rough guess, about 1.8 C, based upon.
If the atmospheric amplifier exists, it has always existed, so earlier warming would be subject to amplification as well.
We could safely say that the .2 C of warming that occurred before 1940, is close to reaching full
equilibrium, (I think Hansen said 70% in 70 years).
If we assume 100% of .07 C of unknown is a result of that amplification, then the amplification
factor would be,
.07/.7 (to account for the 70% equalization)=.1 fully equalized.
If an input of .2 C of warming produced a fully equalized .2+.1=.3 of warming,
The amplification factor would be 1.5 times input.
If the input for 2XCO2 is 1.2 C then the ECS would be 1.2X1.5=1.8 C
 
Not s scientist, don’t understand the charts and terms here, but unless I missed it, couldn’t find a “therefore” on the posts. Do we burn more or less coal and oil?

Am left to conclude what I thought years ago when this issue first came up: that liberals, who don’t mind government or other regulations of the economy will tend to believe the science, and conservatives, who dislike regulations, will tend not to believe the science and support alternative theories. Fits a pattern on issues going back a century. But even if the climate science is faulty, shouldn’t we be limiting use of fossil fuels and seeking alternatives for other reasons?
The science is saying that the climate's sensitivity to added CO2 is low enough that we we do not need
to place unnecessary burdens on our economy at this time.
We do still have a very real energy problem, that will need addressing, but not because of CO2.

Our fossil fuels will price themselves out of the market soon enough.
 
WTF are you talking about? The graph shows decadal estimates from proxies. Where did you get 600 years from?

"Estimates from proxies?"

Just let that sink in for a minute or too.

Is this what they call "data" in this absurd "science?"


 
Even the statement "The evidence supports a higher sensitivity to increased CO2 in the cryosphere," must be taken with
a grain of salt, as the Southern cryosphere has seen minimal warming.



All I know is that there have been a whole lot of lies on both sides....but no one on the anti side has an explanation why a 2,000 yr old glacier I used to hike has disappeared in the last 30 years.

I would also like an explanation why, when I moved here no one had ever heard of a "crossover fire" (when a wildfire is able to cross into residential areas). As a newsman I covered wildfires, at least one a year and only once was a mining camp evacuated.

Since 2007 we have had a steadily increasing amount of cross over fires, the wildfires are three times more frequent and, because of 20 years of unseasonable dryness the forest floors are a tinder box. More territory burned in BC the last five years than has burned in the last 200.

The only explanation that makes sense is that the climate for this 'rain forest' region has changed to a far more arid one in too short a time. If there is another one that can withstand the scrutiny of the experts on wildfires, go ahead and post. However, I can tell you every other possibility has been exhausted and rejected.

When the glaciers disappear the ground water disappears, the ground gets hotter, dryer, rian fall less than half the former average for 20 years.....the world changes around you.

The good news? Canada's arctic will become the new Hawaii
 
All I know is that there have been a whole lot of lies on both sides....but no one on the anti side has an explanation why a 2,000 yr old glacier I used to hike has disappeared in the last 30 years.

I would also like an explanation why, when I moved here no one had ever heard of a "crossover fire" (when a wildfire is able to cross into residential areas). As a newsman I covered wildfires, at least one a year and only once was a mining camp evacuated.

Since 2007 we have had a steadily increasing amount of cross over fires, the wildfires are three times more frequent and, because of 20 years of unseasonable dryness the forest floors are a tinder box. More territory burned in BC the last five years than has burned in the last 200.

The only explanation that makes sense is that the climate for this 'rain forest' region has changed to a far more arid one in too short a time. If there is another one that can withstand the scrutiny of the experts on wildfires, go ahead and post. However, I can tell you every other possibility has been exhausted and rejected.

When the glaciers disappear the ground water disappears, the ground gets hotter, dryer, rian fall less than half the former average for 20 years.....the world changes around you.

The good news? Canada's arctic will become the new Hawaii
I really have no doubt the climate is changing, as to the 2000 year old glacier, what was going on 2000 years
ago that the glacier started forming?
We see these things in Human perspectives and Human lifetimes, but that does not automatically mean a Human cause.
The Glacier is likely caused because of more soot.
I don't know how to look at the BC records, but has it gotten noticeably warmer in the early mornings?
That seems to be the pattern in most places besides deserts.
 
The science is saying that the climate's sensitivity to added CO2 is low enough that we we do not need
to place unnecessary burdens on our economy at this time.
We do still have a very real energy problem, that will need addressing, but not because of CO2.

Our fossil fuels will price themselves out of the market soon enough.

Some science says x, other science, y. The dominant analysis seems to be that we should do some things. Oil and coal produce smog, disease, and the economy has been doing fine (aside from distribution of new wealth) for years. One person's unnecessary burden is another's easier breathing.
 
The science is saying that the climate's sensitivity to added CO2 is low enough that we we do not need
to place unnecessary burdens on our economy at this time.
We do still have a very real energy problem, that will need addressing, but not because of CO2.

Our fossil fuels will price themselves out of the market soon enough.

The science isn’t saying that.

YOU are pretending the science says that.

Actual scientists have made their views clear.
 
Some science says x, other science, y. The dominant analysis seems to be that we should do some things. Oil and coal produce smog, disease, and the economy has been doing fine (aside from distribution of new wealth) for years. One person's unnecessary burden is another's easier breathing.
Actually some scientist see the data and add subjective multiplication factors on future data,
other more practical scientist, see the data and assume the future will progress much like the past.
Coal will die on it's own soon enough(and should), oil will not be far behind.
To fill the energy deficit, we need a way to store the alternate energy, and a way to make more.
We cannot get off of oil until a viable replacement is in place.
Locally taxing oil before the replacement is ready is simply poor economic planning.
 
The science isn’t saying that.

YOU are pretending the science says that.

Actual scientists have made their views clear.
You have not convinced me that you are capable of understanding what the science says.
All of your arguments are simple appeals to authority.
Address the data, and not what others say about it.
 
You have not convinced me that you are capable of understanding what the science says.
All of your arguments are simple appeals to authority.
Address the data, and not what others say about it.

Seems to me that citing authorities in an extremely complex scientific area is...entirely appropriate.

You, however, have convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt that you don’t care what the science says.

Much like a creationist, you’ll devise all sorts of scientific sounding arguments to pose as a rational thinker.
 
Seems to me there is a pattern here: tobacco, acid rain, ozone layer. Some folks deny, some panic. After deliberation, steps are taken. Things get better: fewer smokers, forests slowly coming back, ozone problem diminishing. I assume the same will happen with climate change. It seems the entire world is on board, with skepticism confined to part of the GOP/conservative movements in the US. Scientists will continue to test and argue. If new analysis suggests we should mine and burn more coal, we will. Skeptics should write up their studies, get them peer reviewed, have them published and then get called by Inhof to testify.
 
Seems to me that citing authorities in an extremely complex scientific area is...entirely appropriate.

You, however, have convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt that you don’t care what the science says.

Much like a creationist, you’ll devise all sorts of scientific sounding arguments to pose as a rational thinker.
I care what the data says, I only care what individual scientist say when they can support their statements with data.
While the quantum energy states of CO2 are complex, the actual results are not.
Earlier in this thread I posted this graph, related to the know amounts of forcing warming compared
to the observed warming.
warming_sources.png
Let's take them one at a time base on the currently accepted science.
The observed temperature according to the HadCrut4 set has increased by .9 C since 1850
on a 10 year average.

CO2 has increased from 285 ppm to 406 ppm,
To keep from hitting a moving target I used Baede, 2001's 2XCO2 number of 4 W·m–2,
so 4/ln(2)=5.77, 5.77 X ln(406/285)=2.04 W·m–2
The conversion used by Baede and the American Chemical society is that .3C per W·m–2.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html
so 2.04 W·m–2 X .3 = .612 C from the added CO2 forcing

CH4 levels have increased from 792 ppb to 1822 ppb, resulting in an energy imbalance of,
.51 X ln(1822/792)=.42 W·m–2 or .42 X .3= .126 C forcing warming.
The .51 multiplier, is from the ACS page above
The radiative forcing for CH4 is determined in a way analogous to that for CO2.
For the increase of CH4 from about 375 to about 675 ppb, ΔFCH4 ≈ 0.3 W·m–2.

Please stop me if you spot any errors, or cannot follow along.

lastly, since 1850 the total solar iridescence, on a 10 year average, has increased by .308 W·m–2,
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.txt
The external imbalance would also cause forcing of .308 W·m–2 X .3 =.092 C
These know factors add up to .83 C of the observed .90 C of warming,
leaving only .07 C for all possible other factors, including positive feedbacks, aerosol reductions, ect.

Much of the alarmist concerns are based on the idea of the results of doubling the CO2 level.
It looks like the ECS if we could actually double the CO2 level would be about 1.8 C.
I think we will be off of fossil fuels long before we get close to doubling the CO2 level.
 
Some science says x, other science, y. The dominant analysis seems to be that we should do some things. Oil and coal produce smog, disease, and the economy has been doing fine (aside from distribution of new wealth) for years. One person's unnecessary burden is another's easier breathing.

Today vast amountos of food are used as fuel, 40% of US grain alone. This has caused the price of basic food to increase by 30% to 70%, and that's just the US action, the EU is doing a similar thing.

This is causing, my guess, at least 20 million people per year to die extra than would be if we stopped it.

This is done in the name of biofuel.

This hyped panic about a slightly warmer world, which has no significant down sides, has allowed to be caused mass deaths in number greater than any other since the Mongol invaisions.

Do you want the poor of the world to die even more so you can be a good follower of a fashion you don't understand?
 
Seems to me there is a pattern here: tobacco, acid rain, ozone layer. Some folks deny, some panic. After deliberation, steps are taken. Things get better: fewer smokers, forests slowly coming back, ozone problem diminishing. I assume the same will happen with climate change. It seems the entire world is on board, with skepticism confined to part of the GOP/conservative movements in the US. Scientists will continue to test and argue. If new analysis suggests we should mine and burn more coal, we will. Skeptics should write up their studies, get them peer reviewed, have them published and then get called by Inhof to testify.
Abstract art and conspiracy theories work, because the human brain looks for (and often finds) patterns
even where none exists.
Skepticism is a normal part of Science, it is the part that got corrupted by people saying
and believing "The Science is settled". Science is never really settled.
Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Absolutely!
The question about reducing CO2 emissions to limit global warming, is much more complex.
 
Seems to me there is a pattern here: tobacco, acid rain, ozone layer. Some folks deny, some panic. After deliberation, steps are taken. Things get better: fewer smokers, forests slowly coming back, ozone problem diminishing. I assume the same will happen with climate change. It seems the entire world is on board, with skepticism confined to part of the GOP/conservative movements in the US. Scientists will continue to test and argue. If new analysis suggests we should mine and burn more coal, we will. Skeptics should write up their studies, get them peer reviewed, have them published and then get called by Inhof to testify.

Sorry, but the most significant opponents of AGW orthodoxy are Europeans and Israeli. Politically they are Social Democrats.
 
Back
Top Bottom