Funkthulhu

Countryboy, it is obvious from your posts that you have absolutely no idea how science funding works. . .

Let us pretend for a brief moment that there were a paradigm shift in the understanding of global warming. It would start with a few papers, and as more scientists checked the data they would run their own experiments and write their own papers. The grant-funding would be insane if all your applicants wanted to bust out this new idea, and science funding would probably (at least for awhile) go up to accommodate all this new research. This, in turn would mean more and higher paying jobs for scientists whether they work for private industry or the government. So, right there, your premise is completely false.

Now, about who funds what. Have you looked at congress lately? They couldn't agree that water was good if their heads were on fire. But you say they've already agreed not only that there is global warming and it is anthropogenic, but also that the science funding (quite literally a drop in the federal budget bucket) must be so heavy handedly controlled that they will only fund science that agrees with their opinion? As for the Koch brothers, caliboy already pointed out that their own study showed that climate change was happening. If anything, the fact that the scientific community is wary of tainted money in their science means that the papers written with that money will receive more than the average amount of peer-review scrutiny. If the science is politically/economically biased and the conclusions are proven wrong than the Theory is stronger for having disproven some opposition. If the conclusions are shown to be correct by peer-review the Theory is stronger because even those in conflict with the results still came up with the same results. (and just to be clear, what you call "theory" a scientist calls a Hypothesis, and what a scientist calls a "Theory" the rest of the world calls a fact. . .)

Science, in general is a self-correcting system that cannot long be duped be even the most industrious of usurpers.

__________________
"Ph'nglui musaglw'nanna Funkthulhu R'Omahaea wgah'basjoo fhtagn"
"In his house at Omaha, dread Funkthulhu plants bananas."

Abnshrek

So, is that why cars aren't more fuel efficient or have like another gear for interstate travel? MPG is outdated being set @ 55MPH with all the interstates, and country roads where the speed limit is higher than 55.. 65 here in LA, and 70 mph in Texas.. Now the people speeding surely aren't getting good gas milage.. I like how all the Cars that get crappy mileage compared to what they could get are all painted to be so fun to drive..

__________________


I'm a Nannerhead :^)

Funkthulhu

I would love to be able to afford something new and German. The exterior and interior design meant for long-term Autobahn driving speeds and new smooth transmission designs with upwards of 10 or 12 "gears" even though you can't feel the shift. . . And, compared to American standards, ridiculous MPGs (And Diesel cars!).

automotive bliss

__________________
"Ph'nglui musaglw'nanna Funkthulhu R'Omahaea wgah'basjoo fhtagn"
"In his house at Omaha, dread Funkthulhu plants bananas."

Abnshrek

Bliss is right I rented a VW Passat to go to the 2013 Gulf Coast Banana Convention (as my squeeze calls it) that thing hauled, drove like a dream, and still got 36 MPH's.. So as long as its German its Engineered to get it.. well for the most part.. Nothing is certain.. I think the Worst rental has been a Nissan, talk about some crappy mileage I should've drove my Suburban, and it was a Beep Beep..WTF?.. :^)

__________________


I'm a Nannerhead :^)

Nicolas Naranja

I have added in the past seven years of data and now there is no statistically significant increase in temperatures over that time period. While there is a numerical increase since the 1920s, there has actually been a numerical decrease in temps since 1990.


I originally wrote this based on a talk I went to seven years ago:

The increase in average temperature in Belle Glade over 90 years is well documented and easily accessible. The lows have gotten warmer during most months. However, January has seen a decrease in average temperatures over time.

__________________
Some people go bananas, I went plantains.

CountryBoy1981

I would naturally expect temperature increases because of the growth of the cities, buildings, and roads. I think we all know that the warmest location is next to a building structure, it simply holds in more heat than bare ground.

Nicolas Naranja

The Belle Glade weather station is a rural site. It is 3 miles from an urbanized area and 1/2 mile away from any buildings. The warming that is happening around the world is very real, but it is not evenly distributed. I would argue that on a local level, land use changes have more impact. A plowed field will have wider swings in temperature than a forest or prairie. Similarly, the Belle Glade site was a swamp, all that water dampens the intraday variability in temperature. We rarely get above 95 and rarely get below 35.

__________________
Some people go bananas, I went plantains.

caliboy1994

This "slowdown" has been observed worldwide and is partially due to the fact that humans have all but stopped emitting CFCs into the atmosphere thanks to the Montreal Protocol. CFCs are some of the most powerful greenhouse gases, with hundreds to thousands of times the warming potential of CO2. Their levels are now relatively stable in the atmosphere.

The recent "slowdown" of warming trends associated with climate change (which is not at all that significant) could also be a result of the fact that we're entering a cooler phase of the PDO cycle right now (see below). But there is still an overall warming trend. That cannot be refuted.

__________________




"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

Find me on Photobucket here:
http://s1061.photobucket.com/profile/musamaniac

Nicolas Naranja

When I put the data in a linear model, my r-squared is tiny and my p-value is insignificant. While there is a positive trend over the period, it seems to be dwarfed by the overall natural variation. None of the journals I publish in would let me publish about something with a r-square of 0.01 and a p-value of 0.2.

__________________
Some people go bananas, I went plantains.

momoese

For anyone who is interested in weather patterns, here is is 2013.

A Year of Weather 2013 - YouTube

Yug

95%-of-climate-models-disagree-with-actual-observations

(excerpt from article)
These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.

I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):

(chart)

Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.

And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats.
(end excerpt)

(my comment: Are the people behind 95% of the 'Global Warming' climate model predictions 'cooking' the data or just too dumb to be 'scientists'?)

Lucasme

Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen

Posted on 6 September 2011 by Rob Painting, dana1981

Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, has released a scientific paper (Dessler 2011) that looks at the claims made by two of a small group of "skeptic" climate scientists who regular SkS readers will be familiar with: Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen. Both were co-authors on peer-reviewed papers released this year (Spencer & Braswell [2011] & Lindzen & Choi [2011]) which, once again, sought to overturn the orthodox view of climate. Dessler (2011) finds that the conclusions of these two papers are unsupported by observational data.

Spencer & Lindzen: Tipping reality on its head

The Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi papers have an unusual take on global warming: rather than warming causing a change in cloud cover (i.e. acting as a feedback to either increase or reduce warming), both papers claim that it's the other way around - changes in cloud cover cause changes in the surface temperature (in the present case, warming).

Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi look at the relationship between changes in ocean heat, cloud cover (directly affecting the amount of heat lost to space), and global surface temperature over recent decades. The idea is, if the change in surface temperature over that period is affected by changes in cloud cover, but changes of the surface temperature associated with the ocean warming are small, then changes in cloud cover must be driving the present global warming.

Dessler: Putting reality back on its feet

Putting aside the problems with their energy budget equation, Dessler looks at the values Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi use for their calculations. Rather than examine the data for two of the terms in their equation (heating of the climate by the ocean & change in cloud cover allowing heat to escape to space), Lindzen and Spencer approximate them from other observations, and their results rely heavily on assumptions about the size of these values.

Rather than rely on assumptions, Dessler uses other observational data (such as surface temperature measurements and ARGO ocean temperature) to estimate and corroborate these values. Dessler finds that, in contrast to Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi, the change in cloud cover is far too small to explain the short-term changes in surface temperature, explaining only a few percent of surface temperature change. In fact, the heating of the climate system through ocean heat transport is approximately 20 times larger than the change in top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy flux due to cloud cover changes. Lindzen and Choi assumed the ratio was close to 2, while Spencer and Braswell assumed it was close to 0.5.

Dessler finds that the short-term changes in surface temperature are related to exchanges of heat to and from the ocean - which tallies well with what we know about El Niño and La Niña, and their atmospheric warming/cooling cycles.

Spencer & Braswell: A classic example of cherrypicking

In order to claim that the climate models differ from observations when comparing the surface temperature and energy leaving the Earth at TOA with the lead-lag between them, Spencer/Braswell cherrypick observational data and model results that show the greatest mismatch (Figure 1).





Figure 1: Dessler (2011) reconstruction of Spencer & Braswell's figure 3, showing relationship between top-of-atmosphere (TOA) net flux and surface temperature, as a function of lag between them. The blue line is the observational data chosen by Spencer and Braswell. The red lines show other available observational data. The shading represents the two-sigma uncertainty of two of the data sets. The black lines show climate model results. The black lines with crosses show the climate model runs chosen by Spencer and Braswell in their paper.

The blue line in Figure 1 is the TOA and Hadley Centre surface temperature data chosen by Spencer/Braswell, and the red includes other datasets of the surface temperature. The black lines are the 13 climate model runs, with the 'crosses' indicating 5 of the 6 models analysed by Spencer/Braswell. Although Spencer/Braswell analyzed 14 models, they only plotted the 3 with highest and 3 with lowest equilibrium climate sensitivities.

In the process, Spencer and Braswell excluded the three climate model runs which best matched the observational data. Dessler found that these three model runs were also the ones which are among the best at simulating El Niño and La Niña, which is not surprising, given that much of the temperature change over 2000-2010 was due to the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Thus Dessler concludes that

"since most of the climate variations over this period were due to ENSO, this suggests that the ability to reproduce ENSO is what's being tested here, not anything directly related to equilibrium climate sensitivity."

Violating the Laws of Thermodynamics

Dessler also examines the mathematical formula that both studies use to calculate the Earth's energy budget, and finds that it may violate the laws of thermodynamics - allowing for the impossible situation where ocean warming is able to cause ocean warming.

Much ado about nothing

The short-term change in surface temperature over the 2000-2010 period is a result of ocean heat being exchanged with the atmosphere (via ENSO). This in turn alters atmospheric circulation, which alters cloud cover, but the impact of cloud cover on surface temperature only explains a small percentage of the surface temperature change. Thus the lead-lag relationship between heat leaving the Earth at TOA and surface temperature reveals nothing about what is driving the short-term surface temperature change.

In short, the "skeptic" hypothesis that changes in cloud cover due to internal variability are driving global warming does not hold up when compared to the observational data. Once again we have two heavily-hyped "skeptic" papers that have failed to live up to their billing.



Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer

Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He is known for his work with the satellite-based temperature monitoring for which he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal [Wikipedia].

Dr. Spencer suggests that global warming is mostly due to natural internal variability, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Other professional affiliations: Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian American public policy think tank. Dr. Spencer is also listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" organization

caliboy1994

You do realize that you're citing a denialist who isn't even a climate scientist, who regularly twists data in his favor, and whose old, recycled talking points have been disproven over and over again, right? And you're the one who always complains that we are citing "biased" or "left-wing" sources.

Anthony Watts | DeSmogBlog

__________________




"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

Find me on Photobucket here:
http://s1061.photobucket.com/profile/musamaniac

Funkthulhu

Did you know that you are allowed to change your mind?

Scientists do it all the time. They look at the evidence and if it doesn't jive with what they think they already know they will reassess their knowledge. After a cursory round of mental conflict resolution they will either accept the new data and make whatever changes to their world view as necessary, Or they will continue to do research and experiments to determine if there is anything to the new data that needs exploring.

This is what it means to be a skeptic. Being a skeptic is NOT automatically naysaying anything that doesn't agree with your opinion. That is being closed-minded (though, ironically, the ones who are will usually be the first to cry that their debate opponent is the one who is closed-minded).

Furthermore, the scientific community has already moved on past "is global warming a thing that is happening" (it is) and gone right past it to "Is the phenomenon of global warming anthropogenic" (it is) and even further to "how do we curtail human activities that are causing global warming?". Nobody arguing here against anthropogenic global warming (and local climate change) is going to shift that paradigm in any way. The naysayers are useful, as science does not stay strong without opposition and the retesting of ideas. But, again, nobody on this or any other non-scientific forum on the internet is going to accomplish anything in that regard.

Which brings the bigger question. In the shadow of such overwhelming evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a real, active phenomenon, why do so many continue to throw so much easily deflected fodder at the concept and refuse to accept? Why, to simplify, can't some people change their minds?

Is it Political? Do your preferred talking heads tell you that understanding global warming somehow undermines your moral or ethics? How you vote? How big a paycheck Exxon will give out as Christmas bonus this year?

Is it personal? Do you refuse to change your mind because that would show you are fallible and not a god unto yourself?

Is it in defense of your species? Do you have some responsibility or empathic response to accepting that your small taxonomical group is destroying its own environment?

I am really curious. . . do you actually think this is some sort of conspiracy? That the whole of the scientific community is somehow trying to pull the wool over your eyes? And to what ends would that lead? How would duping the public on something like this benefit science or the world at all?

The scientific community has already accepted anthropogenic global warming as FACT.

What non-scientific "thing" is keeping you from doing the same?

__________________
"Ph'nglui musaglw'nanna Funkthulhu R'Omahaea wgah'basjoo fhtagn"
"In his house at Omaha, dread Funkthulhu plants bananas."

Nicolas Naranja

First, I will agree that the globe as a whole is warming, and that humans are responsible for some of it. However, I don't think that there is really much we can do about global except quit having children. We can address certain parts of the problem, but it seems that the real issue is that there are billions of people on the planet that need to be fed, transported, and energized. Here is an interesting thought. About 1.7 billion tons of sugar from sugarcane is produced each year. There are about 6 CO2 per sugar molecule. We release 9 billion tons of CO2 per year from burning fossil fuels. For a mere $1,246.00 from each and every American we can totally offset the World's fossil fuel emissions buy buying sugar and burying it in a deep hole. By including Europe, we could bring the cost down.

__________________
Some people go bananas, I went plantains.

CountryBoy1981

Whether you believe in global warming or not, you will not make the planet a cleaner/healthier place by destroying industry and technology advancements due to regulations. Water, air and everything else is cleaner in the first world countries than it was about 100 years ago. The only thing you will accomplish by forcing green technology before its ready (such as solar panels) and regulations is create a less healthy environment. I think there would be a lot of Americans who would go back to burning wood to heat their homes if heating costs were to rise significantly due to regulations/carbon credits. The global warming sheep are cutting off their nose to spite their face with their solutions.

Funkthulhu

Again, you obviously don't understand how environmental regulations work. You just said that our water and air is cleaner than it was 100 year ago (even 20 years ago!) So obviously, our regulations are working. Most of the people who call me or my agency are looking for answers about how they can be more green because they want to be. Even the most obstinate of business owners will whistle a different tune when we show them how adhering to the regulations will actually save them money. Nobody has ever made progress by destroying industry. But by passing regulations to make those industries more efficient they not only produce less carbon, but also produce more product for the same amount of raw materials. Furthermore, if there are no targets on the amount of pollution or the efficiency of production there will be no capitalistic endeavor to ever produce a more economic solar panel or a more efficient wind turbine. If anything it is the Global Warming deniers who willing spite their own faces just to say "See, it isn't working!"

__________________
"Ph'nglui musaglw'nanna Funkthulhu R'Omahaea wgah'basjoo fhtagn"
"In his house at Omaha, dread Funkthulhu plants bananas."

CountryBoy1981

You seem to not understand how capitalism works. What regulations produced Microsoft, the NFL, Amazon.com and countless other businesses? Adhering to regulations will save you money only as much as shooting yourself in the foot saves your life (instead of shooting yourself in the head).

caliboy1994

I'd like to reiterate on Funkthulhu's statement. You are missing the point of environmental regulations. And you seem to have an aversion to regulation in general. You do realize that without environmental regulations, the water you're drinking would poison you, the air you breathe would suffocate you, and the chemicals in your food would give you cancer? Do you want to see lack of environmental regulations looks like? Look no further than China.



Yes, that is a city you are looking at. But you can't see many of the buildings because of dense industrial smog. Maybe if China had passed something akin to the Clean Air Act things would be better, hm? I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a slightly smaller economy with some regulations than have my children turned autistic by lead and mercury in the air. Or have myself die of lung cancer at age 50 because of air pollution. I'd also not like to have industrial pollutants in my drinking water, thank you very much. Did you hear about what is happening in Russia at the Sochi Olympics right now? The water in the hotels looks like apple juice because it is contaminated. This, my friend, is what lack of proper regulation looks like:



And then there are plenty of examples of improper regulation in the United States. Like the lack of regulation of endocrine disrupting compounds, which are turning our male children effeminate and causing premature puberty in girls. Or the inadequate oversight of our good friends over at Freedom Industries, the party responsible for the chemical spill in West Virginia. And of course, the whole point of climate regulations is to try and mitigate things like the polar vortex, which is also responsible for my state's ongoing record-breaking drought. Not to mention the long-term effects we will see from anthropogenic climate change, and that we are already beginning to see. No, I think it's people like you who call for less regulations that are shooting themselves in the foot. Or even, dare I say it, shooting themselves in the head.

__________________




"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

Find me on Photobucket here:
http://s1061.photobucket.com/profile/musamaniac

caliboy1994

You bothered to plot all of that data and find a best-fitting line and calculate an r squared value? Wow, I did not expect that. By the way, that chart is of the PDO index, not of temperatures. It's a measurement of a long-term climate cycle, which is similar in a way to El Nino/La Nina but over a longer time span (i.e. decades). It's a cycle that affects global climate, and its effects can be seen in overall global average temperatures. I don't think doing all of that work would get you anywhere, it's more of a variable that affects natural variations in the overall warming trend.

__________________




"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

Find me on Photobucket here:
http://s1061.photobucket.com/profile/musamaniac