Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

reply to post by Schrecken Licht


Wow, that's some unique logic you have there.

So I guess by this line of thinking if someone goes to the doctor and the doctor tells them they have lung cancer, but fortunately they caught it early and there's a good chance they can be saved with surgery - that person should just say "no thanks, surgery's expensive and complicated. Besides, science usually gets proven wrong about this stuff eventually, I think we should just sit this one out and see what happens...heck, in fact - I think I should smoke MORE! Quit being so arrogant Doc."

You know if you had tried to make this point about the cosmos or quantum physics or something like that, maybe I could see what you're saying. But climate science, as complicated as it sounds in the details, isn't some esoteric, mysteries-of-the-universe type enigma.

It comes down to some pretty basic principles - the more energy you add in to a system the more it is bound to heat up. We know this is going to happen. The only part under any sort of debate is how much, how fast, and how bad it is going to get. And the more time has passed, the more the planet has showed us it's even worse than we projected:

Sea levels rising faster than expected: scientists
Models Underestimate Loss of Arctic Sea Ice
Despite Climategate, IPCC Mostly Underestimates Climate Change
The IPCC messed up over 'Amazongate' – the threat to the Amazon is far worse

So if you really want to make this case about how "we don't know", then you have to give equal credit to the "we don't know, it could actually be even worse than we thought".

And the most logical response to all that yin-yang complication is this:

reply to post by JR MacBeth


Same goes for you bub -

Instead of just trying to brush off such an important issue with lazy rhetorical questions and hypotheticals, why don't you try doing some actual research and then decide for yourself? Have a look at all the skeptical arguments against the science, and what the science says in response:

Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says

Then come back and tell me how much of a "good job" Nathan has done. You guys keep going back to two things: you keep claiming how arrogant the science supposedly is, all the while ignoring your own arrogance in making these claims without knowing anything about the science. And by that I mean the actual science - not the political propaganda surrounding the scientists. That in itself is a whole other story you need to look a little deeper into as well. There were THREE independent investigations from different people/organizations that all exonerated the accused. Furthermore, if you're still suspicious of these investigations you don't even have to accept them. All you have to do is read the emails YOURSELF. Only if you're truly as open-minded as you claim - you'll make sure you get some balance and context while you do:

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?


And then this "intolerance to challenge" BS... If you would actually read the posts, and the links provided within them, instead of just skimming over everything and looking for whatever fits your already preconceived notions, you would see we are all hardly being intolerant here: we are taking every one of Nathans challenges and addressing them, in great detail.

But just because the facts and the evidence show his points are routinely misguided, distorted, or flat out lies doesn't make us intolerant - it just happens to be the FACTS. If he was right about one single thing so far I would gladly acknowledge it. But he hasn't been, not even once - and he quickly tries to throw more myths into the debate before we get too hung up on this fact. So what do you want us to do - give him a pity star and hand out one of those "participant" ribbons you get for finishing last in 3rd grade track and field?

The only thing we are in fact intolerant to is all his knee-jerk dismissal to all the tangible evidence provided - with nothing but repeated conjecture about how brainwashed and intolerant we all are.

Actually the other thing we are intolerant to is people who don't do their homework, but then feel the right to criticize those of us who have. I have done a LOT of research on BOTH SIDES of this issue, meaning I routinely question my supposed "beliefs". In doing so feel I have earned a certain right to speak with confidence and about it. If you have a problem with anything I said - then take it up with what I've said, not with my supposed arrogance or intolerance.

Instead of just adding more worthless conjecture to this already steaming pile - how about you show me where what any of us have said is wrong, and therefore arrogant or intolerant?

Originally posted by Aristophrenia
reply to post by mc_squared

 

I hate to think how many books I have devoured on global warming, facts and myths / propaganda - but still finding many new insights from your posts. Thanks - great work.

Thank you

I've learned a lot from all of you guys too. Heck I even learn something from the deniers every now and then. It's why we're all here.

Now if only some of these guys would get over their own egos and their obsessive compulsive need to prove themselves smarter than the scientists, we'd probably all be better off for it, and this place would most likely be a bastion of ignorance denial.

Instead of, you know - just denial.

The deeper you drill the worse it gets for you.

Do you understand what "noise" is? Obviously you don't.

I know what noise is. My point was that the temperature has fluctuated consistently without any abrupt changes in CO2 levels, so noise (natural variation) clearly overwhelms the effects of CO2.

And you also told me you were going to show it to me. I'm still waiting.

Link here to AR4 on page 631: www.ipcc.ch...

there is virtually no debate that humidity itself results in a resoundingly positive one.

Radiosondes have been scanning the skies for years and they show no hotspot, and therein lies the problem. It is the signature of positive feedback. And as I mentioned earlier, there are a number of empirical studies (Paltridge 2009, Gregory 2009), showing water vapour causes a negative feedback. Positive feedbacks are very rare in nature and most are negative. The IPCC are asking us to believe a small increase in CO2 is enough to cause a large positive feedback loop from water vapour and this feedback loop will lead to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. There is no evidence to support this claim, apart from GIGO models.

Well, let's see - I could leave you all sorts of links showing you how wrong you are about that. Links like these.

The sites that you linked me to essentially claim that Santer and Sherwood have found the hotspot, but Sherwood threw out all the radiosonde observations and measured the temperature by wind-gauge instead and Santer stretched the error bars of the data so wide they simply overlapped with the models and then he claimed that the hotspot might be hidden in the noise. So, for Sherwood to be correct, we have to believe that windshear is a better way to measure temperature than thermometers and for Santer to be correct, we have to conclude that the hotspot is hidden in natural variation.

First of all you understand that the tropospheric hotspot is not a telltale signature of warming from "increased CO2 output" right? It's just a sign of warming. Period.

In the PCM models the hotspot only appears under greenhouse gases. See the pics below. Sure, other forcings might theoretically create a hotspot, but the PCM models are pretty sure that the hotspot is only visible with greenhouse gases.

1. Are you really going to try and argue with all the mountains of evidence that correlate and show the planet clearly warming for the last century?

The planet has been warming for the last century. I don't dispute that, but only by 0.7C, which is well within long-term, established climate trends, and besides, the planet has been warming for 200 years since we emerged from the Little Ice Age (the coldest period in the Holocene).

A much more telltale sign of actual human influence is tropospheric warming versus stratospheric cooling, which is clearly there.

The troposphere hotspot is evidence for positive feedbacks which cause the vast bulk of warming in the GCMs, without feedbacks, the predicted warming drops by about 70%. The troposphere warming and stratosphere cooling is presumably the direct effect of CO2, however, it doesn't take feedbacks into account and without the feedbacks there is no disaster. Also, the signature is very similar to that left by falling-ozone-levels.

Warming = evaporation = humidity = more warming. This is exactly what a feedback is - ding!.

Water is complex and unpredictable. Water vapour can stay humid, turn into low clouds, high clouds, snow or rain, all of which have different effects. If this humidity turned into low clouds or rain for example it would cool the planet.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by Nathan-D]

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
For those who aren't sure what this is about, it's about leaked emails that seemingly prove that Global Warmists may be fabricating and skewing info when it comes to data that fails to fit in with the official theory.

Not everyone agreed, here's a quote from Nigel Lawson:...

You REALLY need to research who you're quoting. Your quotes up there are from Nigel Lawson, known for his conservativism climate skepticism and familial ties to Christopher Monckton, as WELL as having corporate roles in Central European trust (which worked with a number of major corporations, amongst them oil companies) and appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher...

Nigel Lawson

As you can see he also founded the Global Warming Policy Foundation (intentionally harmless/professional sounding name ain't it?) which is a global warming skeptic organization...

Global Warming Policy Foundation

As you can see, their financial contributions are not revealed (hmm, wonder why..?) but they seem to have rented from the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining.

Amongst their ranks is a cornucopia of NON-experts on global warming, many with financial links to mining and fossil fuel industries (namely Exxon), economists, people KNOWN to make ridiculous/false claims rife with errors, and people averse to environmentalism/science. Generally the "Global Warming Policy Foundation" seems at BEST a very inconsequential group in the climate change discussion and AT WORST a paid-off propaganda arm of the fossil fuel industry. Oh, and Richard Lindzen is a member... need I say more?...

Benny Peiser
Freeman Dyson
David Henderson
Anthony Kelly
Ian Plimer
Richard Lindzen
Paul Reiter
Philip Stott
Richard Toll
Ross McKitrick


The CRU emails WERE spread around as misinformation, purposely interpreted incorrectly, taken out of context, cherry-picked and grossly exaggerated. Every independent analysis of the CRU emails revealed that there was NO actual misconduct or altering of the data, and that AT WORST they simply weren't open enough with their data being overly suspicious of people making detailed requests. And the bottom line is that there WERE skeptics trying to unscientifically poke holes in their data/methods via the SAME tactics they used to blow the emails out of proportion. So while we can blame them for avoiding openness/FOIA requests, we CANNOT blame them for the vast majority of the claims leveled against them nor can we really blame them for their paranoia around corrupt skeptics...

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

Final CRU email review considers, overwhelmingly rejects critics’ accusations of misconduct

Hacked Email Scientists Exonerated of Misconduct for a Third Time

Originally posted by JR MacBeth

One thing I might suggest is that the whole idea that Big Oil is behind the "deniers" (don't you just love their propagandistic terminology?), might just be the other way around. Counterintuitive (as usual it seems).

"What if" Big Oil really preferred Global Warming for their long range plans to succeed? What if it's the SAME people running Big Oil, will also be pocketing the big bucks from the carbon tax scam? What if, they could give a rip if useful idiots in the meantime become "true believers"?

That makes absolutely no sense... neither to logic/common sense nor to the actual FACTS. The fossil fuel industries have a LONG and EXPOSED role in trying to cover-up, minimize, and control the discussion about global warming. They've successfully duped a lot of right-wingers into associating their POLITICS with the propaganda of global warming denial/debate. There is no ACTUAL debate on global warming, as the scientific debate ended YEARS ago, it is now simply a DISCUSSION within the realm of science, whereas disinformation has turned the citizenry and the media (whose beliefs/reporting show a TERRIBLE imbalance in skepticism versus acceptance of AGW versus the actual science/consensus within climatology) into pawns of a false debate. If ANYTHING the media and politicians have been corrupted to DENY global warming, or at least give denial FAR MORE credence/air-time than it deserves. And who pays the politician's/media's bills? Big corporations like BP, Exxon, Shell, Texaco, Dow, GE, Monsanto, etc. DEFINITELY NOT trustworthy companies and certainly rife with conflicts of interest with OUR media and OUR government.

Please read:

ExxonSecrets

Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change (via: Union of Concerned Scientists)

Global Warming Skeptic Organizations (via: Union of Concerned Scientists

The Doubters of Global Warming

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by JR MacBeth

 

...come back and tell me how much of a "good job" Nathan has done. You guys keep going back to two things: you keep claiming how arrogant the science supposedly is, all the while ignoring your own arrogance in making these claims without knowing anything about the science.

That sounds awfully arrogant. Anyway, obviously you think Nathan is doing a terrible job, and as you explain later, you feel you have earned the right to say so. Fine. I still admire his tenacity, and I shutter to think what would happen if no one stood up to bullies.

...THREE independent investigations from different people/organizations that all exonerated the accused. Furthermore, if you're still suspicious of these investigations you don't even have to accept them. All you have to do is read the emails YOURSELF.

Thanks. Good to know you have read over 1,000 emails, and while you were at it, dismissed the ones about soliciting funds from Big Oil. Nice. Perhaps you should send your resume to Phil Jones, you might fit right in.

And then this "intolerance to challenge" BS...

Yes, I have found that you religiously faithful are mostly an intolerant lot. Perhaps the same goes for Nathan, who knows? BTW, I found the video you posted very reminiscent of the old "Pascal's Wager" argument religionists use so "triumphantly". It basically says the same thing, rephrased to fit the AGW religion (I hope you see that, although maybe not everyone has heard of Pascal...)

...looking for whatever fits your already preconceived notions...

You assume too much. I remain open to the possibility that there is something to the AGW religion, just as I remain open to other religions as well. However, until I get over my repugnance for religion in general, I probably should honestly put myself in the camp of the agnostic. I await a really convincing argument.

And threatening a modern global "hell" in your most "terrifying" video isn't going to cut it for the die-hard agnostic, trust me. But points for trying!

...just because the facts and the evidence show his points are routinely misguided, distorted, or flat out lies doesn't make us intolerant - it just happens to be the FACTS. If he was right about one single thing so far I would gladly acknowledge it. But he hasn't been, not even once

Calm down, ye true believer! Of course, you Catholics have the "true" faith, and that nasty Protestant, he isn't right about even one little thing! And he lies, and blah blah blah...(Make Sign of Cross here. Amen.)

So what do you want us to do - give him a pity star and hand out one of those "participant" ribbons you get for finishing last in 3rd grade track and field?

Nah. Just call him "bub", or a "troll", or "stupid". That should help us all understand where you're coming from.

The only thing we are in fact intolerant to is all his knee-jerk dismissal to all the tangible evidence provided - with nothing but repeated conjecture about how brainwashed and intolerant we all are.

Sich Hiel, Mein Fuhrer!

Actually the other thing we are intolerant to is people who don't do their homework, but then feel the right to criticize those of us who have. I have done a LOT of research on BOTH SIDES of this issue, meaning I routinely question my supposed "beliefs". In doing so feel I have earned a certain right to speak with confidence and about it. If you have a problem with anything I said - then take it up with what I've said, not with my supposed arrogance or intolerance.

Ah. I bow to you, oh humble Non-Arrogant One. I do thank goodness that you are still doing your homework. Make sure to get to bed on time though, you're really cranky when you don't get your rest.

Instead of just adding more worthless conjecture to this already steaming pile - how about you show me where what any of us have said is wrong, and therefore arrogant or intolerant?

You said it bub. "Steaming pile"...yeah, at least there is hope. We agree on something.

JR

(Nathan-D) I know what noise is. My point was that the temperature has fluctuated consistently without any abrupt changes in CO2 levels, so noise (natural variation) clearly overwhelms the effects of CO2.

So you're saying:

Because there are fluctuations in surface temperature when CO2 is held constant, then that means that if you change CO2 there won't be any significant effect on temperature.


I don't think even Lord Monckton peddles illogic this egregious (he just has a habit of fabricating 'data', just what the Climate-non-gate emails purported to prove but actually didn't--- www.realclimate.org... )

And also, that a warmer atmosphere WONT take in any more water vapor. Have you been to hurricane country ever?

I couldn't imagine that denalists were seriously denying xxxing water vapor as a positive feedback. It really is even worse than I thought.

This is why actual scientists are starting to get very angry about it----what would chemists think if you had a serious denialist industry campaigning against the atomic theory of matter and periodic table, all in order to preclude any regulation on toxic waste dumping ("it's too complicated, maybe we should be praying to baal more instead of this liberal socialist atomic theory") It really is exactly as ludicrous as that.

In past decades, conservatives and Republicans did not attack professional scientists ever (anti-evolution evangelicals were an embarassing and irrelevant fringe). And scientists personally held a wide diversity of political views as did the nation (though with substantial intellectual concentration).

[edit on 14-8-2010 by mbkennel]

[edit on 14-8-2010 by mbkennel]

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Radiosondes have been scanning the skies for years and they show no hotspot, and therein lies the problem. It is the signature of positive feedback. And as I mentioned earlier, there are a number of empirical studies (Paltridge 2009, Gregory 2009), showing water vapour causes a negative feedback. Positive feedbacks are very rare in nature and most are negative. The IPCC are asking us to believe a small increase in CO2 is enough to cause a large positive feedback loop from water vapour and this feedback loop will lead to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. There is no evidence to support this claim, apart from GIGO models.

Paltridge and Gregory, eh?

Garth Paltridge

He doesn't look very clean to me.

Ken Gregory is linked with "Friends of Science" (another misleadingly light-hearted organization name)...

Friends of Science ain't so clean either.


(The following quote/article was written by Gavin Schmidt, an ACTUAL climatologist at NASA)

Curiously, while the authors work for the NCEE (National Center for Environmental Economics), part of the EPA, they appear to have rather closely collaborated with one Ken Gregory (his inline comments appear at multiple points in the draft). Ken Gregory if you don’t know is a leading light of the Friends of Science – a astroturf anti-climate science lobbying group based in Alberta.

...

The work of an award-winning astrologer (one Theodor Landscheidt, who also thought that the rise of Hitler and Stalin were due to cosmic cycles), a classic Courtillot paper we’ve discussed before, the aforementioned FoS web page, another web page run by Doug Hoyt, a paper by Garth Paltridge reporting on artifacts in the NCEP reanalysis of water vapour that are in contradiction to every other reanalysis, direct observations and satellite data, a complete reprint of another un-peer reviewed paper by William Gray, a nonsense paper by Miskolczi etc. etc.

Source

From what I've garnered, much of Gregory's assumptions come from a study by Ferenc M. Miskolczi. Here are some rebuttals of Miskolczi's research on water vapor having a minimal/negative effect...

www.drroyspencer.com...

www.realclimate.org...

bartonpaullevenson.com...

The planet has been warming for the last century. I don't dispute that, but only by 0.7C, which is well within long-term, established climate trends, and besides, the planet has been warming for 200 years since we emerged from the Little Ice Age (the coldest period in the Holocene).

No, actually the planetary temperature has been pretty stable for the most of the 20th century, and recently has started to get hot fairly rapidly. (Funny a paper in the mid 1970's from a very prominent scientist, predicted it pretty well).

This is because the cumulative effects of greenhouse heating have started to overwhelm the cooling effects of 'global dimming', aerosols, often due to lower-level pollution which were cooling the planet thanks to industrialization and fires. There actually is better environmental controls for those (as they directly cause disease & injury at ground level) but as they've been cleaned the longer and harder-to-stop greenhouse increase is becoming visible.

Also we've only had comprehensive physical global measurements since the Space Age. We need to explain the physical processes NOW. Explanation of "natural trend"---with no data, and no mechanism, is not at all sufficient. You need to show how your explanation fits the data and physics BETTER than the mainstream scenario, which contains substantial global warming from changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, and is physically very well justified.

Jibbering "natural trend" "natural trend" "natural trend" the same as "undefined divine intervention" "undefined divine intervention" "undefined divine intervention" without any science behind it .



[edit on 14-8-2010 by mbkennel]

reply to post by JR MacBeth


The problem with your propaganda is that you call the theory of AGW a religion... and that MIGHT be debatable if the EXACT OPPOSITE wasn't true.

It's not a religion, it's called SCIENCE. Science tends to disprove much of religion, pseudo-science, and quackery. The SCIENCE is overwhelmingly in support of AGW just as it is with the theories of gravity, relativity, and evolution.

If you want to call belief in AGW or Evolution a religion then fine, I'm proudly religious, but then we'd be tossing out the actual meaning of "religious" substituting it for "strong belief". The difference is, science is based on observable evidence and religion upon stories and faith. Even so... it's not quite accurate to characterize it as a belief on par with other beliefs... I don't believe evolution or AGW any more than I BELIEVE the Earth revolves around the sun... they're just obvious facts that I have almost every reason to accept. Though in an ultimate philosophical sense, yes, everything is merely a belief...

Originally posted by mbkennel
This is why actual scientists are starting to get very angry about it----what would chemists think if you had a serious denialist industry campaigning against the atomic theory of matter and periodic table, all in order to preclude any regulation on toxic waste dumping ("it's too complicated, maybe we should be praying to baal more instead of this liberal socialist atomic theory") It really is exactly as ludicrous as that.

JESUS CHRIST DON'T GIVE INDUSTRY ANY IDEAS NOW!!

Positive feedbacks are very rare in nature and most are negative.

Ever hear this thing called a hurricane? Positive feedback

Sure at some extreme excursion there will be a negative feedback. Where will you end up? Witness Venus.

reply to post by NoHierarchy

You REALLY need to research who you're quoting... Nigel Lawson As you can see he also founded the Global Warming Policy Foundation (intentionally harmless/professional sounding name ain't it?) which is a global warming skeptic organization... Global Warming Policy Foundation

Yeah, so? Nigel is actually part of the problem, I couldn't agree more. He helps keep the "debate" within what I would call the "religious confines" of the Option A or B dialectic argumentation paradigm. Does he represent well-enough one of the two factions? I think so.

Is Lawson right when speaking about the particular incident I mentioned, that is, the infamous emails, the oh-so-too-easily explained away emails? I think it's obvious that he is right on.

We need to question what is really happening when even now, as I type, the raw data generated from the world's weather stations, is not really transparent (yet). They are working on it, I'm sure they are, but it doesn't help when you've got guys like Phil Jones who felt it was his patriotic (dare I say "religious") DUTY, to do the things he did. And yes, I understand all of it was white-washed over, again, who cares?

Part of my attitude when it comes to AGW comes from the fact that I lean to the idea that TPTB almost always have a pretty good handle on what EVER we consider as "generally accepted". Perhaps that's a bit broad, and I would like to think that there are still areas within "science", that have successfully resisted their powerful, all-encompassing matrix.

But when it comes to this monster mega-money-making scheme of cap and trade, and global carbon tax, forgive me, but all my instincts say, "Slow down..."They" are quite likely firmly in control here, we are fooling ourselves if we think that the noble fraternity of officially accepted scientists is fighting the "good fight" here. They are playing their role, and if I was to guess, our masters laugh.

Amongst their ranks is a cornucopia of NON-experts on global warming, many with financial links to mining and fossil fuel industries (namely Exxon), economists, people KNOWN to make ridiculous/false claims rife with errors, and people averse to environmentalism/science.

They fund BOTH sides of this whole thing, including the sacred religion of human-caused global warming.

They continue to advance, as the entire world is getting hosed.

The engine of their progress is the AGW religion. Have you ever wondered why the notorious inventor of the internet, Al Gore, is the poster child, or perhaps better put, the "pope" of your religion? He's an obvious stooge for the elite, a long time putrid puppet of greater forces behind him. He would not be saying what he is saying, unless there was a bigger Plan going on here. Think about it.

Generally the "Global Warming Policy Foundation" seems at BEST a very inconsequential group in the climate change discussion and AT WORST a paid-off propaganda arm of the fossil fuel industry. Oh, and Richard Lindzen is a member... need I say more?...

Yeah, let's hear more. How about the fact that some of those emails leaked seem to indicate that Big Oil may be paying for the AGW agenda too?

The CRU emails WERE spread around as misinformation, purposely interpreted incorrectly, taken out of context, cherry-picked and grossly exaggerated. Every independent analysis of the CRU emails revealed that there was NO actual misconduct or altering of the data, and that AT WORST they simply weren't open enough with their data being overly suspicious of people making detailed requests.

Not sure I agree with that, especially since I read some of the recommendations from the latest "independent" (Muir) report. To me, it looked like there was a whole lot of whitewash, but they still managed to characterize the dismal peer review process, the lack of guidance for young scientists, the lack of universally recognized procedures, etc., as obvious problems in need of correction.

So while we can blame them for avoiding openness/FOIA requests, we CANNOT blame them for the vast majority of the claims leveled against them nor can we really blame them for their paranoia around corrupt skeptics...

OK. Fair enough. They felt they were under attack, I get it. My guess is that still do, perhaps more than ever before. What will come of it all now? What can we legitimately expect?

---------------
Originally posted by JR MacBeth

One thing I might suggest is that the whole idea that Big Oil is behind the "deniers" (don't you just love their propagandistic terminology?), might just be the other way around. Counterintuitive (as usual it seems).

"What if" Big Oil really preferred Global Warming for their long range plans...

That makes absolutely no sense... neither to logic/common sense nor to the actual FACTS. The fossil fuel industries have a LONG and EXPOSED role in trying to cover-up, minimize, and control the discussion about global warming.

No sense? Might I suggest that you refrain from using Big Oil propagandistic terms, such as "fossil fuel". I mentioned this in another thread, I really think it's time some of you AGW folks own up to how much you "owe" Big Oil when it comes to the paradigm you cherish.

They've successfully duped a lot of right-wingers into associating their POLITICS with the propaganda of global warming denial/debate. There is no ACTUAL debate on global warming, as the scientific debate ended YEARS ago,

"Right-wingers"...as in Republicans? Surely, you don't "believe" in genuine political parties too? Sounds almost "religious" in tone

And who pays the politician's/media's bills? Big corporations like BP, Exxon, Shell, Texaco, Dow, GE, Monsanto, etc. DEFINITELY NOT trustworthy companies

"Trustworthy companies"? Like what? Like the Church of Scientology, Inc.?

Who do you imagine is paying for the army of scientists who naively believe they, or their academic ivory towers, are somehow immune to the global Absolute, namely, "The only God is the Almighty Dollar" (as my grandfather used to put it!)?

Sorry for my perhaps nasty cynicism, but I do sometimes think you die-hard believers should take a step back, and ask, "Does it really make sense, considering all..."

JR

reply to post by mbkennel

Because there are fluctuations in surface temperature when CO2 is held constant, then that means that if you change CO2 there won't be any significant effect on temperature.

That's right, because CO2 has a logarithmic effect. The more CO2 that gets added to the atmosphere the less and less warming each molecule has, according to Lambert-Beers Law. You need to provide the evidence that CO2 can significantly push up temperatures - thus far you haven't.

Paltridge and Gregory, eh? He doesn't look very clean to me. Ken Gregory is linked with "Friends of Science" (another misleadingly light-hearted organization name)... ain't so clean either.

You can't prove or disprove anything with character assassinations I'm afraid.

No, actually the planetary temperature has been pretty stable for the most of the 20th century, and recently has started to get hot fairly rapidly. (Funny a paper in the mid 1970's from a very prominent scientist, predicted it pretty well).

Even NASA's own GISS data (see below) shows that during 1910-1940 (before we started burning hydrocarbons in large quantities - post WWII industrialization) the global temperature rose just at the same rate as it did between 1970-2000 and the HadCRUT3 data (also below) tells a broadly similar story, so the temperature didn't really remain "stable" in the 20th century. Also, Central England Temperature Record showed that the temperature rose by 2.2C in just 36 years during 1700. Also, keep in mind, worldwide record temperature keeping only goes back 100 years or so; that's not a very long time. Since that fact exists, what makes you think that the 0.7C increase in temperature last century is outside of natural variation? Temperature proxies show that temperature has swung more rapidly than in recent times.


Link: data.giss.nasa.gov...


www.woodfortrees.org...:1905/to:1942/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/to:2010/trend

From what I've garnered, much of Gregory's assumptions come from a study by Ferenc M. Miskolczi.

Any source that Gregory's studies are based on studies by Misolcizi? I would find that very surprising, since Miskolczi's studies about humidity in 2010 came out after Gregory's studies in 2009. Whatever the case, I'm not familiar with Miskolciz's studies, so I can't really comment.

Sure at some extreme excursion there will be a negative feedback. Where will you end up? Witness Venus.

A more likely explanation for Venus' extreme temperatures probably lies in the fact that it has such a super-thick atmosphere, not because of it's high CO2 concentrations. Mars is 97% CO2 and it's 450 degrees colder than Venus.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by Nathan-D]

How is the term, 'fossil fuel, a propagandist term? Coal is a fossil fuel, Oil is a fossil fuel. Both are fossilized matter that are used as a fuel...? Or am I wrong in that coal is not a fossil fuel, or something? How is the term, global warming denier, a propagandist term also? You're denying it, just like how people religiously deny that smoking is bad for them, completely justified in their own head.

[edit on 15/8/2010 by C0bzz]

lol, Nathan's still pushing the same-old tripe...

Positive water vapour feedback:

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 114, D18101, 18 PP., 2009

Ocean water vapor and cloud liquid water trends from 1992 to 2005 TOPEX Microwave Radiometer data

S. Keihm et al
The continuous 1992–2005 data set of the TOPEX Microwave Radiometer (TMR) has been reprocessed to provide global, zonal, and regional scale histories of overocean integrated water vapor (IWV) and cloud liquid water (CLW). Results indicate well-defined trends in IWV on global and hemisphere scales, with values of 1.8 ± 0.4%/decade (60°S–60°N), 2.4 ± 0.4%/decade (0–60°N), and 1.0 ± 0.5%/decade (0–60°S). The uncertainties represent 1 standard deviation of the regressed slope parameter adjusted for lag 1 autocorrelation. These results are comparable to earlier results based on analyses of the multiinstrument SSM/I ocean measurements beginning in 1988. For the 1992–2005 interval, comparisons between SSM/I- and TMR-derived IWV trends show remarkable agreement, with global trends differing by less than 0.3%/decade, comparable to the statistical uncertainty level and about one-sixth of the global TMR-derived trend. Latitudinal and regional analyses of IWV trends show large variability about the global mean, with synoptic scale variations of IWV trends ranging from ∼−8 to +8%/decade. Averaged over 5° latitude bands the IWV trends reveal a near zero minimum in the Southern Tropical Pacific and maximum values of ∼4%/decade over the 30–40N latitude band. Comparisons with band latitude averaged SST data over the same 1992–2005 interval roughly match a delta_IWV/delta_SST trend scaling of ∼11%/K, consistent with previously observed tropical and midlatitude seasonal variability. TMR-derived CLW trends are fractionally comparable to the IWV trends. The CLW values are 1.5 ± 0.6%/decade (60°S–60°N), 2.0 ± 0.8%/decade (0–60°N), and 1.1 ± 0.8%/decade (0–60°S). When scaled to global mean CLW derived from SSM/I and compared seasonally, the TMR CLW variations exhibit excellent tracking with the SSM/I results. Unlike IWV, however, the CLW statistical uncertainties do not likely reflect the dominant error component in the retrieved trends. The 1992–2005 CLW trend estimates were particularly sensitive to short-term trends in the first and last 2 years of the TMR archive. Additional errors difficult to quantify include strong aliasing effects from precipitation cells and uncertainties in the radiative transfer models utilized in the generation of the TMR CLW algorithm.

doi:10.1029/2009JD012145

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L20704, 4 PP., 2008

Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008; A. E. Dessler, Z. Zhang, P. Yang

Between 2003 and 2008, the global-average surface temperature of the Earth varied by 0.6°C. We analyze here the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations. Height-resolved measurements of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) are obtained from NASA's satellite-borne Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS). Over most of the troposphere, q increased with increasing global-average surface temperature, although some regions showed the opposite response. RH increased in some regions and decreased in others, with the global average remaining nearly constant at most altitudes. The water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, with an average magnitude of λ q = 2.04 W/m2/K, similar to that simulated by climate models. The magnitude is similar to that obtained if the atmosphere maintained constant RH everywhere.

doi:10.1029/2008GL035333

Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content
B. D. Santer et al

Abstract

Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988. Results from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone. In a formal detection and attribution analysis using the pooled results from 22 different climate models, the simulated “fingerprint” pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor is identifiable with high statistical confidence in the SSM/I data. Experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually suggest that this fingerprint “match” is primarily due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases and not to solar forcing or recovery from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Our findings provide preliminary evidence of an emerging anthropogenic signal in the moisture content of earth's atmosphere.

doi:10.1073/pnas.0702872104

Science 4 November 2005:
Vol. 310. no. 5749, pp. 841 - 844

The Radiative Signature of Upper Tropospheric Moistening
Brian J. Soden,1* Darren L. Jackson,2 V. Ramaswamy,3 M. D. Schwarzkopf,3 Xianglei Huang4

Climate models predict that the concentration of water vapor in the upper troposphere could double by the end of the century as a result of increases in greenhouse gases. Such moistening plays a key role in amplifying the rate at which the climate warms in response to anthropogenic activities, but has been difficult to detect because of deficiencies in conventional observing systems. We use satellite measurements to highlight a distinct radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening over the period 1982 to 2004. The observed moistening is accurately captured by climate model simulations and lends further credence to model projections of future global warming.

DOI: 10.1126/science.1115602

McCarthy, Mark P., P. W. Thorne, H. A. Titchner, 2009: An Analysis of Tropospheric Humidity Trends from Radiosondes. J. Climate, 22, 5820-5838

Abstract
A new analysis of historical radiosonde humidity observations is described. An assessment of both known and unknown instrument and observing practice changes has been conducted to assess their impact on bias and uncertainty in long-term trends. The processing of the data includes interpolation of data to address known sampling bias from missing dry day and cold temperature events, a first-guess adjustment for known radiosonde model changes, and a more sophisticated ensemble of estimates based on 100 neighbor-based homogenizations. At each stage the impact and uncertainty of the process has been quantified. The adjustments remove an apparent drying over Europe and parts of Asia and introduce greater consistency between temperature and specific humidity trends from day and night observations. Interannual variability and trends at the surface are shown to be in good agreement with independent in situ datasets, although some steplike discrepancies are apparent between the time series of relative humidity at the surface.
Adjusted trends, accounting for documented and undocumented break points and their uncertainty, across the extratropical Northern Hemisphere lower and midtroposphere show warming of 0.1–0.4 K decade−1 and moistening on the order of 1%–5% decade−1 since 1970. There is little or no change in the observed relative humidity in the same period, consistent with climate model expectation of a positive water vapor feedback in the extratropics with near-constant relative humidity.

doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI2879.1

Just a sample.

Yet Nathan provides just a single study: Paltridge et al., (2009). A study whose own abstract should give pause in any attempt to rely on its conclusions in the face of other evidence:

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED CLIMATOLOGY
Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data
Garth Paltridge, Albert Arking and Michael Pook
Abstract
The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) reanalysis data on tropospheric humidity are examined for the period 1973 to 2007. It is accepted that radiosonde-derived humidity data must be treated with great caution, particularly at altitudes above the 500 hPa pressure level. With that caveat, the face-value 35-year trend in zonal-average annual-average specific humidity q is significantly negative at all altitudes above 850 hPa (roughly the top of the convective boundary layer) in the tropics and southern midlatitudes and at altitudes above 600 hPa in the northern midlatitudes. It is significantly positive below 850 hPa in all three zones, as might be expected in a mixed layer with rising temperatures over a moist surface. The results are qualitatively consistent with trends in NCEP atmospheric temperatures (which must also be treated with great caution) that show an increase in the stability of the convective boundary layer as the global temperature has risen over the period. The upper-level negative trends in q are inconsistent with climate-model calculations and are largely (but not completely) inconsistent with satellite data. Water vapor feedback in climate models is positive mainly because of their roughly constant relative humidity (i.e., increasing q) in the mid-to-upper troposphere as the planet warms. Negative trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2. In this context, it is important to establish what (if any) aspects of the observed trends survive detailed examination of the impact of past changes of radiosonde instrumentation and protocol within the various international networks.

DOI: 10.1007/s00704-009-0117-x

Then, knowing that Paltridge is the typical 'sceptic' (coffin-dodger, emeritus, associated with industry and denialist think-tanks), I think we can safely categorise this study as typical tobacco-war style doubt-mongering.

See Oreskes & Conway's new book for a detailed outline of the well-worn techniques of the 'Merchants of Doubt'.

And to save some of you time, myself and Nathan have been over water vapour feedback and the tropospheric hotspot before (pages 5 & 6):

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And a previous post to cover the hotspot issue:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Nathan-D

we can question both the data and the models. And often we find the data to be unreliable - like in both of the examples noted

The fact that you believe satellite data in conjunction with thousands of radiosonde measurements could be wildly inaccurate, but complex, unverified "climate models" are right, betrays your religious conviction in the theory of AGW.

The evidence shows that one issue is data biases for the radiosondes. You do understand that 'thousands of radiosonde measurements' which involves different instruments, practices, and coverage isn't exactly ideal?

Journal of Climate 2009; 22: 465-485
Critically Reassessing Tropospheric Temperature Trends from Radiosondes Using Realistic Validation Experiments
Holly A. Titchner, P. W. Thorne, and M. P. McCarthy

Biases and uncertainties in large-scale radiosonde temperature trends in the troposphere are critically reassessed. Realistic validation experiments are performed on an automatic radiosonde homogenization system by applying it to climate model data with four distinct sets of simulated breakpoint profiles. Knowledge of the “truth” permits a critical assessment of the ability of the system to recover the large-scale trends and a reinterpretation of the results when applied to the real observations.

The homogenization system consistently reduces the bias in the daytime tropical, global, and Northern Hemisphere (NH) extratropical trends but underestimates the full magnitude of the bias. Southern Hemisphere (SH) extratropical and all nighttime trends were less well adjusted owing to the sparsity of stations. The ability to recover the trends is dependent on the underlying error structure, and the true trend does not necessarily lie within the range of estimates. The implications are that tropical tropospheric trends in the unadjusted daytime radiosonde observations, and in many current upper-air datasets, are biased cold, but the degree of this bias cannot be robustly quantified. Therefore, remaining biases in the radiosonde temperature record may account for the apparent tropical lapse rate discrepancy between radiosonde data and climate models. Furthermore, the authors find that the unadjusted global and NH extratropical tropospheric trends are biased cold in the daytime radiosonde observations.

Finally, observing system experiments show that, if the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) Upper Air Network (GUAN) were to make climate quality observations adhering to the GCOS monitoring principles, then one would be able to constrain the uncertainties in trends at a more comprehensive set of stations. This reaffirms the importance of running GUAN under the GCOS monitoring principles.

Article
Nature Geoscience 1, 399 - 403 (2008)
Published online: 25 May 2008 | doi:10.1038/ngeo208

Subject Category: Climate science

Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds

Robert J. Allen & Steven C. Sherwood

Abstract
Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface. Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and satellite data have often not shown this expected trend. However, non-climatic biases have been found in such measurements. Here we apply the thermal-wind equation to wind measurements from radiosonde data, which seem to be more stable than the temperature data. We derive estimates of temperature trends for the upper troposphere to the lower stratosphere since 1970. Over the period of observations, we find a maximum warming trend of 0.650.47 K per decade near the 200 hPa pressure level, below the tropical tropopause. Warming patterns are consistent with model predictions except for small discrepancies close to the tropopause. Our findings are inconsistent with the trends derived from radiosonde temperature datasets and from NCEP reanalyses of temperature and wind fields. The agreement with models increases confidence in current model-based predictions of future climate change.

Journal of Climate 2008; 21: 4587-4606
Toward Elimination of the Warm Bias in Historic Radiosonde Temperature Records—Some New Results from a Comprehensive Intercomparison of Upper-Air Data

Leopold Haimberger, Christina Tavolato*, and Stefan Sperka
Department of Meteorology and Geophysics, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Abstract
The apparent cooling trend in observed global mean temperature series from radiosonde records relative to Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) radiances has been a long-standing problem in upper-air climatology. It is very likely caused by a warm bias of radiosonde temperatures in the 1980s, which has been reduced over time with better instrumentation and correction software. The warm bias in the MSU-equivalent lower stratospheric (LS) layer is estimated as 0.6 ± 0.3 K in the global mean and as 1.0 ± 0.3 K in the tropical (20°S–20°N) mean. These estimates are based on comparisons of unadjusted radiosonde data, not only with MSU data but also with background forecast (BG) temperature time series from the 40-yr European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Re-Analysis (ERA-40) and with two new homogenized radiosonde datasets. One of the radiosonde datasets [Radiosonde Observation Correction using Reanalyses (RAOBCORE) version 1.4] employs the BG as reference for homogenization, which is not strictly independent of MSU data. The second radiosonde dataset uses the dates of the breakpoints detected by RAOBCORE as metadata for homogenization. However, it relies only on homogeneous segments of neighboring radiosonde data for break-size estimation. Therefore, adjustments are independent of satellite data.

Both of the new adjusted radiosonde time series are in better agreement with satellite data than comparable published radiosonde datasets, not only for zonal means but also at most single stations. A robust warming maximum of 0.2–0.3K (10 yr)−1 for the 1979–2006 period in the tropical upper troposphere could be found in both homogenized radiosonde datasets. The maximum is consistent with mean temperatures of a thick layer in the upper troposphere and upper stratosphere (TS), derived from M3U3 radiances. Inferred from these results is that it is possible to detect and remove most of the mean warm bias from the radiosonde records, and thus most of the trend discrepancy compared to MSU LS and TS temperature products.

The comprehensive intercomparison also suggests that the BG is temporally quite homogeneous after 1986. Only in the early 1980s could some inhomogeneities in the BG be detected and quantified.

For the satellite data, there are various series: UAH, RSS etc, and as Santer notes none are actually significantly different than model projections.

So, in sum...

(i) The evidence shows that water vapour feedback exists, other evidence shows it is likely to be as strong as indicated by the models.

(ii) Evidence shows that the previous discrepancy between data-models in one area of the globe (tropics) in one area of the atmosphere (troposphere) is most likely due to data biases and processing methods, and that there is no real discrepancy when these biases are corrected for.

Not much left to say really. Although I note again your attempt to move the goalposts with Santer's work. If you want evidence of the tropospheric hotspot, try the Allen et al. (2008) study above or Fu et al. (2005; who correct for satellite biases).

Satellite-derived vertical dependence of tropical tropospheric
temperature trends

Qiang Fu and Celeste M. Johanson
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Received 18 December 2004; revised 25 March 2005; accepted 27 April 2005; published 26 May 2005.

[1] Tropical atmospheric temperatures in different
tropospheric layers are retrieved using satellite-borne
Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) observations. We find
that tropospheric temperature trends in the tropics are
greater than the surface warming and increase with height.
Our analysis indicates that the near-zero trend from Spencer
and Christy’s MSU channel-2 angular scanning retrieval for
the tropical low-middle troposphere (T2LT) is inconsistent
with tropical tropospheric warming derived from their MSU
T2 and T4 data. We show that the T2LT trend bias can be
largely attributed to the periods when the satellites had large
local equator crossing time drifts that cause large changes in
calibration target temperatures and large diurnal drifts.

The satellite data is also known to have numerous biases: from contamination from the stratosphere and diurnal drift (amongst others).

where we also covered why radiosondes are a bit crap:

Also, Sherwood resorts to measuring the temperature via windshear. How can windshear be better at measuring temperature than actual thermometers? It defies logic.

It think it would depend how the thermometer was used.

You should have read the introduction of the paper a bit better. The paragraph directly preceding the quote you extracted would be helpful:

It has long been recognized that radiosonde temperature data
are affected by non-climatic artifacts due to station relocations,
observation time changes and radiosonde type or design changes1.
Several investigators have attempted to detect and adjust (that
is homogenize) these artefacts using a variety of tools, including
statistical procedures, station metadata, various indicators of
natural variability (such as volcanic eruptions, vertical coherence)
and forecasts from a climate data assimilation system2–6.

The radiosonde data is much less than perfect, and wind shear has been identified as one approach to overcome their limitations. Their main issue is heterogeneity, and recent methods to homogenise the radiosonde data are indicating more agreement with model projections.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by melatonin]

Some people are really closed minded. You can do with data whatever you like but the fact remains is that there could be a million unknown things causing this global warming having nothing to do with man.

Unlike scientists like you to believe the earth's core and let alone its dynamics is not a known fact, it's all theory. God knows how this all interacts with the cosmos and especially sun's magnetic fields or other unknowns. People are concentrating on heat coming from the outside, but have you considered that the earth might be warming from the inside out? Perhaps it's something as ridiculously simple as an eddy current effect, where intense magnetic field changes cause a "current" change in the earth's core which results in heat.

The people who classify anything as 'fact' are people with a hidden agenda. And it's no more secret that this whole man made global warming bull# is one big con.

Bah, those new external tags seriously suck.

edited the above posts to make more sense.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by melatonin]

Originally posted by broli
Some people are really closed minded. You can do with data whatever you like but the fact remains is that there could be a million unknown things causing this global warming having nothing to do with man.

Unlike scientists like you to believe the earth's core and let alone its dynamics is not a known fact, it's all theory. God knows how this all interacts with the cosmos and especially sun's magnetic fields or other unknowns. People are concentrating on heat coming from the outside, but have you considered that the earth might be warming from the inside out? Perhaps it's something as ridiculously simple as an eddy current effect, where intense magnetic field changes cause a "current" change in the earth's core which results in heat.

The people who classify anything as 'fact' are people with a hidden agenda. And it's no more secret that this whole man made global warming bull# is one big con.

Oh, I thought it was AGW non-deniers who were religious? Care to comment JR MacBeth?