Climate change - anthropogenic or not?

Personally, I don't believe we have enough information to warrant all the sky-is-falling pontifications.

We take ourselves too seriously and believe we, as a species, are too important. Are we actually conceited enough to think we control our own destiny? We are but a small infestation on a much grander playing field.

When Mother nature is through with us, she will remove us. She's done it before and she will do it again.

JMHO

 

As soon as the threat of the next Ice Age appears, the public will be asked to create more carbon dioxide, so that North America and northern Europe don't get covered in glacial ice.

Then we will be made to switch back to coal-burning power plants and incandescent light bulbs.

 

I think you've gotten several things confused.

1) Precipitation is not temperature.
2) The US is not the globe.
3)The NOAA "climate prediction" unit has nothing to do with global warming predictions.
4) Three months is not "climate".

1) Precipitation (snow) is not temperature, 2) the US is not the globe.

We just had a record December snowfall here in the DC area, but it is not even close to record cold temperatures.

Globlal temperatures for the past three reported months are at or near all-time highs, per the NASA GISS:


The global temperature anomalies for the last three reported months (Sept, Oct, Nov 2009) were:

0.87 degrees C (September 2009), warmest September in the instrumental record.

0.72 degrees C (October 2009)

0.76 degrees C (November 2009), tied for warmest November in the instrumental record.

All of these are warming relative to the 1951-1980 baseline.

The data are published here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt\


The Northern Hemisphere data showed similar anomalies, though not records.

I could not lay my hands on the equivalent US data, but here's the November map from NOAA. To me, most of that map looks red (warm).




The description of the map is at:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html

3) The NOAA climate prediction center has nothing to do with predictions of global warming.

Their mission statement is here:

Climate Prediction Center - Who We Are

The relevant quote is below, emphasis mine:

" [FONT=verdana, arial]... [/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial]products are operational predictions of climate variability, real-time monitoring of climate and the required data bases, and assessments of the origins of major climate anomalies. The products cover time scales from a week to seasons, extending into the future as far as technically feasible, ... "
[/FONT]
Read the entire mission statement if you want. Note the total absence of the terms "climate change" or "global warming". Their main claim to fame is predicting El Nino/La Nina episodes.

Basically, any prediction beyond their standard weather predictions falls into the purview of this group. They do not run general circulation models, they do not predict climate change.

4) Three months is not climate.

As as been discussed repeatedly in threads on this board, global warming is about, at the minimum, long time periods and large areas. Not weeks, not seasons.


Summary: As of the last reported data I could find regarding temperatures:

A) The global monthly temperatures were at or near all-time highs.
B, Northern hemisphere temperature anomalies were in the same range, but were not records.
C) The US November temperature map from NOAA looked pretty warm to me.

Lot of snow? Yep, sure was. Most December snow in 70 years here. But not even close to breaking temperature records. I don't know how it is where you live, but around here, if its bitter cold, you just don't get much snow. There's not enough water in the air for it. Around here, you get your real whopper snowstorms when the temps are in the 20s. All the more reason not to confuse snow volume with temperature.

There are interesting questions about global snow cover and albedo and such. But I don't think North America single-event records say much about that one way or the other.

 

1. Please re-read the post. He never said snow was temperature. He said snow was weather. And boy has it been snowy! Snow (weather) was only mentioned because we were talking about the cold autumn (climate.)

2. This discussion is about the NOAA Climate Prediction Center's prediction about climate in the USA. Their climate model that predicts climate failed miserably.

3. A prediction of global warming is that we will observe changes in our climate. A climate change prediction is that we will have warmer winters, and that snow fall and cold winters will become a "very rare and exciting event." (From the Climatic Research Unit.) The NOAA CPC's climate model predicted a warm autumn and the model failed miserably.

It's called the "climate prediction center." They are trying to predict climate. They are using climate models to predict climate change. Their models failed miserably.

Their prediction:



The reality (you posted November, which was warm, but failed to post October, December, and the average of the three months. Please do not misrepresent data.):





I've re-emphasized the NOAA CPC mission statement for you:

4. He didn't post a failed model from a weather prediction center. He posted a failed model from a climate prediction center. They predicted changes in climate. It's not that they predicted no snow and there was snow, they predicted warm changes in climate and their models failed. Miserably! If you want to argue if three months is "climate or weather" then you should email the NOAA CPC and tell them to quit making three month forecasts, or suggest they change their name.

The question stands: If the climate models fail at 3 months, how can they be trusted at 1,200 months?

(Interesting to note that you never defended the quality of climate models - it's funny how widely accepted it is that they are garbage, and yet we still pretend that they are ok.)

 

^^ This is what frustrates me. I'd love to discuss the deficiencies of climate models, areas they could improve in, and why it's dangerous to write legislation based off of very flawed models. We all could learn something in the process. But instead everyone has to try to (incorrectly) debunk thinks. It's pretty simple - their climate model's prediction was horribly wrong. Let's discuss why.

 

(October data I think)

Tell that to the suckers in Oklahoma

 

I think a discussion of scientific integrity might reasonably fall under the heading of "Climate Change - Anthropogenic or Not?"

The so-called 'climategate' E-mails have demonstrably unveiled a grave problem in the field of climate science.

I am reminded of a wonderful commencement speech given by physicist Richard Feynman to the class of 1974 at Cal Tech. I just re-read it while thumbing through the equally wonderful book, Surely Your're Joking, Mr Feynman.

Cargo Cult Science

Above the link to an internet copy of the chapter in the book.

A snippet:
...

For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a
friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology
and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the
applications of this work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any."
He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of
this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're
representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to
the layman what you're doing--and if they don't want to support you
under those circumstances, then that's their decision.

One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind
to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should
always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only
publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look
good. We must publish both kinds of results.

I say that's also important in giving certain types of government
advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether
drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it
would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a
result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're
being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the
government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument
in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish
it at all. That's not giving scientific advice.
...

 

Oh goody! Another climate change thread!
The thousands of posts and charts in the other 20 CC threads probably have not changed anyone's viewpoint, so let's start a new thread.
Done with rant, carry on!

P.S. to NevadaPrius: Stamping "LIAR" over your photo kinda hurts your credibility.

 

Recent developments keep this a current topic. It will be ongoing until one side has the emprircal, revealed and scientifically proven truth, while the other side realizes the jig is up. It could cool for a decade or three and this would indicate nothing to some folks. Of course, there will still be the cargo-culters. Some never give in to facts and the truth.

If Nevada can demonstrate that Mike Mann (I'm pretty sure that's who is in the avatar) is a liar, then...

Meanwhile, the figure in my avatar is clearly lying down. And there are plenty of instances where he can be shown to be doing the other type of lying as well.

 

My favorite Mike Mann lie is this one:

Before thermometer record was grafted:


After thermometer record was grafted:


That's just my favorite. I can detail his using crap statistics (which were debunked by McIntyre, and by the Wegman report) to make the first hockey stick (you could literally feed noise into his computer program and generate a hockey stick - hilarious, or we can talk about him using data upside down, or any number of things. He and Phil Jones are, in my opinion, the two worst people working in the field of climate science.

Like you quoted by Feynman, report what the science shows. Not what you want it to show.

 

There's lies

damn lies

and

statistics.

 

So true.

Check this out:

So, I wanted to post a little about the USHCN climate surface stations. These are the stations that gather temperature data for the National Weather Service, part of the NOAA. Anthony Watts has started a project at surfacestations.org where they are attempting to audit the surface stations around the country and see how well they abide by the rules in the NOAA Climate Reference Network's station handbook. (More on this below. In short, about 90% of the stations have an error of >= 1'C).)

Here is a picture of a surface station in Hopkinsville, KY, where the instrument: a) abuts a brick house: b) actually, it abuts the chimney of a brick house; c) hovers just above a black asphalt pad, and; d) what's that directly underneath it, but a Weber grill!



Here's another surface station in Colorado:



Here, the weather station was placed 2 feet off of a building, but conveniently next to a large air conditioning unit. Any thoughts on the localized ambient temperature when that baby kicks on?

Some more:









(^^ Nice BBQ pit!!)












Since I'm going on and on, here is a graphic showing the overall quality of surface stations in the USA:





And the key to read them:



As you can see, yellow, orange, and red are all bad. These sites are rated by the NOAA's Climate Reference Network site handbook.



Lastly, we can read Watt's report Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?

 

the ice age problem is a co2 problem
when you warm up the earth the ice will melt and cool down the oceans.
this wil disturp cold and warm water flows and create a new ice age....
co2 is not about to hot its about to cold.

 

Don't let your eyes fool you! This surface station project is carried out by a mere retired TV meteorologist and voulnteers from around the country. This project is not under the guidance of 'climatologists'. It is not a peer reviewed paper from a prestigious journal!

Don't let your common sense mislead you. The "real" experts have accounted for the 'urban island heat sffect' without ever having laid eyes on these measuring stations or bothered with such trivialities as their own guidelines as to placement, height, etc.

You MUST trust the experts! Can't you comprehend that 97% of those working in the field have arrived at a consensus? OPEN YOUR EYES, er, gullibility gullet.

{sarcasm alert}

 

Hahahahaha!!

I was trying to come up with some kind of joke about "cooking the books" because the station had a BBQ underneath the thermometer. But I couldn't think of one I also loved the station next to the trash burn barrel.

What is crazy is that 90% of the stations have a margin of error (8% >= 5'C; 61% >= 2'C; 22% >= 1'C) that is greater than the "global warming signal" since 1900 (0.7'C). In the report I linked at the bottom, Anthony describes how many stations have up to half their station data missing in a given month, and the missing data is filled in from surrounding stations, etc. Just imagine the cluster-**** that the data must be. 90% of the data is from bad stations, and missing data is filled in from surrounding stations that also have bad data, etc.

He also makes the point that the USA data is generally considered to be the best. So the best data in the world comes from a place where 90% of the surface stations are providing poor and missing data. Yikes

 

Climate change protest thwarted by snow storm:

Ultimate irony: Snowstorm squelches “screaming” climate change protest Watts Up With That?

LOL

 

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO<sub xmlns="">2</sub> emissions increasing?

No rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide fraction in past 160 years, new research finds

Interesting!

The PDF

Note: It is not that the total atmospheric burden of CO2 has not been increasing over time, but that of the total CO2 released into the atmosphere each year by human activities, about 45% remains in the atmosphere while the other 55% is taken up by various natural processes—and these percentages have not changed during the past 150 years.

In other words, like we have repeated over and over, if the models can’t replicate the past (for the right reasons), they can’t be relied on for producing accurate future projections. And as things now stand, the earth is responding to anthropogenic CO2 emissions in a different (and perhaps better) manner than we thought that it would.

(Courtesy WUWT)

 

For discussion of the facts of global warming by climatologists and atmospheric physicists (that is, people who know what the hell they're talking about ), see
RealClimate