Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

You expect a journal that repeatedly published papers by folks who agreed with their agenda and refused to publish papers with another viewpoint to admit that they may have erred?

Dissembling, at best.

 

Do you want them to publish a different opinion for the sake of just being defiant, or publish facts?

 

I wouldn't want to fall into the trap of being argued into a corner based on the thinking that C02 is the only factor affecting temperature trends. I think the plausible statement would be: Looking forward, when we know that all the other factors except GHGs are relatively constant, then even with that, we'd need to see a prolonged period of cooling.

We all know that the overall temperature trend is the result of the sum of several small forcings. Of these, both C02 and particulates are strongly influenced by mankind. If you go back to the 20th century historical record, both C02 and particulates were changing. You wouldn't want rhetoric to force you into an incorrect, single-variable interpretation of history.

So, for a fact, I've seen general circulation model runs that provided a good fit to the post-WWII cooling. The question is, how do they provide that fit: do they feed in a made-up estimate of total atmospheric particulates to get that, or is there any sort of hard evidence to suggest that the aerosol and particulate load was high enough to account for that?

As always, I like to ask the smartest guy in the room, which in this case would be NASA, I think. Turns out, yes, there are data. "Global dimming" has been well-measured, the issue is whether you can see a ramp-up in any measure of manmade particulates or aerosols, in the data, after WWII, and whether this is plausibly large enough to explain the hiatus in warming. The answer to that appears to be yes, based on sulfate aerosols in the Greenland ice cores, as briefly described here:

Earth's Temperature Tracker : Feature Articles

It's worth noting that, of course, it's not as if that period has been ignored by climate scientists. The issue is that, at least as far as I can tell, it has been explained by them. Hansen, above, was somewhat vague: natural variation plus aerosols explained the lack of post WWII warming.

But, of course, I've already pointed all of this out on on threads here several times in the past. But that doesn't stop some people from a) bringing up the post-WWII era as if it somehow was strong evidence against manmade global warming and b) interpreting everything as if C02 were the only climate forcing.

Whereas the right story is that mid-century industrialization increased both GHGs and aerosols/particulates. And the clean air acts of the 1970s began reducing the aerosol/particulate load. And that, near as I can tell, the reconstructed changes in aerosols appear to be somewhere-in-the-neighborhood of large enough to 'explain the post-WWII era.

I'm sure I'll have to explain this all over again a few months from now, but ... here's it is this time.

EDIT: And, Alric, I know you know all this, and yeah, you were right, that was US, but my point is that I think the global temps do the same, and the core issue here isn't the incorrect chart per se, it's the underlying argument.

 

I just like to collect graphs that independently verify warming. No trees, no CRU:



Since 1980, global surface temperatures have increased sharply, the Earth’s response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. (NASA graph adapted from Goddard Institute for Space Studies data.)

From chogan2's post:

Earth's Temperature Tracker : Feature Articles

 

I expect a journal to publish papers that include a vehicle for other scientists to use the same methodology and data that the authors of the papers utilize to arrive at their conclusions. Then I expect said journal to allow an honest exchange of ideas based on the data, methodology.

In many cases this accepted method of scientific exchange was subverted, authors not required to disclose data or methodolgy.

 

When did that happen?

 

Just keep a bookmark to the post, then refer to it when it invariably comes up again. People have short memories.

Thanks for the informative post.

 

For ppurposes of discussion, let's accept this graph even though it's source is GISS. (We know that Hansen has made 'errors' in his data before, so it is not out of the question that further errors could be found.)

So, it is your contention that the upward temperature trend from say, 1910 to 1945 (before serious CO2 emissions commenced) has no significance, while the upeard trend from 1975 to the end of the graph (where over half of anthropogenic CO2 released since 1750 is recorded) has cataclysmic significance.

I don't buy it. Neither should any thinking person.

 

So gracious of you to accept the data. Looks to me that CO2 concentrations match very well the temperature. Even those dips before the 50's.



File:Carbon History and Flux Rev.png - Global Warming Art

 

This is proof positive that you don't bother to read my posts completely of follow pertinent links. In addition, probably havent read any of the leaked E-mails.

Next you'll be telling us that the people perform the 'peer-review' of the articles published in these journals have the data and methodology and do a serious job of verification. Rarely happens - especially when it is not provided.

Additionally, govrenment bodies supported by taxpayers have engaged in the same practice.

There are so many examples of this that you should be able to find them yourself.

I suspect you won't.

You'll actually have to visit a site which will terrify you:

withholding data and methodology - Google Search

If you can't make yourself go to Climate Audit:

Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:

Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

...

or another scary site:

In 1998, Michael Mann, Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes published an article on paleoclimatology. [22] In 2003, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick decided to audit the published findings of Mann et al. Mann refused access to data and his source code.[11] After a long process - in which the National Science Foundation had supported Mann's effort to withhold the code - the code was finally turned over.[12] It happened because Congress investigated. In June 2005, Congress required Mann to testify before a special subcommittee. Pursuant to the powers of Congress, the chairmen of the committees wrote a letter to Mann requesting he provide his data - including his source code. [13] When Mann complied, all of the data was available for a complete audit. Congress also requested that third party science panels review the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick. The Wegman Panel [14] and the National Academy of Sciences [15] both published their reports. McIntyre and McKitrick claim their findings have been largely confirmed by these reviews. [16] Mann published a corrigendum in which he admitted some errors but denied others. Mann claims that the errors found made no difference to his conclusions.[17] Without access to the author’s data, methods and source code, a full audit could not have been made.
In 2006, Martin Juckes et al submitted an article to Climate of the Past which was then made available for comment on the Internet. The article claimed the source code used by McIntyre and McKitrick was not archived. McIntyre responded that the accusation was false and may be academic misconduct, with an implicit threat of legal action against Juckes and coauthors. [18] False claims regarding data archiving are usually easy to establish. Juckes blamed the inaccurate statement on a misunderstanding. [19]

Update:

Fresh today:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

from this same link, yet germane to another post where I was 'gracious'.

NASA's GISS was forced to update its data in 2007 after questions were raised by Steve McIntyre, who runs ClimateAudit.com.
GISS had initially listed the warmest years as 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921 and 1931. After Mr. McIntyre's questions GISS rejiggered the list and 1934 was warmest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and then 1931. But since then, the list has been rewritten again so it now runs 1998, 2006, 1934, 1921, 1999.
​

 

How do you make that conclusion from Alric's posts? I don't think even he would agree with what you are saying he's saying.

To enlighten others since ufourya is leaving out critical data here - those record temps are in reference to continental US temperatures. Either way - the correction is proof that peer review works. The latest correction is probably based on the latest information.

Either way, the GISS data is very clear that global mean temperatures are rising and recent years are the warmest in recent history.

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2008 Annual Summation

 

It's not peer reviewed when you 1) refuse to give out your data, and 2) have your students do your peer review. It's amazing that recent years are the warmest in history when we've had cooling for the last 11 years.

It absolutely blows my mind that anyone could have the audacity to say "the science is settled" when the science is piss poor.

 

Wth are you talking about? The GISS data and analysis is freely available. Follow the link in my previous post. It's all there.

The science is settled. There is more to climate science than the CRU. Throw out their scientists, data and analysis completely and climate scientists will still come to the same conclusion.

 

The data available is not the raw data, it has all been manipulated to various degrees and only now are we finding out what that really means. The more I read about all of this the less AGW is about science and the more it is about politics. The AGW movement should cancel copenhagen now, everything that happens there is going to appear like it is right out of an SNL skit. Wasn't it just yesterday that the head of the IPCC was quoted as saying Americans should no longer have ice in their drinks, just thinkking about that statement in the light of this mess makes me laugh out loud.

The science is settled? Do you have your head in the sand? Now the science is anything but settled to everyone who doesn't have a vested interest in saying it is settled and there is no longer scientific consensus, whatever that ever meant.

 

I don't think deniers keep their datasets straight...

 

Again, the raw GISS data I am referring to is available, along with the software they use to analyze it. Seriously. Go follow my link and download it.

Hah!

 

thats not raw data, that is a summation.

 

You obviously did not look for the raw data. It is available to download from the GISS website. Look for it.

 

How can you look at these graphs and think we are some collision course with doom? There's a nice El Nino peak and then a decline ever since.

 

If you prefer - global temps. ~1940 to ~ 1980 without warming. There is your 40 years Alric. AGW falsified once again by your own criteria. I can put a trendline on it if you are too blind to see it.

Please explain Alric. We're all waiting!