Saturday, July 03, 2010

Comments on AGW 'evidence'

A person, @AI_AGW on twitter gave me three links regarding proof of AGW in response to my comment about warming on Mars.

Regarding the Mars warming(sorry, can't find the link) a video 'debunking' the concept of warming on Mars. Only, watching it, there were a couple things. First he mentions that dust storms have changed the face of Mars that could lead to increased temperatures. Two points: what is driving the storms, higher temperatures? and second, he doesn't actually say that Mars is NOT a matter of fact, he all but concedes it but notes 'storms may have affected temperature' and 'not enough knowledge to know IF there is warming or what it's cause may be."

So the link to 'debunk' does not. There certainly may be other links that do a better job, but as @AI_AGW appears to spend all his/her time promoting AGW, you would think s/he has the best debunking.

Moving on: article at skeptical science

Fig 1: Atmospheric co2 starts climbing BEFORE total CO2 Emissions do - that is not suggestive, but it is not supportive.

Levels 350ppm is .00385% of the atmosphere content. 4/10 of 1%

Fig 4. Ocean heating 'lag'? 1850 - 1970 little or no change, but from 1980 on ? why if CO2 has been on a parabolic rise since 1850, why has the change taken over a 100 years to have a continuous impact on the oceans? saturation?

With regard to the report on 'climategate' and the 'hacked emails', I find it interesting that ONLY the hacked emails were reviewed. the speaker in the next video wonders why the 'hacked emails' have not resulted in criminal actions against the 'hacker'. of all the emails, two interested me: the one where Jones said he would destroy the data before turning it over - and then of course, the data is no longer available; two, some decline in the current temps diverging from models unexpected?

2nd video NASA global warming facts

1st chart: 1940-1980 temp falling or stable but CO2 was increasing 1850 to present. Why is the temp stable or falling?
2nd chart: 1880 - 1920 had no temp there is a 70yr lag on temp to co2?

1/3 degree per decade is not 1.5 degree change from 1880 to now. 120 yrs: 80ppm increase, 1.5 degree. to get 5 degree change, we need 250ppm change in co2. assuming that the system can convert the co2 to heat at the same rate as over the last 120 years.

The comment that we are making precise measurements is strange given we have gone from 6700 reporting stations to just about 1700 over the last 30 years. further, UHI (urban heat islands) are growing significantly and temp monitoring stations are being compromised. ignore the obvious ones that were placed badly - some of the reviews of well placed stations and their reporting over the years is clearly compromised. I am sure one station, or 3 stations will not change any opinions, but going from 6700 to 1700 seems to be a bad idea.

with regard to satellite temp readings being in good agreement with land/sea based readings, current satellite readings are showing .12 to .19 degree per decade increase - much lower than .33 of a degree and well below a 5 degree change rate.

The satellite data is not without problems, John Christy of UAH concludes:

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.

This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored, but the issue is still open."

the link is to skeptical science, source of links provided to me.

the number of stations decrease has been described as non-issue due to the better quality of those that remain. conceded. however, FEWER data points seldom are better than more unless the more is compromised - which is possible.

Another issue, ocean warming would increase water vapor in the atmosphere - a significant greenhouse 'gas' and considerably higher concentrations.

while temps in the higher atmosphere are in fact increasing, the surface temperatures seem to have stalled somewhat (I won't say reduced though there may be some suggestion of it). that should not be happening. as climate can drive weather but weather is not climate POV, the number of temp and precipitation records that were set this past winter suggests weather is not following climates dictates.

3rd video Steven Schnieder of stanford

I skipped the first 40 minutes of this video to get to the meat - there may have been good reason not to - sue me.

@ approx
44:00 min. "models are good, until 1970 or so"
46:00 min all the graphs show a temp drop in the 70s. co2 has been continuously climbing since the 1850's - why is there a temp drop/stall in the 70's? some other factor?

One of his fingerprints: 'models correctly predicted that days would be warmer than nights'. REALLY!? Damn fine models they are.

IPCC was not dependent on Climategate emails or 'how wavy the hockey stick is'. Interesting because at
58:00 IPCC is dependent on the science provided - it takes the science and offers an interpretation. it does not 'catch' or verify the data. Hence we have 'small' back tracks from IPCC on claims that could not be, or were never, backed up by actual science. If the science provided is corrupt, IPCC does not, can not catch it and therefore interprets based on false information. the question is, if IPCC is not dependent upon the science - the data related to in climategate emails and MWP whitewash - what IS it dependent on?

for myself: I don't deny science fact - earth is warmer now than 40 years ago. I deny the conclusions reached based on that fact - ie, the conclusion that co2 is the primary culprit and that humans are the primary source.

1:07:00 warming causes higher water vapor - more precipitation.
1:09:00 earth has no brakes to higher temps/ co2? there is no feedback mechanisms? huh?
1:16:00 IPCC: the Himalayan mistake got did others
Congress and citizens not qualified to determine the risk? maybe, but they are the ones to determine what the response will be. Risk is a subjective conclusion, not just a scientific conclusion

1:19:00 Ice fjord affected by ocean water warming, not air warming

1:30:00 bell curve shift = less cold weather...2009/2010 winter cold extremes? yes, weather is not climate - does climate drive weather - " more Cat 5 hurricanes"

1:31:00 regarding fires in the West caused by warming being larger - that ignores the fact that smaller burns have been prevented by ecologists such that we know that the underbrush has gotten out of hand and when fires happen, they are bigger


here is the issue.
the earth is warming. why? good question. some of the answer is humans - there are 6 billion of us, 4 billion more than in 1900. that is a lot of human activity.
co2 is going up. why? good question. some of the answer is humans - there is a lot of human activity that produces co2
is the earth warming primarily being driven by co2 increases? good question. maybe. but .12-.19 degree a decade? the average over the last 120 years appears to be about, .15 degree a decade. co2 is up 85ppm over the last 120 years (most of it in the last 30 years - depending on the charts) temps appear to be going up only in the last 30 years? overlaying temps on co2 changes does not suggest a correlation - well, maybe some but certainly not strong.

we have long ocean cycles, long solar cycles

In a vat with 1,000,000 balls at a temp of 50 degrees, adding 85 balls that are 30 degrees warmer are not likely have any significant impact on the temp of the vat.
(assuming stirring the vat is what keeps it at 50 degrees in the first place)

Our understanding of our climate has dramatically improved over the last 20 years - in the face of 4 BILLION years of climate history, I'm impressed but not convinced that we KNOW anywhere near enough to justify killing 4 billion people. Just not.

here is a post I made a while back on the issue...if you care to spend the time.