Starship Asterisk*

Chris Peterson wrote: I have no idea. I don't know where the explanatory text is, or what exactly it says about this image. It is most common for historical and projected data to be presented as a decadal average, but that doesn't mean all data is. There is no way of determining visually if the data on this chart has been averaged decadally or not- that doesn't mean you can't have fine structure in the chart with a period that is arbitrarily short.

I guess I don't really know what your point is.

The explanatory text can be found in Section 10.3.1 page 762 of AR4, or Page 16 of the pdf. It says "The surface air temperature is used, averaged over each year ..." Follow the link to IPCC AR4

My point?

The observed global temperature over the last year or so has fallen outside the projections by the models cited in the various IPCC Assessment reports. One would think that on a projection of 100 years that less than ten years out the observed data would fall inside the lines. It hasn't. I don't know why anyone has any faith that there is any degree of accuracy to 100-year projection by these models.

StACase wrote:The observed global temperature over the last year or so has fallen outside the projections by the models cited in the various IPCC Assessment reports. One would think that on a projection of 100 years that less than ten years out the observed data would fall inside the lines. It hasn't. I don't know why anyone has any faith that there is any degree of accuracy to 100-year projection by these models.

Sorry, I still don't understand. What does last year's weather have to do with either past or future climate trends?

In general, what the models provide is decadally averaged results. The current models do a pretty good job of describing the trend over the last couple hundred years, which is why there is confidence in their ability to predict the future. If you read any primary research papers, you'll find that there is plenty of discussion about this, and about how far into the future models can be trusted. The farther you go, the greater the uncertainty. Most research tries to project a best-case/worst-case set of scenarios. So the curves start out equal at t=0, and deviate above and below the nominal result as time goes by. All the data that I've seen shows a trend of increasing temperatures, and there is almost no controversy around this finding. The discussion- often heated itself- is about how much heating.

Chris Peterson wrote:The discussion- often heated itself- is about how much heating.

Yes, how much heating? So far not as much as projected.

As I read the tea leaves, world temperature is going swing back up from the current down-turn, but at this point I don't think it matters. The models, already less than ten years into it, missed. I'm sure there will be more misses occurring more frequently with larger magnitudes, and I don't think they will be on the high side.

Other than that, I'm going to chalk your responses up to, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

Oh, I think I was in edit mode while you posted, so in my previous I added a link Chapter 10 of the AR4.

Have a great day

Steve Case
Brown Deer, WI

StACase wrote:Yes, how much heating? So far not as much as projected.

I don't believe that is the case. The 1997-2007 data point is above most of the model projections. The evidence is that warming is increasing faster than expected.

As I read the tea leaves, world temperature is going swing back up from the current down-turn, but at this point I don't think it matters. The models, already less than ten years into it, missed.

I don't think you understand the models, or the statistics, or you would realize that this statement makes no sense. But by all means, stick with your tea leaves. I'm going to continue reading the primary research, which is quite a bit more interesting than the distilled versions that ultimately make it into wider publication.

Hello All,

Sorry I'm late. So, what's the hubub all about? Could someone just tell me if I should buy another coat or sell the one I have?

The entire reason for using a longer period to display trends within climate as opposed to anomolies with weather is that a single yead cannot display a trend. Trends are established by longer term averaging with longer term periods being prefered over shorter ones. The longer the term that is averaged, the better the dataset. Further; the more longer period terms that are averaged then used for comparison, the better the overall dataset.

Looking at this graph

the decadal average trends are
1880-1889 down (13.82)
1890-1899 down (13.69)
1900-1909 stable (13.74)
1910-1919 stable (13.79)
1920-1929 stable (13.91)
1930-1939 stable (14.02)
1940-1949 stable (14.05)
1950-1959 down (13.98)
1960-1969 down (13.94)
1970-1979 up (14.01)
1980 1989 up (14.26)
1990-1999 up (14.40)
2000-2004 up (14.59)
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/ ... a.htm#fig2
Overall between 1880 and Presant global average up from 13.9dC to 14.6dC or a .7dC rise.
You could pick 4 individual decades and state "The climate is cooling."
You could pick 5 individual decades and state "The climate is Stable."
You could pick 4 individual decades and state "The climate is warming."
You could claim that 9 of the last 13 decades the climats has cooled or been relativelt stable so "What Warming?"
But you can not dispute that over the last 13 decades the Global average temperature has risen 0.7dC. or
1.26dF and that the overall trend is Warming.

astrolabe wrote:Sorry I'm late. So, what's the hubub all about? Could someone just tell me if I should buy another coat or sell the one I have?

Well, one of the predictions, which has also shown up in recent observations, is for more extreme weather. Colder colds and hotter hots. So I guess you should buy a new coat, and a new air conditioner.

Now that NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory failed to reach orbit I guess we'll have to continue relying on Exxon/Mobile for our AGW updates.

astrolabe wrote:Hello All,

Sorry I'm late. So, what's the hubub all about? Could someone just tell me if I should buy another coat or sell the one I have?

Something "scorch" resistant is a good choice.

Just get an older space suit from NASA's closet. They can be heated or air conditioned, can carry a non polluted air supply, possess an inherent SPF factor of about a million, and have a really cool Gold visor.

Chris Peterson wrote: The current models do a pretty good job of describing the trend over the last couple hundred years, which is why there is confidence in their ability to predict the future.

The models do not describe the trend of the last couple hundred years, the data from the last couple hundred years was used to construct the models. If curve fitting could predict the future I'd be a lot wealthier. The antarctic has only one significant greenhouse gas, CO2, so if the concentration increases the temp should increase. All the models agree with that, si? The satellite record shows temp decreasing at .09 degrees C/decade. In the arctic the surface temp is increasing at a rate of .44 degrees C/decade (until nov'08.) Also out of whack with the models. It is almost as if not all the variables and their interactions on earth are in the models.

jlfonz wrote:Here is where the whole discussion gets side tracked. The vast majority of so called "deniers" will not argue the fact that there are global temperature variations--truly only a moron would argue that. What we "deniers" are against is the faithfulls doctrine that IT is caused by man. I have yet to get an explanation (a credible one) from any of the faithfull as to why we are finding villages UNDER receding glaciers or why we find written (in an non-extra terrestrial language) documents verifying a temperate climate in Greenland (with matching archaelogical evidence) or why the poles of other planets in our solar system are sharing the same percentages of polar melting at the same time we are.

Corrected post: I have no doubt whatever that the sun's heat output has increased during the past two decades and is part of the cause .. this in accordance with prophecies written 2,000 years ago." However, it would take a stone age mentality unaware of the nature of our modern civilization to deny the fact that the planet's human-created, planetwide life support machine based on nuclear/hydro/hydrocarbon/wind/solar/tidal generation/biomass/whatever fuels are being used to create the power used to power the life support machine are contributing intense amounts of heat to the atmosphere. Such a mentality would have to be unaware of:the amount of heat given off by one automobile under operation, multiplying that one by hundreds of millions of automobiles; standing on one asphalt-tiled house roof under a sun and multiplying that heat by thousands of millions; feeling the amount of heat in one operating laundry washer and dryer, and multiplying that by hundreds of millions; feeling the heat of one small stretch of aslphalt highway heated by the sun, and multiplying that by millions of millions; etc. The stone age mentality if it lived in artic regions or high altitudes would however become aware of the high amounts of heat given off through absorbtion by the dark layers of human generated unburned hydrocarbons coating once pristine and highly reflective glaciers and ice caps.

BMAONE23 wrote:Just get an older space suit from NASA's closet. They can be heated or air conditioned, can carry a non polluted air supply, possess an inherent SPF factor of about a million, and have a really cool Gold visor.

Yeah, right, BA. And where do you propose getting the unpolluted air supply?

Chris Peterson wrote:

astrolabe wrote:Sorry I'm late. So, what's the hubub all about? Could someone just tell me if I should buy another coat or sell the one I have?

Well, one of the predictions, which has also shown up in recent observations, is for more extreme weather. Colder colds and hotter hots. So I guess you should buy a new coat, and a new air conditioner.

I think the colder colds are mere shifting of cold air masses from their normal locations to abnormal locations.

bhrobards wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: The current models do a pretty good job of describing the trend over the last couple hundred years, which is why there is confidence in their ability to predict the future.

The models do not describe the trend of the last couple hundred years, the data from the last couple hundred years was used to construct the models. If curve fitting could predict the future I'd be a lot wealthier. The antarctic has only one significant greenhouse gas, CO2, so if the concentration increases the temp should increase. All the models agree with that, si? The satellite record shows temp decreasing at .09 degrees C/decade. In the arctic the surface temp is increasing at a rate of .44 degrees C/decade (until nov'08.) Also out of whack with the models. It is almost as if not all the variables and their interactions on earth are in the models.

I read a post here or at another global warming discussion thread where the poster claimed that CO2 can not warm the atmosphere in itself. The most it could to is cause an increase in atmospheric H20 levels that would act to block the heat's eventual escape to space, and it is therefore the increased atmospheric water levels that cause global warming.
I found his point interesting but thought that it still would mean that CO2 was ultimately responsible since it was the cause for the atmospheric H2O increase.
Now, if it does work this way, increasing CO2 levels around Antarctica wouldn't necessarily act to increase heat but rather would act to increase precipitation as the increases moisture level can't be readily contained in a Cold Air mass.

aristarchusinexile wrote:I have no doubt whatever that the sun is part of the cause ..

D'ya think??

Chris Peterson wrote:

StACase wrote:The observed global temperature over the last year or so has fallen outside the projections by the models cited in the various IPCC Assessment reports. One would think that on a projection of 100 years that less than ten years out the observed data would fall inside the lines. It hasn't. I don't know why anyone has any faith that there is any degree of accuracy to 100-year projection by these models.

Sorry, I still don't understand. What does last year's weather have to do with either past or future climate trends?

In general, what the models provide is decadally averaged results. The current models do a pretty good job of describing the trend over the last couple hundred years, which is why there is confidence in their ability to predict the future. If you read any primary research papers, you'll find that there is plenty of discussion about this, and about how far into the future models can be trusted. The farther you go, the greater the uncertainty. Most research tries to project a best-case/worst-case set of scenarios. So the curves start out equal at t=0, and deviate above and below the nominal result as time goes by. All the data that I've seen shows a trend of increasing temperatures, and there is almost no controversy around this finding. The discussion- often heated itself- is about how much heating.

Models? I still clearly remember the headline and photo in Canada's mainstream newspapers two or three years ago . . "A Site Scientists Thought They Would Never See" - a photo of open ocean at the North Pole, in winter, when tourists were supposed to be able to walk on the ice.

Notice how, still in Winter with the sun only just returning to the northern latitudes,
the ice levels are dramatically reduced from what they were last year at the same time

Feb 25, 2008

Feb 25, 2009

Aliens Cause Global Warming
A Caltech Lecture by Michael Crichton.
January 17, 2003

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech ... rming.html
http://www.s8int.com/crichton.html

BMAONE23 wrote:

bhrobards wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: The current models do a pretty good job of describing the trend over the last couple hundred years, which is why there is confidence in their ability to predict the future.

The models do not describe the trend of the last couple hundred years, the data from the last couple hundred years was used to construct the models. If curve fitting could predict the future I'd be a lot wealthier. The antarctic has only one significant greenhouse gas, CO2, so if the concentration increases the temp should increase. All the models agree with that, si? The satellite record shows temp decreasing at .09 degrees C/decade. In the arctic the surface temp is increasing at a rate of .44 degrees C/decade (until nov'08.) Also out of whack with the models. It is almost as if not all the variables and their interactions on earth are in the models.

I read a post here or at another global warming discussion thread where the poster claimed that CO2 can not warm the atmosphere in itself. The most it could to is cause an increase in atmospheric H20 levels that would act to block the heat's eventual escape to space, and it is therefore the increased atmospheric water levels that cause global warming.
I found his point interesting but thought that it still would mean that CO2 was ultimately responsible since it was the cause for the atmospheric H2O increase.
Now, if it does work this way, increasing CO2 levels around Antarctica wouldn't necessarily act to increase heat but rather would act to increase precipitation as the increases moisture level can't be readily contained in a Cold Air mass.

Antartica is drier than the driest desert on earth. The air is so cold it holds about .05% of the H20 that air can hold at 65 degrees, I agree, but,water is not a factor. This is beside the point, the models don't predict the cooling data in antarctica. This wrong prediction falsifies the model.

The University of Illinois satellite images of the arctic are severely flawed by their own public admission. The satellite sensor is "drifting." If you run backwards through the images from todays date you will see the ice free areas move from day to day. Its hard to miss. You will also see that sea ice isn't very different from ten years ago. If I were smart enough to upload photos I would. However your post on page 6, dated 021709 makes the point it is very recent yet the open areas are very different.

bystander wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:I have no doubt whatever that the sun is part of the cause ..

D'ya think??

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sol ... agesc.html

I think what aristarchusinexile was trying to say is there is evidence that changes in the Sun are effecting the entire solar system evident in the equivalent receding polar caps on Mars.

aristarchusinexile wrote:I have no doubt whatever that the sun is part of the cause ..

bystander wrote:D'ya think??

Dr. Skeptic wrote:I think what aristarchusinexile was trying to say is there is evidence that changes in the Sun
are effecting the entire solar system evident in the equivalent receding polar caps on Mars.

Wow, the Skeptic himself coming to ari's defence. Pretty amazing stuff.
I am relatively certain that ari's post was not about stone age martians.

My post was kind of a semi joke. Not nearly as funny if you have to explain it.
Of course the sun is part of the cause. It would be pretty cold without it.

neufer wrote:Aliens Cause Global Warming
A Caltech Lecture by Michael Crichton.
January 17, 2003

• An historical approach detailing how over the last thirty years scientists have begun to intermingle scientific and political claims.

Great lecture. Very much in keeping with what he had to say in his novel State of Fear.

bystander wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:I have no doubt whatever that the sun is part of the cause ..

bystander wrote:D'ya think??

Dr. Skeptic wrote:I think what aristarchusinexile was trying to say is there is evidence that changes in the Sun
are effecting the entire solar system evident in the equivalent receding polar caps on Mars.

Wow, the Skeptic himself coming to ari's defence. Pretty amazing stuff.
I am relatively certain that ari's post was not about stone age martians.

My post was kind of a semi joke. Not nearly as funny if you have to explain it.
Of course the sun is part of the cause. It would be pretty cold without it.

I'm not defending or promoting one side or the other - "the facts aren't in". (I was helping a wounded turtle back to it's feet for argument sake)
The argument "could" have merit "if" there were enough historical data collected.

bystander wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:I have no doubt whatever that the sun is part of the cause ..

D'ya think??

Okay Bystander .. eye rolling is totally called for. Thanks for the reminder that proper communication is called for. "I have no doubt whatever that the sun's heat output has increased during the past two decades and is part of the cause .. this in accordance with prophecies written 2,000 years ago."