Man Based Global Warming....

So is it your contention that over the past 30 years, the temperature in the east Antarctic has increased?

 

As if I meant all 6 billion plus people in the world would be refusing a "wafer thin" from the waiter when finished with their dinner... Not everyone is a fortunate as Mr. Creosote...

Of course localized famine will always exist in pockets of the world, especially in Africa. Localized famine outbreaks have commonly occurred in these areas for thousands of years which can be attributed to even only one bad year of crop harvests. Poverty, lack of planning and infrastructure to bring food and even basic fertilizers will continue such cycles. Zimbabwe and its corrupt political structure is a prime example.

It's a terrible Catch-22 situation in these areas. Large families are valued in the rural areas and can be supported when food harvests are good. But when drought strikes for a year or more, then these relatively large populations suffer disproportionately from lack of proper nutrition.

With regards to a world wide famine (of which I should have been more specific in my last post) I still stand firm and state developed nations such as ours and Europe's will never allow that to happen.

Rick
#4 2006

 

Study: Effects Of Climate Change Irreversible

by Richard Harris

All Things Considered, January 26, 2009 · Even if global carbon emissions were halted today, damage from the already rising thermostat would continue for 1,000 years, says a sobering study. Continuing with business as usual would create permanent dust-bowl conditions in the U.S. Southwest and around the Mediterranean.

Study: Effects Of Climate Change Irreversible : NPR

Can't wait for the audio and to find out about the new study.

By the way Rick, personal incredulity and standing firm are NOT arguments.

 

While driving to NC the past weekend I heard an interesting story on the BBC. They interviewed Örjan Gustafsson, who just published an article in Science on the "Brown Cloud" that covers India, the Indian Ocean, Asia and stretches out into the Pacific Ocean almost to North America. He and his team from Stockholm University determined that the cloud is made up of particulates mostly from the small-scale burning of biomass for heating and cooking in Asia. The study attributed 2/3 of the cloud to biomass and 1/3 to industrial burning of fossil fuels. He made this determination by measuring the amount of Carbon 14. He also concluded that the brown cloud is a greater contributor to warming than CO2.

The good news is that this cloud is easily preventable by transferring cleaner heating and cooking technology to the poor areas of Asia. The particulates only stay in the atmosphere for weeks so we could fix this in a year if western countries had the will to do it. Reducing the brown cloud would also have big health benefits as 350,000 people a year die due to respiratory illnesses attributed to the brown cloud.

 

This is from DR Hansen's own website. Looking at his own numbers, how can he say we are in a period of catastrophic global warming and that man has caused it? Has the amount of man-generated carbon stabilized over the last decade? Is there a lag in the relationship? Or is it all just bs?

 

Your graph depicts a ten-year period. A ten year period is insufficient to show long term trends. Simple enough. The graph below is also from Dr. Hansen's website. You ought to try actually reading some of the material there. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090113_Temperature.pdf

 

What is a long-term trend? 10 years, 25 years, 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years, 1,000,000 years?

I know I am not a scientist, but the latest articles on Antarctica really got under my skin. It said the stations are all in the wrong parts of Antarctica and those places are cooling but the parts of Antarctica without stations are warming..... if that is so what about the earth in general, i bet the vast majority of weather stations are in the northern hemisphere.

I start to get re-sold on AGW by some of you and other reading and then I read articles that on a common-sense level make no sense.

You scientists tell me in all of the climate modeling that is going on is the climate baseline steady? And if so, in reality has the climate ever been steady?

 

Wrong. Exactly like that one.

Exact opposite. They've been less frequent from what I've seen over the past few decades. Have one and you start going on about global cooling. Sheesh.

One of the things I've noted is how infrequent the wails from Florida have been with regard to winter. Instead there has been multi year drought, the swamps on fire (witnessed this) and such. Hearing them gripe about freezing citrus takes me back several decades.

But get used to it, extremes are the norm anymore. "Normal" years are now abnormal.

No, I actually recall childhood conditions more clearly in many regards. I think the real problem is that your view of reality is distorted by a faith based approach called "wishful thinking."

 

If you want to find out more about temperature data, you can see an audit of here.

It is not a pretty picture. Most of the audited stations (69%) have upward temperature biases of 2 or more degrees C, due to improper maintenance, poor station locations, and the like. And these are presumably the "best" maintained stations in the world since they are here in the U.S.

Another interesting aspect of global surface temperature is that the increase in temps in the record corresponds with a large loss in weather stations upon the collapse of the Soviet Union. You can google this and find some interesting info. It is hard to imagine that a loss of a significant #of stations from Siberia, for instance, is not going to cause an apparent increase in global temps unless someone is extremely scrupulous about how they manage the data. Even then, I'm not sure how you correct for this loss.

These are some reasons I prefer the satellite temperature data vs. that from meteorological stations. Unfortunately, that only goes back 30 years.

 

How does the satellite temperature data stack up against the station data over the last 30 years?

 

That is not a reference! The material you are posting can not be used for substantive conversation. If worthwhile work comes out of this effort it should be published in a journal after peer review.

Someone's opinion in a blog it's not a valid reference!

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Now go to the source of this graph and looks at every other graph in that page. Like it was said previously. Ten years is not enough to see this trend. The best way to see this trend is too look at the span human civilization to understand this kind of climate would be unprecedented for us.

 

I don't mean to sound like an American who is full of himself, but how much worldwide data is more than 50 years old? Does anyone really believe that all of the warmest years on record worldiwde were over the last 15 years? How come that is not true in the US? Who has the best most reliable data? After reading Tim's post I am amazed so much of the data is coming from questionable sources.

 

So the earth has never been warmer during all of man's existence? i thought the hockey stick graph was proven false.

 

Has never been warmer. The hockey stick was validated in a subsequent study where 16 different ways of measure ancient temperature all agreed on a warming trend:



It was actually never in doubt. A small correction by McIntyre did not change the conclusion of the original report.

 

Well, it seems the director of NCDC, Tom Karl, thought it was important enough that he invited Anthony Watts to spend 2 days meeting with his team to present findings.

But I guess you know more about this than Tom Karl.

In any case, if you prefer a peer reviewed paper that points out many of the same problems as surfacestations.org, you can go here.

This paper documents various unresolved issues in using surface temperature trends
as a metric for assessing global and regional climate change. A series of examples ranging
from errors caused by temperature measurements at a monitoring station to the
undocumented biases in the regionally and globally averaged time series are provided. The
issues are poorly understood or documented and relate to micrometeorological impacts
due to warm bias in nighttime minimum temperatures, poor siting of the instrumentation,
effect of winds as well as surface atmospheric water vapor content on temperature trends,
the quantification of uncertainties in the homogenization of surface temperature data, and
the influence of land use/land cover (LULC) change on surface temperature trends.
Because of the issues presented in this paper related to the analysis of multidecadal surface
temperature we recommend that greater, more complete documentation and quantification
of these issues be required for all observation stations that are intended to be used in such
assessments. This is necessary for confidence in the actual observations of surface
temperature variability and long-term trends.

 

Nope. Never got this warm this fast, either.

 

That is better. Fortunately, land stations are not the only methods to measure temperature. And every method used so far, from satellite to proxies (that is glacier retreat, tree rings, etc) all agree with the observation of warming.

The results of that paper are duly noted and taken into account by climatologists in their assessments.

In fact:

"The GHCN/USHCN/SCAR data are modified in two steps to obtain station data from which our tables, graphs, and maps are constructed. In step 1, if there are multiple records at a given location, these are combined into one record; in step 2, the urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.

A global temperature index, as described by Hansen et al. (1996), is obtained by combining the meteorological station measurements with sea surface temperatures based in early years on ship measurements and in recent decades on satellite measurements. Uses of this data should credit the original sources, specifically the British HadISST group (Rayner and others) and the NOAA satellite analysis group (Reynolds, Smith and others). (See references.)"

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

But the common sense approach is even better. Look at this two pictures:





Where are the highest documented anomalies? Away from urban centers and unpopulated areas like the arctic.

In the end this is another case of a provided reference not supporting your assertion. Yes urban centers affect land based data, but this is taken into account and verified with other sources.

 

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Global warming is 'irreversible'

Read this article, in my opinion it just serves to create fear. No science, nothing, there would be less rainfall in already dry areas? Why? Doesn't warm air hold more moisture? This article will be picked up by hundreds of papers and it says nothing.