Man Based Global Warming....

Anthony Watts is a former TV meterologist. Confusing him with a climatologist is like confusing a retired Jiffy Lube technician with the engineer who designed the engine. Try again.

Meanwhile here's another hockey stick for you to snicker at:
Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds (Climate Progress, 3 September 2009)

 

I'm afraid it is you who suffers the confusion. The data in the article I link are collected, archived and made available by the Danish Meteorolgical Institute. It would make no difference to their scientific validity if a drooling moron passed them on for consideration. The truth is the truth.

Please try and pay attention - your link refers to the very same paper already under discussion.

You obviously didn't bother to read what I presented or you are incapable of understanding what you read. I must assume that you are unwilling even to look at another perspective and are a full-blown AGW religionist.

 

I think this paper actually cinches it. Barring blog posts and misinterpretations of contrarians.

 

Can anyone here actually READ and COMPREHEND? I may expect too much.

Alric posts the SAME graph and references as do Fibber and the Shoe Maker. That is - the new Kaufman et al paper. The whole point of my links and posts is to demonstrate that within a day of reviewing it problems with it are already evident.

Actual OBSERVED data from DMI scientists headed by this man casts serious doubt on the statements made and conclusions drawn. Please note that in addition to this bio the website for the Danish Institute lists the bios of dozens of scientists. Dr. Buch has published more than a HUNDRED papers. What is your problem with this man and the Danish Institute, Mr Shoe Maker?
Erik Buch
Afdeling: COI
Telefon: +45 39 15 72 10
Fax: +45 39 15 73 00
E-mail: [email protected]
Stilling: Ph.D.
Head of COI
Centre for Ocean and Ice.

Education
Membership of professional bodies
Professional experience record
List of publications

Education

Ph.D in Physical Oceanography
Bachelor of commerce - management; Project management
Membership of professional bodies

Censor in Physical Oceanography at the University of Copenhagen.
Member of the Danish Greenland Sea Project Steering Committee, 1986-94.
Member of International Greenland Sea Project Scientific Steering Group 1987-94, secretary 1991-94.
Danish representative in ICES (International Council For Exploration of of the Sea) Hydrography Committee.
Member of ICES W.G. on Oceanic Hydrography, chairman 1991-96.
Member of the management group of the Danish SCOR Committee since 1985, chairman 2005.
Project co-ordinator and chairman of the steering group of the NORDIC WOCE, 1988-1996.
Nordic representative in the Intergovernmental WOCE panel under UNESCO, 1992-96.
Danish representative in EuroGOOS since 1995.
Vicechairman for EuroGOOS Technology Plan W.G., 1997-1999.
Vicechairman for EuroGOOS Northwestern Shelves Task Team,1997-99
Chairman for EuroGOOS Baltic Task Team 1998 - 2001.
Chairman for Baltic Operational Oceanographic System - BOOS since 2001
EuroGOOS officer 1999-2002.
Chairman of the Danish EuroGOOS Committee.
Coordinator of the EU-financed project PAPA project 2002- 2005.
Chairman for Nordic Council of Ministers "Expert group on ocean climate research" 2001 - 2003.
Member of the Programme Committee for the research project "Westnordic Ocean Climate".
Member of the management board for the EU-financed project MERSEA IP.
Coordinator of the EU-financed project ECOOP 2007 - .
Professional experience record


1982 - 1990:
Greenland Fisheries Research Institute: Research Scientist in Physical Oceanography
Head of Fisheries Department 1984-1986
Vice director 1986-87.

1990 - 1998:
Royal Administration of Navigation and Hydrography
Head of Oceanographic Division

1998 - now: Danish Meteorological Institute
Head of Division for Oprational Oceanography 1988 - 2005
Head of Centre for Ocean and Ice 2006 -

1986 - 1999: University of Copenhagen
External associate professor in Physical Oceanography

 

This is too much. I, for one, am sick and tired of your constant insults. You're the one who refuses to accept any information contrary to your pre-conceived ideas, despite all the reasonable and far-more-polite-than-you-deserve responses to your endless diatribes. Give it up and go find something useful to do.

 

I think everyone reads and comprehends just fine. Most people can discriminate between published data and conclusions, and plain opinion and contrarianism.

 

this thread is the text-based equivalent of watching people scream at walls on youtube.

 

I agree, Alric has the patience of Job to continue conversing with Ufourya. Ufourya is perhaps the perfect frontman for the denialists: a zealot, seemingly unintelligent, dishonest, stubborn to the point of insanity, and illogical. It's like Groundhog Day addressing the BS, but in this case Ufourya is the only one who learns nothing from day-to-day, while the rest of the folks move on.

The thread is much more fun with Ufourya and the other denialists on ignore. It really boosts the signal-to-noise ratio and makes the thread mildly entertaining. If they bring up anything worth noting, Alric comments on it. Otherwise, I just watch them get the stuffing beaten out of them. opcorn:

The best part was watching the serial "This user is on your Ignore List" when Ufourya was posting 6 out of the 10 posts per page. This from the guy who told us he was leaving... Guess that lie didn't work for him either. Sucks when everybody calls your bluff, doesn't it, Ufourya?

 

As usual, nothing of substance, just childish attacks. Not one of you addresses, much less weakens the thrust of criticisms to the Kaufman paper. Here I am trying to educate those in dire need of it and this is the thanks I get. Of course, S Clarke cut himself off from any education long ago and constantly displays the forlorn results.

I repeat my 'insult'. Can anyone here read and comprehend? It seems a most cogent question.

Meanwhile, back to the world of honest science:

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

September 4, 2009
Arctic Temperature Reporting In The News Needs A Reality Check

There new articles that claim the Arctic is rapidly warming. These articles are an excellent examples of the cherrypicking of particular published papers to promote the very narrow perspective of the journalists.
These include
An Associated Press news article by Randolph E. Schmid titled “Arctic reverses long-term trend”.
A New York Times article by Andrew C. Revkin titled “Humans May Have Ended Long Arctic Chill”.
The Schmid article has the text
“The most recent 10-year interval, 1999-2008, was the warmest of the last 2,000 years in the Arctic, according to the researchers led by Darrell S. Kaufman, a professor of geology and environmental science at Northern Arizona University.
Summer temperatures in the Arctic averaged 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) warmer than would have been expected if the cooling had continued, the researchers said.
The finding adds fuel to the debate over a House-passed climate bill now pending in the Senate. The administration-backed measure would impose the first limits on greenhouse gases and eventually would lead to an 80 percent reduction by putting a price on each ton of climate-altering pollution.”
Revkin reinforces this extreme view in his September 3 2009 article with his figure of 2000 years of Arctic surface temperatures, with each decade having the same temporal resolution as the last 10 years.
The publication of these news articles are clearly meant to influence the political process, as evident in the last paragraph, where Schmid writes “The finding adds fuel to the debate over a House-passed climate bill now pending in the Senate.”
The documentation of their biased reporting is easy to show. For example, they do not report on observational data which does not show this rapid recent warming; e.g. see that the current high latitude temperatures are close to the longer term average since 1958
The Danish Meteorological Institute Daily Mean Temperatures in the Arctic 1958 – 2008 [and thanks to the excellent weblog Watts Up With That for making this easily available to us!]
There are also peer reviewed papers which show that the Schmid and Revkin articles are biased; e. g. see
i) the areal coverage of the coldest middle tropospheric temperatures (below -40C) have not changed radically as shown in the Revkin figure; see
Herman, B., M. Barlage, T.N. Chase, and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2008: Update on a proposed mechanism for the regulation of minimum mid-tropospheric and surface temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic. J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, D24101, doi:10.1029/2008JD009799.
and
ii) there is a warm bias in the Arctic surface temperature measurements when they are used to characterize deeper atmospheric warming; see
Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., accepted.
At least the news Editors of the newspapers are starting to recognize that these journalists are presenting slanted news. The Schmid article appeared only on page 12 of my local newspaper.

 

And, once again, more simply for those with limited attention spans, to the Kaufman paper:

One problem - This observation from a reader of the former TV meteorologist's website:

This paper supposedly ties all of the 20th century Arctic warming to greenhouse gas emissions… There’s one tiny problem with the paper’s claim…
All of the anomalous warming occurred in one “step shift” before 1950; while most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 has occurred since 1950…

Kaufman et. al. w/ my annotations
And here is that graph Dave annotated:



Another problem noted by the former TV meteorologist himself:

Both Kaufman et al and NOAA claim recent Arctic warming. In the case of the Kaufman paper, they specifically claim they “found that the cooling trend reversed in the mid-1990s.”

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/dmi_arctic_temp-vs-era40climate_animation.gif

Go to this link and watch the animation of OBSERVED (In this instance measured by the aforementioned DMI - a scientific body with which the former TV meteorologist is unconnected) temperatures 1958 - 2009 with your own eyes. It doesn't even require reading, and only minimal comprehension, Tonto. Then explain where you see the reversal from cooling to warming.

If you won't do this, then I must assume it is YOU, my friends, who are the obdurate denialists, not I.

 

This issue is so simple. Everyone - of every attitude on this issue - plays a vital part in it. You see, the planet has automatic corrective
processes which attempt to balance things out and keep the place going. We used to call that "Mother Nature". When too much of any single activity occurs and upsets the apple cart, these kick-in and
try to normalize things. Right now, there are an excess of humans on the planet. Everything we do creates carbon dioxide. The automatic system in this case just kills off the excess humans and re-balances things. The way that this works - is designed to make you ignore it...
else it won't work. It is very important that most people ignore it, else threaten the very existence of our earth. So you see, you all play a vital part in this drama. Oh, remember too that they views are wonderful near the shoreline! It is great to live near the ocean!
Everything is just fine.
( I keep hearing that on some TV news channel -it must be true)

 

Sure, natural selection at work. The slow, weak, and none-too-bright are weeded out, making the species stronger. The problem is, our destructive behaviour affects all life forms, not just the stupid humans. Oh well, we've had mass extinctions before, so this is nothing to worry about, right?

 

I'm at a loss here guys. How do you debate someone who references papers that have nothing to do with the discussion and shows graphs the prove your own point?

That gif animation ufourya shows it is probably the worst way to visualize this data. However, you can still see how over time the temperature increases.

The papers are about minute points in the overall discussion that do not contradict the main conclusion of recent increases in temperature.

U, could you distill for each of your points how is recent temperature increase proven false. If you could do it succinctly and without insults, even better.

 

Why would you want to ?

 

The point I repeatedly make is that CO2 cannot be shown to be the main driver of any observed global warming. PERIOD. It is ASSUMED to be the major driver of heating when this cannot be shown in ANY substantive way. The assumption is supported SOLELY by computer models - nothing else! AGW proponents spend considerable energy attempting to discredit the notions that global warming and cooling have taken place throughout the history of the planet without ANY possible input from mankind. Yet NOW he is the MAJOR culprit.

Yet, the authors of this paper (Kaufman et al) under discussion make this assumption without showing how THEIR data describe anything but a warming jump.

So, in the first place, a perceived jump in warming does not demonstrate that it is due to CO2 emissions - that is ASSUMED by the authors.

In the second place, OBSERVED temperatures in the region under study do not support the authors' assertions that (a) CO2 emissions are responsible for the step-change in THEIR data, {since it occurs BEFORE 1950, which is BEFORE emissions reach significantly higher levels} (b) There is a SIGNIFICANT increase in temperatures in the 1990s {I beg to differ with your interpretation of the animation} and (c) Their data {yet again, a result of proxy studies in part} do not match with data that are TAKEN DAILY SINCE 1958 WITH THE MOST ACCURATE MEASUREMEENT DEVICES CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.

Thirdly, most of the links recently presented concering Kaufman et al are to journalistic representations of the paper's conclusions. These journalists are already steeped in the AGW brew and the biases are easily demonsrated - as in the Dr. Pielke post above.

Friend, this is should not be difficult to understand.

I realize that we, as individuals, are predisposed to find information that supports our individual viewpoints. When we do this in an honest fashion sometimes the facts do not support the opinions we have fashioned in this manner. Some prople recognize the facts and change their opinions. Others don't. I think my view on AGW is correct - you do not.

Time will tell. I am concerned, however, that in this process scientific integrity falls into question. I think the vast majorty of scientists take the view that their colleagus in diverse fields are honest in their inquiries and presentations. There are the occasional frauds, as we all should know. Personlly, I'm old enough to have lived through a number of them. I'm NATURALLY skeptical. When it is DEMONSTRABLY false to claim cataclysmic results from further warming (regardless of the cause) I tend to become even more so.

That the number of scientists who are skeptical of AGW grows, tells me that this is not settled science and that further review is necessary before huge investments are made when they might be better used in other areas.

 

If you and Radio Man want to start a seperate thread about Darwinian evolution, I'll be happy to join in. In the meantime I'll just pose some questions.

If the slow, the weak and the none-to-bright are weeded out, how did man become the superior species on the globe? He's slower than most other living things, save plants, slugs, sloths and such -certainly not the swiftest. Not as strong as the apes from whom he purportedly evolved through natural selection, he nevertheless dominates. So he IS the brightest, right?

If he's the brightest, why would he seek to negate the very thing that brought him to the pinnacle? Rather than kill off the weak and lame, we build hospitals etc. Rather than kill off the mentally deficient, we coddle them. Why? This is very un-Darwinian. Darwinism would instead decree eugenics and the concept of superior races, would it not? Let's see, what was the title of that book, oh yes - The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

I wonder how the Nazis came to believe they were part of a 'favored race'?

How does natural selection result in a species which actively participates in its own destruction? It can't, according to Darwin, can it?

Re RM's notion that 'Mother Nature' regulates everything to keep it in balance - why? If everything in the universe, including this planet and its inhabitants is the result of accident or randomness, why would 'Mother Nature' require ANY balance?

Hey, just a few questions. If you wish, start the thread and let me know. If not, ...

 

Right. Perhaps someone can explain why it is that the planet Venus (462 degrees celcius) is hotter than the planet Mercury (400 degrees celcius) . . . even though Mercury is 36,000,000 miles from the sun, and Venus is 67,000,000 miles from the sun ... nearly TWICE as far away from the sun. Btw, the "Driving" atmosphere of Venus is mostly C02. No computer was hurt, posting these statistics.


.

 

This is great! Acceptance of the fact of evolution is my minimum to engage someone in rational discussion. Bye ufourya!

 

A 'debate' with you about evolution? No thanks.

Just out of curiosity, what are your views on the Copernican revolution?

 

You either have a terminally closed mind or are under the impression that the fact of evolution may only be defined by Darwin's ideas (or both). I am on record in this very thread as saying I believe in evolution.

So, not as an insult, but rather as an observation, I'll repeat my question - can anyone here read and comprehend? I assumed a general level of education when I posed that question. Perhaps I should revise it to include a modicum of general knowledge. That general knowlege would include a familiarity with other evolutionary ideas - evolution by symbiogenesis (Lynn Margulis), biological self-organization (Stuart Kauffman), evolution through natural genetic engineering (James Shapiro), evolution by intelligent design (Michael Behe). Oh oh, I just saw that knee jerk!

So, rather than reapond to any of my points about AGW, you're at last going to run away on the spurious pretext that I am too dumb to engage in rational discourse concerning another field.

Your lack of response speaks for itself. Buh bye.