Not So Hot

You've suffered from a reading comprehension failure - the error in the data is dwarfed by the massive error in your thread title.

 

Thankyou for revising the title.

I can't say I recall hearing those facts, prior to this brouhaha, but then I'm not based in the US. If only it was that easy to disprove global warming. It appears that in the old data 1934 vs 1998 was nearly a tie (0.01 degrees difference), and in the revised data it's still nearly a tie (0.02 degrees difference the other way). In a data source that's claimed to have 0.1 degrees of accuracy... The difference was not, and is still not statistically significant, so anyone seriously basing an argument on it either way deserves a slap.

And what's your point? Do you seriously believe this affects the science in any material way? It's had a miniscule affect on global temperature records - I did see a graph overlaying the old and new figures, and you couldn't actually see one of the lines because it was totally obscured by the other one. Can't find it now though. And it doesn't affect the predictions at all, because climate models don't use historical data, they use physics.

I'm wasn't trying to deflect from the point, I'm just saying that there are an awful lot of people with an agenda out there misrepresenting the facts, as you just did, in an attempt to make people think that somehow global warming is all a big conspiracy/cock-up/whatever, and it's all just going to go away. So far, this is just wishful thinking; there seems to be very little uncertainty left, alas. A much, much larger hole would have to be poked into data and models to seriously undermine the current concensus.

An honest mistake in data is one thing, it happens all the time. In both directions. But it really is rather intellectually dishonest to attempt to spin it like this.

 

Here's what RealClimate has to say on the issue

Full Article

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Aug 29 2007, 10:52 AM) [snapback]503844[/snapback]</div>

But it is "intellectually" more "honest" to say (or strongly imply, wink wink, the Earth has a fever!) that we are going to burn like a little crispy because the average temperature over the course of 100 years went up (and down and up and down and at last up) .74 of a degreee!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Aug 29 2007, 12:52 PM) [snapback]503844[/snapback]</div>

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...ec-6880767e7966

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Aug 30 2007, 11:20 AM) [snapback]504405[/snapback]</div>

The key data from that reference:

The 48% neutral say nothing, yet are somehow being used to support a statement that "less than half of all published scientists endorse global warming theory". Huh?

Nobody asked the authors of those papers what they thought. They just looked to see if the paper makes a statement one way or the other. Most climate change papers are about the climate, and a statement about anthropogenic causality may have nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of the paper. There is no requirement that every paper that has something to do with climate change has to include such a statement about that particular question.

So from the data, I would conclude that of the papers that do make a statement explicitly or implicitly, about 88% endorse the consensus view of anthropogenic cause, and 12% reject it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madler @ Aug 30 2007, 02:35 PM) [snapback]504444[/snapback]</div>

It doesn't say the 48% say nothing, it says the 48% refuse to either accept or reject the hypothesis.

 

So, the warmest year in the US changed.
The US is not the world.
Global warming trends is the important issue, and climate shifts.

Empirialistic thinking isn't going to work for very long...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Aug 30 2007, 01:24 PM) [snapback]504488[/snapback]</div>

Which means they said nothing. Science papers do not often make statements about refusing to make statements about something. A disingenuous conclusion was reached from nothing said that the authors "refused to make a statement". Similar in a way to the journalist's inflammatory "refused to return our calls". (Therefore guilty.)

None of the authors were asked their opinion nor were they asked anything at all. All conclusions were drawn from a set of papers selected by search on a set of keywords. There are not two categories: "authors explicitly state that they are on the fence", and "authors made no statement". There is only the one fascinatingly named category "refuse to accept or reject the hypothesis". Here is the actual table of data that the report derived its conclusions and that "category" from:

Code:

Abstracts on ISI Web of Science            Oreskes (2004)    Schulte’s review

Period under review:                       1993 to 2003      2004 to 2007
Quantity of documents reviewed:            928 documents     539 papers
Mean annual publication rate:              84.3 documents/yr 254.6  (+201%)
Explicit endorsement of the consensus:     Not stated        7%     (38 papers)
Explicit or implicit endorsement:          75%               45%    (244 papers)
Explicit rejection of the consensus:       0%                1.3%   (7 papers)
Explicit or implicit rejection:            0%                6%     (32 papers)
New data / observations on climate change: Not stated        24%    (127 papers)
New research on the consensus question:    Not stated        2%     (13 papers)
Quantitative evidence for the consensus:   Not stated        0%     (no papers)
Mention of “catastrophic†climate change:  Not stated        0%     (one paper)

(From “Consensus�What “Consensus� Among Climate Scientists, the Debate Is Not Over)

You will note no mention whatsoever in the table about "refused to make a statement". The conclusion from the table is obvious: 45% endorsed the consensus, 6% rejected the consensus. Period.

In any case, gathering statistics from papers, even when done correctly, is a lousy way to measure consensus among scientists on some question, since the purpose of the papers is not to provide some pat answer to some broad question, but to delve into new details and complexities of whatever problem that specialized paper is dealing with. The way you determine consensus is with a survey using a very clearly defined and well-understood set of questions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madler @ Aug 30 2007, 04:45 PM) [snapback]504524[/snapback]</div>

agreed

 

Worry less about the temperature and more about extreme weather.
Also worry about finite energy resources.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madler @ Aug 30 2007, 04:45 PM) [snapback]504524[/snapback]</div>

And of the 6% that rejected, not all of them sound so .... uh.... reject-ful.
from http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/cl..._globa.php#more

Searching for "global climate change" in the Web of Science and restricting the search to "Papers" and "since 2004" gave me 576 results. A bit more than Schultz, but some were published after Feb 2007. I've put all the results on the web here. Christopher Monckton has posted seven of the papers that Schultz reckons explicitly reject the consensus. You'd think that those would the best seven, so I looked at them. He does better than Pieser, because three of them really so reject the consensus.

Cao just says that there are uncertainties in our understanding of the carbon cycle. Leiserowitz just studied public opnion of the risks of climate change. Moser was not one of the 576 papers. Lai et al ends up implicitly endorsing the consensus by suggesting that reducing CO2 emissions will reduce global warming.

 

Talk to the residents of Phoenix who have had over 30 straight days over 110 F.

 

More walk and less talk I say. My parents in the midwest are complaining about the weather getting to mild in the winters... go figure!

I guess we will never find out in our lifetime but sure would be shame if we just took a chance on 'faith'

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Aug 31 2007, 04:13 AM) [snapback]504795[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shnepplehead @ Aug 31 2007, 09:40 PM) [snapback]505295[/snapback]</div>

I was just thinking about this for the last 1000 or so miles I've driven (I am currently in Ellensburg, WA, en route from Montreal back home, via the Seattle area for the weekend). Yesterday morning (I think...if this is Friday, it must be Washington...?), I was somewhere east of Bozeman, MT, and a guy came up to me in a car park and started, as often happens, asking about the Pri. Now I, like the good Prian I am, member of the cult and all, was perfectly happy to extol my baby's virtues. Then I started noticing the guy's questions were starting to get a tad pointed (about disposal of the batteries, about the comparative cost of the car itself--you know, "how much would this car cost if it wasn't a hybrid?" kind of question--and so on. And on. Then he informed me that global warming is a hoax. Ok, I replied. So what if it is? Who, exactly, is it that benefits if we accept that it IS a hoax and do nothing? And what is the harm if we act as if it is real and change our ways of doing things?

Oh. Yeah. Al Gore benefits if we believe him, and that's to be avoided at all costs, innit?

I had lunch a few hours later with a cousin in Bozeman (which is the only reason I remember that I was somewhere near Bozeman when I had the conversation). She noted that, in the years (maybe 15?) she's been there, the summers have DEFINITELY got hotter. Does that prove global warming exists? No. But it's interesting. By the same token, during the week I spent in Montreal, more than one person noted there's not as much snow there in the winters as there used to be. Does that disprove global warming exists? No.

Do I want to just say "It's a plot by those nasty liberals?" No. A plot to achieve what, exactly? (Other than the overthrow of the government, maybe... :wacko:

All I know is I ALWAYS lose when I gamble. I'm not willing to gamble on global warming NOT existing, and my kids and grandkids having no air to breathe. While the oil company backers are in their climate controlled bubbles that nobody else can afford, or live without.

I just ask cui bono?

 

bravo ...per aspera ad astra!

 

Hi All,

I think it interesting to note that the change from Coal fired Steam Locomotives ( 5 % thermal efficiency) to Diesel-Electric ( 40 % thermal effiency) occured in the 1950's. Could it be that we had locallized NA warming from the poor effiency train emissions, and the large energy expenditures for WWII industry during the 40's ? Were their other energy efficiency gains then ? Natural Gas residential heating becoming popular ? Not sure ? Fiberglass Insulation - think so. Residential A/C probably did not start up until the 60's, I think.

Then after the war, the emissions diffused world wide, and the NA continent temp dropped?

One could check this theory by looking at the east Asian temperatures in the late 90's and 2000's. They have large coal fired power emissions to support the Chinese economic growth in this period. If local temp came up from 70's when the Cultural Revolution was depressiing the economy, it would jive.

CO2 is heavier than air, so it its difusion half-life may be a decade long for a continental area.

I am not an atmospheric scientist, however. This is just pure conjecture.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Aug 29 2007, 10:52 AM) [snapback]503845[/snapback]</div>

Hey Tripp. I can't say whether the change is significant or not. It seems to me against an estimated 0.6 degree C change for the 20th century, the 0.15 degree adjustment for a span of less than a decade would be significant (granted of course that we are talking one is regional US and the other is global). But still, in terms of order of magnitude, it seems if one is "significant" then so ought be the other, or vice versa if one is "not significant".

The other thing that I find a bit troubling on this topic in particular is that Real Climate is at least in part run by Michael Mann (of hockey stick fame) and Gavin Schmidt (of NASA). I think one has to consider that MM may be happy to do what he can to discredit McIntyre after the hockey stick brouhaha. And being a NASA spokesperson, GS is likely going to downplay the results of this latest McIntyre analysis which has NASA looking a bit foolish.