It's Hot! But Fox Only Talks About Global Warming When It's Snowing

[Godwynn]

Hipster Fox News

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, hence why I included the disclaimer. For reference, the Forbes article says "alarmist" 13 times.

You still owe me a new set of eyeballs!

 

[Cutlass]

Yeah, hence why I included the disclaimer. For reference, the Forbes article says "alarmist" 13 times.

There's already a counter article (sorry I can't link it due to only having my phone on me) where Trenberth is attacking Spencer saying it is absurd to say random clouds affect climate. This is unfair as the response is a personal attack and does not counter the Central point of Spencers paper that CO2 is insensitive to change as shown by the Sat data. Spencer hypothesized for further research the effect of clouds on the strength of ENSO.

And that right there should tell you that the article has no intention of being anything other than pushing an agenda.

 

[Dale]

And that right there should tell you that the article has no intention of being anything other than pushing an agenda.

Then look at any of the other reports.

I think climate scientists are aware that Earth has days and nights.

Then why do IPCC models use formulas that are used on stars? IE: 24 hour light.

 

[El_Machinae]

That paper seems to disrupt your idea that the Sun's output has been building, and that there's a lag in the heating due to that buildup, though.

 

[Formaldehyde]

This probably isn't going to help the ongoing controversy much:

Report on Dead Polar Bears Gets a Biologist Suspended

The federal government has suspended a wildlife biologist whose sightings of dead polar bears in Arctic waters became a rallying point for campaigners seeking to blunt the impact of global warming.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement notified the biologist, Charles Monnett, on July 18 that he had been placed on administrative leave pending an internal investigation into “integrity issues,” according to a copy of a letter posted online by the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

Documents posted by the group indicate that the inquiry centers on a 2006 report that Dr. Monnett co-wrote on deaths among polar bears swimming in the Beaufort Sea.

Dr. Monnett and a co-author, Jeffrey Gleason, prepared the seven-page observational report for the peer-reviewed journal Polar Biology after spotting four dead polar bears during an aerial survey of bowhead whales in the Beaufort Sea in 2004. As word of the sightings spread, images of drowned polar bears became a staple for activists who warned that global warming and the retreat of sea ice were threatening the bears’ survival.

Transcripts of an interview with Dr. Monnett posted online by the public employees group indicate that the bureau’s inspector general is focusing on calculations that Dr. Monnett made to estimate a 75 percent mortality rate among bears caught in a mid-September storm in the open sea.

Aside from the order to take administrative leave, no other documents have been made available specifying the accusations against Dr. Monnett. But a transcript of a Feb. 23 interview of Dr. Monnett by two special agents for the bureau’s inspector general, posted online by the employees group, indicates that they questioned him about a contention in the 2006 report that no dead bears had been seen in aerial surveys for 17 years before the 2004 sighting.

Dr. Monnett said that information had been relayed by a predecessor in his position, Steve Treacy.

In an interview, Dr. Treacy said that when he was in charge of the surveys on Alaska’s North Slope, “We recorded all the polar bears we saw. If there were dead ones, we would have noted that as such.” He added, “I don’t remember anything in the way of dead polar bears.”

He said of Dr. Monnett: “I think his integrity is good. What I’ve seen of it, he’s an honest guy who would tend to treat fairly with the data.”

The polar bear report had been approved by Dr. Monnett’s superiors at the bureau, which until last year was called the Minerals Management Service. But the approval was short-lived. In the interview transcript, Dr. Monnett is quoted as saying that “we got blasted, you know, really hard, by the agency” after the reports of the drowned bears circulated.

At another point, he said of his superiors, “They don’t want any impediment to, you know, what they view as their mission, which is to, you know, drill wells up there” and “put areas into production.”

 

[Cutlass]

Then look at any of the other reports.



Then why do IPCC models use formulas that are used on stars? IE: 24 hour light.

The problem there is that you are simply taking it on faith that climate scientists make the most ridiculously simple mistakes. And considering the number of them, considering how everything they say is pounced on whether there's a reason to or not, considering that there is a lot to be gained by finding mistakes, and nothing to be made in making mistakes, that just flat out doesn't fly.

Most of the rejection of global warming always seems to come down to 1) they're pushing an agenda 2) they make the most simple of mistakes (and stick to them once they are pointed out) 3) they are somehow being paid to get a predetermined answer (even though that answer benefits no one).

And that's really the best proof of all that global warming is real: The fact that the opponents do not have the ability to present science that refutes the theory, but instead only try to discredit the people who do support the theory.

 

[Dale]

The problem there is that you are simply taking it on faith that climate scientists make the most ridiculously simple mistakes. And considering the number of them, considering how everything they say is pounced on whether there's a reason to or not, considering that there is a lot to be gained by finding mistakes, and nothing to be made in making mistakes, that just flat out doesn't fly.

Most of the rejection of global warming always seems to come down to 1) they're pushing an agenda 2) they make the most simple of mistakes (and stick to them once they are pointed out) 3) they are somehow being paid to get a predetermined answer (even though that answer benefits no one).

And that's really the best proof of all that global warming is real: The fact that the opponents do not have the ability to present science that refutes the theory, but instead only try to discredit the people who do support the theory.

And you take it on faith that climate scientists do not make the most ridiculous simple mistakes. But okay, let's say I take your word on it. Answer me this then: why have the models diverged so much in the last 10-15 years that current observations are now below the IPCC predicted "best case" scenario? Wouldn't that observation alone (considering emissions amounts have actually increased more than the "worst case" scenario) indicate that the climate is not as sensitive to human emissions than you thought? And then when satellite data comes along which empirically shows proof that the amount of outgoing heat is actually more than you expected and consequently the expected warming was not as much, wouldn't that provide theory and empirical observational data that maybe the calculations in the model weren't right? Where then, does the divergance stem from? Aerosols? No, satellite data shows they've dropped slowly over the time period. Solar cycle? No, the last solar cycle matched Hathaway's prediction which was used for the last round of IPCC modeling.

 

[Dale]

That paper seems to disrupt your idea that the Sun's output has been building, and that there's a lag in the heating due to that buildup, though.

Not necessarily since the ocean retains heat longer than land. Thus the observation that Spencer made that exiting heat was more pronounced over oceans. Most solar irradiation is absorbed by the oceans. They take longer to transfer that heat out than land. But when it does (transfer it to the atmosphere) CO2 is not blocking as much as expected in the Troposphere but allowing more of it to exit than expected. The exit is what Spencer is discussing. Besides, with a solar cycle being roughly 11 years, the time frame in the study does not support the ability to form a TSI trend. Though the following data does show a long-term increasing trend.

 

[Cutlass]

And you take it on faith that climate scientists do not make the most ridiculous simple mistakes.

Let me stop you right there. You could not possibly be more wrong with that assertion. 10s of 1000s of scientists all looking for these mistakes. All of them better off personally if they find a mistake in someone else's work. Vast money being spent to point out any little flaw by people who have a financial stake in preventing legislation to address climate change. 100s of organizations all over the world riding heard on the scientists to not embarrass them.

That's what I have faith in. Not that they are perfect, not that they are right in all things. Not that their data doesn't need to be improved. Not that individuals don't get caught up in there own theories to the exclusion of all else.

But the simple fact that there is more time, effort, and money spent in looking for the errors in the work and data of others than there is in developing and testing and measuring in the first place.

And not finding it.

There simply could not possibly be the holes in the climate science you claim and not be public knowledge to the point where every single last one of the climate scientists was absolutely aware of the problems and taking them into account.

The deniers are more like the Birthers than they are like competing scientists.

You want me to be skeptical, give me a reason. Don't give me "they didn't take into account the sun".

I don't have the science background to really get into the literature and separate the good from the bad. I have to rely on those who do, and then simplify it. And what that gets me is a level of consensus that just exceeds dispute. On the other side of the argument, I get people who parrot the proven false claim that "in the 70s, they worried about global cooling".

And that is where my point is: There is a very large credibility gap between those who believe and those who deny. And those who deny are not addressing this credibility gap. And are in fact making it worse by claiming that 10s of 1000s of scientists whose careers will be ruined if they make simple and careless and simple mistakes are in fact making those careless and simple mistakes repeatedly, despite the fact that same objections are being raised again and again and again.

Now while you personally do a better job than most of presenting your case, All of your objections are repeatedly answered by others. And without resorting to links and arguments that damage their credibility.

 

[Dale]

Let me stop you right there. You could not possibly be more wrong with that assertion. 10s of 1000s of scientists all looking for these mistakes. All of them better off personally if they find a mistake in someone else's work. Vast money being spent to point out any little flaw by people who have a financial stake in preventing legislation to address climate change. 100s of organizations all over the world riding heard on the scientists to not embarrass them.

That's what I have faith in. Not that they are perfect, not that they are right in all things. Not that their data doesn't need to be improved. Not that individuals don't get caught up in there own theories to the exclusion of all else.

But the simple fact that there is more time, effort, and money spent in looking for the errors in the work and data of others than there is in developing and testing and measuring in the first place.

And not finding it.

There simply could not possibly be the holes in the climate science you claim and not be public knowledge to the point where every single last one of the climate scientists was absolutely aware of the problems and taking them into account.

The deniers are more like the Birthers than they are like competing scientists.

You want me to be skeptical, give me a reason. Don't give me "they didn't take into account the sun".

I don't have the science background to really get into the literature and separate the good from the bad. I have to rely on those who do, and then simplify it. And what that gets me is a level of consensus that just exceeds dispute. On the other side of the argument, I get people who parrot the proven false claim that "in the 70s, they worried about global cooling".

And that is where my point is: There is a very large credibility gap between those who believe and those who deny. And those who deny are not addressing this credibility gap. And are in fact making it worse by claiming that 10s of 1000s of scientists whose careers will be ruined if they make simple and careless and simple mistakes are in fact making those careless and simple mistakes repeatedly, despite the fact that same objections are being raised again and again and again.

Now while you personally do a better job than most of presenting your case, All of your objections are repeatedly answered by others. And without resorting to links and arguments that damage their credibility.

Ergo: "I can't answer your question 'why have the models diverged so much in the last 10-15 years that current observations are now below the IPCC predicted "best case" scenario?' so I'll resort to something completely unrelated."

For your information, the answer to my question lies in the papers which have come out in the last couple of months. The answer is quite simple, "Satellite data shows Earth allows more heat to escape than we thought".

 

[Arwon]

If that was the case, all that would suggest is a slightly higher probably-safe ceiling than 550ppm. Which, yay, gives us more of a window to curb emissions. It's not exactly a huge gotcha moment.

 

[Ayatollah So]

edit:
ah, here's a much better one!
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/n...obal-warming-theory/28942.html/comment-page-1

It explains what the observations were and what they were being compared to.

edit x2:
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/

And the actual article!

Remote Sensing is a 3-year-old open access journal. Perhaps not a sufficiently credible source without seeing additional scientific review. Actually, until the scientific community has a chance to respond, even something in Science or Nature should probably be taken with a grain of salt.

LiveScience reports:

However, no climate scientist contacted by LiveScience agreed.

The study finds a mismatch between the month-to-month variations in temperature and cloud cover in models versus the real world over the past 10 years, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA Goddard climatologist. "What this mismatch is due to — data processing, errors in the data or real problems in the models — is completely unclear."

Other researchers pointed to flaws in Spencer's paper, including an "unrealistic" model placing clouds as the driver of warming and a lack of information about the statistical significance of the observed temperature changes. Statistical significance is the likelihood of results being real, as opposed to chance fluctuations unrelated to the other variables in the experiment.

"I cannot believe it got published," said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Ten years is a pretty short time span over which to try to extract signal from noise, given that the last few decades' annual increase in mean global temperature averages in the few hundredths of a kelvin, whereas the year-to-year variability is more like 0.4 kelvin. Statistical significance, where are you.

 

[innonimatu]

There's already a counter article (sorry I can't link it due to only having my phone on me) where Trenberth is attacking Spencer saying it is absurd to say random clouds affect climate. This is unfair as the response is a personal attack and does not counter the Central point of Spencers paper that CO2 is insensitive to change as shown by the Sat data. Spencer hypothesized for further research the effect of clouds on the strength of ENSO.

No, a personal attack would be saying that the author is a damn creationist. I'm probably as skeptic of "global warming" as you can get (the "we don't have enough data kind), and would welcome anything which can be used to disprove the presently popular models. But even I flinch at the credentials of that guy.

Ten years is a pretty short time span over which to try to extract signal from noise, given that the last few decades' annual increase in mean global temperature averages in the few hundredths of a kelvin, whereas the year-to-year variability is more like 0.4 kelvin. Statistical significance, where are you.

Is there any satellite data for a longer period?
Anyway, the pro-AGW field has never been immune to charges of lack of statistical significance, and that's being charitable. Uncharitable would be saying "outright cherry-picking of data".

 

[Atticus]

So you don't think the possibility of starvation of two billion people is big enough reason to do anything? It must be 100% sure?

Nailed it on the head, dude.

But then you were talking against yourself here:

The words "can" and "may" need to become "will definitely". Nothing else will do. The Great Spaghetti monster "may" appear out of nowhere and "can" eat the entire planet next Tuesday at 4:53 PM Greenwich mean time. Are you worried?

By the same kind of argumentation you can't have 100% certainty on anything due to the fear of Flying Spaghetti Monster, and thus can do nothing about anything.

 

[BasketCase]

Ya lost me there, dude.

The fact that you can't be 100% certain about the Spaghetti Monster only means you can't be sure of the Spaghetti Monster.

Here's what I was aiming for: that the phrase "global warming might screw up the planet" isn't good enough.

 

[El_Machinae]

Remote Sensing is a 3-year-old open access journal. Perhaps not a sufficiently credible source without seeing additional scientific review. Actually, until the scientific community has a chance to respond, even something in Science or Nature should probably be taken with a grain of salt.

LiveScience reports:



Ten years is a pretty short time span over which to try to extract signal from noise, given that the last few decades' annual increase in mean global temperature averages in the few hundredths of a kelvin, whereas the year-to-year variability is more like 0.4 kelvin. Statistical significance, where are you.

It's really mostly a report on cloud feedback to localized heating, I think. This is the fourth one that I've seen. The first three saw localized positive feedback, but if these regions they're examining have localized negative feedback, then that would be cool. If that local climate resulted in a 'clearing of clouds during warming, then that's what would be found. I'd expect different areas to have different responses to localized heating patterns

 

[Ayatollah So]

Is there any satellite data for a longer period?

I dunno, but their data series starts when the CERES satellite went operational. I have no problem assuming that the CERES data is better than any previous data, or perhaps it's simply hard to combine/transition from one satellite's data to another. But if the data are inadequate to swamp the noise, Forbes has gotten this one dead wrong.

Actually, The authors are more circumspect than Forbes:

we are still faced with a rather large discrepancy in the time-lagged regression coefficients between the radiative signatures displayed by the real climate system in satellite data versus the climate models. While this discrepancy is nominally in the direction of lower climate sensitivity of the real climate system, there are a variety of parameters other than feedback affecting the lag regression statistics which make accurate feedback diagnosis difficult. These include the amount of non-radiative versus radiative forcing, how periodic the temperature and radiative balance variations are, the depth of the mixed layer [of the oceans], etc., all of which preclude any quantitative estimate of how large the feedback difference is.

So, in other words, the article isn't really saying that the climate models are hereby refuted. Only Forbes is saying that.

The "mixed layer" of the oceans that they're referring to, is basically a crude model of the heat-sink behavior of the oceans, assuming that temperature is distributed by advection up to a certain depth. Spencer & Braswell's mixed layer is 25 m deep, a dubious number (if you follow the link, scroll down to "how deep is the ocean?"). The use of likely-wrong parameters in a simple model of earth's time-lagged response to climate forcings seems like a really bad idea. From the linked critique written by Barry Bickmore, I gather that Spencer's been using un-physical models and sloppy statistics to reach "skeptical" conclusions for quite a while now. YMMV.

It's really mostly a report on cloud feedback to localized heating, I think.

I'd say "short-term" rather than "localized", but yeah. I suppose one could hope, as Spencer evidently does, that there is a negative long-term cloud feedback. I wouldn't bet the farm - or the coastline - on it.

 

[Rashiminos]

Call me a skeptic, but I think I will get my science peer-reviewed and from reputable organisations.

That's not so much being skeptical as it is choosing which (ostensibly better) authority
to put your faith in.

Then why do IPCC models use formulas that are used on stars? IE: 24 hour light.

At best the article suggests that a particular model is wrong. It does not directly refute observed warming trends, nor provide an alternative explanation for those trends. If it's the case that warming is indeed happening (likely, at the present time*), then that article does not identify what the causes are, and thereby suggest what measures humanity should take in response (if one is needed, or possible).

For Cutlass:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

*I've read some material on snow accumulation in the center regions of glaciers as precipitation increases. I've also read anecdotes about more snowpack than usual in China, the Rockies, and across the Southern Hemisphere (within the last couple of months for all of them).

 

[Tee Kay]

That's not so much being skeptical as it is choosing which (ostensibly better) authority
to put your faith in.

If so then most so-called skeptics aren't really skeptics, since they're doing the same thing.

I don't know about you, but IPCC and 95% of climate scientists are better authority than the mysterious, barely-existant Principia Scientific International.

Also,

WEATHER

is NOT

the same as

CLIMATE