Thanks for the excellent response, Rich. I appreciate it.
Burgy
On 6/11/08, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
> Note: my response below is primarily for the benefit of the ASA list and
> Burgy. I have copied Glenn as a courtesy since he is off list again (which
> IMHO is a shame because his background with respect to oil is unmatched on
> the list or for that matter universally).
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:39 PM, j burg <hossradbourne@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Not being a climate scientist, nor privy to how the IPCC scientists
> > worked, Ther is little I can respond to. Glenn may be right. But if he
> > is, why is nobody in the climate scientist community pointing this
> > stuff out?
>
> Of course they are not negligent. Glenn is only commenting on certain
> temperature stations. The same trend shows up in the middle of the ocean and
> in the lower troposphere radiosonde and satellite records which don't suffer
> from UHI effects. If AGW is true there should also be a decrease in the
> lower stratosphere and sho' 'nuff it's there too. The measured record also
> matches the computer models *only if* you include the effects of increasing
> CO2. I'll talk a little more about this below but the greatest warming is in
> the polar regions where there is no UHI effect.
>
> Look at this of the lower troposphere:
> http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/data/amsu_daily_85N85S_chLT.r001.txt
> http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001
>
>
> And this for the lower stratosphere:
> http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/data/amsu_daily_85N85S_ch09.r006.txt
> http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+006
>
>
> During the time that there was supposedly no warming -- after 1998 -- the
> lower troposphere has warmed. June 9 data shows that 2008 is the warmest in
> 10 years and greater than the "20 year record". That's not surprising
> because in the last month we have now changed from La Nina to neutral ENSO.
> The Real Climate people want to take a bet that it will be warmer in 5 years
> with the people that recently predicted otherwise. My read of the data is
> this is a real sucker bet because even though we had La Nina and were at
> solar minimum we still are on track for a top 10 out of 150 year for 2008.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > > There are feed back loops which people don't take into account. Hotter
> air, holds more water. Hotter seas gives off more water, but high in the
> atmosphere, the water will cool and should form more cloud cover to reduce
> the insolation hitting the earth.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Burgy again. I think my response here is much the same as #1. Did the
> > > IPCC take int account feedback loops? Or not? Without expertise in
> > > climate science, I don't have the tools to address this question.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> The climate models include these negative feedbacks. The positive feedbacks
> are the ones that are the most troublesome because we may be underestimating
> the future warming. From 1980 to 2007, the minimum polar ice extent differed
> by the area of the entire continental United States minus the state of
> Arizona. This in turn decreases the albedo and increases warming. There is
> also -- as predicted by global warming theory -- what is known as polar
> amplification. The warming is far more pronounced in the polar regions where
> we don't have to tease out the signal from the noise. The melting of the
> permafrost releases methane which is another positive feedback.
>
> See here to see what it looks like:
>
> http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/images/20071017_meltseasona.mov
>
> and:
>
> http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/images/20071017_timeseries.png
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> >
> > Finally, I commnented:, "On tectonics plate theory, the "herd" was
> >
> > wrong. OTOH, the "herd" > > is more often right than wrong. We all
> > depend on this every day. Let
> > > > me suggest that MAYBE you are right, the "herd" is wrong ."
> >
> > Glenn responded:
> >
> > "I pointed you to a picture of the deuterium temperature record from
> >
> > Vostok ice core which I personally downloaded and plotted.
> >
> >
> http://home.entouch.net/dmd/WeatherVostokPostglacialTemp.jpg
> >
> > You can easily repeat my download and plot. The fact is that the
> > earth was hotter than today prior to 3200 years ago all the way back
> > to 10,800 years or so. This is fact. Who cares what the herd thinks
> > after facts have been established. If it isn't to be fact, then one
> > needs to explain how in a colder world back then, more heavy water was
> > evaporated from the colder oceans--that is ass-backwards physics."
> > >
> > > I also showed you plots of CO2 throughout the Phanerozoic which don't
> correlate at all with the O18 record. Why no mention of that
> http://home.entouch.net/dmd/WeatherPhanerozoicTempCO2.jpg
>
> Glenn accuses people of not correcting their data and then fails to correct
> for pH. Royer et al (2004) said this:
>
> Recent studies have purported to show a closer correspondence between
> reconstructed Phanerozoic records of cosmic ray flux and temperature than
> between CO2 and temperature. The role of the greenhouse gas CO2 in
> controlling global temperatures has therefore been questioned. Here we
> review the geologic records of CO2 and glaciations and find that CO2 was low
> (<500 ppm) during periods of long-lived and widespread continental
> glaciations and high (>1000 ppm) during other, warmer periods. The CO2
> record is likely robust because independent proxy records are highly
> correlated with CO2 predictions from geochemical models. The Phanerozoic sea
> surface temperature record as inferred from shallow marine carbonate δ18O
> values has been used to quantitatively test the importance of potential
> climate forcings, but it fails several first-order tests relative to more
> well-established paleoclimatic indicators: both the early Paleozoic and
> Mesozoic are calculated to have been too cold for too long. We explore the
> possible influence of seawater pH on the δ18O record and find that a
> pH-corrected record matches the glacial record much better. Periodic
> fluctuations in the cosmic ray flux may be of some climatic significance,
> but are likely of second-order importance on a multimillion-year timescale.
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Do you think we can get a good daily temperature from a thermometer on
> top of asphalt? If so, please explain why.
> >
> > Again, I have no intention of getting a Ph-D in climate science.
> > Whether or not the above is pertinent I have no idea. Assuming they
> > are. where are the sceintific peer-reviewed papers that address the
> > subject? I am told they do not exist. That says, to me, that either
> > they are NOT pertinent OR that those points have been addressed by the
> > IPCC or other climate scientists.
>
> There's another possibility that Glenn doesn't take into account. The people
> he is currently talking to are lying to him just like the YEC people did
> earlier in his life. There is a HUGE amount of peer reviewed literature. My
> quote above was done in a few seconds with a Google Scholar search. Burgy,
> there's a better way than this trading of "talking points". Don't trust me.
> Go to the IPCC reports themselves and look at the references section. Then
> ask Glenn for similar peer-reviewed studies in on-topic journals from his
> friends, and not the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
>
> Here's the chapter on paleoclimate:
>
> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf
>
> Note this from the chapter:
>
>
> When comparing the current climate change to earlier, natural
> ones, three distinctions must be made. First, it must be clear which
> variable is being compared: is it greenhouse gas concentration or
> temperature (or some other climate parameter), and is it their abso-
> lute value or their rate of change? Second, local changes must not
> be confused with global changes. Local climate changes are often
> much larger than global ones, since local factors (e.g., changes in
> oceanic or atmospheric circulation) can shift the delivery of heat
> or moisture from one place to another and local feedbacks operate
> (e.g., sea ice feedback). Large changes in global mean temperature,
> in contrast, require some global forcing (such as a change in green-
> house gas concentration or solar activity). Third, it is necessary to
> distinguish between time scales. Climate changes over millions of
> years can be much larger and have different causes (e.g., continental
> drift) compared to climate changes on a centennial time scale.
>
> The main reason for the current concern about climate change
> is the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration (and
> some other greenhouse gases), which is very unusual for the Qua-
> ternary (about the last two million years). The concentration of CO2
> is now known accurately for the past 650,000 years from antarctic
> ice cores. During this time, CO2 concentration varied between a low
> of 180 ppm during cold glacial times and a high of 300 ppm during
> warm interglacials. Over the past century, it rapidly increased well
> out of this range, and is now 379 ppm (see Chapter 2). For compari-
> son, the approximately 80-ppm rise in CO2 concentration at the end
> of the past ice ages generally took over 5,000 years. Higher values
> than at present have only occurred many millions of years ago (see
> FAQ 6.1).
>
> Temperature is a more difficult variable to reconstruct than CO2
> (a globally well-mixed gas), as it does not have the same value all
> over the globe, so that a single record (e.g., an ice core) is only of
> limited value. Local temperature fl uctuations, even those over just a
> few decades, can be several degrees celsius, which is larger than the
> global warming signal of the past century of about 0.7°C.
> ...
>
> A different matter is the current rate of warming. Are more rapid
> global climate changes recorded in proxy data? The largest tem-
> perature changes of the past million years are the glacial cycles,
> during which the global mean temperature changed by 4°C to 7°C
> between ice ages and warm interglacial periods (local changes were
> much larger, for example near the continental ice sheets). However,
> the data indicate that the global warming at the end of an ice age
> was a gradual process taking about 5,000 years (see Section 6.3). It
> is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much
> more rapid and very unusual in the context of past changes. The
> much-discussed abrupt climate shifts during glacial times (see Sec-
> tion 6.3) are not counter-examples, since they were probably due to
> changes in ocean heat transport, which would be unlikely to affect
> the global mean temperature.
>
> Further back in time, beyond ice core data, the time resolution of
> sediment cores and other archives does not resolve changes as rapid
> as the present warming. Hence, although large climate changes have
> occurred in the past, there is no evidence that these took place at
> a faster rate than present warming. If projections of approximately
> 5°C warming in this century (the upper end of the range) are re-
> alised, then the Earth will have experienced about the same amount
> of global mean warming as it did at the end of the last ice age; there
> is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was
> matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last
> 50 million years.
>
> And on the temperature record:
> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf
>
> Which has a interesting comment:
>
> Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have
> not biased the large-scale trends. A number of recent studies
> indicate that effects of urbanisation and land use change on
> the land-based temperature record are negligible (0.006ºC per
> decade) as far as hemispheric- and continental-scale averages
> are concerned because the very real but local effects are
> avoided or accounted for in the data sets used. In any case, they
> are not present in the SST component of the record. Increasing
> evidence suggests that urban heat island effects extend to
> changes in precipitation, clouds and DTR, with these detectable
> as a 'weekend effect' owing to lower pollution and other effects
> during weekends.
>
> Finally, the survey referenced by Glenn is the infamous Oregon petition.
> Burgy, see more information on this here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
>
> Much of this was clearly fraudulent. Note this:
>
>
> The article that accompanied the petition was written in the style and
> format of a contribution to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
> a scientific journal.[5] Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at
> the University of Chicago, said that it was "designed to be deceptive by
> giving people the impression that the article...is a reprint and has passed
> peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the article was full of
> "half-truths".[12] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign
> secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy
> received numerous inquiries from researchers who "are wondering if someone
> is trying to hoodwink them."[12]
>
> After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in news
> release that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition
> has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the
> manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
> Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."[13] It
> also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports
> of the Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study
> had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge
> of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat
> sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts
> as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility
> of dramatic surprises."[14]
>
> Rich Blinne
> Member ASA
>
> >
> >
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 11 09:57:23 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 11 2008 - 09:57:23 EDT
