Good source of climate change data

[popeyespappy]

Lessons learned so far in climate modeling class - it is so far impossible to model small phenomena past a few weeks and the best we can do with the massive scale of El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is predict up to six months. But even that becomes iffy, as minor differences in initial conditions diverge completely ~6 months as a prediction.

The more general you are with climate, the chances that you are 'correct' goes up, while precision drops like a rock.

That’s what Hansen says. It’s a lot easier to predict long term climate change trends on a global scale than it is to predict relatively short term local weather trends.

[Autumnlicious]

Probably because the chaotic behaviors of small scale conditions are damped out at larger scales...

[popeyespappy]

Probably because the chaotic behaviors of small scale conditions are damped out at larger scales...

Yea. I’m working on a reply to Welsh Cake’s last post that I won’t get around to posting until later tonight or in the morning. In it there will be a chart that shows exactly that. Welsh claims that Void’s chart from a previous thread was shit because it doesn’t show the cooling after the 91 Pinatubo eruption near the end of the chart. So I’ve made a shorter term chart that includes a 60 period moving average trend. Guess what. The trend smoothes out the decline at end too.

[popeyespappy]

Scientific consensus can be corrupted by political motives as we all know. This government's budget wants to invest in our aging infrastructure but billions of pounds are required that they don't currently have, so how do they balance the books? Turn to the taxpayer yet again? Or how about introduce new hefty carbon taxes onto UK steelmakers therefore industry and the local economy all suffer in the long-run?

When people's livelihoods are at stake I disbelive ANY claim until there is sufficient evidence.

No, you accept any claim which conforms to your preexisting beliefs without challenge or consideration. You also reject any claim contrary to those beliefs without due consideration even when they are logical and evidence based. It’s called belief bias and in the case of anthropogenic global warming you have it bad. You also suffer from conformation bias. You favor information that conforms with your preconceptions and reject information that does not without regard for the validity of either source. This type of bias is particularly prevalent in issues where people hold an emotional stake.

You are upset by what you claim are long term negative consequences of the economic policy being implemented by your government. I’m sorry to tell you but what you are seeing are short term and mild compared to the effects of rapid global climate change. Change that can be slowed and even eventually arrested by global implementation of the policies you dislike.

Because the sun is, and always has been, responsible for our climate and weather. Go read a science book.

There's a difference between ignoring what one asserts as evidence and dismissing it altogether. He presented some very unreliable data indeed, some of it ripped from Wikipedia that completely ignores the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo which effects were felt worldwide, global temperatures dropped by about 0.5 °C, what did the graph show? Temperatures rose by 0.5 °C, like magic.

I’m beginning to see a trend develop here. That trend is that you don’t have a good understanding of the data you are being shown. Take for example the chart Void posted in the other thread.



You are looking for a reason to dismiss the chart out of hand without even having to consider the ramifications it represents. You don’t want to know the only correlation between climate forcing and observed warming is CO2. So you focus on the perceived absence of cooling as a result of the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991 and claim the chart is worthless.

What you don’t understand about the chart is that it has been smoothed using period averaging. Let’s look at another chart so you can see what I’m talking about.



I created this chart using this source data compiled by anthropogenic global warming denier Roy Spencer. Dr. Spencer is one of only a handful of “skeptics” with any real expertise in the field. It is a monthly deviation from normal of the global average temperature covering the period from 12/1978 through 12/2010. The blue represents monthly data points. The red line is a 60 period moving average. Please note that the sharp decline that shows up at the end of the blue line practically disappears on the averaged line.

That's because we've only had instrumental temperature recording since 1880 when there are possible long-term solar cycles with our sun to consider that may be caused by magnetic instabilities inside its core, if so, we're looking at time periods into the hundreds of thousands of years.

Which has exactly what to do with the paleoclimate record that has been reconstructed from multiple sources, or the fact that nothing we currently know about the sun gives us any indication that it is responsible for the current warming trend?

You totally ignore the fact that reliable paleoclimate data is available for the 400,000 years plus.

Citation please, since you enjoy "sharing information without discussion".

Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica

Also

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/data.html

Now you are talking shit. IPCC does not carry out their own original research. They are an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. Their predictions are horribly inaccurate, Rajendra Pachauri admitted not so long ago he blundered by wrongly asserting the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035, yet refused to step down from chair of the IPCC, and to add insult to injury he then attacked those who criticised their claims as using "voodoo science".

Sorry you feel that way, but the IPCC will be discounted every time we have any discussion on climate change in much the same way the Discovery Institute will be discounted whenever a theist starts up another "creationism vs. evolution" thread.

Section 10.6.2 of the IPCC’s 3000 page 4th Assessment Report (AR4) contained a single paragraph with errors about Himalayan glacier melt. The information was not from a peer reviewed source, and it did not meet the IPCC’s standard for evidence. The error was included in the Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability section of the document, not the Physical Science Basis portion. The information was not included in the Technical Summary, the Summary for Policymakers or the Synthesis Report. The inclusion of this erroneous information in the report in no way changes the fact that Anthropogenic climate change is still supported by multiple lines of independent empirical evidence, and nearly every national and international scientific body.

Let's stick with Earth's climate please.

I didn’t bring up Mars another member did. I replied to their assertion.

Guess I've been reading too many articles by anthropogenic global warming skeptics.

I doubt that very much.

Now you’re just being an asshole. I’ve been following the global warming issue closely since 2000. I spent a couple of days cooling my heels in Longyearbyen, Norway waiting on some equipment when I was the cognizant engineer for the 50 MB data link between the SvalSat tracking station and Goddard for the EOS Terra satellite. They do a lot of arctic climate research on Svalbard. While I was waiting I spent some time talking to some of the scientists there.

Since then I’ve read books by Roy Spencer and James Hansen. One is a skeptic. The other is not. I’ve also read a book on policy by Dressler and Parson. Plus I’ve got a friend that takes the same position you do. We discuss the issue often and he sends me articles on a regular basis.

[Welsh cake]

No, you accept any claim which conforms to your preexisting beliefs without challenge or consideration.

No, I disbelieve any claim until I have *sufficient evidence* to believe in it.

I have no physical evidence for anthropogenic global warming that I can recognise, as far as I know and believe, I exist within a natural environment and there is a natural ever-changing climate that is self-evident through my senses, direct observation and memories. The problem with AGW is the surrounding controversy, I realised we as a sentient race, despite all our technology and well-thought reasoning, suck hard at predicting weather phenomenon and other such occurrences. We understand pollutions' effects on the environment to some degree. The consensus made the presupposition that mankind is primarily responsible for global warming and no other factor matters, as a sceptic I doubted the validity of that conclusion based on the evidence provided. Science thrives on repeatability yet I kept going back to the information and attempted to re-examine it yet I still was no closer to understanding it. The statistical measurements given weren't particularly meaningful to me, applying scrutiny I realised while reliable on the short term I appreciated that by themselves they inadequate at making an accurate future predication of our planet’s climate in the long run. From past experience the weather patterns have proven to be beyond our complete understanding and comprehension. I couldn't justify any case for or against human-induced climate change presuppositions no matter how many times I tried to re-evaluate it.

You also reject any claim contrary to those beliefs without due consideration even when they are logical and evidence based. It’s called belief bias and in the case of anthropogenic global warming you have it bad. You also suffer from conformation bias. You favor information that conforms with your preconceptions and reject information that does not without regard for the validity of either source. This type of bias is particularly prevalent in issues where people hold an emotional stake.

What do I believe in that I reject any claim to the contrary?

You see you're making one broad-based erroneous assumption about my default position of disbelief over and over again while ignoring your position stems from social pressure, you, many members of the forum, groups in the public domains, various circles and the scientific consensus as a whole, regard AGW as such a strongly held belief that others like myself questioning you about the validity of global warming are immediately subject to ridicule. Your feelings and mine on this topic matter, positively and negatively, while relevant in a social context have absolutely no bearing on the truth-value or justification of a belief in human-induced climate change as fact. Attacking my scepticism is not going to get you anywhere. You actually need to address your argument, the scientific case for human-induced climate change, instead of me for a change.

You are upset by what you claim are long term negative consequences of the economic policy being implemented by your government. I’m sorry to tell you but what you are seeing are short term and mild compared to the effects of rapid global climate change. Change that can be slowed and even eventually arrested by global implementation of the policies you dislike.

Many scientists are arguing that it's already too late to implement any rectification, so clearly others who also regard this with a high degree certainty don't share your views on AGW. I highlighted what the obvious social implications and political gains of presenting a case for human-induced climate change as opposed to naturally occurring climate change are – they hold us accountable, they get to justify taxing the hell out industry, the economy weakens and inevitably the working-class taxpayer suffers rather than simply investing in safer renewable sources of energy from the beginning as you claim is government is doing, which I'm sorry, is just simply not the case.

I’m beginning to see a trend develop here. That trend is that you don’t have a good understanding of the data you are being shown.

I thought I made that perfectly clear, if not, I apologise.

You are looking for a reason to dismiss the chart out of hand without even having to consider the ramifications it represents. You don’t want to know the only correlation between climate forcing and observed warming is CO2. So you focus on the perceived absence of cooling as a result of the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991 and claim the chart is worthless.

The eruption was merely given as an example that since the graph does not take it into consideration is notably less reliable than others that I been presented before.

Which has exactly what to do with the paleoclimate record that has been reconstructed from multiple sources, or the fact that nothing we currently know about the sun gives us any indication that it is responsible for the current warming trend?

In Earth related topics such as Paleoclimatology it reveals how much we don't yet understand about how our star works. We've got not only the prospect of long-term solar variations but a faint young Sun paradox and for the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations the sun has been displaying some very strange activity during the recent decades. What annoys me so much is that climatologists agree the sun contributes to climate change, in the past, but then argue that solar brightness is too weak now to explain the recent climate change, I'm concerned by how they discount it, and can't help but feel that's not scientific.

Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica

Also

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/data.html

Thank you.

Section 10.6.2 of the IPCC’s 3000 page 4th Assessment Report (AR4) contained a single paragraph with errors about Himalayan glacier melt. The information was not from a peer reviewed source, and it did not meet the IPCC’s standard for evidence. The error was included in the Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability section of the document, not the Physical Science Basis portion. The information was not included in the Technical Summary, the Summary for Policymakers or the Synthesis Report. The inclusion of this erroneous information in the report in no way changes the fact that Anthropogenic climate change is still supported by multiple lines of independent empirical evidence, and nearly every national and international scientific body.

The IPCC does not carry out any original research or monitor climate or investigate weather phenomena, they lobby and mess around with statistics, and therefore they will be discounted every time we have any discussion on climate change. I'll respond this second time for clarity's sake but please, don't make me tell you a third time because I won't.

Now you’re just being an asshole. I’ve been following the global warming issue closely since 2000. I spent a couple of days cooling my heels in Longyearbyen, Norway waiting on some equipment when I was the cognizant engineer for the 50 MB data link between the SvalSat tracking station and Goddard for the EOS Terra satellite. They do a lot of arctic climate research on Svalbard. While I was waiting I spent some time talking to some of the scientists there.

?

I fail to see how. I'm merely responding to a facetious statement with sarcasm. Do I really need to put a smiley after every statement I submit? I disgress, I'll ask you an honest question, how do you differentiate between a natural climate change trend and a trend induced by anthropogenic climate change?

[popeyespappy]

I fail to see how. I'm merely responding to a facetious statement with sarcasm. Do I really need to put a smiley after every statement I submit? I disgress, I'll ask you an honest question, how do you differentiate between a natural climate change trend and a trend induced by anthropogenic climate change?

Your sarcastic remark to the comment I made to another forum member amounted to an accusation of lying about having read articles by anthropogenic global warming skeptics. The fact is I have investigated many skeptical claims. When I am presented with a claim about global warming I ask questions. What is the source of the claim? What is the evidence that the claim is true? What is the evidence that it is not?

Asking these questions is why I know that there is a large body of empirical evidence in support of anthropogenic global warming. It’s why I know that in the last 30 years there has been no correlation between solar irradiance or cosmic rays and global temperatures. And it is why I know that despite the IPCC’s inclusion of a non peer reviewed statement about Himalayan glacier melt that Himalayan glaciers are in fact receding at an accelerating rate.



I differentiate between a natural climate change trend and a trend induced by anthropogenic causes based on the currently available evidence. The climate responds to forcing. It doesn’t make a difference to the climate if the forcing is natural or caused by humans. The evidence tells us the forcing that drove historical climate change was natural in origin. It also tells us that the forcing driving the current warming trend is anthropogenic CO2.