Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco
But the computational model, you clearly lost. 1-1, it is.

Well ... I suppose if we revisit that topic, I should try to clear up that paper a bit for you.

I believe the criteria by which you judged the failure of that paper's strength lay in this earlier criticism:

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Actually, im not impressed at all by their trends (as I elaborated on previously). Not even all models predict the first-order trend. And thats a ridiculously low bar to beat. Again, none of these models recreated both the 1940 and 2000 optima.

I feel compelled to point out that the topic of the paper explains why the peaks at 1940 and 2000 are not recreated -- the entire point of the paper was that anthropogenic factors were significant beginning around 1950. From the abstract:

Comparison of index trends in observations and model simulations shows that North American temperature changes from 1950 to 1999 were unlikely to be due to natural climate variation alone. Observed trends over this period are consistent with simulations that include anthropogenic forcing from increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols. However, most of the observed warming from 1900 to 1949 was likely due to natural climate variation.

The point of the paper is to discuss a possible distinction between the period from 1900-1950, and the period from 1950-2000. Your criticism about the peaks at both 1940 and 2000 not being recreated does not damage the paper's assertions.

If thats all the paper claims, then thats a rather modest claim. They might aswell have spared the supercomputers, and left it just at a pencil-and-paper CO2 forcing calculation.

The assesment 'unlikely to be due to natural climate variation alone' appearently doesnt come from any kind of satisfactory degree of understanding of natural climate variation, but merely from the fact that their estimates of the effect of CO2 by itself would be enough to explain the current temperature trend. It certainly shouldnt be implied that natural variability couldnt account for the rise in temperature, in the absence of a net anthropogenic forcing.

Which brings us back to the question: what is the total anthropogenic forcing, including indirect effects?

Since it got brought up again anyway,

This is how the medieval warm period compares to modern warming when viewed on the same time scale

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Speaking of cherry picking, why didn't you link directly to the original blog post? Some Historical Perspective

I just googled hockey stick and holocene and took the first pertinent link because I couldn't recall where I'd read it.

Quote:
For all your focus on which years are examined, you have missed the obvious flaw in the conclusion you claim to agree with. Hall says things about CO2 in his conclusion that the body of his post doesn't support. The body of his post is about temperatures, not CO2, yet he concludes with bold attack on CO2. If the intent was to refute the claim "that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend" he should have stated it up front instead of meandering over some recollection that only his wife and close friends care about. Instead he examines temperature trends during the Holocene and even though the trends suggest to him that we are more likely heading towards an ice age, he doesn't attempt to explain the recent uptick, he just assumes that CO2 has nothing to do with it.

He didn't attack Co2 nor make the claim you pretend. He stated that scientists that conclude that Co2 is the only reasonable cause of global warming is nonsensical.

Since the earth has been warmer than it is today for thousands and thousands of years prior to the industrial age, and any number of times that doesn't seem that far a reach.

If you're comfortable with your position you should be able to state his without hyperbole. It seems you are not.

Quote: Original post by Kaze
Since it got brought up again anyway,

This is how the medieval warm period compares to modern warming when viewed on the same time scale

Why is the left side "anomaly" and not temperature? It makes it appear as if the temperature today is warmer when in fact its not. If the point is so strong why the misleading graph?

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by Kaze
Since it got brought up again anyway,

This is how the medieval warm period compares to modern warming when viewed on the same time scale

Why is the left side "anomaly" and not temperature? It makes it appear as if the temperature today is warmer when in fact its not. If the point is so strong why the misleading graph?

Your criticizing the use of variation instead of a total when its a rebuttal to your link that only considers ice data as a convenient way to ignore 1900 - 2009 and prove the effects of AGW are minor as long as you pretend the industrial revolution never happened?

EDIT:
Ok so that wasn't very productive, I'm not sure why but I don't understand why you consider it disingenuous.

EDIT2:
Also I can't help but feel their intentionally exploiting the fact that the 1800-1900 hockey stick has a similar shape to the 1980 - 2005 one.

Did anyone catch this in the Telegraph?

Climategate Goes Serial

Quote: Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Quote: Original post by Kaze
Your criticizing the use of variation instead of a total when its a rebuttal to your link that only considers ice data as a convenient way to ignore 1900 - 2009 and prove the effects of AGW are minor as long as you pretend the industrial revolution never happened?

EDIT:
Ok so that wasn't very productive, I'm not sure why but I don't understand why you consider it disingenuous.

EDIT2:
Also I can't help but feel their intentionally exploiting the fact that the 1800-1900 hockey stick has a similar shape to the 1980 - 2005 one.

Ok, all but one of the graphs go to the year 2000. The frequency of dates are regular on every graph. Your two stated issues are not true.

Here is a link to the raw data the graph is built on. Note the date is through the year 2000.

Quote: Start Year: -107175 AD End Year: 2000 AD

Now that we've worked that out, do you feel any differently about the data presented?

And yes, I continue to criticize the use of what ends up being an arbitrary "variation" that falsely appears to make todays temperatures appear higher than the thousands of other temperatures in the past.

The fact is today's temperatures have been eclipsed for thousands of years and on thousands of occasions prior to man's existence. The snapshot you show appears that some unprecedented temperature apocalypse is underway. Wrongly shows.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by Kaze
Your criticizing the use of variation instead of a total when its a rebuttal to your link that only considers ice data as a convenient way to ignore 1900 - 2009 and prove the effects of AGW are minor as long as you pretend the industrial revolution never happened?

EDIT:
Ok so that wasn't very productive, I'm not sure why but I don't understand why you consider it disingenuous.

EDIT2:
Also I can't help but feel their intentionally exploiting the fact that the 1800-1900 hockey stick has a similar shape to the 1980 - 2005 one.

Ok, all but one of the graphs go to the year 2000. The frequency of dates are regular on every graph. Your two stated issues are not true.

Here is a link to the raw data the graph is built on. Note the date is through the year 2000.

Nope, even when the number goes to 2000 the data cuts off at 1900.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Did anyone catch this in the Telegraph?

Climategate Goes Serial

Hmm. A british libertarian with a proud history of denialism blogs about a statement from some libertarian "economic analysis" organization in Russia.


What experience does that "economic analysis" group have with climatology and the climate monitoring stations, again? Would probably need to have the actual analysis itself posted....

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on December 18, 2009 12:32:40 AM]

You don't need to study temperatures to get the gist of co2 and global warming, people.

The early earth atmosphere had all the co2 we've released and loads more in it, and it had little free oxygen - little ozone. That changed as organisms tore up co2 and left o2 - which later produced thick ozone (allowing the evolution of complex life). The organisms sequestered the carbon into the earth as they died, forming fossil fuels.

The atmosphere changed profoundly.

Now, we're reversing this - and the effect, besides warming ( green-house ), is ozone-depletion due to less free oxygen (which further aggravates GH with increased solar radiation). All of the co2 that has been put into the atmosphere has stolen ozone producing oxygen.

The only possible outcome is that as co2 *production* goes up, ozone will go down, and green-house will go up.

The end effect, if we burn all fossil fuels ( which is probably impossible since loads are in the ocean), we'll literally have destroyed earth's capacity to support complex life (via a thin or sporatic ozone).


anyways, the point is that co2 isn't coming out of the ether, its being manufactured, and using up stuff (o2) that we need to sustain a modern earth.

co2 is bad!!!!