Is the Whole Anti-CO2 Hysteria Campaign Just a Distraction??

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by bringiton, Sep 27, 2019.

  1. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your chart matches mine. We're both looking at the same thing.

    FACT: USCRN is consistent with GHCN.

    FACT: USCRN suggest that the minutia of differences suggests that if anything GHCN may be underestimating the warming in the US.

    FACT: The mean temperature of the US is not the same thing as the mean temperature of Earth.

    Why are you expecting the mean temperature from a local region to match that from the global scale?
     
  2. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is patently false.

    1) CO2 increased/decreased during the Quaternary era. The changes in CO2 explain the magnitude of the glacial cycles. Milankovitch cycles are required to explain the timing.

    2) CO2 increased rapidly during the PETM and other ETMx eras. The changes in CO2 explain both the magnitude and timing of these events.

    3) CO2 decreased over hundreds of millions years during a period in which solar output increased. The combination of decreased CO2 forcing, increased solar forcing, and the trajectory of temperatures changes are highly correlated.

    4) CO2 increased during industrialization. It explains most of the timing and magnitude of the modern warming era. And it explains the smoking gun observation of the simultaneous cooling stratosphere.

    And yet USCRN is largely consistent with GHCN. Nevermind that the minutia of differences suggests that GHCN is actually underestimating the warming. Satellite and reanalysis datasets which are immune from the UHI effect agree with the surface datasets. Uour hypothesis that the UHI effect shows more warming than there actually was is inconsistent with the data.
     
  3. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,775
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it isn’t. Look at the overall trend.
     
  4. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,775
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There was no significant increase/decrease in the Holocene.

    Barrow Alaska has a urban heat island effect. How is that accounted for ???
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2019
  5. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not only have I looked at the trend visually but I've looked at objectively quantified trend metrics as well. For the CONUS...

    1860-present = 0.007C/decade
    1910-present = 0.009C/decade
    1960-present = 0.22C/decade
    1990-present = 0.27C/decade

    You're own chart shows the same thing. Well, except your chart ends prior to 1999 and I'm working with data (the same data actually) through 2018.

    You can see Berkeley Earth's analysis of the CONUS temperature at the following link. It's the same basic result just like it is for the other 2 dozen or so datasets in existence. I only pick Berkeley Earth because Judith Curry helped develop their analysis techniques and I know you trust her.

    http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Regional/TAVG/Text/contiguous-united-states-TAVG-Trend.txt
     
  6. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,775
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The overall trend shows ~ 0.4 deg C warming for the US from 1880 to 2000 and the global shows ~ 0.7 deg C from 1880 to 2000.

    Curry believes that the satellite data is the most reliable and accurate. Satellite data shows flat temperatures since 2000.
     
  7. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's correct. And this is part of the reason why temperatures (on a global scale) were relatively stable during the holocene.

    Different groups use different techniques for dealing with UHI. Sometimes the same group will experiment with different techniques. Some use population growth. Some use light pollution growth. Some use satellite estimates of land use changes. Some compare urban station data with rural station data. Some datasets like reanalysis and satellite are immune from the UHI bias inherently so they too can be used to calibrate and cross check surface datasets. And remember...the net effect of all adjustments (like UHI, time-of-day, station moves, etc.) in these surface datasets actually work to reduce the warming trend as compared with the raw data.
     
  8. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How are you getting 0.4 for the US from 1880 to 2000?

    The linear regression trend (which uses all points) shows about 0.9C of warming from 1880 to 2018 for the CONUS.

    The linear regression trend (which uses all points) shows about 1.1C of warming from 1880 to 2018 for the GLOBE.

    Well, UAH and RSS both publish errors of about ±0.10C whereas surface datasets are about ±0.05C. But that's moot because even UAH still shows a linear regression trend at least 0.20C/decade of warming globally from Jan. 2000 to Sep. 2019. And then trend from 1980 to present is still 0.13C/decade which is far lower than what all of the other datasets show. Of course it does measure really high up and they have not yet address problems that have been identified with the way they process data (see here).

    By the way, if you cherry-pick Jan. 2000 and Sep. 2019 (which I'm highly opposed to) you would see the planet warmed by a whopping 0.9C in less than 20 years! This is why we don't cherry-pick and why use linear regression.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_September_2019_v6.jpg
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2019
  9. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,775
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you don't know the specifics of what is being done. You can't pick a data set and tell us how the UHI in Barrow Alaska is adjusted ?? And what uncertainty that adds into the data set ?? I'm not picking on you but using "you" in a collective sense. Is there any one place where the exact methods used for each individual measurement affected by urban heat for a particular data set are documented ??

    Experiment with different techniques ?? How do they know which technique is more accurate ??

    Population growth ?? Come'on now.

    Compare urban with rural and do what ?? Then why have the urban measurements if they are corrupted ??

    What data sets have been adjusted using satellite data ??

    And of course adjusting for urban heating reduces those affected temperature measurements. But what uncertainty is introduced by doing so ?? We all read that the average temperatures in urban locations are 2 - 5 deg C higher than unaffected measurements. That's a big range and a big correction.
     
  10. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Each dataset publishes their methods. Some datasets like NASA's GISTEMP even publish the source code and input data (see here and here) so that you or anyone can replicate their work exactly.

    Some datasets like UAH are evasive. They do not publish their methods or source code. BTW...don't you find it interesting that the evasive ones like UAH show less warming, but are unwilling to share their methods? Hmm?

    By comparing their results with independent observations that are selectively denied in their datasets.

    Yep. It has been attempted. There have been other strategies employed as well.

    GISTEMP adjusts urban readings down. The process is described in detail in the links above.

    Urban measurements aren't corrupted. They are real readings so I'm not understanding your comment there.

    None that I know of. I just mean that we can use satellite and reanalysis to cross check surface datasets.

    The dataset becomes more accurate by performing this adjustment. That's why it's done.

    Here is Berkeley Earth's commentary on the issue. Notice again that Judith Curry gave her blessing to this paper.

    https://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf

    In a nutshell...UHI doesn't have a meaningful impact on the temperature trends either way.
     
  11. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,775
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Eyeball and ruler.

    Those numbers are for the instrument and not the actual measurement. I can locate a very accurate pressure transducer on a pipe elbow and show that water flows from low to high pressure which is obviously impossible. If I subtract the dynamic head from the measurement then it makes sense.

    The majority of that time range was flat.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2019
  12. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,775
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    UHI has to have a major effect. And there is absolutely nothing that describes how it’s corrected for. 2 - 5 degrees C can be accurately accounted for ???? That’s ridiculous.
     
  13. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is a truly brilliant theory!

    The "Banksters" who convinced Canada's Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau back in 1974 to
    essentially STOP the use of Canada's own Bank of Canada to give loans to the provinces
    for many necessary projects have themselves.........
    (or groups with a similar mentality).... have created seven hundred and ten trillion dollars worth of
    Derivatives in the worldwide Derivatives markets as of 2014.

    P. M. Pierre E. Trudeau's error costed Canadian taxpayers one point one TRILLION dollars in
    interest payments as of a few years ago........
    but surprisingly few Canadians are aware of this.

    The only way to get people to read about this is to put the whole thing in a somewhat positive light and...... I do have to admit that by slowing down
    the economy of Canada P. M. Pierre E. Trudeau made it possible for the USA
    economy to be slowed down as well..... which frankly resulted in significantly
    slowing the worldwide economy over these past four decades in comparison to
    what was actually theoretically possible?


    Did P. M. Pierre E. Trudeau save the world environment?

     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2019
  14. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,775
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Derivatives are insurance policies.
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  15. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  16. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your inability to understand that basic statistics aren't scientific models is certainly humorous to watch....So tell us again, if the average temp goes up by .1 C what happens again???
     
  17. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So what? Folks, like you even, have breathlessly hyperventilated about sudden and rapid temperature explosion. Clearly, this hasn't happened. And further, the rate at which, now, you can demonstrate the predicted change in the historic record is so far removed from the hyperbole you normally ascribe to is laughable. These are your benchmarks, neither one of which either conforms to or otherwise depicts the hyperinflation of temperatures you so often write about. None of the above values underpins the massive disinformation campaign of the IPCC then, does it? naturally occurring transition is defined as ~<2C per century. So, look above using your own numbers then. The fact that to the degree of certainty that your own numbers were generated indicates less than half of what "should" happen as part of the recuperation from the last mini ice age is right there for you to finally admit. Further, the absence of any indication that these values are either moderating or accelerating is also not indicated, nor is there any empiric data that suggests that any of the future apocalyptic narratives you cultivate are likely.

    To put a superfine point on it then. You continue to produce the same liturgical commentary using the same measurable data that doesn't support your catechism. Perhaps you should evaluate then why you continue to spout the catechism...
     
  18. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Instead of talking in hyperbole as you say let's be precise here. I advocate for a climate sensitivity of 1.5 to 4.5C per 2xCO2.

    CO2 has not doubled yet nor has the equlibrium climate response played out for the CO2 that is already in the atmosphere.

    Again...let's dispense with hyperbole and be precise. The planet has warmed about 1.1C. 0.2C of that (at most) could be attributed to solar and quiescent volcanic forcing. So let's work with 0.9C. CO2 is 410 ppm which means it's forcing is 5.35 * ln(410/280) = +2.0 W/m^2. And we know that the imbalance on the planet is currently about +0.7 W/m^2. So that means +1.3 W/m^2 has already equilibrated to raise the temperature by 0.9C. That's the transient climate response (TCR). But there is still that +0.7 W/m^2 imbalance which still needs to equilibriate before the equilibrium climate response (ECR) plays out. 2xCO2 produces a forcing of 5.35 * ln(2) = +3.7 W/m^2. So we are only 1.3/3.7 = 35% of the way to the ECR of 2xCO2. The climate sensitivity is 0.9 / 1.3 = 0.7C per W/m^2. That means we are well on our way to 3.7 * 0.7 = 2.6C of warming and that's if the climate sensitivity stalls at 0.7C per W/m^2 (which we already know probably won't based on the paleoclimate record) and if no tipping point feedbacks activate. So I reject your claim that predictions are "far removed" and "less than half" from what scientists predicted and which I advocate for.

    The warming accelerated beginning around 1960.

    I do not advocate for apocalyptic narratives. You must have me confused for someone else.
     
  19. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113

    So many things to address here, so many mischaracterizations, it's hard to decides which to start with. So, for the sake of order, lets start with your characterization of carbon "equilibrium". As we have seen through the fossil record, the current situation regarding CO2 shows us that we are impoverished compared to previous eras. Meaning that the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 10s of times less available than in previous epochs. We know this, and yet, you assert that somehow a low Carbon footprint is somehow demanded. From what data would you create this from? Clearly not any from the historic record. in order to by that myopic, your view then must come from a limited isolated view from a very small set of data, probably from the 1880s forward. And to put any meaningful analysis to that, you'd have to infer that that 10s of millionths of a fraction of time is somehow representative, which, clearly it is not.

    So we start there. You haven't ever been able to demonstrate what the very small additive man made CO2 contribution then delivers into the overall system, and you haven't here as well. I wonder why you believe that the introduction of ~<4% of total CO2 contributions is responsible for, as you have claimed, 96% of additional warming. Several studies now have indicated that your inference is unfounded, and have corrected your math to show that it might (emphasis on might) be responsible for at most 1/100th of a degree of the warming that has occurred. Why ignore that?

    You claim that warming "accelerated" and yet you ignore that both the acceleration and the trending ended in or around 1998. Again, purposeful, or just unwilling to acknowledge that the "apocalyptic" warming that you cited ~1.5-4.5 C per century is actually unsupportable? That seems inexplicable given your desire to demonstrate your veracity here. It just doesn't make sense. You say you accept the IPCC evaluations, on more than one occasion, and yet you deny that you also ascribe to their apocalyptic narrative. Unique for sure...
     
  20. jay runner

    jay runner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    16,319
    Likes Received:
    10,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The dike-climber farmers have ridden in by the thousands on their tractors to protest the lunacy of the global warming myth, protesting against the green weenies at the Hague.
     
  21. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I made no such characterization. I'm talking about equilibrium climate sensitivity. I have no what "carbon equilibrium" even means.

    Yes. It is. What does that have to do with CO2's radiative forcing?

    I'm not demanding a low carbon footprint.

    Yes. I have. Multiple time. Here it is again.

    ΔF = 5.35 * ln(Cn/Cp) where F is climate forcing, Cn is CO2 concentration now, and Cp is CO2 concentration in the past.

    We've been over this many times already. Anthroprogenic contributions are (410-280) / 280 = 32%. The units of concentration is ppm. Your 4% figure is the emission rate. The units are ppm/yr. Let me reiterate here...ppm is NOT the same thing as ppm/yr. You have confused this multiple times already. Let's make this the last.

    I have never claimed an increase in CO2 by 130 ppm is responsible for 96% of the warming. Here is what scientists actually believe.

    CO2 has produced a radiative forcing of about +2.0 W/m^2.

    The climate sensitivity is believed to be 1C per W/m^2.

    Therefore CO2 is responsible for nearly 200% of the warming.

    However, aerosols produce a radiative forcing of about -1.0 W/m^2.

    Therefore total anthroprogenic forcings account for about 1C of warming.

    The planet has warmed by about 1.2C.

    Therefore total anthroprogenic forcings account for about 80% of the warming from the industrial revolution. I will admit that I'm probably being conservative here.

    What studies are those?

    The linear regression trend from 1998 to 2018 is about +0.20C/decade.

    It's 1.5-4.5C per 2xCO2.

    I don't think that's apocalyptic. Do you?

    Can you give me an example of an "apocalyptic" narrative in any of the IPCC reports?
     
  22. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good post. The well understood and known factors are the simple physical processes like convection, radiation and absorption. The crucial factors that are not well understood are solar variation, clouds, and ocean circulation cycles. Some plausible but unverified factors include how solar variation and changing magnetic fields affect climate.
     
  23. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The real Progressives of the late 19th century would spin in their graves if they knew what modern cultural Marxists are doing in their name.
     
    AFM likes this.
  24. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But in fact, that is the case with all discoveries of truth: at first, only a few know. So you have merely committed another poisoning-the-well fallacy.
    But there is no cult on this side of the controversy. Cults always demand sacrifices, as the AGW cult does.
    Oh, really? The AGW science that said all the arctic sea ice would be melted years ago is true? Or Michael Mann's AGW science that said there was never any Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age? That AGW science?
    That's not a fallacy. It's a fact. Multitasking is not possible, and most people cannot devote significant attention to more than a few issues.
     
  25. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There won't be any big climate impacts of CO2, but the modest ones will be beneficial.
    Which are not happening. The number of deaths from extreme weather events has plummeted.
    Which also aren't actually happening.
    Which are no worse than ever.
    I think they are going to be pissed that they were so disgracefully lied to about the effects of CO2.
     

Share This Page