Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Say what? Climategate, data "homogenization", Mann's hockey stick graph, 95% consensus and goodness knows whatever else. You are in fact describing the side you appear to be batting for. So called "deniers" do not have anywhere near the runs on the board when it comes to producing manicured, cherry picked data under a cloak of non biased scientific research.

Climategate

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

• A three-part Penn State University report cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
• Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
• A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
• The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

Data adjustments

Two posts from Judith Curry's blog

Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data | Climate Etc.

There has been much discussion of temperature adjustment of late in both climate blogs and in the media, but not much background on what specific adjustments are being made, why they are being made, and what effects they have. Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and a modest effect on global land trends. The large contribution of adjustments to century-scale U.S. temperature trends lends itself to an unfortunate narrative that “government bureaucrats are cooking the books”.

Understanding adjustments to temperature data | Climate Etc.

Scores of hockey sticks

Crowley 2000: Used both his own and Mann et al. (1999)'s hockey sticks to examine the cause of temperature changes over the past 1,000 years. Found that natural forcings could not explain twentieth century warming without the effect of greenhouse gases.

Huang, et al. 2000: Reconstructed global average temperatures since AD 1500 using temperature data from 616 boreholes from around the globe.

Bertrand et al. 2002: Reconstructed solar output, volcanic activity, land use changes, and greenhouse gas concentrations since AD 1000, then computed the expected temperature changes due to those forcings. Compared the computed temperature changes with two independent temperature reconstructions.

Esper et al. 2002: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 800 and AD 2000 using tree ring chronologies.

Cronin et al. 2003: Reconstructed temperatures between 200 BC and AD 2000 around Chesapeake Bay, USA, using sediment core records.

Pollack and Smerdon 2004: Reconstructed global average temperatures since AD 1500 using temperature data from 695 boreholes from around the globe.

Esper et al. 2005: Compared and averaged five independent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1000 to AD 2000.

Moberg et al. 2005: Combined tree ring proxies with glacial ice cores, stalagmite, and lake sediment proxies to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1 to AD 2000.

Oerlemans 2005: Reconstructed global temperatures from AD 1500 to AD 2000 using 169 glacial ice proxies from around the globe.

Rutherford, et al. 2005: Compared two multi-proxy temperature reconstructions and tested the results of each reconstruction for sensitivity to type of statistics used, proxy characteristics, seasonal variation, and geographic location. Concluded that the reconstructions were robust to various sources of error.

D'Arrigo et al. 2006: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 700 and AD 2000 from multiple tree ring proxies using a new statistical technique called Regional Curve Standardization. Concluded that their new technique was superior to the older technique used by previous reconstructions.

Osborn and Briffa 2006: Used 14 regional temperature reconstructions between AD 800 and AD 2000 to compare spatial extent of changes in Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Found that twentieth century warming was more widespread than any other temperature change of the past 1,200 years.

Hegerl et al. 2007: Combined borehole temperatures and tree ring proxies to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past 1,450 years. Introduced a new calibration technique between proxy temperatures and instrumental temperatures.

Juckes et al. 2007: Combined multiple older reconstructions into a meta-analysis. Also used existing proxies to calculate a new Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction.

Wahl and Ammann 2007: Used the tree ring proxies, glacial proxies, and borehole proxies used by Mann et al. (1998, 1999) to recalculate Northern Hemisphere temperatures since AD 800. Refuted the McIntyre and McKitrick criticisms and showed that those criticisms were based on flawed statistical techniques.

Wilson, et al. 2007: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1750 to AD 2000 using tree ring proxies that did not show a divergence problem after AD 1960.

Mann et al. 2008: Reconstructed global temperatures between AD 200 and AD 2000 using 1,209 independent proxies ranging from tree rings to boreholes to sediment cores to stalagmite cores to Greenland and Antarctic ice cores.

Kaufman, et al. 2009: Used tree rings, lake sediment cores, and glacial ice cores to reconstruct Arctic temperatures between 1 BC and 2000 AD.

von Storch et al. 2009: Tested three different temperature reconstruction techniques to show that the Composite plus Scaling method was better than the other two methods.

Frank et al. 2010: A brief history of proxy temperature reconstructions, as well as analysis of the main questions remaining in temperature reconstructions.

Kellerhals et al. 2010: Used ammonium concentration in a glacial ice core to reconstruct tropical South American temperatures over the past 1,600 years.

Ljungqvist 2010: Reconstructed extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1 to AD 2000 using historical records, sediment cores, tree rings, and stalagmites.

Thibodeau et al. 2010: Reconstructed temperatures at the bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence since AD 1000 via sediment cores.

Tingley and Huybers 2010a, 2010b: Used a Bayesian approach to reconstruct North American temperatures.

Büntgen et al. 2011: Used tree ring proxies to reconstruct Central European temperatures between 500 BC and AD 2000.

Kemp et al. 2011: Reconstructed sea levels off North Carolina, USA from 100 BC to AD 2000 using sediment cores. They also showed that sea levels changed with global temperature for at least the past millennium.

Kinnard et al. 2011: Used multiple proxies to reconstruct late summer Arctic sea ice between AD 561 and AD 1995, using instrumental data to extend their record to AD 2000.

Martin-Chivelet et al. 2011: Reconstructed temperatures in the Iberian Peninsula from 2000 BC to AD 2000 using stalagmites.

Spielhagen et al. 2011: Reconstructed marine temperatures in the Fram Strait from 100 BC to AD 2000 using sediment cores.

Esper et al. 2012: Used tree ring proxies to reconstruct Northern Scandinavian temperatures 100 BC to AD 2000. May have solved the post-AD 1960 tree ring divergence problem.

Ljungqvist et al. 2012: Used a network of 120 tree ring proxies, ice core proxies, pollen records, sediment cores, and historical documents to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 800 and AD 2000, with emphasis on proxies recording the Medieval Warm Period.

Melvin et al. 2012: Reanalyzed tree ring data for the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden.

Abram et al. 2013: Reconstructed snow melt records and temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula since AD 1000 using ice core records.

Marcott, et al. 2013: Reconstructed global temperatures over the past 11,000 years using sediment cores. Data ended at AD 1940.

PAGES 2k Consortium 2013: Used multiple proxies (tree rings, sediment cores, ice cores, stalagmites, pollen, etc) to reconstruct regional and global temperatures since AD 1.

Rhodes et al. 2013: Used proxy and instrumental records to reconstruct global temperatures from AD 1753 to AD 2011.

[Caribbeachbum]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Say what? Climategate, data "homogenization", Mann's hockey stick graph, 95% consensus and goodness knows whatever else. You are in fact describing the side you appear to be batting for. So called "deniers" do not have anywhere near the runs on the board when it comes to producing manicured, cherry picked data under a cloak of non biased scientific research.

You make a valid point, just an obvious one. And not the one you intended. People fail. Men and women blunder. And worse, outright fraud creeps in from time to time.

Like I said, science is messy. It's full of very, very smart people with egos and personal failings. There is indeed plenty of bad stuff to go along with the burning desire to follow the evidence, no matter where it leads, and find the answer.

Science works.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Climategate

...
Data adjustments
...
Scores of hockey sticks

Whoa.. Information overload.
I'm guessing a good many of these hockey sticks made it into the climate models displayed on graphs such as this?



Or perhaps in a data adjusted format such as this:

[capngeo]

Originally Posted by sneuman

It's called confirmation bias. And, it's exacerbated by partisan media. That's why so many studies have shown that the more one watches Fox News, the less they know.
Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/ab...owski_2013.pdf
http://www.climateshiftproject.org/w...ldmanStudy.pdf
Some News Leaves People Knowing Less
http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/kgarr...squeRumors.pdf
http://woods.stanford.edu/sites/defa...g-Fox-News.pdf
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Ir..._Oct03_rpt.pdf

Again you fall back to assuming I'm a Fox watcher! Labeling gets you nowhere.

FACT: the Earth has been warming and cooling for billions of years... It is just a natural cycle. Now some folks who have ulterior motives jump on the idea that they can rile people up by saying " we are doomed", but of course if you pay me, I'll make it all go away... hogwash!

[jackdale]

This is what adjusted data looks like:



Understanding adjustments to temperature data | Climate Etc.

[capngeo]

Originally Posted by sneuman

You need to read the report. I picked a "dissenter" at random, Robert B. Laughlin. He doesn't dispute the findings, only whether we can do anything about them. I quote: "The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it's unimportant, but because it's beyond our power to control."

That ain't the same thing.

Exactly my point.. we CAN'T do anything about it because WE didn't create it!

[Caribbeachbum]

Originally Posted by sneuman

You need to read the report. I picked a "dissenter" at random, Robert B. Laughlin. He doesn't dispute the findings, only whether we can do anything about them. I quote: "The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it's unimportant, but because it's beyond our power to control."

That ain't the same thing.

I'm suspicious ... do you accept that reasoning when applied to things that your political leanings view differently? For two examples (depending on your political leanings, of course):

The evidence (pretty much all of human history) very strongly supports the idea that prostitution cannot be eliminated. Do we admit and accept thousands of years of abject failure and stop trying to do anything about it?

The evidence of the last 100 years or so (at least) very strongly supports the idea that the use of recreational drugs cannot be eliminated. Do we continue to fight the "war on drugs" just to justify having started it in the first place? Or do we stop concerning ourselves because it's beyond our power to control?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Caribbeachbum

Whether they [edit] or any other foolishness, in my experience they all choose a set of "facts" based on their ideology, and then cherry pick any evidence that appears to support their "facts" while ignoring any evidence that does not.

Leaving out a few of your insults and name-calling, this part of your rant sounds more like you're referring to the global warming/climate change crowd.

[capngeo]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Climategate



Data adjustments

Two posts from Judith Curry's blog
***SNIP for brevity****

You can quote bought and paid for research, which means nothing.. admit it the Kool-aide tasted good!
FACT: The Earth has been warming and cooling for billions of years or are you in denial about that too?

[capngeo]

Originally Posted by Caribbeachbum

I'm suspicious ... do you accept that reasoning when applied to things that your political leanings view differently? For two examples (depending on your political leanings, of course):

The evidence (pretty much all of human history) very strongly supports the idea that prostitution cannot be eliminated. Do we admit and accept thousands of years of abject failure and stop trying to do anything about it?

The evidence of the last 100 years or so (at least) very strongly supports the idea that the use of recreational drugs cannot be eliminated. Do we continue to fight the "war on drugs" just to justify having started it in the first place? Or do we stop concerning ourselves because it's beyond our power to control?

BRAVO!

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

This is what adjusted data looks like:



Understanding adjustments to temperature data | Climate Etc.

My apologies. I should have used <tongue-in-cheek> tags around "data adjusted". I can't read your chart text very well due to size of the graphic. Is the dashed line the raw temperature - as in actually recorded - value?

[Caribbeachbum]

Originally Posted by capngeo

You can quote bought and paid for research, which means nothing.. admit it the Kool-aide tasted good!
FACT: The Earth has been warming and cooling for billions of years or are you in denial about that too?

Has anybody denied your FACT anywhere? That both ice ages and tropical eras have occurred over the history of the planet has been supported by the evidence to the point of universal scientific acceptance for at least a century.

At issue, I think, is whether or not a change to the climate is currently underway; and if so, whether or not human activities contribute to it. Evidence suggests that both are true, but as far as I can tell (I'm no climatologist), there is nothing like universal acceptance of this as canon. The science is a work in progress.

[sailorboy1]

There's hope for reversing the warming trend, and it's in the NE USA.

[capngeo]

Originally Posted by Caribbeachbum

Has anybody denied your FACT anywhere? That both ice ages and tropical eras have occurred over the history of the planet has been supported by the evidence to the point of universal scientific acceptance for at least a century.

At issue, I think, is whether or not a change to the climate is currently underway; and if so, whether or not human activities contribute to it. Evidence suggests that both are true, but as far as I can tell (I'm no climatologist), there is nothing like universal acceptance of this as canon. The science is a work in progress.

Certainly the climate is changing; I don't think anyone denies this. I totally dispute the "fact" that humans are responsible for the current change, AND also totally dispute the ability of humans to do anything about it! When Mother Nature has enough of our BS, she will shake us off the planet as (I suspect) she has done with MANY other civilizations (and species) in the past.

Nobody (well except the creationists) denies that the Earth is billions of years old; again I say it is pure arrogance to believe we (as in the humans of recorded history) are the first intelligent species to inhabit this planet. Mother Earth has "been there, done that" and she will do it again in spite of "our" protests to the contrary.

[jimbunyard]

Would it be fair to say the question boils down to this:

Can the planet be run in a sustainable fashion, while maintaining our standard of living and allowing others to reach the same standard?

If so, then the question comes down to energy. In this very interesting lecture,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC6iz16bxQM

, Peter Littlewood Ph.D., a physicist and the Director at Argonne National Lab, explains why, among many other things, fossil fuels are going to remain in our future, at least for a while. It's a bit long but quite absorbing.

And, in the same line, if you call yourself a skeptic, Spencer Weart, also a Ph.D. physicist and historian, has written a history of the people and events which led up to the theory of global warming, (which, incidentally, came about in the search for the causes of ice ages). It is here:

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

and if you're serious about your skepticism, you owe it to yourself to read it. It is well written and enjoyable, and really demonstrates what is meant by scientific consensus (and it ain't got nothin' to do with 97 percent).