backtop


Print 83 comment(s) - last by jbartabas.. on Feb 18 at 12:44 PM


A recent map of North Atlantic currents shows warm, subtropical water being ferried far into the northern latitudes. The increased water temperature has enabled fast sea ice and glacier melt in recent years.  (Source: Jack Cook, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)
Warmer ocean currents are driving Greenland's glacial melt.

It remains to be seen exactly how much mankind understands the science of climatology. While global climate models continue to be produced, disproved, corrected, and debated in the administration, there is still some solid research being done. And that research keeps showing that there's a possibility that climate science is missing large tracts of data it needs.

Recently 
DailyTech reported on research concerning the Bering Strait and how this comparatively small geological formation might be responsible or at the least involved in the regulation of the North American temperature via ocean currents. Oceans have been understood to partially control temperatures and overall climate for years, but marine science has only recently been getting any media time with all the political hubbub over the global climate change debates.

A multi-institutional research team, led by Fiamma Straneo, a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution physical oceanographer, has been studying ice loss in Greenland, particularly in the Sermilik Fjord, which connects the Irminger Sea to the Helheim glacier. The last decade has seen accelerated ice loss in Greenland -- the Helheim glacier has already retreated by several kilometers.

Unfortunately, the area has not been monitored regularly for long enough to perfectly reconstruct the ice melts before the recent accelerated melt, but a combination of ship and moored survey data, combined with temperature and depth data taken from the radio collars of hooded seals in the area have allowed them to piece together just how quickly things can change.

They found that changes in the North Atlantic ocean currents have been bringing much warmer, subtropical water further and further north. Water as warm as four degrees celsius was found during the time data. That warm water combined with swift current propagation has enabled the massive uptake in Greenland's glacial ice. The warmer water quickly moves through the fjords, taking away with it the melted ice and keeping the temperatures relatively warm.

Straneo explains, "This is the first extensive survey of one of these fjords that shows us how these warm waters circulate and how vigorous the circulation is. Changes in the large-scale ocean circulation of the North Atlantic are propagating to the glaciers very quickly — not in a matter of years, but a matter of months. It's a very rapid communication."

She goes on to stress how little is known about ocean-glacier interactions and that continuous observation will be extremely important in coming to a full picture of how they affect each other and sea-level regulation. It is also likely that understanding how these entities cooperate will help understand how the ocean currents and sea ice as a whole may affect regional and global climates. A rapid influx of cool, fresh water could serve to disrupt the global ocean current system, known as the Ocean Conveyor even as the area appears to be warming.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Wha-wha-what?
By acase on 2/17/2010 8:14:00 AM , Rating: 4
What's this? A global climate article on daily tech not written by Mick or Masher/Mandrews? Not overshadowed by bias? Not only written to get people flaming at eachother?

As uninterested as I was in this read, it was a very relaxing breath of fresh air.




RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Hieyeck on 2/17/2010 8:26:37 AM , Rating: 2
I digress, a science article on a purportedly science site is most interesting. Best read in a while.

That said, the trolls do make for much more colorful conversation (Literally! All those red comments!).


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/17/2010 9:30:31 AM , Rating: 2
Water as warm as four degrees celsius was found during the time data.

Ahhhh... bath water temp. :)

I have to agree with your statement. Also this article has more logic behind it then any GW article I've read.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By bhieb on 2/17/2010 9:29:58 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed.

quote:
He goes on to stress how little is known about ocean-glacier interactions and that continuous observation will be extremely important in coming to a full picture of how they affect each other and sea-level regulation.

And finally a smart research team. Other's tend to jump to a conclusion/side. Why once a decision is made we don't need to fund you any more? Well played here keep your findings factual and don't take sides, that way both sides can continue funding you (as it should be).


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By BBeltrami on 2/17/2010 10:54:54 AM , Rating: 3
Just speaking for myself, I appreciate a climate research team utilizing Scientific Method. Most tend to advocate their desired outcome to guarantee funding or lend support to a political position. They seem to keep their findings objective, that way neither "side" can impact, alter, manipulate or otherwise compromise the research, regardless of funding source.

I'm not an AGW advocate. But I'm not unreasonable. Compared to Jason Mick's posts, this was truly refreshing. Jason's alarmism, advocacy and bias are so flagrant that, for me, he personally has done much more to damage the "cause" of AGW than help it. The more he talks, the less I hear being said... But believe me, I'm listening.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Grabo on 2/17/2010 1:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
Scientific Method eh?

Anyways, the same team from Sep 23 last year:
quote:
Scientists say it's a natural process — in one period the cold waters will have the upper hand, and in the next it's the other way round. But the rapidly increasing temperatures of the subtropical oceans suggest that the balance could be tilted beyond natural variability, Curry says.

"We've actually measured the waters at their source and have seen their temperature going up, up, up in a way that can't be explained without taking into account human influences," she says

The research underscores the complex interaction between the world's oceans and a warming atmosphere.

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32986328/ns/us_news-en...

In the end, it's probably hard to find completely unbiased human beings, but this reasearch seems necessary.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 1:43:27 PM , Rating: 5
So they did some more research, and found out it could be explained by natural variability. Not surprising they'd then change their minds, eh?

In any case, I would take any quotes on MSNBC with a grain of salt. They're well known for hanging up on any climate scientist who doesn't give them a scary enough quote.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Grabo on 2/17/2010 1:58:32 PM , Rating: 2
Your first two sentences are ambiguous. They seem to say the researchers first thought something, then more research made them think natural variability, and then they changed their minds (again)?

Anyway, I suppose you mean that they first inclined towards man-affected, then natural variability?

Your statement is flawed because 1. In this news release (released Feb 2010) they say this area hasn't been studied much and needs to be studied further, they don't lay the root cause anywhere specifically.

2. This news release concerns studies conducted in 2008, (http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=6... ) , the MSNBC article is from Sept 2009 and refers to "..zigzagged between majestic icebergs in the Sermilik fjord last month".

3. Everyone has a reputation. Show some sort of substantial reference that MSNBC only listens to certain angles.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 2:10:35 PM , Rating: 2
1. The "need to be studied further" mantra is doublespeak for "give us more research funding". You won't ever find a scientist in ANY field who EVER says their field of interest doesn't need more study.

2. This news release is from data COLLECTED in 2008. The actual analysis and conclusions were just completed. This article lists actual scientific conclusions. Your MSNBC article is just an off-the-cuff comment from a minor project member who is also a well-known AGW activist:

http://www.whoi.edu/science/po/people/rcurry/ppt_f...

Interestingly enough, the research LEADER in the MSNBC article said nothing whatsoever about human-induced change.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Grabo on 2/17/2010 2:55:15 PM , Rating: 2
1. Who would be a scientist that didn't want to pursue their subject? You are using caps, this does not reinforce your point. And science needs money, yes?

2. Where does it say she is "a minor project member"? Where does it say that others do not agree with her (why would they have her on the team, on the trip, if she saw things completely differently?)
"Well-known AGW activist"? Lol, isn't the whole institute suspect then? You are certainly a well-known caps-activist now.

The LEADER said nothing of 'result of natural variances' either, he said 'more research required'.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 3:10:46 PM , Rating: 2
You can shuck and jive all you want, but you can't hide the facts. This article highlights recent research findings. You cannot compare off-the-cuff quotes made without any scientific backing to actual study results.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Grabo on 2/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Wha-wha-what?
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 4:02:20 PM , Rating: 3
Grabo, please try to think clearly. The statement "man is affecting climate" is a positive, not a negative. It requires support. That support can ONLY come by understanding a system well enough to eliminate natural variability.

Now (and here comes the part that requires more than a room temperature IQ, so follow closely) if a scientist says "we don't understand the system well enough to explain it", they ARE saying it could be natural variablity. It's the same thing.

They are NOT saying "it has to be anthropogenic". The'yre not even saying the obverse, which is "it has to be natural". They're saying "we don't understand, so it could be either".

Did you follow that this time, or should I rephrase it in smaller words?


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By jbartabas on 2/17/2010 4:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
Did you read the paper?


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Grabo on 2/18/2010 5:34:56 AM , Rating: 1
They do, in fact, not seem to mention the word 'natural variability', or 'man-made' for that matter, in the news release.

quote:
They're saying "we don't understand, so it could be either


Almost. They're saying, "we don't entirely understand this, more research is required".

The only thing hinting either way is Curry's comment, for whatever it is worth (something we don't know as we haven't heard the outrage or agreeing murmur of any other team-member).

You seem seem stuck on "the changes could be due to natural variances" = "the changes are probably due to natural variances".
You don't write that outright, but phrases such as "well-known AGW activist" and "and then found out it could be due to natural variances" "not surprising they'd change their minds eh" and everything else you've written to this blog post suggests as much.

You still haven't backed up your claim that the MSNBC are biased.

I guess most readers predicted arguments such as ours :p


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Smilin on 2/17/2010 5:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
Actually researchers know that they don't know (that's why they are researching). When they have findings it's all well and good but they keep going.

It's the MEDIA that says "look they found such and such that means that so and so". When later findings contradict everyone bashes the researchers as biased. If you ask them they'll be like "meh...still researching".


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/17/2010 9:41:30 AM , Rating: 3
Except Masher isn't biased. He posts facts. We need more Masher on Daily Tech, a lot more.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Amiga500 on 2/17/2010 9:52:36 AM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer77, you will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/17/2010 11:37:37 AM , Rating: 3
Ben ? Ben Kenobi is that you ?


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Grabo on 2/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/17/2010 3:17:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yes like I said, facts. And right now you are an idiot if you don't the facts are anti-global warming.

Masher tells it like it is and backs it up. Period.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Grabo on 2/17/2010 3:40:53 PM , Rating: 1
Lol, well of course the NSIDC and NASA are less informed than Masher.

Equally certain is that to criticize Slant is to get downrated to 0 in a blink.

Fear the Faith.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/17/2010 3:48:15 PM , Rating: 2
Last time I heard NASA was a space exploration division of the US government. Not climate experts. And since they are funded almost entirely by the government, do you actually expect them to go against the grain ?

And the NSIDC ?? Good grief man, they have been involved in more scandals than Bill Clinton. You drop their name like it's credible !?!

Graba, it's obvious you can neither believe or comprehend the massive scope of the global warming scandal. I know it's hard to fathom, it honestly is, but do yourself a favor and deal with it.

quote:
Fear the Faith.


I do fear the faith. Belief in Climate Change is an absolute faith. A religion. Backed up by about as much facts and science as a Christian would use proving there were a god.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By jbartabas on 2/17/2010 5:23:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Last time I heard NASA was a space exploration division of the US government. Not climate experts.


In space there are planets, among which there is the Earth. NASA has had for a very long time experts on everything that regards climate (ocean/fluid dynamics expert, atmospheric physicists and chemists, biosphere and cryosphere experts, etc ...), whether it is to study Earth's climate or other planets'. I am not sure why you think there are no climate experts at NASA, but you should really be more curious about what NASA does ...

quote:
And since they are funded almost entirely by the government, do you actually expect them to go against the grain ?


Your point being that when the government was AGW skeptics, NASA scientists were skeptics too? Or does it work only one way?


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/18/2010 8:33:54 AM , Rating: 4
Our Government has never, EVER, been "skeptical" of Global Warming. They latched onto it and started passing regulations based on it before ANY hard science was done on it. And now we see how reputable even the "hard science" has been on it. None. A fraud, a lie, 100%.

quote:
I am not sure why you think there are no climate experts at NASA, but you should really be more curious about what NASA does ...


There is no such thing as a "climate expert". That's the dirty little secret climategate has exposed. No models have shown to be accurate. Hell, half the "experts" said this recent snow storm wouldn't even happen. If you can't predict what happens next week, how in the hell can you tell me what's it going to look like in 100 years ?

Who are these "climate experts" ?? Can you point me to one piece of work they have done that is relevant, useful, and beneficial in some way ?

If I went to college for 8 years for horticulture, and told you I was a "grass expert" and that if you didn't bulldoze your front lawn you were going to die, would you do it ? Of course not !! That's f'ing absurd. But for some reason you and every other sheeple gives the same power to "climate experts" ?

Just live your goddamn life and let others do the same. This issue is OVER. You have lost. You lied, cheated, ruined peoples lives, stolen untold prosperity, and in the end it all came down on your sides heads.

If you can't call a fraud a fraud after it's been exposed right in front of your own eyes, then you people deserve to be as miserable as you are.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Amiga500 on 2/17/2010 5:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Last time I heard NASA was a space exploration division of the US government.


Oooohhhh, NASA are into sooooo much more than just space exploration.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 4:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
"Lol, well of course the NSIDC and NASA are less informed than Masher."

Don't smear all of NASA with this climate change nonsense. The climate division is GISS, which is really just a few guys at Columbia University, who lobbied the government to become NASA's official "climate science wing".

GISS is led by James Hansen, a personal friend of Al Gore's, and a man who began making ridiculous GW pronouncements way back in the 1980s -- look at his papers from 1985, where he was predicting warming of 20-30F!

NASA has a lot of good folks. Don't smear them by associating them with GISS.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By AlexWade on 2/17/2010 8:38:53 PM , Rating: 2
Please read this, I just found it today.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%E2%8...

A quick overview is a blogger put in a FOIA request to NASA GISS two years ago that was finally honored a few weeks ago. NASA GISS is the division that studies global temperatures. Here is a quote from one of the emails obtained: "I got a copy from a journalist in Brazil, we don’t save the data." How trustworthy can these scientists be if they have to get copies from journalists?

So, in response to your sarcastic reply, it would appear that Masher is better informed than NASA. How sad is that? It looks like WHOI is more informed than NASA GISS too.


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By SiN on 2/17/2010 12:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
It's made my month!


Interview?
By ipay on 2/17/2010 10:33:39 AM , Rating: 3
Why pretend that you interviewed Straneo by stealing quotes from somewhere else? If you had, you'd know that she is not a he.

http://www.whoi.edu/profile.do?id=fstraneo




RE: Interview?
By acase on 2/17/2010 11:41:10 AM , Rating: 1
Ewww. Are you sure?


RE: Interview?
By SiN on 2/17/2010 12:10:07 PM , Rating: 1
OMG!!!
I'm going to be sick...

:O============


RE: Interview?
By LeviBeckerson (blog) on 2/17/2010 1:49:30 PM , Rating: 2
Typo, my bad. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll have it fixed. :D

Using quotes from other sources is not stealing. It's common practice for any journalist, blogger and everything in between. I always link the original article the quotes came from as well.


RE: Interview?
By sigilscience on 2/17/2010 1:48:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you had, you'd know that she is not a he.
From the look of the picture, there's not that much of a difference.


further proof
By spepper on 2/17/2010 1:45:39 PM , Rating: 2
to me, this is further proof that good old Mother Nature herself has WAY more to do with climate change, or global climate phenomena, in which activity in one part of the planet affects conditions in another part-- and in NO way, can any of this be connected to human activity-- with regard to climate activity, we have no more effect than our exoskeletal friends, ANTS--




AGW simplification.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: AGW simplification.
By bhieb on 2/17/2010 9:26:16 AM , Rating: 2
Oh you forgot one. Just in case those things don't happen you need.

*"someone pointing out all the flaming so to easily facilitate stirring it up"


RE: AGW simplification.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/17/2010 9:31:55 AM , Rating: 2
*ZING


RE: AGW simplification.
By bhieb on 2/17/2010 12:36:28 PM , Rating: 2
Hate to say I told you so but 2 topics here and they are hijacking yours :(

Not that they would not have found some other way in.


RE: AGW simplification.
By michal1980 on 2/17/2010 9:57:26 AM , Rating: 2
*objection from one or two bucked up by reality (studies, data, research, statistics etc.) -

By data, you mean made up stuff, that was maybe lost, from sensor's moved, by a guy who is disorganized, by people that use thrid hand information, that claim it was peer reviewed, except in all the cases when it wasn't, funded by goverments & people who's only goal was to find man made global warming.

That reality right?


RE: AGW simplification.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: AGW simplification.
By clovell on 2/17/2010 12:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
True - it simply means it's unproven, and, once misconduct is discovered, invalid. Hand-waving at undisclosed data adjustments and alterations is hardly conclusive evidence.


RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 12:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
"Do you comprehend that to form IPCC Fourth Assessment Report it was contributed by 620 authors from 40 countries"

Utter nonsense. The actual report was written by a small core of about forty authors, who cliam to have taken snippets from "about 2000 scientists". Unfortunately, one of the lead authors has already admitted that many of the claim had no scientific basis at all, and were merely put in to alarm people and put pressure on world political leaders. Some of those claims have been found to come from student term papers, presentations from environmental groups, and even articles in popular magazines. Some claims seem to have no source whatsoever.

Still worse, before the report is released, it has to be edited, partially rewritten, and approved line by line by POLITICAL appointees from member nations. It's no more a scientific document than is a press release from a senator's office.


RE: AGW simplification.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/17/2010 2:44:12 PM , Rating: 2
Wiki in your face:

The following is a list of the 620 authors contributing to Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis

List of authors from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_from_...


RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 2:59:38 PM , Rating: 3
You should look more carefully at your links. For the only chapter that actually deals with the actual CAUSES of warming (Chap 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change) there are a total of 42 authors listed. The vast majority of the rest are in chapters dealing with observational data, paleoclimatology, "historical overview of climate science", and other incidental subjects.

BTW, still waiting for your reply on the IPCC authors who have admitted including large amounts of non-scientific claims, just to scare world leaders into action. Here's one of the many examples:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Gl...

With authors like this on the IPCC report, who needs enemies?


RE: AGW simplification.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/17/2010 3:16:55 PM , Rating: 1
Because all these chapters have nothing to do with the study of climate.

1 Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
2 Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
3 Chapter 3: Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
4 Chapter 4: Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
5 Chpater 5: Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level
6 Chapter 6: Palaeoclimate
7 Chapter 7: Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry
8 Chapter 8: Climate Models and their Evaluation
9 Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
10 Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections
11 Chapter 11: Regional Climate Projections

<sarcasm>tag

*facepalm


RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 3:38:09 PM , Rating: 2
" *facepalm "

You might want to slap yourself a few more times. Those chapters may deal with climate, but they don't deal with AGW -- whether or not man is causing climate change. That's what the debate is all about, remember?


RE: AGW simplification.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 4:36:16 PM , Rating: 3
"I'll restate it for you: THE CONCLUSION IS IN FAVOR OF AGW!"

A conclusion reached by 42 authors who actually worked on the section attributing change. By the way, you're still ignoring the many scandals relating to these "unbiased" authors. Let me refresh your memory as to how they "reached their conclusions":

quote:
IPCC Scientist Admits He Knowingly Used Unverified Data:
The IPCC Lead Author behind the bogus claim last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders...

The claim rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.
It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Gl...

That's just ONE claim. Others were found to be pulled from student term papers, articles in popular magazines, and some without any source whatsover.

Why should we put ANY faith in these conclusions?


RE: AGW simplification.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 4:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
"Not a single claim that you have listed discredits AGW theory"

It shows the scientists involved are willing to discard the scientific method in favor of advancing their political beliefs. Why should we believe their conclusions, when they admit they'll falsify data to convince us?

If you want something that discredits AGW alarmism, try this:
quote:
The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...

One of the scientists interviewed is a former IPCC Lead Author. Another was an IPCC Expert Reviewer.

And now that even people like Phil Jones, previously one of the loudest prophets of AGW doom in the world, are admitting that the world stopped warming 15 years ago, and that it was warmer in Medieval times than it is today -- how much longer are you going to push this myth of "scientific consensus" ?


RE: AGW simplification.
By jbartabas on 2/17/2010 5:06:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It shows the scientists involved are willing to discard the scientific method in favor of advancing their political beliefs. Why should we believe their conclusions, when they admit they'll falsify data to convince us?


It shows that one scientists may have done that (assuming you trust anything the daily mail publishes). It does not show anything about the hundreds of other authors who are independent and disconnected human beings, each with their own moral principles. The fact that you suggest the contrary tells a lot about your moral principles.

quote:
And now that even people like Phil Jones, previously one of the loudest prophets of AGW doom in the world, are admitting that the world stopped warming 15 years ago


He never admitted anything like that. Again you should stop paraphrasing a secondary paraphrasing source like the daily mail or the national review.


RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 5:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
"He never admitted anything like that"

Oh really?
quote:
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Cl...


RE: AGW simplification.
By jbartabas on 2/17/2010 5:58:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
"He never admitted anything like that" Oh really? quote: Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Cl...


Yes, oh really. Do yourself a favor and go read the original interview instead of second hand reporting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670....

And if you are too ignorant of very basic statistics and notions of the warming trend signal, go read this simple explanation:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/growthgate/

If after all that you still think that:

quote:
Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming? Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

is the same as "admitting that the world stopped warming 15 years ago", well you're obviously not equipped to discuss these issues.


RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 8:33:38 PM , Rating: 3
" Do yourself a favor and go read the original interview "

I'm glad you linked it. Let's see exactly what the poor Professor -- once the loudest harbinger of doom and gloom on the planet -- now has to say, shall we?

quote:
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
This is Jones agreeing that the warming from 1975-1998 was no faster than the warming we saw from 1910-1940, or an earlier warming trend from 1860-1880. Entirely at odds with what he said 5 years ago, and a statement incredibly damaging to those who still believe in the "hockey stick" graph of unprecedented warming from AGW.

Now, lets proceed.

quote:
Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just.

Clearly an admission the world has stopped warming. He follows with some weaseling about it being "barely statistically significant", but the fact remains it IS significant, and he admits as much. I'm sorry, but there is no room for debate on this. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

Now, let's continue:

quote:
Q: Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant
Here, Jones admit the surface record shows cooling, but says its not significant due to the period being too short. Fair enough...we'll check back in a couple years when it hits the magic 10 year mark.

To continue:

quote:
Q: When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties
This speaks for itself. Yet another scientist refutes the myth of "consensus". With 32,000+ now disputing AGW entirely, how many more need to speak up?

Continuing:

quote:
Q: Where do you draw the line on the handling of data? What is at odds with acceptable scientific practice? Do you accept that you crossed the line?

This is a matter for the independent review.
Translation: I take the Fifth.


RE: AGW simplification.
By jbartabas on 2/18/2010 7:41:06 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
quote: Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming Yes, but only just.

Porkpie: Clearly an admission the world has stopped warming . He follows with some weaseling about it being "barely statistically significant", but the fact remains it IS significant, and he admits as much. I'm sorry, but there is no room for debate on this. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero.


Correct, there's no room for debate ... you obviously have no clue of what you are talking about!

To say the "world stopped warming", he would have to say that he calculated a trend that is flat (or negative) and that it is statistically significant . He says nothing of the sort. He calculated a trend, it is positive but it is not statistically significant, at the 95% confidence level, yet.

You could say, at best, that he does not know with a high degree of confidence if the world has warmed in the last 15 years, which you would surely translate into "he has no clue if the world warmed" considering the poor understanding you have already demonstrated. The fact is that there also nothing magical with a 95% degree confidence and being close to reach that level of confidence for a positive trend has nothing to do with the trend being flat or negative. What you call "weaseling" actually contain information you obviously had no capacity to process.


RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 11:07:36 AM , Rating: 2
"He says nothing of the sort. He calculated a trend, it is positive but it is not statistically significant"

The trend from 2001 is NEGATIVE, not positive. From 1995, the trend is so weakly positive as to be statistically meaningless. The phrase "there has been no statistically significant warming of the planet in 15 years" is accurate. Period.

You also conveniently ignore the fact that GW modelers predicted strong and rapid warming from 2000-2010. Instead, the only data we have shows a negative trendline. Care to explain that one away?


RE: AGW simplification.
By jbartabas on 2/18/2010 12:27:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The trend from 2001 is NEGATIVE, not positive.


What does the "trend" from 2001 has to do with your statement that "the world stopped warming 15 years ago"? If it demonstrates one thing it is that you have serious ADD going on ... are you capable of following a discussion for more than 2 sentences, seriously?? That's not even mentioning that while the 15 years positive trend is not quite statistically significant yet, your 9 year pseudo trend is a statistical joke. I guess you missed that point too ...

quote:
From 1995, the trend is so weakly positive as to be statistically meaningless.


The trend from 1995 is 0.12 C/decade, to be compared to a longer term value of 0.16 C/decade or a model-projected value of the order of 0.15 C/decade (give and take depending on scenario and model). That isn't weak, by any stretch of imagination. The not "statistically significant" does not refer to the fact that the trend is so weak that it does not count (it is not), it refers to its calculation not being in the 95% confidence interval. It appears now that you totally misunderstood what it means for a calculated trend to be statistically "significant at the 95% significance level". Seriously, you should read stuff like that before engaging in conversion on topic you know nothing about:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/

or check this figure in particular that shows you why the trends from around 1995 are not statistically significant:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/gissrat2...

quote:
The phrase "there has been no statistically significant warming of the planet in 15 years" is accurate. Period.


Correct, this phrase is accurate ... but your phrase "people like Phil Jones [...] are admitting that the world stopped warming 15 years ago" is a just bull from someone who does not begin to understand what statistically significance means ... period.

quote:
You also conveniently ignore the fact that GW modelers predicted strong and rapid warming from 2000-2010. Instead, the only data we have shows a negative trendline. Care to explain that one away?


I don't ignore anything, it's just it has not been discussed yet. I could indeed care to explain you what individual model runs and ensemble averages tell you about underlying long term trends and short term natural variability, but considering your obvious intellectual shortcoming on basic notions such as the ones previous discussed, I won't even bother.


RE: AGW simplification.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 5:53:45 PM , Rating: 2
"Did you even read your own link?"

Did you? Let me quote the parts you conveniently left out.

quote:
. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change ,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.
Or this, by another scientist:
quote:
We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.
Or this, by a third scientist:
quote:
Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.


To the Daily Mail's credit, they report BOTH sides of the debate, unlike our American papers, which push the fraudulent idea of "consensus" by refusing to interview any of the thousands of scientists who dissent.

As for Trenberth's idiotic remarks, a rise in sea level doesn't prove the earth is getting warmer. He apparently hasn't heard of the concept of thermal inertia...which explains why snow is melting right now in front yard, even though the temperature is declining as night approaches.

When Trenberth can explain that, he'll understand why his remarks are all wet.


RE: AGW simplification.
By JediJeb on 2/18/2010 11:46:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
for any climatologist it's just a legitimate basis to correct SOME of their data,


Maybe climatology is held to different rules for scientific data, but when I have data that becomes suspect I am required to discard it and start over from scratch so as to eleminate the possibility of bias. Sounds like climatology is more politics than science if you are allowed to pick and chose what data is used to render your final conclusions.


RE: AGW simplification.
By jbartabas on 2/18/2010 12:44:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Maybe climatology is held to different rules for scientific data , but when I have data that becomes suspect I am required to discard it and start over from scratch so as to eleminate the possibility of bias. Sounds like climatology is more politics than science if you are allowed to pick and chose what data is used to render your final conclusions.


Not more than in astrophysics, oceanography, geophysics ... There is not ONE instrument on board satellites, on oceanographic buoy, or probes, on atmospheric profilers ... whose data have not be extensively corrected for bias, random noise, temporal drifts etc ... This happens not during the first few month of any Earth or space observing satellite (that's the commissioning phase), but there is a constant revision and tuning of algorithms during the whole life of an instrument (because already existing problems are discovered, and new ones happen with the aging of the hardware). At worse, data are "flagged" until it can be decided whether or not there is a sensible correction to make. So maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "data becoming suspect", but I have never seen anybody "discard [...] and start over from scratch" before seeing for themselves what the problems are and see if they are correctable.


RE: AGW simplification.
By jbartabas on 2/17/2010 4:48:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's just ONE claim. Others were found to be pulled from student term papers, articles in popular magazines, and some without any source whatsover.


Exactly, that's just ONE claim. Why don't you show us all the many others that plagued the attribution chapter? BTW, your ONE example has nothing to do with the attribution chapter, not even with the physical basis report.


RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 5:09:55 PM , Rating: 2
So your position is, until each and every one of authors admits they falsified data, that we should continue to take the report at face value? Wow...just wow.

And yes, this is a different chapter. It's the effects, or the "this is why we have to act now" chapter, rather than the "blame it all on humans" chapter. So? Exaggerating the effects of climate change is just as heinous as misrepresenting its causes.


RE: AGW simplification.
By jbartabas on 2/17/2010 5:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow...just wow.


I am now totally impressed by the quality of your reflection and argumentative power.
I dare to suggest that hundreds of scientists, many of them from the most prestigious scientific institutions in the world, should not be assimilated as one unique moral entity ... i.e. they should be considered innocent until proven guilty and your definitive argument is "wow just wow".

I am still waiting for the so many other incriminating examples that have plagued these reports of hundred and hundred of pages authored by hundreds of people. You must certainly have so many of them considering the amount of claims present in these reports, at least you claimed so.

quote:
And yes, this is a different chapter. It's the effects, or the "this is why we have to act now" chapter, rather than the "blame it all on humans" chapter. So? Exaggerating the effects of climate change is just as heinous as misrepresenting its causes.


I do agree it is as heinous to misrepresents its causes ... but the point is not that it's not heinous, it's that it's irrelevant to the discussion here (and the one with Grabo). Both discussions were explicitly focusing on the attribution of GW, the Anthropogenic A in AGW. You yourself re-focused the debate on the sole chapter regarding the attribution, and its "mere" 42 authors. Then you give ONE example of misconduct to discredit these very 42 authors, except that your example not only is not part of the chapter, but is not even in the same working group as the few other hundreds of scientists. It's irrelevant.


RE: AGW simplification.
By jbartabas on 2/17/2010 5:35:17 PM , Rating: 2
"I do agree it is as heinous to misrepresents its causes" should read "I do agree it is as heinous to exaggerate the effects as it is to misrepresents its causes"


RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 8:50:12 PM , Rating: 2
" dare to suggest that hundreds of scientists, many of them from the most prestigious scientific institutions in the world, should not be assimilated as one unique moral entity "

Tell you what. Let's have a soup made by 620 scientists. We know a few of them peed in the pot, but we think the rest kept their pants zipped. Will you still eat the soup?

The IPCC report is undeniably tainted. The IPCC is led by an economist found to be making millions off AGW hysteria, several of the report's claims have been found to be fraudulent, some authors have confessed to inventing claims to scare the public, others are embroiled in investigations for falsifying their research data, and still more have been forced to resign because of emails showing them to be subverting the scientific process.

Are there SOME ethical scientists still in the mix? Probably so...but far too many people have already peed in that soup.


RE: AGW simplification.
By theendofallsongs on 2/17/2010 9:51:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tell you what. Let's have a soup made by 620 scientists. We know a few of them peed in the pot, but we think the rest kept their pants zipped. Will you still eat the soup?
Haha, I think I'll skip to the main course.


RE: AGW simplification.
By jbartabas on 2/17/2010 4:42:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
BTW, still waiting for your reply on the IPCC authors who have admitted including large amounts of non-scientific claims, just to scare world leaders into action. Here's one of the many examples:


Except that your author example was not part of the WG 1 that Grabo was discussing since a few post. Not only this author was not part of the chapter that discuss the attribution that you seem to want to focus on, but he's not even an author of the whole report concerned with the physical basis of GW.

One can also appreciate your link to an article from the daily mail, while at the same time you're reproaching to others their use of sources like MSNBC. That tells a lot about your intellectual honesty.


RE: AGW simplification.
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/17/2010 1:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
At one time in history a large group of scientist thought the world was flat (not all but enough). So, by your thoughts you would agree with the flat world thinkers because some many of them are saying it is flat.

I'm not a climate expert and have not read a large number of the reports. However, one thing I have noticed, most of the article I have read do not talk about the Sun at all. I know the Sun's temp changes and I know it effects the temp and condition on this planet. I know it is probably one of the largest factors for the conditions... So why have they not confirmed the condition of the Sun in these articles? There are several other factors they do not note or acknowledge in these articles.. Mainly because I think it would be to hard to measure everything that has an effect on the climate. However, until you can measure 100% of everything that effects the climate you are working with bogus numbers, reports and stats. You will cause more harm then good working with these numbers. So, before people run around screaming the sky is falling, prove to me you can ID the Sky and it's proper location, historical location, verse current location, and then all details on what causes the location of the sky to change or move. In todays world, I do not think anyone can do that with the climate, they can not even write a computer program to simulate the climate correctly... other wise you could have the program repeat the last 100 years of climate conditions.


RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 1:46:51 PM , Rating: 2
"So why have they not confirmed the condition of the Sun in these articles?"

To a very simplistic degree, they have. They've measured changes in solar insolation (the absolute amount of radiative heat reaching the ground) and found its varied only by enough to account for maybe 25% of the warming.

That simplistic approach ignores several factors though, such as :

a) the massive thermal inertia of the earth (perhaps insolation increased before we began measuring it, and the warming is just now showing up)
b) changes in temperature from solar effects not based on insolation (such as solar magnetoshere-driven albedo change, due to cloud effects0
c) corruption of the global temperature record from UHI (urban heat island) and other effects, meaning the amount of warming recorded is higher than actuality.


RE: AGW simplification.
By sigilscience on 2/17/2010 1:51:29 PM , Rating: 2
Just curious but do you work in the geosciences?


RE: AGW simplification.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: AGW simplification.
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/17/2010 2:37:14 PM , Rating: 2
And I do not even have to read further your mess of a hypothesis. WTF is wrong with you people?

Yes, that is right, you just proved you are a flat world'er type person. You mis-quoted me by only using part of a quote and not the full quote - so altering data that was fully proved to you. You then even state you do not need to read further. So, you do not know what was said, and you are forming an opinion without all the facts. So, like all your other climate alarmist, flat world type thinking friends; you are going around without all the information thinking you know better then everyone else and you do not need all the facts because you just know better. Think what you want, but do not take any action... please remember this is our world not yours alone and I do not want people like you screwing it up because they think they know better....


RE: AGW simplification.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/17/2010 3:00:51 PM , Rating: 1
Do not chastise me for pointing out on your absurd statement.

Is your quote ridiculous? - undoubtedly yes

Why don't you just have the courage to acknowledge this;
move on, stop blaming people for your folly.


RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 3:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
Nyeh kulturny, Vitaly. Why not argue the facts here, instead of continually insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you?


RE: AGW simplification.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/17/2010 3:44:16 PM , Rating: 1
So, he launches tirade against me for my justifiable remark and now I have to feel guilty about it, right? "porkpie". Your logic never ceases to amaze me.


RE: AGW simplification.
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/17/2010 3:54:23 PM , Rating: 2
He can not argue the facts... because he does not have all of them. He just wants to claim he knows better because several other people agree with him...

Vitaly, I have indirectly asked you to show me a report that factors in everything... EVERYTHING... Sun, plant life, Animal life (termites in South America put out more CO2 then humans...), Volcano - CO2 out put there, and so on till you get humans and everything else on this planet. Once you have all this data put together and show how they effect each other, past, current, and future. Once you have a report you can start talking about the effects humans have on the climate. So, do you have this report? Until you do you have un-answered, incomplete data. Therefor at best guessing at what is real and what is not real.

Now if you want to talked about real things (controllable), like how we need to stop dumping waste in the sea because it's pooling up somewhere in the South Pacific and harming the wild life in the sea. Or we can talk about get more out of the limited resources located on this planet. Well now that we can do and prove the results of our actions.


RE: AGW simplification.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/17/2010 4:45:00 PM , Rating: 1
read:

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessmen...

Key IPCC conclusions by Martin Parry, Osvaldo Canziani, Jean Palutikov:

http://www.wmo.int/wcc3/bulletin/57_2_en/documents...

Summary, drafted by B. Ekwurzel of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) benefited from helpful reviews by T.Stocker (University of Bern), R.C.J. Somerville (Scripps Institution of Oceanography), S.J. Hassol (Climate Science Communicator), and P.C. Frumhoff (UCS).

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_i...


RE: AGW simplification.
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/17/2010 6:09:57 PM , Rating: 3
You still have not produced a report to cover the real question that would need to be addressed be for taking action... We all know the planet is changing what we do not know is why it is changing other than history shows that the planet climate does change from time to time. So, showing snow has increased and decrease on certain mountain is not the answer.. Even your third article states:

"Human Responsibility for Climate Change
The report finds that it is “very likely” that emissions of heat-trapping gases from human activities have caused “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century."

I can sum that up in just a few words THEY DO NOT KNOW. That is why they say "very likely", they can not prove it. This is the evidence I would need. There is evidence of pollution in the sea from us dumping garbage in the sea. We made the garbage, we dump the garbage, so the pool of garbage is our fault, nothing to debate.
Now I read your articles very fast (skimmed) so maybe I missed these areas. However, termites in South America produce more CO2 then all the human on the planet... Your articles do not talk about them. We have more Volcano's going off right now in last hundred years, then in other hundred year blocks. Each one of the volcano's put out in 1 day to 7 days the amount of CO2 that all mankind puts out in a year. Again your articles do not address them either. There is just so much more data that would need to be gathered before you can even try and guess the effects man is having on the planet verse what the planet is doing to itself. Remember the Earth has been doing this type of changes for billions of years. It's the planets way of cleaning it's self. So, it may be time for us to use the money that is going to stop global warm and use it towards something smart, like creating builds to help mankind live through the next ice age which maybe only a few decades away... Otherwise maybe mankind will repeat history and be wiped out like the dinosaur.


RE: AGW simplification.
By SiN on 2/17/2010 12:11:13 PM , Rating: 2
You don't like reader1 do you?


RE: AGW simplification.
By sigilscience on 2/17/2010 1:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
I like Jaso...I mean Reader1. His posts are entertaining, and I don't think he even believes a tenth of what he types.


RE: AGW simplification.
By clovell on 2/17/2010 12:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
If you have a point, make it - when you've got something you truly believe in and that stands on solid evidence, you shouldn't be so agitated by folks who don't agree with you that you cry about it.

Lots of folks around here have data; not just you.


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki