A Different Slant on Global Warming...

[ArcticStones]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw I actually don't like this presentation; it's overly dramatic, and that can be misleading.

Yeah, it’s pretty dramatic, all right.

They should have "muted it down", rather than based it on the best available meteorological data for the last 125 years. That way it would have been less "misleading".

.

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by ArcticStones ...They should have "muted it down", rather than based it on the best available meteorological data for the last 125 years. That way it would have been less "misleading".

I'm a scientist, and I happen to think that a representation of data should be a representation of data aimed at accuracy, not one aimed at effect. I understand the need to play things up for political purposes, of course, but I'm kind of a purist. it would be dramatic enough if you displayed it without it looking like it was bleeding all over the map.

I don't care which direction the political spin goes, incidentally. pushing it towards the liberal side (as this graphic does) is just as bad as pushing towards the conservative side (the way abortion protesters do when they choose unrealistically human-looking fetuses for their placards). Not that you can tell from American politics, but you actually can have a political debate which presents scientific evidence in its proper, detached, non-emotive form.

Yes, I'm a scientific moralist. sue me.

[bramley]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotian An Op-Ed piece in Wired.com: Stop Trying to Save the Planet, a view, in general, to which I subscribe. I'm much more impressed by evidence from the past than by wild projections for the future. <snip>

My main complaint about all of these threads started by you concerning climate change is that none of them start from a scientific reference. They all stem from some opinion piece you've read. The author always has a particular audience in mind. They therefore twist the science they reference to reinforce the viewpoint of their audience.

Take this guy. He says

Quote: Originally Posted by http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ftf-ellis-1/ To explain this, palaeoclimatologist Bill Ruddiman formulated the “early anthropogenic hypothesis,” which holds that the source of these gases was land clearing and flooding for rice production by prehistoric farmers beginning 8,000 years ago. While this hypothesis still ruffles the feathers of many a climatologist, there remains no better evidence explaining the Holocene greenhouse-gas anomaly.

The Holocene greenhouse-gas anomaly (or pre-industrial rise in CO2) amounts to 40 ppm. Originally, Ruddiman claimed all of it was due to human intervention. Since then he has conceded that only 25% (i.e. 10 ppm) is due to direct human intervention. OK, he did suggest a mechanism by which humans could be responsible for the other 75% but even I can see the flaw in it.

Furthermore, IPCC's AR4 makes quite plain that CO2 and CH4 emissions from land use is a major area of uncertainty in their work. So how does Ruddiman have a better handle on land use emissions circa 5000 years ago? In short, can he even sustain his 10 ppm figure?

Does his 'evidence' still impress?

Let's stick with 10 ppm for now.

The post-industrialisation increase in CO2-eq is 115 ppm (source AR4) i.e 1150% more than Ruddiman claims or almost 300% (assuming the 40 ppm figure.)

This guy's argument is little bit like saying that energy-momentum effects in water are harmless because water-hammer in pipe networks never hurt anybody. Tell that to somebody about to be flattened by a tsunami.

The difference in scale between the pre- and post-industrialisation emissions is so large that he is incapable of reaching the conclusions he has. So as to reach his pre-formed conclusions, he stripped out the numbers and put in the very weak argument "its the best we've got so it must be valid" at the end of my quote above.

Like him, I do expect humans will survive, but I doubt it'll be a picnic. Something that he should have concluded, perhaps after a reading of Malthus's work - something you do not appear to be familiar enough with. There will almost certainly be serious social, political, economic and environmental issues to be dealt with in the years to come.

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw in a word, water. water is a great heat-sink - it absorbs and releases heat slowly and evenly. land is much more volatile and varies according to terrain. since what's being measured is ambient air temperature, you're going to see much more pronounced variations in temperature over land masses than over oceans.

Ok, I see what you're saying, but (and this is a question, not a statement) wouldn't you expect to see more heating over the land masses than over the north pole?

@ bramley,

I think that there is a perception (a correct one, I believe) on the part of many who don't see Attila the Hun as a bleeding-heart left winger, that there is a movement by very large, powerful organizations to sow doubts the same way the cigarette makers did with tobacco. In this light, pushing things a little in the opposite direction doesn't seem like the wrong thing to do.

[ArcticStones]

.

Quote: Originally Posted by tw I'm a scientist, and I happen to think that a representation of data should be a representation of data aimed at accuracy, not one aimed at effect. I understand the need to play things up for political purposes, of course, but I'm kind of a purist.

Frankly, I find your post arrogant.

Your claim is that this presentation is "aiming at effect", because Professor Helge Drange has a "need to play things up for political purposes."

That’s quite a claim!

I am glad that you consider yourself a scientist -- "kind of a purist". Well, as far as I know, "purists" don’t make these sort of claims without supporting them.

Please support your attack on Prof. Helge Drange and the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, by documenting how this representation aims at anything other than accuracy.

Precisely what data are you claiming is misrepresented?

Professor Drange quotes his team’s sources. There is more on the data and methodology here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

The explanation there seems most reasonable to me.

If you can find fault, then I am sure NASA, GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Research) and the Bjerknes Centre would love to hear from you. As GISS noted in 1999, and still does: "We would welcome feedback from users on any specific data in this record."

-- ArcticStones

.

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam Ok, I see what you're saying, but (and this is a question, not a statement) wouldn't you expect to see more heating over the land masses than over the north pole?

that becomes a bit trickier, for the following reasons:

• ice is a very poor conductor of heat. something for which life everywhere should be thankful, incidentally, otherwise rivers, lakes, and even some oceans would freeze solid in winter, rather than freezing on the surface and staying liquid below.
• ice reflects heat. land, by contrast, absorbs and releases it.
• polar regions have wild seasonal variations in daylight. even though equatorial regions are warmer, polar regions can get double the sunlight in mid-summer.

I have no idea how to calculate those factors in.

remember also that this chart is (perhaps not obviously) a delta chart, not a chart of absolute temps. it's displaying changes in temperature, not absolute temperatures, and so all it's really saying is that the polar regions are showing greater variation, not that they are getting particularly warm. I'm more interested in the northern/southern hemisphere differences - the fact that the NH is showing more variation is a tick in the 'man is responsible' box, since the primary difference between the hemispheres is that the North is far more heavily populated and far more industrialized.

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by ArcticStones Frankly, I find your post arrogant.

not a thing I can say to that that you wouldn't consider equally arrogant, so I'll refrain.

Quote: Originally Posted by ArcticStones Your claim is that this presentation is "aiming at effect", because Professor Helge Drange has a "need to play things up for political purposes."

no, my statement was that I didn't like this graphic representation because I thought it over-dramatized the data. I don't have a problem with their research, or their data, or their actions as scientists; this was purely a cosmetic critique. if you were to buy a matte-black Prius I would think you wanted a new car; if you were to buy a candy-red Porsche I would think you were having a mid-life crisis. both are cars, and both function perfectly well as cars, but appearances make statements.

[wilbert]

Quote: Originally Posted by hayne Please check your facts before posting. Your assertions above are completely wrong - both of those men have advanced science degrees in relevant fields and extensive climatological experience. See, for example: http://www.ametsoc.org/amsnews/bios/karl.html http://www.linkedin.com/pub/5/7a8/232

Still has no degrees in climate science or Meteorology MD nor PHD ... letters honoraries and adulation's will not change the fact that he is a Political appointee not a scientist. Socci is neither an elected official of the AMS nor a contributor to climate science. I did check first.

[hayne]

Quote: Originally Posted by wilbert Still has no degrees in climate science or Meteorology MD nor PHD ... letters honoraries and adulation's will not change the fact that he is a Political appointee not a scientist. Socci is neither an elected official of the AMS nor a contributor to climate science. I did check first.

First off, you had earlier claimed that these men "have no science degrees or any climate science experience" and the links I provided above show that your earlier statement is absolutely wrong.

Karl has a Master of Science degree in Meteorology and has had a career in climate science. Not sure what you are on about with him.
Socci has a PhD in Geology/Oceanography. He may not have contributed to climate science but I see no reason why that disqualifies him from working as a spokesman.
Both of these men qualify as scientists and are much more qualified than you (or I) to give opinions about climate change.

[fazstp]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw no, my statement was that I didn't like this graphic representation because I thought it over-dramatized the data.

I don't know, it's pretty conventional isn't it? Blue = cold, red = warm?

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by fazstp I don't know, it's pretty conventional isn't it? Blue = cold, red = warm?

maybe. data display is as much art as science, particularly with technological toys, and one ought to put some thought into the subjective side, particularly when the display has a wide and unsophisticated audience. most people looking at this chart aren't going to see the data the way you and I might (interpreting a graphical display correctly takes thought and experience); what they are going to see is a lot of calm blue slowly giving way to a lot of scary red. should they be scared? I think so, yes. does the graphic accurately display what they should be scared of? not as clearly as I might hope. Things I would change if I were to redo this graph:

• use absolute temperatures rather than local deltas (easier to interpret, if less dramatic)
• tie the color shift to a meaningful proportion (the perceptual shift from blue to red is huge, artistically/visually speaking - 120˚ on the color wheel - but the deltas in the data can reflect at most a handful of temperature degrees)
• add in some numerics (localized peaks, global averages, or etc) to contextualize the colors properly.

the whole display would be a lot more drab, but a bit more intuitively informative.

not a huge issue, really, but...

[fazstp]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw Things I would change if I were to redo this graph: use absolute temperatures rather than local deltas (easier to interpret, if less dramatic) tie the color shift to a meaningful proportion (the perceptual shift from blue to red is huge, artistically/visually speaking - 120˚ on the color wheel - but the deltas in the data can reflect at most a handful of temperature degrees) add in some numerics (localized peaks, global averages, or etc) to contextualize the colors properly.

Yeah, I guess the whole graph represents +/- 3º. The yellow is still within +1º of the baseline (whatever that is) but has more impact than the light blue which is the equivalent decline.

[Woodsman]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw [*]polar regions have wild seasonal variations in daylight. even though equatorial regions are warmer, polar regions can get double the sunlight in mid-summer.

That's why Arctic Norway can be surprisingly lush and astonishingly hot in the summer. There's a plant that in England is about waist-high but which up around Tromsø grows like a tree, confer the giantism of plants around Kilimanjaro. And I've known it get over 30 degrees Celsius. Even though the sun has more atmosphere to get through at 70 degrees North, when it is up and shining at you 24 hours a day, it compensates.

[wilbert]

Quote: Originally Posted by hayne I think this is the animation you are referring to: http://www.bjerknes.uib.no/pages.asp...&kat=97&lang=2

A few more here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJgh8...D94F9B&index=0

[wilbert]

Quote: Originally Posted by hayne First off, you had earlier claimed that these men "have no science degrees or any climate science experience" and the links I provided above show that your earlier statement is absolutely wrong. Karl has a Master of Science degree in Meteorology and has had a career in climate science. Not sure what you are on about with him. Socci has a PhD in Geology/Oceanography. He may not have contributed to climate science but I see no reason why that disqualifies him from working as a spokesman. Both of these men qualify as scientists and are much more qualified than you (or I) to give opinions about climate change.

NC state officials " TR Karl took some post -baccalaureate courses here at NC he was not in a degree program" he begun styling himself "DR" to coincide with the Honorary degree. After Socci and Karl's appointment the membership of the AMS had to attend " Climate re-education" to think the "right way".Part of this re-education was the 1970s consensus on Global cooling.

[hayne]

Quote: Originally Posted by wilbert NC state officials " TR Karl took some post -baccalaureate courses here at NC he was not in a degree program"

Whatever he did at NC is neither here nor there since he has a Masters of Science degree from University of Wisconsin—Madison.

How about you give it a rest with trying to attack these guys.
Argue the facts, not ad hominem.

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by hayne How about you give it a rest with trying to attack these guys. Argue the facts, not ad hominem.

what makes you think this debate has anything to do with 'facts'? if it were a factual question, it would still be playing out in the halls of academia, and few of us would have heard about it. the argument here is over the political idea that human agency is causing global warming, and thus humans are responsible for cleaning up the mess. when it comes to questions of responsibility, few people care about 'truth'; all they care about is whether their actions are 'justified' (using the kind of logic that lets even the worst used-car dealer sleep well at night).

believe me, if W was interested in ascertaining the facts of the matter, this conversation would have ended long ago. instead, he is trying (and will continue to try) to justify his viewpoint by whatever means.

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw ...the argument here is over the political idea that human agency is causing global warming, and thus humans are responsible for cleaning up the mess...

It doesn't even go that far! No argument is made that humans aren't playing a significant part in climate change. Instead, the main thrust is to divert attention. It's all just a delaying tactic.

[wilbert]

Quote: Originally Posted by hayne Whatever he did at NC is neither here nor there since he has a Masters of Science degree from University of Wisconsin—Madison. How about you give it a rest with trying to attack these guys. Argue the facts, not ad hominem.

Perfect! So from now on Science is to take over and no more of " paid by the fossil industry " ad hominem ?

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by wilbert Perfect! So from now on Science is to take over and no more of " paid by the fossil industry " ad hominem ?

if it was paid for by oil industries, that's not an ad hominem. every proper scientist is more than willing to tell who is funding him, in part because it's a status thing ('look who funded my research...') and in part to offset any appearance of bias. No harm being funded by the oil industry if the funding comes without strings.