Greenland ice sheet melting faster than previously thought. PLEASE RECYCLE!

Citizen Runner wrote:. . . inconsistent with an honest effort to evaluate the theory.

Look man, I've put up with plenty of insults in this thread, but I won't tolerate being called dishonest. Have I lied or intentionally misled? I've made a couple of errors, which I've pointed out myself as I've noticed them. Keep the snarky comments to yourself, if you don't mind.

Since, by your own admission, the guts of your position is that nobody on this thread completely understands climate change it would seem that you have taken a REALLY long time to get to this point.

Why didn't your very first post simply inquire, "Anyone on here who completely understands climate change or at least is an expert on climate and has focussed on this area?" When you were met with deafening silence your task would have been done.

Unless, of course, you are lying about your objectives here.

A simpler approach wrote:Unless, of course, you are lying about your objectives here.

Have you contributed something constructive in this thread, other than accusing me of being on somebody's payroll and lying about it? I admit I can be (am being) a pain in the a$$ sometimes (and hell, maybe I AM unlikeable like Citizen Runner thinks), but you're just being an a$$hole. If you have something useful to contribute to the discussion, that would be more than welcome. If not, then it is YOU neing the troll, friend.

Just a quick note that these graphs:

rose colored glasses? wrote:Image:

http://i40.tinypic.com/kai5ut.jpg

You'll see 0.5-0.6 deg C/century rise at two of the sites, and a slight decrease at the third (Charlottetown).

seem to be consistent with the temperature data plotted in the chapter of the IPCC report Citizen Runner tricked me into reading just now. :-) Roughly 0.7-8C increase over the past century in their global mean near-surface temperature plot.

OK, you're a sneaky one, you got me to crack open the IPCC report, or part of it:

Citizen Runner wrote:http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf.

If you're familiar with the modelling methodologies, can you tell me what factor drove the various models (or their average output anyway) to predict a cooling period around 1960:

rose colored glasses? wrote:

If I've "misjudged" the basis for your opinion, I think that is because you haven't really presented it very clearly. Linking me to a variety of literature sources (and thank you, I do appreciate them) and leaning on the IPCC report doesn't really explain your rationale. That said, in your current post you mention successful hindcasting models, which I presume is a key support in your beliefs (correct me if I'm wrong). I will look at the link with interest. I will warn you though, I am very wary of numerical modelling, having done more than enough of it myself.

The reason you haven't got the concise response you're seeking or the "key support" is because it is the ensemble of data in support of the theory that is compelling not any one observation and that can not be presented trivially. It's not the responses you've received that have been unreasonable so much as your request.

Looking at temperature trends for a very small number of points with limited global distribution is pretty close to irrelevant to the topic at hand.

rose colored glasses? wrote:

If you're familiar with the modelling methodologies, can you tell me what factor drove the various models (or their average output anyway) to predict a cooling period around 1960:

Image:

http://i43.tinypic.com/2cdwt4j.jpg

I'd say it was emissions from the Mount Agung volcanic event given that it says so on the graph.

Citizen Runner wrote:(1) The reason you haven't got the concise response you're seeking or the "key support" is because it is the ensemble of data in support of the theory that is compelling not any one observation and that can not be presented trivially.

(2) Looking at temperature trends for a very small number of points with limited global distribution is pretty close to irrelevant to the topic at hand.

(1) So are you saying then it is necessary to be an expert to have an informed opinion, and the rest of us need to take it on faith? Really I must insist, if someone has a comprehensive understanding they will be able to distill it clearly without simple deference to the IPCC report.

(2) How so? The data I've posted are clearly consistent with the broad trends you've linked me to. If they were outliers I could see dismissing them, but they're not, they seem to fall in line with the general reported trends, within a reasonable expectation of variability.

Citizen Runner wrote:I'd say it was emissions from the Mount Agung volcanic event given that it says so on the graph.

Good, then I'll admit I was expecting you to say so, thanks for playing along. :-)

Can you explain how the models anticipated the volcano? Since they predict the downturn starting ~ 5 years before the volcano, I mean.

1) How many times do we have to go over this? Greenhouse gases going up result in temperatures going up. Is that too distilled?

2) You proport to have a PhD in a technical field. How did you manage that without taking a statistics course?

Just to illustrate this:

rose colored glasses? wrote:

The data I've posted are clearly consistent with the broad trends you've linked me to. If they were outliers I could see dismissing them, but they're not, they seem to fall in line with the general reported trends, within a reasonable expectation of variability.

Here are my three sites plotted the same way overtop the IPCC graph:

The curves show deviations from the 1900-1950 mean temperatures.

Also, to correct an earlier graph where I had selected the wrong column for the Chaplin data:

Citizen Runner wrote:1) How many times do we have to go over this? Greenhouse gases going up result in temperatures going up. Is that too distilled?

2) You proport to have a PhD in a technical field. How did you manage that without taking a statistics course?

1) OK, let's go there then, sure. But please do answer my earlier question about the modelling. Surely there must be some important component of the "forcing function" driving all the models down at ~ 1960.

So I'll again plead ignorance on this: "Greenhouse gases going up result in temperatures going up." People say that like it's holy scripture, and yet we've looked at data in this thread showing skyrocketing levels of CO2 over 150 years have NOT actually caused temperatures to skyrocket (although there has been certainly a small increase). You've argued we need to wait for the kettle to boil, so to speak, which may be true. Still, why do you believe this to be true? What's the compelling case?

2) Can't you refrain from the childish insults? I still haven't insulted you personally have I? Unless you've been posting under multiple handles, as I did call somebody an a$$hole, although I didn't think it was you.

rose colored glasses? wrote:

Can you explain how the models anticipated the volcano? Since they predict the downturn starting ~ 5 years before the volcano, I mean.

The volcano is not the only parameter in the model, presumably some other parameters correctly or not were significant at the output. There are larger deltas between the composite model result. Why pick on this one?

Citizen Runner wrote:The volcano is not the only parameter in the model, presumably some other parameters correctly or not were significant at the output. There are larger deltas between the composite model result. Why pick on this one?

Since you believe the models, I thought maybe you had satisfied yourself of their validity and might therefore understand what model parameters were driving what, at first glance, seems an odd result. At a cursory glance, the major volcanoes don't seem a factor, as they either coincide with or follow what look to be "typical" annual fluctuations. I'll assume you don't know why temperatures trailed off during that middle period then?

Actually, let me correct this:

rose colored glasses? wrote:...the major volcanoes don't seem a factor, as they either coincide with or follow what look to be "typical" annual fluctuations.

I'd extend that comment to note that the models all (wildly?) overpredict temperature swings around the times of the volcanoes, none of which are immediately evident in the actual data (black curve).

Here is the same graph with the average data for my three sites for comparison. No point to be made, just more data:

Sorry it might be a little hard to see, since it's red, as is the average of the models.

OK thanks again for the link to the modelling work in Chapter 8 of the IPCC report here:[quote]Citizen Runner wrote:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf.quote

]I've re-plotted the average of the three Canadian sites in a different colour, here:

so you can distinguish them. I'm actually amazed how well the average of those three sites (blue line) nearly mirrors the worldwide trend (solid black line). Which in my mind validates the use of three "randomly selected" sites with lengthy data records as a quick (lazy?) way of "taking the temperature" of global warming.

Anyway, the Canadian data notwithstanding, I'd like to comment a little bit about the modelling results.

As noted earlier, the models seem to predict fairly large drops following major volcanoes, none of which seem to have materialized (at least not to the same degree as predicted, and not distinguishable from other "normal" fluctuations). Similarly, between the volcanoes, the models all predict very rapid warming, which is also not reflected in the actual (black line) data.

So what we have, with this compilation of numerous models, is a cancellation of errors, leading the models to do a decent job of capturing the longer term trend, but failing to capture some important shorter term behaviour.

I don't yet know (haven't yet read) what the models are predicting for the future, but it they are working with the steeper upward trends, this strikes me as a fundamental error. Of course they may not be doing that, I don't know.

Roses, from the phone wrote:

One of the reasons I like to discuss this with people is to gauge how much of their opinion is based on blind belief as compared witha deep rational analysis of available information. If the hypothesis is valid and easy to defend, somebody should've able to make a clear, unshakeable case for it.

I think this is the only reason you like to discuss this topic. You are not looking for science, you are looking for stimulation.

My personal opinion:(without PHd)

Recycling is good long term business and good for local environment and as such makes sense to do.

On the global warming discussion I wonder why it has to be either man made or a natural change. As long as there are some percentage of truth for both cases, then people will always find "evidence" of their own theory. In research you usually find what you look for. I never see arguments and theories for both. Is the man made contribution 10% or 90% or anywhere between?

The consequences of the warming is another area where there are either positives or doomsday theories(mostly doomsday). But then again, maybe the discussions are better if we don't have neutral positions for everyone. I think the danger today is that "no one" is objective from what I read in debates and in media and everyone with another opinion is an idiot.

We don't know how earth would react either if man suddenly by a clever new invention was able to stop contributing with CO2. Maybe earth is already compensating to achieve balance? Another doomsday theory for the needed!

Personally I think it would be good to reduce the mans impact on earth, but I also think the cost of a sudden drastic cut in emissions today will be painful and probably cost a lot of lives.

are you sure about that wrote:I think this is the only reason you like to discuss this topic. You are not looking for science, you are looking for stimulation.

You can think whatever you like. In spite of myself, I've been spending the day downloading the bloody IPCC report and started the journey through. It's a big bloody read, I'll doubt more than 200 people have read the whole thing. :-(

I admit I find the social aspects of this topic to be fascinating, perhaps moreso than the science itself, which I will also admit has never really sparked my interest. Hence my general ignorance at my age.

By the end of today I'll have committed about a week of unfocussed inquiry to this topic, and will still remain 99.9% ignorant on the topic. And yet I'll wager that by the end of the day I'll know more on the subject that 99.9% of the people who've formed an opinion one way or another (I'm sure there are people on this thread who know 1000 times more than me, but remember, most of the general population has formed an opinion, largely based on snippets from whatever media outlets they follow).

It intrigues me that people will form beliefs, and commit themselves with considerable emotional investment, on the basis of very little information. I'm the opposite (and I don't mean to pass judgement, I'm not saying this is better or worse, just different), and prefer to to form beliefs until I can convince myself. The problem with forming beliefs too soon (IMHO) is that they are impossible to change regardless of an overwhelming onslaught of new information to the contrary.

In the end, I may end up convincing myself of this AGW hypothesis. But it won't happen quickly, and I won't go down without a fight. :-)