Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (765906)

1/26/2014 10:59:30 AM

From: Wharf Rat

Respond to of 1574679

" I think 1900 through 1979 was before 1980..."

As you can see,
one could argue that Global Warming began in approximately 1975.

Anthony Watts forgot to satire tag justthefactswuwt
Sou | 12:45 AM

Justthefactswuwt is back with some satire - at least that's what it looks like to the casual reader ( archived here).

There's the schematic from FAR that Fred Singer abused recently, with no numbers on the temperature scale and no indication of what data it is based upon. In fact there is no description given at all at WUWT. Funny how science deniers keep yelling for "code and data" but don't ask for data when it suits them and don't even ask for numbering on the axis.

Source: WUWT - from the IPCC First Assessment Report 1990

As Lars Karlssen pointed out, the origin was traced by Jones et al (2009) - see Appendix A page 36. It's history goes all the way back to this paper by Lamb from 1965.

It is so primitive I'm surprised that even science deniers keep resurrecting it.

Compare it with this latest set of reconstructions by lots of different independent teams using lots of proxies from all around the world.

Figure 5.7 IPCC AR5 WG1 Reconstructed (a) Northern Hemisphere and (b) Southern Hemisphere, and (c) global annual temperatures during the last 2000 years. Individual reconstructions (see Appendix 5.A.1 for further information about each one) are shown as indicated in the legends, grouped by colour according to their spatial representation (red: land-only all latitudes; orange: land-only extra-tropical latitudes; light blue: land and sea extra-tropical latitudes; dark blue: land and sea all latitudes) and instrumental temperatures shown in black (HadCRUT4 land and sea, and CRUTEM4 land-only; Morice et al., 2012). All series represent anomalies (°C) from the 1881–1980 mean (horizontal dashed line) and have been smoothed with a filter that reduces variations on timescales less than ~50 years.

The other bit of satire, or I presume it's satire, is when justthefactswuwt puts up this chart and directly underneath it writes: In fact it was not until approximately 1975 that temperatures began to rise. As such, one could argue that Global Warming began in approximately 1975.

Apparently if the anomaly is below the baseline it doesn't count with WUWT!

There's more nuttery at the WUWTery - but that's all I have time for.
blog.hotwhopper.com

To: combjelly who wrote (765906)	1/26/2014 6:43:43 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574679

Hi combjelly; Re: "I got my bachelor's in marine science in 1979. By then it had been established that the measured 15 cm rise in sea level since 1900 was due to thermal expansion due to rising levels of CO2."; Here's a peer reviewed paper from 1984 which calls you a liar: The Estimation of "Global" Sea Level Change: A Problem of Uniqueness T. Barnett, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego Journal of Geophysical Research 89, C5 pp7980-7988 (1984) Abstract: An objective method of estimating regional averages of coherent sea level (SL) change is developed. The technique is applied to a large set of SL data representative of most of the world's continental margins. The results show highly coherent SL changes over many of the regions studied. The method is then applied to the regional averages themselves to develop an overall estimate of the coherent pattern of SL variations existing in the historical SL data set. The pattern is characterized by a coherent rise of SL in all regions except Alaska, Scandinavia (both areas of notorious crustal uplift), and Southeast Asia, where SL appears to be falling. The analysis suggests little or no change in SL prior to the early 1900's. The period since that time has seen an increase in SL that is optimally fit by a linear trend of 23 cm/century. The study results suggest that it is not possible to uniquely determine either a global rate of change of SL or even the average rate of change associated with the existing (inadequate) data set. Indeed, different analysis methods, by themselves, can cause 50% variations in the estimates of SL trend in the existing data set. A signal/noise analysis suggests it should be easy to detect small, future changes in the SL trends estimated for the period 1930-1980. However, detection of theoretically predicted low-frequency signals (e.g., caused by CO2 warming) will be difficult in view of the huge, low-frequency, natural variability associated with glacial/tectonic processes. ... Since this signal is apt to be quasi-linear over a time scale of 50 years, it will be exceedingly hard to detect against the huge low-frequency variability associated with very low frequency (e.g., ice age) fluctuations. These sobering results should give pause to those eager to estimate, use, or explain changes in RSL. ... 2. The natural variability that must be averaged to see the predicted signal is generally contained in the lowest-frequency bands of the spectrum of SL [see Madden and Ramanthan, 1980]. In the case of SL we know these low frequencies contain a natural variability whose variance is roughly 10^6 times greater than the signal we wish to study. [Note added by Bilow: 10^6 is scientific shorthand for a million you morons.] The above can be illustrated by a simple example. The current rate of change of R_0 is roughly 10-20 cm/century. Let us suppose this is the "signal" predicted by some theory/model. During the last ice age, SL stands are thought to be of order 10,000 cm lower than today. A linear approximation to this change would have RSL rise by order 100 cm/century. The S/N in this case would be 1/10. While the glacial change (all changes in landborne ice volumes) is probably not linear, it does appear to be confined largely to the lowest-order spectral bands, e.g., 1 cycle/1000 yr. It appears virtually impossible to detect any low-frequency theoretical signal that might be predicted from this huge low-frequency, natural background. ... Predictions of a man-induced change in RSL, perhaps as a result of CO2, has yet to be made reliably. However, one can guess in advance that such a prediction, when available, will be characterized as a low-frequency phenomenon relative to existing record lengths. It is suggested that such a signal, if even moderately strong, will be extremely difficult to detect against the huge, low-frequency, natural variability associated with glacial epochs and continental rebound. Acknowledgements. The author is grateful to the National Climate Program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for supporting this work under P.O. Na83AAA01970. sealevel.colorado.edu So there you have it. You claim that in 1979 you were told that CO2 caused SLR. I claim that you're a liar. Now go prove me wrong by finding your own peer reviewed article, from 1979 or earlier, which proves that CO2 caused SLR starting in 1900. -- Carl P.S. You're just another leftie with no connection to science. You live in a dream world. Hey, you want a peer reviewed paper from after 2000 that says the same thing as the above? It's easy enough to find, LOL. The problem of seeing thermal CO2 rise in SLR is just as hard now as it was in 1984.