Essay

Perhaps it's a valid critique, but either way, I'm honored to be labeled as Dr. Spin ...I think. === But what is unreliable about the graph now, especially after all the publicity over fixing the bit that some bloggers (McIntyre, iirc?) spotted as needing review. Didn't Mann fix (remove) that part, which the bloggers found fault with? Has some new point been raised by the guy who started this all? Doesn't he now agree that the corrected graph is valid? ~

Enough for the Royal Statistical Society to validate the work.

I'd like to see the context surrounding those quoted words, which you indicate come from the RSS in 2010. I'm not very familiar with the details, though I know some popular media made a big deal about it. And I know it was claimed to be bunk by the usual denialist types, but I figured I'd wait for the scientific process (or legal process) to sort out any errors or wrongdoing. There was some problem with a small part of a few of the many proxies used to construct the graph--something about recent tree-ring proxies, iirc, which he eventually removed from the graph altogether, iirc. I'd appreciate it if you could fill me in on any misconceptions I might have about the status of the famous graph, but I thought it had been reviewed and reworked until it was again completely valid, including statistically. Does the Royal Statistical Society have some new questions? Whatever happened.... === Did removing a small percentage of (barely) questionable data change the overall shape of the hockey stick? No. Did adding in more proxies, and newer proxies, confirm the overall hockey stick shape? Yes, from what I could tell by briefly trying to search the topic in the scientific literature. ~

You act as if "the Mann 'hockey stick' graph" isn't still completely valid. Do you think there is some problem with it? Has something changed, or has it been updated or superseded? Also, if you want examples of environmental, or 'green' reality, why would you care what cultists predict? You should look at the predictions from geophysicists and climatologists. ~

Your OP comments seem to describe the type of folks that Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. was referring to, when he testified about, “some activists, politicians, journalists, corporate and government agency representatives and even scientists who should know better….” Of them, Pielke says that their, “…false claims undermine the credibility of arguments for action on climate change….” And “…that these false claims confuse those that are making decisions related to extreme events…” As Dr. Pielke testified, back in the summer of 2013, to the US Senate: "First, it is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, flood, or drought, have increased on climate time scales, either in the United States or globally." [because] “…it will be many decades, perhaps longer, before the signal of human caused climate change can be detected in the statistics of hurricanes …floods, tornadoes and droughts….” Dr. Pielke emphasizes: “The inability to detect [the signal] and attribute changes in hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and droughts does not mean human caused climate change is not real or of concern….” === If , imho, we want to see a signal of change sooner... We might need to start keeping records of "new weather" phenomena and patterns; so as any new climate develops, we can track the new trends, while our historical weather trends decline and some climate metrics lose relevance. Thunder Snow, Bombogenesis, Derechos, and Extra-Tropical Cyclones all seem to be new trends on the rise. === But whatever happens, one of Dr. Pielke’s opening lines seems the most clarifying: "First, humans do influence the climate system in profound ways; including through the emissions of carbon dioxide...." ~

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3318239/Arctic-ice-could-be-gone-in-five-years.html Perhaps you're not familiar with if/then clauses or the difference between the words "will" and "could?" Although that particular prediction was extreme, the overall characterization of the region as becoming "ice-free ...much faster than previous predictions," still seems to be holding true. ...might say it's starting to look like a trend. ~

Your idea that these two, temperature and the level of carbon dioxide, should go hand-in-hand travelling in lockstep, is a common misconception. Confusing measurable temperature with heat content is what leads to that mistake. The explanation is related to that notion, I’m sure you've heard, about how even if we stopped CO2 emissions totally today, heating would continue for decades or centuries to come. It’s also why policy makers need to add expertise into the mix, with ‘common sense’ and normal everyday logic, as they make decisions. This continuous, global, and long-term extra heating is a real and serious problem, but fortunately solvable. The extra heating now is far beyond the change in global heat content that flipped the glacial and interglacial switching over the past 800,000 years. But to your point, the ‘Little Ice Age’ would still count as “relative stability” on the scale of the record we’re talking about here. However, greenhouse theory isn't based on trends in the records anyway, though trends are good at lending perspective to the various timescales involved, as well as to the scale of geochemical changes involved. Plus ‘trends’ make for good media hype, as you have noticed. ~

One degree extra also means that there will be 4% more water vapor in the atmosphere, on average globally, though with the higher temperature it's harder to get precipitation to form. However, wherever it finally does get cool enough for precipitation to form, then there is a lot more than there would have been without the 1 degree increase--both from the extra 4%, and from the areas where rain would previously, with cooler temps, have fallen ...but now doesn't. ~

However, people can easily say that the increase in beautiful spring days, during winter and summer, is consistent with predictions made about Global Warming's destabilizing effect on the climate. ~ p.s. It is that loss of relative stability, compared with the long record, which is the serious threat to civilization that scientist are trying to warn us about, istm.

If they just stated a number/year, people might ask about the error margins. If you'll notice, the percentages add up to 90% or greater for each organization list. They probably do that purposefully.... So you can read each column as the 90% confidence level, for the hottest year, and with the diminishing chances shown for alternate years listed, which might actually be the hottest year ...going by each organization's data and error margins.

If I were trying to convince “this community,” then I’d use an “authoritative source” such as the “lots of scholarly work on the effect” that I mentioned you could easily search for; but to quickly and easily explain the effect for you, Wikipedia seemed most appropriate. Try searching “volatile organic migration latitudinal,” for some typical results. Then you’ll see that this effect is due to a general principle of chemistry, and so it applies to all molecules, though especially to any semi-volatile or volatile molecules such as CFCs. Surely you saw this on WIKIPEDIA, in aaall your searching, where they say: “A chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) is an organic compound that contains only carbon, chlorine, and fluorine, produced as a volatile derivative of methane, ethane, and....” Because the Grasshopper Effect [or Arctic Tern Effect?] was discovered as an explanation for the noticeable health effects within arctic populations, iirc, I’d guess the Wikipedia article mentioned the molecules (pesticides) that were relevant to that focus. Maybe some expert should edit the article, indicating how the Effect can be applied as a general physical principle to all molecules …and especially the volatile and semi-volatile molecules. ~

Of course the notion that “molecules migrate to the poles like arctic terns” seems to fly in the face of common sense, or to violate the logic of everyday common experience; but that is why policy makers shouldn't rely upon the advice of folks without expertise. Trying to find a link to explain why “molecules migrate to the poles,” you can find lots of scholarly work on the effect, but this will probably be the easiest to understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_distillation ~

What sort of testing would list those (seemingly poles apart, to me) disparate professions in one category? I'd try a different test. But in the end, "gets along well with others" is what they try to teach in Kindergarten, though often enough those reports would start out with "doesn't get along well...". Just keep trying, but not so hard as to be too obvious; just genuine enough.... Gosh, can't we all just get along? ~

If you are familiar with various ways for determining personality types, such as the 16 Myers-Briggs dimensions, they often list many different job categories or types, which are more well-suited for each unique personality type. That might not help in this particular situation, but in general it might be a direction to approach your goal from? ~

Perhaps this quote will add some perspective on 'defining' a trait, or what qualifies as a trait. From: – E. O. Wilson, from Chapter One (loc.71), The Meaning of Human Existence Where Wilson is talking about the "the prevalence of some genes (more precisely alleles, variations in codes of the same gene) over others," Wilson describes that prevalence as, "the result of environmental forces, most of which are beyond human control or even understanding." === ...my emphasis. ~

No, I'm suggesting that your notion, about how the greenhouse effect will signifcantly change the sun's ability to heat the surface, is contradicted by the observations and models. ~

I would have thought that answering your specific question, with a fulfilled prediction from more than 20 years ago, which also ran counter to "common sense" (as your reasonable question indicated: why would a particular region become cooler, initially, as a response to global warming?), would have been something to change your mind. But that is asking too much; the 'fulfilled' prediction can only be viewed as further confirmation of the scientific understanding that underlies the basic "global warming" greenhouse theory. ~

At least the science, on this notion about some 'offsetting' greenhouse effect, seems to be settled. ~

PetG, I don't understand your first question, but I'd suggest if you learn more about entropy, you would find that it is more about space than mass. And for your second question; since they are both uniform, they should both have the same entropy, unless you are asking about their entropy relative to something outside of the "space," or boundaries, that you asked about. === In general, I'd suggest trying to see entropy as more about "order/disorder," and how that affects the distribution of energy or potential for change ...within a given space or system. Too many people think about entropy as if it is tangible, or at least some sort of "essence" or "potential" traveling around. It would be better to think of it as a sort of accounting tool, which accounts for the change in conditions that accompany chemical reactions. Take, for example, any chemical reaction, and the "initial conditions" that exist for whatever reaction is occurring. As the reaction continues, and products build up, the "conditions" are no longer the same as the "initial conditions." The space where the chemical reaction is occurring has changed, and entropy helps account for how ongoing change affects the chemical reaction. Most importantly, how the boundaries are defined for the space (of whatever 'entropy' is being accounted for), makes a huge difference. Misunderstandings occur when people don't get the part about properly defining the boundaries of the system. ~

I agree we need to manage soot, coming from burning biomass and fossil fuels, much better than we do now [thus my tagline]. Soot is a problem contributing to ice melt, which the climate sciences are well aware of, and to some degree have accounted for. None of that changes the significance of a relatively large or possibly unprecedented CO2 imbalance, which contributes to a much longer-term warming effect and acidification effect. Every degree of warming, globally, includes a raise of about 4% in global atmospheric water vapor! …so 5 degrees would mean 20% more water vapor in our atmosphere. Regionally, wherever it can get cool enough for precipitation to form, watch out for extreme events. As for solar variation contributing its effects, which are also accounted for and monitored by the sciences, the solar changes will wax and wane around a very stable, long-term mean over the centuries and millennia. CO2 forcing is unidirectional and ongoing, persistently ‘forcing’ the climate away from the longer-term mean, which ‘natural forcers’ such as solar will still be cycling around, for centuries and millennia to come. ...and there is the looming ocean-acidification problem too, for the base of the planetary foodchain.... ~

From: Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics no.16; Paleoclimatology; Crowley & North; 1991. [section 14.2.1 Regional Responses to a Greenhouse Warming] "Although the East Antarctic Ice Sheet could grow during the initial stages of a greenhouse warming, it is possible that melting could occur if CO2 values reached very high levels. Since CO2 doubling studies indicate winter warming around coastal Antarctica of 8-14 C degrees (cf. Fig. 2.12), much higher CO2 levels could tilt the mass balance of the ice sheet from accumulation to ablation." -p.258 === WC, I think the entire 21st century will qualify as the "initial stages of a greenhouse warming" event, as this book speaks about it. In the media, when they talk about "Antarctica gaining ice," they mean EAST Antarctica (as predicted by global warming theory, back in the early 1990s). However, West Antarctica is still measurably warming ...and losing ice ...in response to greenhouse effects. ~

Those hard-to-define, or arbitrary, and astronomically-large number of traits are all “along for the ride” as well as all being subject to ‘selection pressures’ at any given time. It might be a lot of pressure or a little bit or none, or it might operate sporadically to pressure selection, favoring one direction over another, but something will usually be affecting success. And as with any complex phenomenon, it will be nearly impossible to predict specific outcomes by just analyzing the simple parts that make up the whole. But as with most complex phenomena, it is fairly easy to see in retrospect how the simple parts interacted to create the complex whole ...or outcome or phenotype. The Web of Life, by Capra, is a good book for showing how that all works; see also: http://www.scottlondon.com/reviews/capra.html The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems by Fritjof Capra, Anchor Books, Doubleday, New York, 1996. ~

No, and that is why there is no need to wholly rethink the theory, except maybe to rename it, as others have pointed out. That's all this is about; definitions! Whatever we learn about it, and however we define it, shift happens. No, not as some Lamarkian type of endogenous factor or driver. I think what you are seeing, in these new discoveries, are new and more broadly defined ways that 'natural selection' can operate. ~

...in what blogger community? [re: "KT '97 is short for those who have researched the climate sciences." -WC] I can't figure out why KT '97 brings up nothing meaningful on google. Oh! When I added the word climate" to my search, then some denialist links [i assume: science of doom.com? & "national academies ...non-greenhouse effect"?] appeared as search results. I guess we can tell which blogger community you've "researched the climate sciences" in, eh? === I highly respect Dr. Trenberth and his work in the field, as well as his willingness to work at conveying his conclusions to the public. I think he is still working up here at CSU, where Kevin has been a 'visiting professor on loan from NCAR' for more than a few years, iirc. I googled his name + CSU, and found this link: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/energy/110510.html ...from 2011. "Crazy Weather and Climate: Do Dots Connect?" To the interview question "At what point would you be concerned about the freak weather signaling something truly deleterious about our climate?" Trenberth replies: "I already am." He says a lot more too, but that is very clear. [It is the second story, on that page of newsclips from CSU, after the rainguage story] === [my emphasis, of course] ...and that was in 2011! === But anyway.... Can you clarify this part in your post, where you say "Yes, but if you notice, the only energy driving the 2/3rds is the surface heat of the earth and direct heating of the sun. . It starts as the incoming solar component." Can you define how you think "direct heating of the sun" works and/or what you think that "incoming solar component" is? Because I thought science says, there is direct heating and indirect heating from the sun; and most of the 2/3rds [greenhouse heating] comes from the indirect heating part, so I hope you can see why I'm wondering how you define those. Maybe that's not right; but if it is, then.... The main point is, CO2 is invisible to the indirect heating part, so it is not 'blocked' by increasing CO2 levels. === === The rest of your points on this topic are valid, but they only relate to the sun's output, instead of atmospheric absorption/emission changes, so they don't back up your first point that I'm trying to clarify. === And: I'd be willing to bet you're wrong about your last point/guess ...and certainly for those contributing to these climate postings! ~

...not familiar with KT97, nor the 1989 Wiseguys reference to science, but: Whatever the details are for the energy balance, or whatever biases might exist in our news reports about the weather, both of our images show that about two thirds of our heating comes from the atmosphere as "back radiation," while only about one third comes directly from the sun. This might seem like a more reasonable claim when you consider that this 'averages in' the nighttime temperatures also. Think about how cold we'd get at night without an atmosphere, and you can more easily see how that 2/3 figure is arrived at. ~