Just ten years left? 26 January 05

those Celsius figures by 1.8 to get the Fahrenheit equivalences. 2 degrees C = 3.6 degrees F, and 11 degrees C = 19.8 degrees F.

Do you think this could be part of why Americans are not addressing this, the perception that a degree or two is not much?

As you might imagine, I find that this latest publicity stunt lacks analytical rigor. The authors have accepted as fact the official IPCC position on every hot-button issue, even those that are highly controversial. For example, S. E. Schwartz, in an article in the Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association in November 2004, wrote “Model studies examining climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and aerosols exhibit large differences in sensitivities and imposed aerosol forcings that raise questions regarding claims of their having reproduced observed large-scale changes in surface temperature over the 20th century.”

Does that sound like GCMs provide the kind of iron clad accuracy that one would wish from models that are demanding that we alter our entire civilization? Before you start, Mr. Schwartz is on the staff of the Atmospheric Sciences Division at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, he is hardly a denizen of the scientific whorehouse at Exxon.

Which brings me to another point? If you are going to ascribe ulterior (i.e. financial) motives to anyone who writes disparagingly about the IPCC position on climate science, you will never learn anything about the legitimate controversies ongoing in many aspects of the subject. Further, you will always hold only a belief system and never hold an informed opinion. Your position will be similar to the Creationists who dismiss Darwin out of hand, never understanding the meaning of evolutionary science.

The report does not say that carbon dioxide will rise above 400 ppm within 10 years; it says “likely to rise above 400ppm in coming decades” (page 16). I can find no place in the document that refers to a calculation of future concentrations of carbon dioxide. Extrapolation of the Mauna Loa data predicts that the concentration will exceed 400 ppm sometime between 2021 and 2025, approximately 2 decades.

By reading the text and endnotes, carefully one learns that this august group attributes the entire temperature rise during the past 350 years to man’s activities. They have not accepted the fact that the climate varies in response to natural events. Has anyone given any thought to what caused the temperature-decline, which began in the 14th century ending the period we call the Medieval Climate Optimum? I find that belief to be irreconcilable with the overwhelming evidence of previous climate changes of the same magnitude as the ongoing change.

The evidence that warming has affected coral reefs is meager at best. Much better research finds that water pollution and diseases are more likely culprits.

How do you reconcile your belief that “there is no ‘safe’ level of climate change” with the fact that climate is continuously changing. Were the years during the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Climate Optimum more or less dangerous than the intervening cold periods, you know the Dark Ages and the plague and starvation riddled 15th and 16th centuries?

Melting of the Greenland ice cap might flood London. It is as likely that the fresh water release into the northern oceans will disrupt the ocean conveyor precipitating an ice age (a la “The Day After Tomorrow”). Existing science does not support either outcome.

It sounds like Myles Allen has written a real page-turner of a scary horror story. Mary Shelley would turn green with envy.

As I feel that the GW/CC domino effects are ALREADY rolling, and nothing’s there to stop-or even slow-their journey, slapping a 10-year deadline on things DOES seem a bit melodramatic. They may just be wanting to say “BOO!” in the hopes of waking people up, but I suspect that will soon backfire.

Ten years? Two degrees? 11 degrees? The one thing I am believing is that scientists UNDERestimated the speed and effects of what’s happening even now. Is even mitigation possible at this point? I don’t know. We have to TRY, I know THAT. I WANT to know that we tried! But this latest report may frustrate efforts more than spur them on. We’ll just have to see.

Yes, even though this is a very basic fact, I must admit that I did not do the conversion in my mind when thinking about temperature rise.

What Lynn says is very true and when we communicate with Americans, the temperature must be converted to Fahrenheit. We think in Fahrenheit and not Celsius

It is very likely that Americans would think of a degree increase in terms of Fahrenheit even though it may be presented in Celsius.

This went unconscious to me. Since I did that and I should know better, then others would think Fahrenheit when presented with a temperature increase in Celsius.

For our friends who think in Celsius, let me illustrate Lynn’s insightful point by reversing the calculation.

Assume you are an American and you thought in terms of Fahrenheit, and then divide those mistaken Celsius figures by 1.8 to get the equivalent Celsius reading in the mind of an American thinking in Fahrenheit. I hope you followed that.

Then, a 2 degrees C increase would appear as a 1.1 degree C increase to an American thinking in Fahrenheit

And, an 11 degree C increase would appear as a 6.1 degrees C increase to an American thinking in Fahrenheit

So, leave it to Lynn to make and important significant discovery be it simple but surely no less profound as any of the science debate we have had to date.

Good Job Lynn!

... to convince you, Norbetzangox? I don’t ask this as a rhetorical question; I’m genuinely interested. Clearly we have fundamentally different worldviews, but this is precisely where science is supposed to come into the equation – to inform debates with factual data which can make a reasonable claim to objectivity.

The problem with the climate change debate is that both sides throw opposing ‘facts’ at each other, leaving the general public highly confused. You cite one study from a single journal (which isn’t even a natural science publication) to dismiss the entire IPCC process – this is a common tactic, which often succeeds in muddying the waters enough to stave off the political action which is so desperately needed. (Most of the sceptic viewpoints don’t have enough factual basis to make it into the scientific literature, because they can’t survive peer review – see RealClimate.org discussion.)

I cannot seriously believe that you compare my position with that of creationists. It is you who has decided to hold an opinion based on faith which contradicts the entire scientific establishment, not me. I’m trying to directly report (see today’s blog) what is coming out in the serious scientific literature.

As usual, your post is riddled with myths and contradictions. You talk about an event “we call” the ‘Medieval Climate Optimum’, itself a highly disputed term. According to palaeoclimate experts Mike Mann and Phil Jones current global warming exceeds that of the 10th to 14th centuries, which may have been restricted only to the Northern Hemisphere extra-tropics. I’d refer you to their article in Reviews of Geophysics, but I’m sure you’ll only trot out something on sceptic website which claims to refute them.

It’s also absurd that you claim we who are concerned about climate change are “demanding that we alter our entire civilisation”. Again, this is one of your characteristic inversions of reality – those scientists and others who constantly warn of the dangers that global warming presents are doing so not to try and destroy our civilisation, but to save it. You can try and deny this clear danger all you like, but as I’ve said over and over, science is not on your side. You have only your faithful delusions to keep you company.

Norbetzangox, I have to side with Mark on his comments.

First, comparing Mark’s position to that of creationists diminishes your argument substantially. In fact, I have found that any character attacks will do that especially when you are of a minority opinion and on the fringe of science. Your world views are in the extreme when compared to the consensus of views expressed on Mark’s site.

In fairness to you, this does not mean necessarily that you are incorrect or that you do not have legitimate points to be discussed. Challenging basic assumptions is healthy to this debate because so much is riding on these assumptions being true. In that respect, you offer something of value. I am interested in exploring more some of your concerns; however, based on what you already shared, I have not been swayed to accept many of your assumptions and analysis at face value.

I say this for many reasons and have refrained to argue much more with you because I do think you lack some objectivity at some level. I say this because my brother made a recent trip to Alaska and he told me that everyone there was talking about the warmer weather. I even referenced a web article in a previous response to you which claimed that Alaska was warning more than anywhere else on the planet. I read about indigenous Eskimos who were reporting that everything is in disarray with respect to their environment due to warming weather and melting ice and everything they have been accustomed to over a millennium now no longer reigns true and this is wrecking havoc in their daily lives.

So, based on this evidence from human observation alone, I think it is very reasonable that one may conclude that Alaska is warming and in all likeliness has been warming since 1977. Your argument that it is not is based solely on Alaska’s temperature record which you deem is unreliable for many valid reasons as you have already cited.

My reason for harping on this one point is to demonstrate why I and others might think that your points may be incredulous, lack objectivity, and do not effectively use deductive reasoning.

Interestingly, I actually agree with you that there may be problems with the temperature record. I can readily see the difficulty in insuring temperature accuracy even when the best procedures are used to take into account heat island effects and other effects.

However, I cannot understand why you would claim that Alaska has not warmed since 1977 based on what you consider to be a very unreliable data source. I think the empirical evidence overrules the temperature record and therefore it is more accurate to me especially when the temperature record is suspect to its accuracy anyway.

Based on the empirical evidence alone, I would think any temperature record which says Alaska has not warmed since 1977 would have to be suspect since it appears that it is warming quite a bit.

For me, it is like a weather forecaster making a prediction of a sunny day and he is certain that he is correct and he has analyzed all relevant information correctly. Then he finds himself standing in the rain getting drenched but claims it is still sunny because he is after all an expert at forecasting the weather.

So, I have to side with Mark that it appears that sometimes you deny evidence that many others would consider extremely obvious.

Furthermore, I have noted that you have not posted (to my knowledge) as to the problem of cutting funds for the network of climate stations in the USA. I wonder how you feel about this since I would think that you would want to see quality measurements being taken at least to provide evidence as to the validity of the future projections which you disagree with on climate change. Better data you have argued is needed by climate modelers so their predictions may be more accurate.

Unfortunately for me, I am not a climate scientist and I am not a computer modeler. I do have doubts that your knowledge is sufficient to prove conclusively that carbon dioxide has only a negligible effect.

To your credit, you have made me more curious about how computer models are developed and run and how temperatures are used within the programs and how uncertainties in the temperature record are taken into account.

I must admit that I have taken at face value that the climate science is basically on track and that the range of uncertainty has adequately been taken into account by publishing both low and high temperature increases.

I make an assumption on faith that the science is most likely correct to within the ranges published. It appears at face value that they are correct since by giving a range they acknowledge and document where they think this uncertainty lies.

However, there is enough uncertainty for me at this point to not really know where we stand. It is quite possible it may even be worse and outside the range published. I cannot prove your case is wrong that it may be all be overblown either, but I highly doubt that it is to the extent which gets everyone off the hook not to be concerned enough to take some action.

Also, I and others have noticed that what you conclude from various references (including your own cited references) is often different from what others have concluded. I have noticed when I go to Mark’s references that I could easily come to the same conclusions as Mark does.

With that said, Mark seems more credible to me than you. So does Dr. Spencer Weart. Maybe that may appear to be a bias on my part. I do not think so because I have always noticed the carefully worded statements showing all sides of an issue from Mark and also Spencer Weart.

With all that said, I still hope that you are more correct with some of your points even if I appear to be overly skeptical. In fact, I would love it if you were right and that others were wrong. I hope it is not at the upper part of the uncertainty as you believe it is not.

Now, this does not mean for me that we can relax even if you may be correct at some level. The upper level of uncertainty approaches hopelessness and your case for our efforts being in vain have more merit. The lower the level of temperature rise that you articulate indicates to me that we have a better chance at prevention or mitigation.

I do think your value on Mark’s site is to challenge basic assumptions and offer some other areas to look at. I do remember reading about soot causing a reduction in the albedo of northern latitudes and if this is true then there are factors other than carbon dioxide at work. I have articulated in the past that methane makes a significant contribution and methane reductions can have great merit (especially when it is used as a fuel instead of being flared).

I think Mark deserves tremendous respect in providing this website for all of us to express our thoughts openly and I have gained much in this process of understanding climate science.

I have watched how many of us have learned from each other and have modified our views forming something of a consensus.

That is what makes Mark’s site special in my opinion. Most people here are not necessarily trying to prove someone else wrong. It is a real constructive dialogue most of the time and I am very grateful for the opportunity to discuss important issues with people who have demonstrated high intellect with a caring heart.

Your contributions have sparked others to comment on uncertainty and risk and how important these concepts are to this debate. I think we have all benefited from this as it can help us to clarify our own views and understanding.

So, I hope you keep on continuing to post your thoughts. I will take time to read more of your posts when my time can allow it. I advise you to post carefully and make your points better understood for the benefit of the non-technical people on this site.

I say that because you have a very reluctant and difficult audience to convince so the burden of proof and how convincingly you sound is more on you than many of us.

Best Regards, Dan

The Journal of the Air and Waste Assoc. is a peer reviewed, technical journal. Its specialties are atmospheric sciences, especially as is related to air pollution and waste disposal technology and its affect on the air. The journal has featured articles about development of many of the modeling concepts and mathematical techniques that air pollution models use to predict the impacts of pollutant discharges.

I believe that it is a more reliable source of technical information than the report generated by the committee of politicians that you cited in support of your contention that we have just 10 years to change our ways. By the way, that report does not support your contention that we have just 10 years.

Today, you cite a book by Allen Myers, which you claim establishes as real the possibility that carbon dioxide will raise our climate temperature by 11-Celsius degrees. I will stipulate that the author is technically competent and that he provided references and footnotes, which support his thesis. Apparently, you like the book and its conclusions. Yet you rejected another book (Crichton’s book), which contained references and footnotes and which questions the viability of the carbon dioxide-induced warming hypothesis. Have you read either book? Why do you accept one and reject the other? Is it because you believe? If so, how is that different from faith?

I think that you missed the significance of the Schwartz article. What the man says (and others have said the same thing) is that existing climate models cannot predict the temperature history of the 20th century from a 1900 starting point. We have a record of the emission rates of carbon dioxide for each of the years of that century. We have available data about the concentrations of particles in the atmosphere. We know exactly when the sunspots were active and when the sun was warm and when it was cool. We know how many humans lived on the planet, how much land was clear for agriculture and how much was forest. In short, we have accurate data about all of the major parameters of the existing climate models.

Yet, those models cannot predict the current conditions. Furthermore, the error in modeling the temperature rise during the last century is about the same size as the predicted temperature rise during the next century.

Let me ask you a rhetorical. How are those models going to predict the climate 100 years hence in the absence of accurate data on the critical parameters?

Let me use that to segue into an answer to your question, “What will it take to convince . . .” me.

1) I would like to see climate models capable of accurately predicting present day conditions from a 1900 start.

2) I also would like to see some of the critical observations confirm the hypothesis. For example, the hypothesis demands that the upper troposphere warm faster than the surface and that the Polar Regions warm faster than the temperate regions. None of that is happening.

The radiosonde (high altitude balloon) data agree with the MSU satellite data that the temperature recorded by surface stations is rising faster than the upper troposphere temperature. You can go to http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/ZonAnn.Ts.txt, as I have and find the complete GISS temperature record, averaged by zones, and demonstrate for yourself that the temperature in the temperate climes (44 to 64 degrees N latitude) is rising faster than the temperature in the Arctic (64 to 90 degrees N latitude). The same data will show you that the Antarctic has been cooling at about 0.8 Celsius degrees per century since 1970.

3) I would like to see a demonstration that the IPCC method of correcting for the urban heat island effect is accurate. We saw a few days ago (in a paper that Dan Kellogg linked) that the bias could be as high as 14-Fahrenheit degrees in Fairbanks Alaska. Fairbanks is a relatively small city, population about 85,000, so would not qualify for a large adjustment.

4) I know that Mann would like to ignore the Medieval Climate Optimum and that IPCC would like to pretend that if it occurred it was restricted to the North Atlantic region. However, data from 6,000 boreholes from every continent demonstrate that it occurred and that it was a worldwide event. See, Huang, S. and Pollack, H.N. 1997. Late Quaternary temperature changes seen in world-wide continental heat flow measurements. Geophysical Research Letters 24: 1947-1950.

There are other areas where the behavior of the atmosphere is at odds with the carbon dioxide-induced warming hypothesis, but that is enough for now.

Please note that none of this came from any Skeptic web site. All of it came from the reputable journal articles or from the base temperature data.

I believe that it is fair to say that those who are calling for a 60% to 70% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions are requesting that we alter our entire civilization. Perhaps, you could shed some light on how to make those reductions in carbon dioxide emissions without altering our civilization. If we were to generate all electricity with nuclear or other non-emitting sources of electricity, the reduction would be just 35%. How can we cut the remainder in half without making serious changes in the ways that we live and work?

You continue to claim that the science is on your side, but you show me only references to political conferences, and un-reviewed books. Show me some of the science.

Now you really are losing it, Norbertzangox (still hiding?). Who is Allen Myers? What book has he published that I cite? Are you getting confused with Myles Allen, who has just co-published a paper in Nature (linked from my original blog)? If you are, then it’s truly astounding that you compare this work with Michael Crichton’s latest effort, which I found in the ‘science fiction and fantasy’ secion of my local bookshop yesterday, where it belongs. One is science, the other is fantasy. You choose which to believe.

As for all the other stuff about temperature trends and computer models, it’s been dealt with elsewhere at great length, and I’ve got better things to do than dig out all the references for you to ignore in future posts. Try RealClimate.org for answers to all this stuff. Unless you just don’t want to know…

Now who is in denial? I provided links to the official IPCC temperature data that clearly show that the Arctic is not warming faster than the temperate zones. You refuse to look at the numbers. You prefer to believe a trumped up report by the Arctic Council (or whatever) that relies on the memory of old Inuits and data from sub Arctic cities (with their urban heat island effects) to conclude that the Arctic is behaving as the IPCC hypothesis says that it should. I conclude that you delude yourself because you want to believe in the religion of global warming.

The data that I have linked for you also show that the Antarctic continent is cooling, not warming as the IPCC hypothesis says that it should. You refuse to look at the numbers. You prefer to believe a New York Times headline that claims that Antarctica is warming. If you read the story, you will find that even the NYT admits that the warming trend is restricted to the peninsula and that the bulk of Antarctica is cooling. I conclude that you delude yourself because you want to believe in the religion of global warming.

Below I have provided a link to a National Science Foundation (part of the US Govt. not part of Exxon) report of their discovery of an active volcano near the coast of the peninsula and their conclusion that the volcano is warming the ocean. It seems likely that that is responsible for the warming of the peninsula and the melting of local ice. You could learn something else about the weakness of the IPCC case, if you were willing to do so. (http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/news/2004/052104-volcano.shtml)

On the subject of the rate upper tropospheric warming, you prefer to believe Trenberth, whose credibility has suffered a severe setback because of his fantasies about hurricanes. The persons who actually operate the satellites say that they tried the method that Wu used to analyze the data and found that it does not work. They are not believable, yet Trenberth is believable. Why is that? Is that because Trenberth is touting the litany that you wish to believe?

I do not believe that you have dealt with the accuracy of the GCMs. If so tell me where. The models cannot predict the conditions today from a 1900 start with reasonable accuracy. That is an undeniable fact.

Have you deferred the responsibility for determining which books contain only fiction and which contain science to the staff at your local bookstore? I would have thought you capable of making those judgments based on the content of the books. Is it possible that you have not seen Crichton’s book and are unaware of its citations of credible research that appears in peer-reviewed journals?

Yes, I meant Myles Allen. Do you intend to recast your site as a place to critique spelling, and grammar while ignoring the meanings of messages?

I believe in the Eskimos. I believe that the Eskimos know more than all of us.

No matter what anyone says, I will bet that they are correct.

If the science is flawed in any way, then one day it will catch up to prove conclusively that the Eskimos were right. Unfortunately for all of us!

Eskimos are definitely more credible to me now than anyone’s analysis one way or another. If they say it is warming, then I believe them. If the science disagrees, then I will think the science is flawed in some way.

Finally, Norbetzangox, you seem to think you can prove we do not have a problem because you can poke some holes in the science which is still maturing.

The truth is that no matter what you say to disprove others, no one can actually prove anything with absolute certainty so why do you think you can?

I still believe the Eskimos are a better bet on teaching us what has changed in their environment than the Eagles winning the Super Bowl!

I have no doubt that the Eskimos can remember that it was cooler 30 years ago. Quantitative temperature data confirm that observation. However, that does not qualify as quantitative data, nor does it demonstrate that carbon dioxide is responsible for the warming. I cannot believe that it is possible to add that information to a quantitative data set and maintain that the data set remains quantitative.

The things that I have identified are physical observations that the existing hypothesis of carbon dioxide-induced warming cannot explain. Normal science would look for ways to modify the hypothesis to make it accommodate the data. Climate science seeks to modify the data to make them fit the hypothesis.

Norbet, remember, the Eskimos can go back much further than 30 years since they have been accustomed to traditional practices that go back a millennium. Norbet, a millennium = 1000 years. They have been living with ice and snow for even longer and have many different words for various manifestations of ice and snow in their environment. They live with ice and snow and survive in this environment. There observations are keen. Their entire society has been has been in disarray and they offer much more than just a reflection of temperature 30 years ago. They have an oral history passed down through the ages. What they share is relevant and should be respected. Their information is far more relevant than your assumptions and analysis could ever be concerning climate in this area.

I am not sure if it is possible to add their information to a quantitative data set. Sometimes scientists come up with ingenious proxy methods to determine past temperatures. The main benefit from indigenous people is to show what is different now than in their past in great detail and from that it may be possible to draw many reasonable conclusions as to what temperatures and conditions may have existed long ago compared to the present conditions they are in.

The fact that you have identified physical observations that the existing hypothesis of carbon dioxide-induced warming cannot explain does not necessarily determine at this time that this hypothesis is necessarily false. I already addressed some of these aspects before.

I simply do not believe that climate science seeks to modify the data to make them fit the hypothesis. I think that is a very bold accusation especially coming from you.

It is so bold because you still talk about quantitative temperature measurements when you went at great length to make your case which determined that these quantitative temperature measurements are unreliable due to heat island effects to make the models predictions incorrect and yet you say that these quantitative temperature measurements are accurate enough to prove warming has not occurred in Alaska since 1977.

Based on your misuse of simple logic and deductive reasoning, why would I trust you to understand the greater complexities of modelers and scientists that have better credentials than you do?

Most of my former physics students would never make these incredible misjudgments in thinking and would have understood quite clearly that deductive reasoning would prohibit making a solid claim on faulty data which you have done.

Only you have clearly demonstrated making a solid conclusion which is contrary to all empirical observations and base it entirely on quantitative data which you prove is totally unreliable.

How can you keep doing this and not feel stupid when I point it out to you?

The International Climate Change Taskforce report is rather weak in my opinion. Leaving asside the way they pick 2C and 400ppm out of the air (so to speak), the recommendations would not allow those targets to be met.

Only REALLY DRASTIC action could stop CO2 levels rising above 400ppm in the next 15 years. Doing research, forming groups and honoring commitments is jst not enough.

I doubt that the recommendations would even limit the rise in CO2 to 560ppm, a level that is almost certainly going to lead to temperature rises above 2 degrees C.

Hi Michael,

I am just not familiar with the reports so forgive me on that.

What would these drastic measures be in your opinion? What can we do which would really help? 15 years is not that far away.

I think that GW has to go to a certain level whereby it grabs the world’s attention like a real crises would like our 911 or the tsunami. That seems to be the current reality for me.

The question is when will this first crises occur and what may it look like? At that moment of crises, what will we be able to do since we will all be more focused to do more than we are right now. Will it make a difference then?

Tough questions but I ask them anyway. Any thoughts?

I cannot believe that Stone Age peoples have cultural memories that provide accurate data on the conditions that existed 1,000 years ago. If they did, they would remember that it was as warm then as it is now. Remember that it was about 1,000 years a go that the Danes colonized Greenland. They called it Greenland because the climate was temperate and the land was green. It is white today. We should rename it “Whiteland”.

Thirty years (approximately) ago, 1970, it was cooler than it is now. Sixty years ago it was as warm as it is now. I picked thirty years because that is the longest period within a normal life span when the temperature was significantly cooler than it is now. The last time that it was as cool as it was in 1970 was about 1920. Most folks who were ten or so years old in 1920 are dead now.

Have you ever played the game where one person whispers something in the ear of the person next to him, who relays it etc. around a table of 10 or so persons? Does the message always become garbled? Cultural memory is good for grand concepts but much of the detail does not survive. Only written records preserve details. Further, their estimate of temperature was never quantitative. Quantitative thermometers did not exist before about 1860.

I said that the fact that the IPCC hypothesis cannot explain important parts of the experimental observations means that the hypothesis lacks rigor and that we cannot rely on it to describe future conditions. I stand by that assessment.

You only have to look at the attempts of Wu and Trenberth to attack and change the satellite temperature record to see that what I said is essentially true. Also, look at Michael Mann’s attempts to write the Medieval Climate Optimum out of history. If you do not like my description of those actions, please provide an accurate description that you like better.

You have a penchant for providing a distorted description of my statements and then ridiculing them as stupid. If you remember the discussion we found that both Papineau (my reference) and Bowling (your reference) found ways to purge the surface record of stations at which the urban heat island effect predominated and develop accurate temperature records. The IPCC could do that too, if they so wished. Anyone who takes the time to select only stations that are remote from urban areas can construct an accurate temperature record.

You need to read more carefully and think about what you read more fully before attempting to point anything out to anyone.

A quote from Norbertzangox from a previous post:

“…Ah, but how did IPCC et al. calibrate their GCMs, that is the question and one reason why the accuracy of the surface temperature record is so important in the debate…Clearly, if the surface temperature is wrong, they will have calibrated the models to erroneous data and they will have seriously compromised the accuracy of their predictions of the future. …”

My two Alaska references are reproduced below. The first one shows the empirical evidence and the second one deals with the temperature record which Norbertzangox now defines as an accurate record.

ALASKA’S CLIMATE: TOO HOT TO HANDLE, JOHN WHITFIELD, Earth Nature News: 2 October 2003 http://www.clivar.ucar.edu/recent/nat_alaska_climate.htm

According to the above webpage, Alaska is warming up more than anywhere else on the planet.

I repeat Nobert’s previous statement: “…BOWLING (YOUR REFERENCE) FOUND WAYS TO PURGE THE SURFACE RECORD OF STATIONS AT WHICH THE URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT PREDOMINATED AND DEVELOP ACCURATE TEMPERATURE RECORDS….”

Now that we have established that we indeed have an accurate temperature record, let me provide a quote from “BOWLING” below:

“…The mean annual temperature from 1977 through 1998 never dropped as low as the average from 1954 through 1976 ….”

In other words, the climate record during the period of 1954 through 1976 (22 year period) shows a much lower temperature average than the period of 1977 through 1998 (21 year period). It then becomes a matter of interpretation of the data in the proper context as to whether you can say Alaska has not warmed since 1977.

To be fair to Norbertznagox, there was an abrupt temperature rise during 1976 and for 21 years later, the temperature cycle has remained higher than the 1954 through 1976 period without a similar abrupt rise during this period.

The significance here is the temperatures have remained high and have never returned back.

Even if you can claim that this temperature rise now is at a plateau period then it becomes misleading to make a statement that Alaska has not warmed since 1977.

It is better to say exactly what Bowling, a REAL climate scientist said which is “…The mean annual temperature from 1977 through 1998 never dropped as low as the average from 1954 through 1976 ….” This compares a 21 year average to a 22 year average which seems like a more logical comparison.

Oh did I say logical? Sorry! With all due respect sir, I am making the case that you are extremely biased in how you interpret data when making your case. In fact the difference between these 2 time periods indicates a temperature rise of 2.5 F (1.4 C) for the 1977 through 1998 period.

So, when I look at the same time frame and same data that Norbertzangox says is accurate I get an increase of 2.5 F or 1.4 C. How did that happen?

Now for the readers of my post, please visit both my reference sites on Alaska and make up your own mind as to who you believe is distorting the truth and post your own comments.

Norbert, I do not have a penchant for providing a distorted description of your statements and then ridiculing them as stupid. I simply have a penchant for exposing you as a person who has an obvious bias on how your present information and now you gave me another opportunity to do this.

Thank-you very much for this opportunity and I hope you continue to share your thoughts on Mark’s site!

ALASKA’S CLIMATE: TOO HOT TO HANDLE, JOHN WHITFIELD, Earth Nature News: 2 October 2003

http://www.clivar.ucar.edu/recent/nat_alaska_climate.htm

THE FANB TEMPERATURE RECORD (measure of mean Alaskan mainland temperature, using the averages of Fairbanks, Anchorage, Nome, and Barrow), Sue Ann Bowling Ph.D, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Last update January 3, 2000

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Bowling/FANB.html

I found your comments while I was prepareing to lead some students through a debate on global warming.

You made the following comment

“I do not believe that you have dealt with the accuracy of the GCMs. If so tell me where. The models cannot predict the conditions today from a 1900 start with reasonable accuracy. That is an undeniable fact. “

Have you seen this data from IPCC. It seems to indicate that gcm’s are capable of accurately predicting climate.

See fig 4 half way down on the right

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm

Question to Norbert,

I still think your point regarding the lower troposphere-ground temperature correlation is a very important fundamental assumption and it seems important enough to get resolved, but the graphs shown by this link to the IPCC report are very impressive and seem to indicate that the general circulation models have the ability to detect our warming influence with enough precision to be credible.

How could they do that and still be so wrong? If they are able to create these graphs, boldly state their confidence in their analysis, and still be wrong as you believe, then I find that even much more impressive if you know what I mean!.

Again, Norbert, with all due respect to your point about the troposphere-ground temperature correlation being in conflict (which I agree is very relevant), then how is the IPCC able to produce these graphs which so convincing show that the models are working to produce reliable temperature predictions?

This is a mystery to me!

Dan