i get the technical point but i ask myself, "what's the point ?" ... we'll never know the global temperatures with a sufficiently fine grid to apply this detail. we can't do an energy balance of the earth, and again why bother ? ... i mean the total energy of the earth has been increasing and decreasing over time (increasing coming out of an ice age, decreasing going in) ... no?

is it reasonable to say that over geological time that the temperature of the earth's core has remained reasonably constant ? that the energy leakage to the atmosphere is negligible ? either way, does this mean much ?

why does an ice age start ? orbital and solar variations ??

clearly the global climate "tips" every so often.

the key question on climate change is "what impact is man having on the global climate?" ... and No one Knows. What effect is burning FF, releasing CO2, having on today's climate ? on tomorrow's ?? much of the discussion/argument centers on the response "well, it can't be good".

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

My point is that if we are going to answer the question of "what's going on?", then we need to do it properly. As an anecdote, I have heard that the bulk of the recent "warming" has come from the polar regions, by way of the daily low-temp. If the tropics are not heating up, then the total amount of energy in the atmosphere can't really be increasing, can it?

I would also disagree with your assessment that the climate "tips". The difference between an ice age and an interglacial age is a continuum with respect to summer temperatures. There has never been a run-away (proof is that we are here...). Maybe there are multiple meta-stable "points"...

if one region is heating up and the rest static then the total energy has increased, no?

as for "tipping" i meant that the state of the globe has changed significantly over the geological time record, sometimes quite quickly. clealry (in my mind, this means that the amount of energy arriving at the earth changes, the amount of energy the earth absorbs and reflects also changes over time.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

While it may not be the 'tropics', have you looked at what's happening this 'Summer' in Australia? They've been setting some very high new records (remember, 50°C equals 122+°F).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-02/records-tumb...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-19/extreme-weat...

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/01/02/08/...

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

What is the point? Really, you want to know what the point is. The point is that "temperature" is a horrible surrogate for "state". If I average the temperature in Denver with the temperature in Brisbane, I get a number that truly means nothing. I'm fine with saying "we'll never know the global temperatures with a sufficiently fine grid to apply this detail", but the next statement needs to be "so let's just stop talking about the whole subject. The metric for AGW is average temperature. As long as that is the metric, TGS4's point is the only valid one. His examples show that the uncertainty in taking a simple average is greater than the implied uncertainty of the projections. If I can get a range of answers in the +/-10C magnitude, do I really have data to support a contention that man is causing temperatures to rise 0.6C/decade?

A big part of my career has been spent specifying and designing compression equipment. It has mostly been air cooled. Without a humidity and elevation assumption I get the wrong cooler every single time. An air cooler designed for a platform in Lake Maricaibo, Venezuela will be grossly inadequate for Northern Colorado. That is a trivial example of the importance of fully defining the state of a gas before trying to aggregate it with other gases.

This is very much analogous to stating flow rates at standard conditions. If I have a 0.65 SG gas stream at 90F and 100 psia that has 100 MSCF/day volume flow rate at standard conditions (13.4 MACF/day at actual conditions), a second stream of the same gas with 200 MSCF/day at 1,000 psia and 60F (2.4 MACF/day) and a third stream with 500 MSCF/day at 15 psia and 120F (548 MACF/day). If I was foolish enough to just add the ACFs, I would get 564 MACF/day--a totally meaningless number. If I add the SCF's (which is reasonable) I get 800 MSCF/day, and if I add the mass flow rates I get 18 tonne/day (which I will get if I multiply the ACF times the actual density or the SCF times the standard density). The point of that exercise is that we all (except apparently climate scientists) know that you can't take averages (or any other calculation) of gases at different conditions. Adding apples to Volkswagens just doesn't yield a result that means much.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

JohnRBaker - fascinating weather anecdotes (and data) from a region that makes up 1.5% of the planet's surface area. Any comments on-the-topic?

My dad used to tell me when I was a kid "there's more nicotine in a head of broccoli than in one cigarette. So they can't tell me second hand smoke is bad for you!" I have a hard time believing that just because it's cold in the winter, climate change isn't real (because it's just as ridiculous a claim).

Don't we accept that Entropy is always increasing? Energy is becoming more disorganized by default? And displacing one form of energy to keep another organized / predictable doesn't stop the overall entropy? I'm just throwing that in the pot here... if left alone, a warm pot of water will be reduced to ambient temperature until the stove is turned on. We add energy to the global system every day, like turning the burner on.

Quote (Enginerd9)

We add energy to the global system every day, like turning the burner on.

Interesting assertion. Please explain.

Just as a hot day here, or a cold day here don't really mean anything in a global context, I am still deeply troubled by the "averaging" metrics.

We move. We create friction. We burn fuel. We introduce waves of energy into the atmosphere (cell phones, radios, etc). We eat and give off waste. We introduce chemicals into the atmosphere which react with other chemicals to form variances in the "fluid." All of those things add (if even only slightly as individuals) some amount of energy to the system.

Although, I will agree with the averaging metrics problem. I think we share an opinion that more data from many more sources would help substantiate global climate claims either way.

Experience: accumulated knowledge over time.

Talent: the ability to use experience.

Which is more valuable?

Did you see my comment in the other thread that if ALL of our (humanity's) energy usage were converted to heat, it would still only account for 0.0097% of the energy we get from the sun? Our direct contribution to the thermal balance of this planet is so insignificant.

OK TGS4, let's deal with a part of world, the Northern Hemisphere, where most of land mass IS found (BTW, anyone ever lose any sleep over this? If you want to blow you mind and you've got one of those nice 'World Maps' from the National Geographic Society, try hanging it on the wall upside-down.): It's January 13th and here in SoCal it's 82°(F) outside my office, or at least it was awhile ago when I got back from lunch. I know this isn't any sort of record, but it's hardly something that's expected, even here in SoCal (Orange County), this time of the year.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

JohnRBaker - one single data point among thousands. Interesting weather. I would expect, generally, SoCal to be warmer than Calgary in the Northern Hemisphere winter, which it is today.

That your current temperature is not a record, based on records being kept for 100-120 years, tells me that it is somewhere in the "normal" range.

Not even remotely interesting w.r.t. climate.

What's your opinion on the topic - temperature averaging?

I was posting it more as some sort of 'smart-ass' comeback to your implication that what's happening in Australia was somehow irrelevant due to it's lack of land mass

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

One kg of moist air at 50% RH and -30C contains less H2O than one kg of moist air at 50% RH at +30C. When averaging the temperature, how does one account for the moisture changes? Where does the air go when adding moisture in order to keep just one kg? Is any energy involved in adding/removing moisture from the air?

The additional water vapour is accommodated by the different value of specific heat capacity. See http://www.coolit.co.za/airstate/airmoistobject.ht... (or really any psychrometric chart) for specifics on how much water vapour g/kg is in the various relative humidities.

Quote:

Is any energy involved in adding/removing moisture from the air?

There sure is - think thunderstorm...

the only thing a global average temperature does is reduce a very complex situation (global climate) to a single (not very meaningful) number that we can look at and wring our hands over as it changes from day to day.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

I'd be OK with that as the single metric if they used an energy-weighted average instead of a "simple" average. No single metric is going to convey the whole picture, but using density and heat content to weight the temperature readings would be a step in the right direction.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

Isn't there a field of study which deals specifically with all of this? I don't remember it being in my Engineering curriculum, but I think it's called something like "meteorology." And there's people who are really good at it. And those people, even within their own circles, debate the topic like we are.

Just saying, it's possible we may be grasping at straws.

Experience: accumulated knowledge over time.

Talent: the ability to use experience.

Which is more valuable?

ok, so we could add humidity, and pressure, and heat content, to all the temp moitoring stations (you'd imagine that if these are "proper" weather monitoring stations that they'd have much of this already) and replace surface average temperature with surface average energy (maybe per sq mile). so what ? that's not doing an energy balance, it is a better average single parameter. maybe it's a step along the path for getting more detailled atmospheric data, but the energy balance of the globe is still decades (centuries?) away. still, the more we understand about the globe then the better questions we can ask.

enginerd9 ... is that a "piss-take" ? sometimes it's hard to read scarasm.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

The discussion will continue to revolve around a single temperature number. It probably shouldn't, but it will. The best I can tell (this seems to be one of those "obvious" things that never get explained) the programs take something like 100000 "adjusted" [adulterated?] temperature readings, add them together, divide by 100000 and get the number. If you were to multiply temperature times density times humidity (in mass/volume terms, not RH) sum the product and then divide by the sum of the product of the individual density times humidity you would get a pretty good surrogate for the specific heat term that TGS4 started this thread with (and would be really difficult to come to an agreement on methodology to assess). Fundamentally this would be equivalent to a "wet bulb" temperature which is a meteorologic measurement that is in pretty wide use, just not in "climate science".

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

No piss-taking. I was being sarcastic, yes, but not in an effort to jab anyone in particular. More to jab at the topic in general. There's just too many unknowns, too many things to take into account, and a lack of technology to do it all-in-one. I just find it interesting how entrenched in opinion people get about these kinds of topics.

Experience: accumulated knowledge over time.

Talent: the ability to use experience.

Which is more valuable?

rb1957 - that's pretty much my conclusion. Whatever conclusions have been reached to-date are based on inadequate and insufficient data. Our surface air temperature measurements (whether instrument or via satellite) lack the rigour for a true energy-balance measure. Ocean heat content measurements via ARGO seem to have reached "critical mass" in 2007, so that is a good time to set the clock to zero.

david,
IMHO you'd just change one number for another. It is clearly a more defensible number, but it still captures only a tiny portionof the problem; but maybe it is a step along a path to better understand the global system. It is a reasonable question (why climate science isn't based on wet bulb temps ?) but i guess the easy answer is the data collected so far doesn't allow it (mind you i'm not sure if they've looked).

enginerd9,
i think you might characterise the "debate" as between those with absolute certainty that they are right against those who think the former just could be wrong. to paraphase Lost (there's 7 years of TV i wasted ... what an ending !!) "man of faith vs man of science" (i thought it was interesting in Lost how the individuals involved changed sides ... Locke believed untill he felt his belief had been betrayed, Jack questioned untill he ran out of questions and believed).

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

When I do the thermodynamics, I need pressure, dry temperature, humidity, density, and specific heat to get from dry bulb to wet bulb theoretically (as opposed to just reading the dial)--it seems to encompass all of the requisite variables implicitly.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

And for what it's worth, it was 86°(F) at lunchtime today in SoCal

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Thanks John. Maybe you'll have something of value to add tomorrow. (I'm a wee bit jealous after having had to use the snow blower again yesterday. I guess it beats shovelling the snow...)

When I do thermodynamics simulation, I like to conserve things like mass and energy. Temperature is not so easy to use as a primary variable.

- Steve

TGS4, I know how you feel having myself spent 33 years in Michigan before moving West, and now we've been here in SoCal exactly that same period of time. I'd move back in a minute, but my wife, who's also from Northern Michigan, has come to love the warm weather and sunshine (and the total absence of mosquitoes).

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Thanks for the clarification and taking the time to run some numbers.

As I've said before, I agree with your statement that energy is the true issue.

Quote (TGS4)

It takes <X>% more "energy" to heat <more humid> air up an additional degree as compared to the <less humid> air

I've expanded your quote to make it more general but, again, I agree. But the question is – what does that mean for climate science?

First, I’ll address the false position that, while global temperatures are increasing, actual energy content could be decreasing. If both humidity and temperatures are increasing, we can dismiss this concern.

NOAA tracks humidity as well.

Surface humidity has increased.

You also said that “If the tropics are not heating up, then the total amount of energy in the atmosphere can’t really be increasing, can it?”. The tropics are heating up (from NASA GISS):

Or you can look at the GISS data per zone per year.

So with global temperature (at both the polar regions AND tropics) and humidity increasing, the energy content is increasing as well.

Secondly, let’s look at zdas04’s statement that “”temperature” is a horrible surrogate for “state””. Temperature is certainly not the only metric that is reviewed. I’ll point you to NOAA’s “State of Climate” page. You can read the entire 2012 document here, the highlights here or the briefing slides here.

Some pretty pictures:

What’s going on with Arctic Sea Ice: Decreasing.



What’s going on with Antarctic Land Ice: Decreasing. (for discussion on sea ice, which is increasing, see Zhang 2007 and Bingtanga et al. 2013 for an explanation on why that is so)



(from Shepherd 2012)

What’s going on with Glaciers: Decreasing.



What’s going on with Sea Levels: Increasing.



What’s going on with Ocean Heat Content: Increasing.



So what’s the common link between OHC increasing, sea levels increasing, ice volumes decreasing, humidity increasing AND temperatures increasing – they all require an increase in energy. Don't like temperatures, fine, use OHC, sea level, humidity, etc. Energy uptake on Earth is increasing, no matter what metric you look at.

But wait, we need not finish there! Let's look at a few more of the observed climate changes from IPCC AR5 SPM , all of which are expected from the anthropogenic climate change theory:
- Increased precipitation in mid-latitudes (increasing confidence from data after 1951)
- Increased frequency and severity of heat waves (increased confidence for Europe, Asia and Australia)
- Increased salinity in areas expected to increase, decreased salinity in areas expected to decrease
- Decreased snow coverage in the Northern Hemisphere
- Increased permafrost temperatures
- Decreased ocean pH (not related to energy, due to increased CO2 emissions)

And a look at the radiative forcing numbers for AR5 SPM:


Multiple lines of evidence show that there is a positive energy imbalance that is causing increased energy accumulation, consistent with the theory. This has lead to numerous, observable changes in climate, consistent with the theory.

Just because some of you don’t know about the full range of research in the area, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Believe it or not, the experts in the field MAY actually know more about the subject than you or I. The only reason temperature is commonly referenced and quoted because it is the most intuitive metric for people. Furthermore, many of the observed and theorized effects are easy to calculate when working with temperature changes than energy content changes. For people, such as yourselves that have a heightened understanding of the science, there is a mountain of research, data and evidence out there for your consumption. Quarendo Invenietis.

To wrap things up, AR5 Fig. SMP6:

Good data, rconnor. Do you have a reference for the humidity metric? What's the data coverage (temporally and spatially) for it?

All-in-all, I think that you have presented a rather broad-based set of metrics that all point to the earth increasing in energy in the last 30-40 years. Oddly enough, that's not something that I generally disagree with - one can't deny these observations.

I do get really bent our of shape on the use of "global average temperature" with no consideration for humidity as a metric - especially when it is calculated to 0.01°C (and the source measurements are, at best measured to 0.1°C, but most likely measured to 1°C. It's just not a good metric.

Some of the other "indicators" have a poor temporal resolution for understanding the intricacies that make up our planet's weather: sea level rise, glacier advancing/retreat, sea ice, etc. And some indicators, such a glaciers, may be more an indication of precipitation than energy. And sea ice may be more a measure of energy distribution (think ocean currents) than energy content.

If anything, I'd rather hang my hat on ocean heat content. And as I said in the other thread, we have been getting good data with good coverage from ARGO since 2007. In about 40-50 years, we should have enough data to know something.

Of course, we can talk about how much the net energy has increased/decreased, but the real issue (that makes this much more than an academic exercise) is attribution. There's nothing in any of the data (empirical or inferred) that shows the 1980's heating to be any different from the 1930's heating, or that the energy is different from the Medieval Warm Period, or the Roman Warm Period, or the Minoan Warm Period, etc. Even the imperfect temperature metric of 1980-2010 is virtually indistinguishable from 1920-1950.

So, on a variety of metrics, do I think that the earth has more energy (heat) now as compared to 40 years ago: yes. Do I think that we know the cause: no. Is CO2 the cause: I don't think that the empirical data can say either way, yet.

Anyway, rconnor, thank you for your respectful engagement. I think that I may have learned something today, and any day that I learn something new is a good day.

looking at the AR5 SPM (Summary of Policy Makers ... sort of like the Coles notes version of the report) ...
is it surprising that the one biggest contributor is CO2 and the confidence that this forcing is correct is Very High ?

and were are clouds in this ? ok, there's something about "clouds due to aerosols" but i thought there was a significant interaction between clouds and climate.

and how to they define those nice looking error bars ? is that the range that they put into their models ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

TGS4,

It’s NOAA data from here. Sorry for not including it, I forgot that I included the NOAA State of Climate links after i used that grpah. To clarify, all other non-referenced graphs are from the NOAA State of Climate 2012 report.

The coverage is based on in situ observations from HadISDH (Willett et al. 2013) for land and NOCS v2.0 (Berry and Kent 2009, 2011) for oceans.

It was an interesting point you raised. I had not looked at humidity (specifically surface humidity) in much depth before, so it was a learning experience for me as well. Your last line reminds me of one of my favourite Neil DeGrasse Tyson quotes “I am driven by two main philosophies: know more today about the world than I knew yesterday and, along the way, lessen the suffering of others. You’d be surprised how far that gets you.” I can tell you that I have learnt from this discourse and it certainly has lessened my suffering to be able to engage in discussion with someone that demonstrates true skepticism.

rb1957,

I would say it’s not a surprised but for reasons completely different than why you aren’t surprised haha.

Clouds are a huge area of study but their relative trending change in forcing is a response to other aspects because there is no mechanism inherent within clouds that would develop a long term change by themselves. That is why it is listed as “clouds due to aerosols”. As an example, another external mechanism would be “cloud seeding” by galactic cosmic rays but I while back a listed a number of papers that said this theory had a statistically insignificant impact on forcing.

Real climate has an article on this figure if you are interested.

Thanks for the reference to HadISDH. I will be investigating that further. Very glad to see that at least some thought is being put to this topic.

One disappointing feature, though is from the HadISDH webpage. They have "links" to discussion about uncertainty:

Quote:

Measurement, climatological and homogeneity adjustment uncertainty was estimated for each month. Further in formation on uncertainty estimates can be found here.

Given the uneven distribution of stations over time and space, sampling uncertainty was estimated for each gridbox month. Further information on uncertainty estimates can be found here.

Each of their "here" went to a page that says "coming soon". Sigh.

And at first glance, I saw a lot about homogenization and reanalysis. That's double-speak for using a GCM (or GCM-like model) to "generate" data where none exist. Oh boy do I have problems with that...

Now for the latest piece of hysteria :
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

• http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/454657/Ice-age-on-the-way-as-scientists-fe

i'm actually starting to get really sick of the cimlate change argument.

follow up any of the references ... every piece of data is disputed (as possibly it should be in a scientific discussion). some love surface temperature data, some detest it ('cause there are "many" data points that are corrupt). some say doubling the CO2 will cause negligible temperature (<1deg) ('cause the impact of increased CO2 looks parabolic, so there's "diminishing returns" as you keep doubling). some say it's all (and i mean All) due to man, others say man's contribution is negligible (compared to nature's. one decade we're heading for a new ice age, the next we're heading for a hot house, the next nothing changing so it's "just wait, we're all doomed". but the thing that gets me are the ad hominem attacks by both sides ... "belivers" are in league with a government (or green) conspiracy, "deniers" are in league with "big oil".

skrew it, i'm going to to join the "great uncaring", the uncaring majority. i'm going to pay for my gas and i'm going to pay my taxes, and i'm going to continue just as i have. eff it all.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Me too, but I've found that the more that thinking people bow out of the discussion, the more that unscrupulous people bend it to an agenda (both sides do this). While these threads are incredibly frustrating, this is the only place I know where someone without an agenda can hear major portions of the arguments from both sides ("believers" only go to "denier" sites to cherry pick outrageous statements, and vice versa).

If there weren't so much money at stake it would not be a big deal. Regardless of who is closer to "right", either we will waste trillions of dollars on curbing CO2 for no result or the damages caused by global warming will cost trillions of dollars and millions of lives to rising sea level and increasingly unsettled weather. These are staggeringly large numbers. A lot of folks have skin in this game and not all of them are particularly honest. You go to CFACT.com and "the hoax is revealed, it is all a global wealth-redistribution scam". You go to IPCC.ch and "the science is settled and we have passed a tipping point where the damage can no longer be corrected".

I'm also ready to throw up my hands in disgust, but literally thousands of fence-sitters have browsed these threads and dozens of them have gotten new insights into the discussion, several have joined the conversation. I can't think of another place where people from both sides of this discussion are welcome and treated (mostly) with respect and some amount of dignity. When I read comments under articles on the advocate pages I am very distressed at the tone of the discussion. Here it is more or less focused on the issues and personalities are not brought into every single post.

Bailing from the conversation leaves one fewer thinking person to defend your position.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

i wtached one "believer" video ... "the global warming swindle rebunked" ... seemed quite rational, tied in the hints of GW from the 50s with today's story, but completely overlooked the GC predicted in the 70s. i've another video queued up apparently refuting the 800 year lag between heating and CO2 increases.

i do believe that most climate scientists are honest, respectable people but i do believe there are a few "crooks" mixed amongst them. and yes, i'll drag out the Mann hockey stick as proof that people get focused on the results and are willing to accept something at aligns with their expectations. in the same way i believe that most "deniers" are honet, respectable people, with a few crooks mixed in.

i do believe that there is a strong "green" movement behind the GW ... my take is something like "the people still aren't being green enough, let's scare them with GW, the science is settled, blah, blah, blah". and so the message became "the CO2 we're producing today is responsible for changing the climate today" ... a much clearer "call to arms".

i believe the "true" science message should be something closer to "putting a bunch of CO2 into the atmosphere from burning FF might affect the future climate" ... but that's way too wishy-washy for people to react to, for governments to raise taxes around. and as for "our models are way too unsophicated to accurately model global climate ... well

i do believe that there is a component of "world governance", maybe not as strong as the video put out ... ok, it isn't Just about the US, GW isn't anti-US IMHO, i do see it as mulit-national goverance telling national goverments what to do. i've heard that the EU has recently done a significant "about face" ... reducing wind turbine subsidies, building coal powerstations ... i'll have to find out more.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

That last sentence is correct. Germany is building new coal power stations, because they are somewhat trapped by 2 policies - fear of nuclear, and reliance on wind turbines, which are unreliable sources of energy especially when power is needed.

Also the EU has told the UK to reduce windpower subsidies.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

rb1957--What would a dishonest GW denier have to gain?

someone in the pay of Big Oil would have as much to gain as someone in the pocket of Big Tobacco in denying smoking causes cancer.

of course you wouldn't be implying that all "denier"s are honest ... there's enough politics and grandstanding and all other manner of poop to go around (that some'll get attracted to some individuals).

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Don’t lose heart rb1957. These discussions can be exhausting at times - I’ve been close to throwing up my hands and saying “screw it”, as well (and I’m sure many here would have been glad had I done so). There’s so much trash out there, from Neil Young pretending to be a scientist to everything about Christopher Monckton. There’s people on both sides that pretend to have answers but really all they do is assert conjecture and are short on references and proper analysis. This is beyond frustrating for those that have a modest understanding and can be very confusing for those that don’t.

Whether you know it or not, you’ve outlined quite well the tactics used to argue against the climate change theory – smear doubt on everything. Even if the doubt doesn’t stand up to scrutiny or is easily explained away, the job of the “skeptic” is already done. People end up so confused, they don’t know what to believe. The natural conclusion then follows: “if I’m unsure on the conclusion, I’m sure as heck against the taxes!”. It is important to note, again, that skepticism of the theory does not predominately stem from questioning the science – it stems from the reluctance to increased taxes or restrictions on consumption. It is this bias which allows people to, rather flippantly, ignore/dismiss the piles of peer-reviewed literature on the subject after having read a few blog posts which support their view.

However, the actual scientific community isn’t nearly as torn as the media, some blogs or some politicians would have you believe. Although some details remain in question (you should note the number of scientists that feel the IPCC is far too passive), the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is a real threat. Although the piles of trashy articles out there (on both sides) is enough to make your head spin, that issue really is not there for the experts who spend their lives studying it. For those that feel this only further supports the conspiracy theory that the field is corrupt, then they are saying that this conspiracy involves:
- Thousands of climate scientists
- Pretty well every major scientific body
- Thousands of peer-reviewed papers
- Dozens of reputable journals
- Pretty well every head of state from the most powerful countries to the least powerful
- All of this corruption, lasting decade after decade
- It would be the single largest and most far reaching conspiracy in the history of humankind...in an era where information is the most readily available

Yes, many non-experts and a SMALL few experts are opposed to the theory. Many non-experts and a SMALL few experts were/are opposed to the evidence of the ill-effects of smoking. Many non-experts and a SMALL few experts were/are opposed to vaccinations. Many non-experts and a SMALL few experts were/are opposed to the theory of evolution/age of the planet. The tactics used by the contrarian groups is similar in all four cases.

And yes, consensus, on its own, doesn’t mean that much. I believe it’s place is to show people, such as yourself, that are bogged down by all the arguments and counterarguments, that this level of confusion is not nearly as apparent amongst experts who understand the issue. Aside from that, this is why I have stuck to using peer-reviewed literature, data and evidence to debunk/correct claims that have arisen. I believe the science speaks for itself, so I don’t need to ignore arguments or dismiss them out-of-hand. The anthropogenic climate change theory is a well-established narrative with multiple predicted effects. Independent, observable evidence, such as the vast number of points listed above, all agree with the theory. I should note that I haven’t included anything on changes in plant and animal behaviour, but there is extensive research on that front as well. Not only do the observable effects match the anthropogenic climate change theory but other theories (such as solar activity or orbital cycles) fail to predict many of these effects we’ve seen or predict effects that we haven’t seen.

I started out a doubter of the theory. I read and raised many of the same arguments that many here have done. I was not convinced that the evidence validated the imposed measures to counteract the changes. But then I dug into the issue in more depth. I read more extensively. I argued with people smarter than myself on the issue. The more I did that, the more my opinion changed.

Now, the more I read on WUWT, the more I debate with people, the more my agreement with the theory solidifies. This is because the more I’m forced to dig into the problem (such as the analysis of separated ENSO years or TGS4 bringing up interesting points such as humidity and same day trips to Washington), the more new information I learn and the more new information that I learn, the more confident I become in the theory.

This is why I’m in agreement with what zdas04 said about the need to have places like this to discuss the issue with people slightly educated on the matter (despite the fact that no one here is near being an expert). I think he’s spot on…although for slightly different reasons. Some of the contentions against the theory brought up here are great and can lead to some very interesting dialogue. Personally, in my research into these various contentions, I’ve learnt a great deal. My hope, in providing extensive responses, is that I can pass along some of that research to others. Whether I can change minds or not, I believe it brings a lot of things to light.

As you’ve been a great promoter of inquiry through some very interesting questions, I’d encourage you to stay involved. Certainly these debates wouldn’t be nearly as fruitful if it weren’t for your contributions.

I am one of the fence-sitters who have only infrequently contributed to these discussions, yet have read and tried to absorb some of it. I think the global climate will definitely change, one way or the other. But I just can't see many of the proposed solutions having much benefit, and am not convinced that attempted prevention is a better approach than adaptation.

i'm with you on that, hokie.

for all the talk, i don't see us significantly reducing CO2 output (what we in the developed world surrender, the emerging world will gobble up). i see it as a distraction from developing ways to adapt to climate change; and a hinderance to the developing world. and i find it odd that Canada is closing coal fired generating plants, but Germany is opening (that China is is to be expected).

if burning FF is the worst thing since "western civilisation" then it should be prohibited (like CHC and DDT) and we should adapt; and investing in energy production that doesn't involve CO2 (safe nukes, fusion). But we aren't acting like that, the worst IMHO we're doing is trading CO2 quotas with countries that'll never fill them (what's up with that?); and finding new types of FF.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Rconnor, thanks for at least acknowledging the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad popularum. And I have no doubt that there is a large number of published papers that "accept" the CO2-driver temperature hypothesis.

What I would really like to know, though, is how many papers explicitly demonstrate an anthropogenic fingerprint in the post-LIA warming. I don't care at all for the papers that pile on with a "we agree/accept this hypothesis", I want to know how papers positively demonstrate a link. I would even include in that listing any papers that demonstrate particular values of "equilibrium climate sensitivity".

I have never heard of such a survey - has anyone else?

Due to these threads, my concerns about the validity of the global warming theory have pretty well been answered, particularly now that the humidity/atmospheric energy balance are shown to coincide as well.

My concerns about the causality have not.

TGS4, AR5 WG1 has 18 pages of references for the section on Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing, alone. Furthermore, I referenced a link to a single data set on radiative imbalances that resulted in 418 publications from the study of the results. So no, I haven’t heard of a survey under those specific conditions but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a pile of data and papers on the matter.

I believe this is similar to GregLocock’s sentiment that the radiative imbalance was taken as an “axiom” by climate scientist. There seems to be a naivety to the research going on (and what an axiom is). Skeptics think that there is no more research on the basic principles and it’s all about “how can we tax people?” or “look what our fancy models show”. This is incorrect. Again, AR5 WG1 has 18 pages of references on radiative forcing alone. These references aren’t all from 1960, most are from 2000-present.

Some research does use past research as a starting point. Of course. Every field of science does this. This is not making a priori assumptions, it’s how science works. Before you build a bridge, do you repeat laboratory tests to calculate the gravitational constant? Of course not.

Now, the radiative imbalance is not nearly as “concrete” as the gravitational constant but that is why there is still piles of research going into it. But that shouldn’t stop researchers from using the most up-to-date and well-supported values we have to build upon. Heck, we don’t have a true understanding of the fundamental building blocks of physics – does that mean that all research in physics should stop until we address those? Furthermore, building upon past research acts as a feedback loop for the past research. Models are a great method for checking the radiative imbalances. You can turn the knob and see if the models do a better or worse job and reproducing observed trends. In fact a new paper, Sherwood et al 2014, is a good example of this. It shows that models with a lower sensitivity to the positive feedback effect of water vapour caused by CO2 induced temperature rise, do a worse job at reproducing historical temperatures than those with a higher sensitivity. (If you have an issue with “model accuracy” due to the “pause”, please refer to one of my 10 deconstructions of that argument)

Also, “argumentum ad popularum” is only a logical fallacy when it comes to subjective opinions. For example, “I asked 10 people what their favourite food was. 6 said pizza, 2 said hot dogs, 2 said spaghetti. Therefore, pizza is the best food. QED.” The “consensus” in climate change is, “thousands of peer-reviewed papers and multiple data sources studying different, independant aspects of climate agree with the anthropogenic climate change theory. A handful of blogs and ~1:100 peer-reviewed papers say otherwise. I have confidence that the theory is accurate.” For the layman, that doesn’t have knowledge in the area to review the science, this is a defensible position. Those with an interest and knowledge in the subject, can and should review the science for themselves.

I think some people wish to believe that a consensus in science is some sort of vote; it’s not. First, the body of evidence is developed that supports a position. Then, a “consensus” is formed based on the strength of the body of evidence. The more robust the body of evidence, the stronger the consensus. The stronger the consensus, the greater the confidence researchers have with using the past research as a starting point. That’s how science works. Climate science is no different.

I do love how people that use the “argumentum ad popularum fallacy” tend to reference the flat earth or geocentric debate as examples to prove their point. It is so naïve to the fact that the peer-review process didn’t exist back then. Nor does the church have nearly the influence over academia as it did then. Nor were the standards of evidence nearly as stringent back then. Nor was confirmation bias ever tested in experiments. It is grossly ignorant of the epistemological progress over the centuries and the development of the scientific method to think they are analogous.

Another common one is “look at how relativity proved Newtonian physics wrong!”. But it didn’t completely invalidate Newtonian physics. 99.9% of the time, Newtonian physics works just fine. If 99.9% of the time, the anthropogenic climate change theory is valid, then it’s doing pretty darn well. Or you hear “well, look at what quantum physics did to classical physics!”. Again, how many of you use quantum physics on a day-to-day basis? Classical physics works pretty darn well 99.99% of the time.

A better analogy for the “argumentum ad popularum” in the context of climate change is to compare it with anti-vaxxers, creationists or pro-tobacco lobbyists. It is within the realm of possibility that vaccinations could turn out to cause autism, that the earth could be 6000 years old or that tobacco really isn’t bad for you. Like climate change, the more I study the subject, the more I don’t believe in the contrarian viewpoint...but just because it is the contrarian viewpoint, doesn’t automatically imply that it’s wrong. If this is all you are trying to say, then I agree with you. If you’re trying to say that the fact that the vast majority of experts and papers published agree with the anthropogenic climate change theory doesn’t give the theory weight, you’re incorrect. That’s how science works.

TomDOT, glad to hear it (and thanks for posting this – it’s nice to hear people are actually absorbing some of the information!). Regarding causality – one step at a time. The first thing is addressing the “pause”. I’ve just finished my 10th detailed deconstruction of that argument on the other thread. I’d be happy to hear what your thoughts on the subject are as right now I’m either hearing repetitious gross misunderstandings of the science or silence.

i don't think its fair to compare newton and relativity ... in newton's day it was pretty hard to go faster than say 40mph. it'd be better to compare Newton and Aristole, and the absolute change in understanding of how things move ... as big a change as earth-centered and helio-centered solar systems. and i think you'd agree that before Newton there was a concensus that Aristole was right.

Newton showed by repeatable experiments and by verified predictions that how he understood moving things was better than the existing explaination; thus he replaced Aristole. Just as relativity replaced newtonian physics, for the same reasons ... repeatable experiments and verifiable predictions. And in the fullness of time someone (Sheldon?) will develop a better model.

and so the problem with climate "science" ... i don't think there can be repeatable experiments; there can be predictions but the timescales we're looking at make verification hard. i think everyone agrees it's hard to predict the weather, and when the model predictions don't eventuate, well there's a change to the models. As there should be ! i'd've though the science in climate science was understanding the interactions and the mechanisms. i'll pose this ... how much would any climate scientist bet on the predictions of his model ? and at what sort of odds ? someone confident would wager $1m for the return of $1k ... ie a huge bet at very low odds; someone not so confident would bet $1k for the return of $1m.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Actually, rconnor, my perspective on agrumentum ad populum is more recent: ulcers and the theory of h. pylori (see here for the timeline). The consensus in modern medicine was that acid and stress caused duodenal ulcers. There was one set of researchers that examined a different cause: helicobacter pylori. These researchers (Warren and Marshall) were stymied in the "peer-reviewed" journals because their hypothesis was contrary to the "consensus". It took 15 years to turn the consensus around.

What's very interesting about the Galileo example, and the parallels to today, is not so much about the "science", but about the control of the governing authorities, their vested interests, and the money. (Let me start my saying that I do not believe in any sort of grand conspiracy or the like) Once the scientific hypothesis of anthropogenic CO2 CAUSING unprecedented and catastrophic warming left the scientific realm and entered the political realm, I think that it would be safe to say that it was co-opted by some with less-than-pure intentions. CAGW was a means-to-an-end for some politicians, who, in turn, provided positive feedback in the form of grant money to those whose research could "prove" CAGW and excluded those whose research didn't. Certainly, researchers who have found contrary evidence to CAGW have not been sentenced to house arrest for apostacy or heresy. But, they are shunned from publications ("We'll keep them out of the IPCC report, even if we have to change the definition of 'peer review'"). Again, I don't see any conspiracy to this, just the logical extension of the government/military-academia/industry complex as warned by Eisenhower in his farewell address.

I think that we can probably agree that our earth has increased in total energy in the atmosphere and hydrosphere in the last 100 years. I can even appreciate the radiative imbalance aspects (radiation, after all is the sole heat transport off the planet, and the primary source of heat to the planet). I can even acknowledge the radiative physics of the CO2 hypothesis, and I think that the science behind that is pretty solid. But making that leap to hypothesized positive feedbacks and projections for scenarios that we have no data for (the catastrophe part of CAGW), I just really have a hard time buying it. And I have laid out my issues with the ongoing "science" previously. Despite the seemingly overwhelming evidence, there are still major holes in quantification (due to measurement, averaging, etc) and attribution/causation.

And finally, to something personal. I am being asked to pay for something that I otherwise didn't have to before. I am being asked to part with my hard-earned dollars to prevent some future catastrophe that may or may not happen, and whether I part with these dollars or not, it may or may not happen regardless. So, yes, I do have a personal stake in this. Unlike the heliocentrism vs geocentrism debate in Galileo's time, which had zero impact on the everyday peasants, this debate involves every person on this planet. I'd rather spend the money on third-world vaccines, educating women in poor countries and helping to feed the hungry. Besides, you want to know what brings large populations out of poverty? Cheap energy!

Anyway, enough of a veer off the science. I want to know more about natural causes of climate change. I'd like to see 60 years of good ocean heat data. I'd like to see higher accuracy radiative imbalance measurements, ones where the error is less than the phenomenon we are measuring. I'd like to see atmospheric energy measurements including humidity effects replace temperature averaging. I'd like to see climate models with small discretization error spatially and temporally. I'd like to have measurements of TSI in a wide range of the radiation spectrum over several solar cycles. I'd like to know what caused the last ice age to start and what caused us to come out of it. I'd like to know what caused the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods and the little ice age. I want to know why we have never had run-away thermal events (cold or hot) in the geological record.

there is quite a bit out there on the end of ice ages ... the idea is a small external orbital warming input started an internal greenhouse warming (releasing CO2 and H2O into the atmosphere) caused the icecaps to melt.

sounds reasonable. then i ask myself "how did the ice ages start?" if the green house warming accelerates, warming leads to more warming; what's the mechanism that turns it around?

again, my frustration with the literature. some claim that orbital effects are small, others say that in recent history orbital impacts account for a significant component on the warming seen ...

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

TGS4,

Good example to balance things out.

As you said, to some the difference could be that the anthropogenic climate change theory is much more politicized given the ramifications whether the theory is true or the theory is false. I would not argue with this.

I believe you brought in “climate gate” to emphasis this point. I would argue with that. I’ve talked at length about climate gate in the past and my hope is to not drag this conversation into another discussion on that but I would like to provide an important fact regarding the quote you provided:

both the papers referred to in that email were cited and discussed in AR4 (chapter 6 of AR4 WG1). So despite the context-less, tongue-in-cheek quote, the emails were included. I should note that “climate gate” occurred after AR4 WG1 so it wasn’t the exposure that forced the IPCC to include those papers.

To me the crucial difference between the ulcer analogy and anthropogenic climate change is that the resistance to the climate change theory does not include a credible counter-theory, merely doubt over the causation. As you and others have said, you don’t doubt that there is increasing amounts of heat being accumulated within our climate. Some will add “but climate has changed before”. Of course, but this is not a counter-theory – you need a mechanism that can accurately describe the observable changes in our climate. This is the subject I want to discuss in more depth next, but before I do, I need to ensure that the “pause” argument is dead. We can’t discuss causation if people keep saying “the warming is over!” - which is demonstrably false.

Quote (rconnor)

As you and others have said, you don’t doubt that there is increasing amounts of heat being accumulated within our climate. Some will add “but climate has changed before”. Of course, but this is not a counter-theory – you need a mechanism that can accurately describe the observable changes in our climate.

Why? If I say "the earth is only 61 years old because that is as long as I've been here". Do you need a "counter-theory" to say "BS"? I say that computer models cannot prove anything, so any evidence of a causality between man's activities and climate change that relies on a computer model is simply as non-convincing as my statement above about the age of the earth. Unadulterated data can show where we've been, but it cannot "prove" where we are going. If it could, then there wouldn't be so many people who fail to make money in the Stock market with their complex computer models. I feel that I can (and do) say that if the foundation of a body of work is inadequate, then the body of work is inadequate.

Go ahead and post a 30,000 word rebuttal with dozens of links to papers that rely on computer models. I won't read them again.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

zdas04,

The earth is 61 years old.

I say that carbon dating cannot prove anything, so any evidence between carbon dating and the age of the earth is simply as non-convincing as my statement above about the anthropogenic climate change theory. Unadulterated data can show where we are, but it cannot “prove” where we’ve been. If it could, then there wouldn’t be so many people who fall to predict what happened before the Big Bang. I feel that I can (and do) say that if the foundation of a body of work is inadequate, then the body of work is inadequate.

Go ahead and post a 30 word rebuttal with dozens of improvable anecdotes and no links to papers what so ever. I won’t read them again.

(GregLocock, being the resident expert, how was my satire this time?)

i don't think the scientific method imposes the requirement to have an alternative hypothesis to explain things. if an experiment fails repeatedly, if a prediction is missed, then the theory is abandoned or at best modified.

i don't think "denier" can prove an alternative causality, i don't think they have to. i think all "deniers" are saying is that the models, as good as they are, are not reliable/accurate/real.

as i posted above, how much would a climate scientist bet on his model's predictions ? and i don't mean "what'll the weather be in NYC on the 21st April 20xx" i'd take a prediction like "the running 10yr average will increase xdeg/decade over a specific time period, let's say the '20s".

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

rconnor - I am going to agree with David on this. I believe that the onus is on the proponents of a hypothesis to positively demonstrate the evidence for their hypothesis. I will certainly cling to the "climate has changed before" approach, unless and until a positive hypothesis can likewise be demonstrated regarding the causation of the prior changes.

Regarding my climate-gate (stupid name, BTW) quote, indeed you are correct that the papers mentioned were included. However, trying to demonstrate that other papers were excluded is equivalent to proving a negative. It does, however, definitely show the mens rea of some of the active participants.

Also, although we can agree that the entire earth's system appears to be accumulating energy, I think that we also have to acknowledge that the atmosphere is NOT the repository of this energy. If the metric (flawed though it may be) is air temperatures, multiple metrics are indeed showing no increase in temperature...

There are two different things here. They are being conflated but they are certainly not the same:

1) In order to hypothesize a counter-theory, you need a mechanism. Therefore, “climate has changed before” is not a counter-theory. (what I was originally saying and still remains true)
2) In order to disprove a theory, you need to conclusively demonstrate that the predictions of the theory do not agree with observations. Therefore, you do not need a counter-theory to disprove a theory. (what you are arguing and I agree with that)

However, as has been demonstrated 11 times, a short term hiatus in the warming of surface temperatures is expected during La Nina dominated periods. Furthermore, these periods should come with decreasing rates of OHC in the upper ocean and increasing rates of OHC in the deep ocean. That is exactly what we are seeing. Therefore, it has not been conclusively demonstrated that the predictions of the theory do not agree with observations. Quite the opposite – without some sort of energy imbalance, you’d expect to see OHC oscillate between ENSO periods above and below a reference point (+ve anomalies and –ve anomalies). The fact you see steady increases in OHC supports the theory.

This (alone) merely get’s us to correlation. I’d love to discuss causation vs correlation more with you but you begin to see how zdas04’s blind and unsupported rejections are baseless and his refusal to acknowledge counter-arguments makes any discourse impossible.

To understand what I have to deal with, let’s continue my last post. Try and convince me that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Try it!

I’ll either reject the data as incomplete (after all, you’re missing links in the fossil record) or distrust the method (after all, carbon dating is corrupted and not accurate) or dismiss peer reviewed papers (after all, the scientific community is just bowing to the “old earth” shrine and blocks any REAL research from being published). I’ll provide just as many references to support my claim as zdas has (zero…maybe I’ll reference the odd Young Earth blog here and there). If you write out a comprehensive, well-referenced rebuttal, I won’t bother reading it. That’s how you ensure you win an argument without actually engaging in it. I can conclude, with absolute certainty, that the theory the earth is 4.5 billion years old is wrong (sorry to the 62+ year olds, your anecdotal evidence has no merit).

This is not analogous to people such as TGS4 or rb1957, hence why we can have meaningful conversations.

One might observe that being nagged rarely results in positive communication. If I want to be moaned at I can go into a meeting full of managers. At least they pay me and sometimes useful things happen.

Anyway, I agree, ENSO could result in the deviance of the models from the real world. However, the models seem to have been calibrated without ENSO in the past. Yet the short term fidelity of those models is heralded as proof of their accuracy. As I'm sure you know from engineering, if you chase the noise in a process then the statistics of that process get worse, not better. So it seems to me that rather than tuning the climate models to follow the ups and and downs of ENSO they'd be more likely to succeed if they took a decadal viewpoint, and of course the same from now on, until they develop ocean models of respectable accuracy.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Sorry to disappoint you rconnor, but I have no interest in trying to prove the age of the earth. It's been here my whole life and my grandparents told me (anecdote) that it had been here all of their lives. AND there is no one trying to take my money, my standard of living, or my ability to pay my electric bill based on an interpretation of the output of computer models setting the age of the earth at 4.5 billion, 6,000, or 61 years.

That is what you are simply not understanding. If it weren't for political consequences this would be an interesting discussion and possibly marginally useful. But the President of the United States has directed the EPA to fundamentally end coal-fired power plants. The talking heads are saying that it is likely that his State of the Union address tonight will call for some form of carbon tax. Regardless of any consensus, the data, the models, the theories do not support this. In spite of the terror-mongering by the IPCC, by the media, and by the "Hollywood Elite" (whatever that means), the state of this science is not adequate to support these policies. It is just ones and zeros in a computer model. About the same overall validity as a game of "Ms Pacman" (maybe "World of Warcraft").

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

For what it's worth:

http://news.yahoo.com/watch-63-years-climate-chang...

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

From the article:

Quote (Gavin Schmidt)

“While one year or one season can be affected by random weather events, this analysis shows the necessity for continued, long-term monitoring.”

I couldn't agree more.

What I found most interesting was the non-homogeneous nature of the changes. Such observations sure puts to further questioning any proxy-temperature reconstructions from isolated sites (Yamal anyone?).

Perhaps in another 63x2 years we might have enough data to start being able to properly test any hypotheses about our global climate. I look forward to having great-grandchildren involved in such truly scientific endeavors.

JohnRBaker,
That is pretty scary. It is supposed to be. Read the text. From calm green to scary red is 1.1°F total change. When the instruments have an uncertainty of ±0.5°F (at best, some of them are ±5°F. I've never seen a contour interval that was smaller than the uncertainty of the data used for anything except for propaganda. When NASA is a propaganda instrument you really have to wonder how desperate their political masters are.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

JRB's gif is from a video ...
http://www.stuffintheair.com/ClimateChangeGlobalWa...

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

ok, my link is bad, and the video is lower down on JRB's link ...

this looks to me to be model output ... 2013 looks much hotter than 1998.
i don't know how BGR news is but using words like "horrifying" suggests to me the message they're trying to put out.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Quote (zdas04)

That is pretty scary. It is supposed to be. Read the text. From calm green to scary red is 1.1°F total change.

By “calm green” do you mean “cool blue”?
By “scary red” do you mean “warm red”? (like every other temperature scale?)
By 1.1 do you mean 4 (-2 to 2)?
By °F do you mean °C?

Your conflating the 2013 total anomaly with the graphic. As the 1.1°F value is the average across all stations, the uncertainty is not that of a single station.

JohnRBarker,

Why link to yahoo news (which links to some other random site)? Go to NASA page where this video comes from.

Another interesting image from the same article: