General AGW discussion thread [Archive] - Page 4

nauthiz

2009-Mar-25, 11:17 PM

It's amazing how staunchly these entrenched ideas are defended here
Staunchly defending your ideas as fiercely as you can is a hallmark of scientific debate. It is also not inconsistent with open-mindedness. I would point out that I, for one, have repeatedly offered hints in the direction of what kind of evidence I would find convincing. Actively offering people advice about how to go about changing my mind is the very opposite of closed-mindedness. That nobody seems to want to follow it, alternatively, indicate why the kind of evidence I'm looking for is wrong-minded is not something that can be held against me.

while mainstream science is becoming more open-minded to the conflicting ideas, information, data, and convictions of scientists.
I would point out that in this thread I've recently provided concrete evidence of mainstream science acknowledging the conflicting nature of a lot of the information we have - ie, AR4 WG1 ch6.

Pointing out that the data does not always present a perfectly clear picture does not end the debate and declare it in favor of folks who believe that the AGW hypothesis is incorrect. In light of that, it's just plain silly to think that continued support for the AGW hypothesis implies unwillingness to even consider evidence to the contrary. It merely implies an opinion that the sum total of evidence to the contrary that one has seen so far is not compelling.

Global warmng hoax/swindle Google hits have topped a million. While no indication of validity, it's certainly an indication of widespread interest and attention, and there are loads of scientists out there on some of those links.
Argumentum ad populum is most definitely not the kind of evidence that I would find compelling. ;) At least where I live, for example, there's also a widespread anti-evolution constituency which includes loads of scientists.

Gillianren

2009-Mar-25, 11:34 PM

I've made a couple of predictions on this forum which are numerically testable, but the short term wimble of co2 can't be one of them, sorry.

Convenient for you. That means it isn't ever necessarily going to be enough to prove you wrong. Not even an "at least"?

If I see the global average temperature heading generally upwards over the next 15 years I'll eat my hat, and lose $1000. My money is where my mouth is.

Fifteen years, huh? Well, that's a nice, long time that could spell disaster for quite a lot of people.

It's not real science. It's computer games and bad analysis, and a lot of well meaning, well funded, but gullible graduates, all backed up by a lot of rhetoric and a political agenda.

Okay, that's an argument that holds no weight to me. "Political agenda"? Have you not been paying attention to the political climate in the US over the last eight years? AGW experts have assuredly not been in good favour in the US for nearly a decade. Surely that's affected funding, given how much funding is from the government. Private funding? Sure. How much of that isn't from corporations with a vested interest?

Stroller

2009-Mar-26, 06:22 AM

Convenient for you. That means it isn't ever necessarily going to be enough to prove you wrong. Not even an "at least"?

Sorry, no. Interannual variability is too variable for that.

Fifteen years, huh? Well, that's a nice, long time that could spell disaster for quite a lot of people.

I know. A cap and trade carbon tax means a lot of folks could get very cold. Biofuel policy means a lot of folks might go hungry. Lets hope we can get the bad science debunked quickly enough to put the lie to the policies. The real aim of Hansen, Schneider and the rest of the Club of Rome cabal is to drastically cut world population. Read a few of the quotes on this page before replying.
http://www.green-agenda.com/

Okay, that's an argument that holds no weight to me. "Political agenda"? Have you not been paying attention to the political climate in the US over the last eight years? AGW experts have assuredly not been in good favour in the US for nearly a decade. Surely that's affected funding, given how much funding is from the government. Private funding? Sure. How much of that isn't from corporations with a vested interest?

Very good question. Steven Schnieder and the hockey jockeys don't seem to have been short of funding to jet around the world peddling their storyline at umteen conferences. How good do you think their carbon footprint looks?

One thing to note about the Bush presidency is that the global temperature didn't rise during it.

By the way, Freeman Dyson is at it again...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/25/freeman-dyson-speaking-out-on-global-warming/

Stroller

2009-Mar-26, 08:06 AM

No offense, but coming from someone whose version of science seems to largely consist of tinkering with a graphing utility and acting as if numerical analysis doesn't exist, that sounds a lot like throwing stones in a glass house.

When people start a sentence with "No offense, but...." what follows is almost invariably an ad hominem attack.

I keep having to tinker with the graphing utility because Ari, bless him, has difficulty understanding what is important in the selection of parameters and what is not. So for example, to deal with his complaint that the start dates and averaging period are not identical I've had to tinker with the graphing utility yet again.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/mean:13/detrend:18.5/offset:-365/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1998/mean:13/scale:8/offset:-2.6

It doesn't make any important difference of course, but hopefully he's run out of excuses now and will finally admit that co2 follows temperature.

Now, which numerical analysis did you have in mind, and is it any easier to look at a long list of figures than a graph of those figures?

William

2009-Mar-26, 09:44 AM

Of course, if the planet does abruptly cool that would settle the question of saturation vs massive CO2 forcing.

The data does appear to indicate cooling, however, at this time the cooling is modest.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html

There is at this time cooling of the ocean surface.

March 23, 2008 Surface Sea temperature anomalies.

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.3.23.2009.gif

From a mechanism standpoint a massive increase in volcanic activity would provide support for abrupt cooling. It is not the volcanic eruptions themselves, as that is short term cooling but the mechanism by which an abrupt interruption in the solar magnetic cycle can cause a massive increase in volcanic activity on the earth. There has been some increase in volcanic activity, but so far the increase in volcanic activity is also modest.

Let's try not to pick sides and get angry if one side "wins". Abrupt cooling of the planet is not a win. There should be new data to resolve this issue over this year. As new data comes in the science will change appropriately with some natural lag for people to change their minds.

Abrupt global cooling has certain environmental issues associated with it also. As the planet has abruptly cooled before and there is a long history of the glacial/interglacial cycle, it seem logical that the abrupt global cooling hypothesis deserves respect. Humanity has taken no steps to prepare for abrupt cooling for example with food storage, infrastructure, and relocation plans. At this point in time the general public do not know about the glacial/interglacial cycle and the abrupt cooling events in the paleo climatic record.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

The finding of Douglass et al that the tropical troposphere has not warmed, that there is in the past multiple periods when there is not correlation of CO2 levels and planetary temperature, and so forth seems to challenge the fundamental premises of the CO2 hypothesis. Douglass et al's data and analysis is not refuted.

The paper that attempted to refute Douglass et al. analyzed tropical tropospheric wind speeds. The authors of the tropical tropospheric wind speed paper said that analysis of tropical tropospheric wind speeds showed that the tropical troposphere had warmed even though the temperature data does not show warming.

That conclusion is odd because the tropical tropospheric temperature measurements were made using multiple methods and by different people.

nauthiz

2009-Mar-26, 02:19 PM

When people start a sentence with "No offense, but...." what follows is almost invariably an ad hominem attack.

I keep having to tinker with the graphing utility because Ari, bless him, has difficulty understanding what is important in the selection of parameters and what is not. So for example, to deal with his complaint that the start dates and averaging period are not identical. . .

It may sound like an ad hominem, but it was no more of an ad hominem than the comment it was written in response to because my criticism was focused on your analysis technique. Coincidentally, challenging the analytical methods is one of the classic examples of what you should go for instead of the ad hom. And really, it's quite a bit less of an ad hominem, since I didn't mention politics or anything like that.

:naughty: Stones in glass houses.

Either of them alone wouldn't be such a big deal. And either of them being different at the same time isn't necessarily a big deal, it just is if you're working over a very short time period or if you're choosing an averaging periods that might interact strangely with existing cyclical patterns in the data.

Interacting strangely with cyclical patterns, btw, is exactly what the graph you just posted does. Look how different it is if you make the averaging period 1 year, rather than 1.083 years. When you're working with monthly samples, you really do need to pick an averaging period that is a factor or multiple of 12.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/mean:12/detrend:18.5/offset:-365/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1998/mean:12/scale:8/offset:-2.6

Also, you gotta make sure you know what you're doing with that Detrend option. . . look what happens when we pick the wrong detrend value for a different time period. . . we don't get the squiggles we want.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1990/mean:12/detrend:18.5/offset:-365/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1990/mean:12/scale:8/offset:-2.6

Stroller

2009-Mar-26, 03:34 PM

Interacting strangely with cyclical patterns, btw, is exactly what the graph you just posted does. Look how different it is if you make the averaging period 1 year, rather than 1.083 years. When you're working with monthly samples, you really do need to pick an averaging period that is a factor or multiple of 12.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/mean:12/detrend:18.5/offset:-365/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1998/mean:12/scale:8/offset:-2.6

Also, you gotta make sure you know what you're doing with that Detrend option. . . look what happens when we pick the wrong detrend value for a different time period. . . we don't get the squiggles we want.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1990/mean:12/detrend:18.5/offset:-365/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1990/mean:12/scale:8/offset:-2.6

I fixed that for you.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1990/mean:12/detrend:33.5/offset:-352/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/mean:12/scale:8/offset:-2.6

Anyway, both your graphs still show a big fat lag so I don't mind which way you slice it and dice it.

William

2009-Mar-26, 03:54 PM

As plants require CO2 to live and CO2 is currently only 0.03% by volume (the lowest level in 500 million years) an increase in CO2 on this planet’s plants is unequivocally beneficial.

The science to support this assertion is not new, disputed, or controversial. Currently CO2 is injected into greenhouses to increase plant growth and yield. A doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere enables plants to survive with 30% less water which reduces desertification and irrigation requirements.

The benefit is planet wide, so the entire biosphere benefits.

http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/greenhouse_co2_generators_from_a.htm

http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/use_of_co2_in_a_greenhouse.htm

Does anyone in this forum dispute that statement?

Desertification P.Sinha

http://books.google.ca/books?id=jZb2Qq9cEz0C&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=Desertification++CO2+Levels+C3+Plants&source=bl&ots=eh6yLwyyeN&sig=WrhGi0OVb6faQpAzdyaZpL1LNZs&hl=en&ei=bJvLSffHDImGsQPs_82wCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

While scientists disagree about the likely effects of additional carbon dioxide on global temperature… … agree on another important effect of a rise in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, as it is projected, would increase plant production by almost one-third (1/3). Most plants would grow faster and bigger, with increases in… The number of fruits and flowers would increase. Root/top ratios would increase, giving many plants better root systems for access to water and nutrients.

…C3 plants respond most dramatically to higher levels of CO2. At current levels of CO2, up to half of the photosynthate in C3 plants is typically lost and returned to the air by a process called photo-respiration, which occurs simultaneously with photosynthesis in sunlight.

Elevated levels of atmospheric C02 virtually eliminate photo-respiration in C3 plants. Higher levels of CO2 also sharply reduce …

C4 plants also experience a boost in photosynthesis in response to a higher carbon dioxide level…

…the largest benefit for C4 plants received from high CO2 levels comes from reduced water loss. Loss of water through leaf pores declines by about 30 per cent in C4 with a doubling of CO2 concentration from the current atmosphere.

Comments:
Plants have develop evolutionary methods to survive with the current ultra low levels of CO2. At around 120 ppm almost all C3 plants die. CO2 levels reached 0.018% during the glacial phase which killed off a large number of C3 plants (Trees and other broad leaf plants. C4 plants, grasses can survive with less CO2). During the glacial phase 1/3 of the amazon rain forest became savanna (grassland) due to a lack of CO2 and less precipitation, as a colder planet has significantly less rainfall.

nauthiz

2009-Mar-26, 04:05 PM

I fixed that for you.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1990/mean:12/detrend:33.5/offset:-352/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/mean:12/scale:8/offset:-2.6

Anyway, both your graphs still show a big fat lag so I don't mind which way you slice it and dice it.

But I'm still not sure I understand what you're doing with the detrend option. What are you using it for, and how are you choosing what slope to use?

It seems like a detrend would only serve to artificially remove the very signal we're supposed to be discussing, since the question is whether a long-term rise in CO2 levels is associated with a long-term rise in global temperatures.

Detrending to remove the long-term variation (essentially leaving us with only the intraannual variation), as far as I can figure, would only be able to give us a graph that tells us whether CO2 drives seasonal variations in temperature. I don't know about you, but I was never under the impression that that is the case - I thought seasons were mostly due to changes in the planet's axial tilt with relation to the sun throughout the course of its orbit.

Here's the same graph, but with detrending and 12-month averaging removed:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1990/offset:-352/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1990/scale:8/offset:-2.6

The scale factor is also tricky. Compare these two longer-term graphs:

Without scaling: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/offset:-352/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1960/offset:-2.6/mean:12
With scaling of the HadCRUT data (and re-offsetting of the CO2 data to get them in the same neighborhood): http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/offset:-340/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1960/offset/mean:12/scale:100

ETA: This is part of why I'd much rather see some sort of mathematical analysis for determining if there's a relationship between the two. Graphs like this are an extremely poor tool for the task. The y-axis doesn't even have a label because the two data sets are in completely different units, and we need sully the data by fiddling with things like scale and offset for each data set in order to get a picture that even looks like anything. But by the time you're done doing that, you've created a graph that shows a funhouse mirror version of the underlying data, and therefore is fundamentally untrustworthy.

Stroller

2009-Mar-26, 04:38 PM

It seems like a detrend would only serve to artificially remove the very signal we're supposed to be discussing, since the question is whether a long-term rise in CO2 levels is associated with a long-term rise in global temperatures.
That might be what the main discussion is about, but this came up because Ari didn't believe that changes in temperature lead changes in co2 level in the modern era.

Detrending to remove the long-term variation (essentially leaving us with only the intraannual variation), as far as I can figure, would only be able to give us a graph that tells us whether CO2 drives seasonal variations in temperature.

Incorrect, nothing is removed, but the detrend enables us to see the precedence in the causal chain. The graph tells us the opposite of what you said, seasonal variations in temperature drives CO2

we need sully the data by fiddling with things like scale and offset for each data set in order to get a picture that even looks like anything. But by the time you're done doing that, you've created a graph that shows a funhouse mirror version of the underlying data, and therefore is fundamentally untrustworthy.
Incorrect. The data is still the data, and the timeline is not distorted. A 'best fit' graph showing two variables is a valid and commonly used tool in the statisticians toolbox.

Are we ready for the main discussion yet?

nauthiz

2009-Mar-26, 04:46 PM

Incorrect, nothing is removed, but the detrend enables us to see the precedence in the causal chain. The graph tells us the opposite of what you said, seasonal variations in temperature drives CO2
More specifically, it tells us seasonal variations in temperature drive seasonal changes in CO2. (ETA: Or that some third factor is driving both, but with different lag times - correlation != causation.)

Unfortunately, that observation is a red herring. The question is whether long-term trends in CO2 concentration can drive long-term changes in temperature. Since the question is about long-term trends, removing the long-term trends is exactly the wrong thing to do.

(ETA: Remember back when you said that CO2 is involved in a feedback mechanism? If feedback mechanisms exist, then the "causal chain" is either cyclical or it is not a one-way road. Think about that for a moment.)

Incorrect. The data is still the data, and the timeline is not distorted.
I was not disputing the graph's x-axis. I was disputing its y-axis.

A 'best fit' graph showing two variables is a valid and commonly used tool in the statisticians toolbox.
There are a lot of things in the statistician's toolbox that can blow up horribly if you don't know what you're doing with them. Have you ever heard the saying "Lies, damn lies, and statistics"? It's in reference to that.

Gillianren

2009-Mar-26, 04:52 PM

Read a few of the quotes on this page before replying.
http://www.green-agenda.com/

Do you really think I'm going to trust your quotes again? You never acknowledged the problems with your last batch.

One thing to note about the Bush presidency is that the global temperature didn't rise during it.

I suppose you have documentation for that claim.

By the way, Freeman Dyson is at it again...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/25/freeman-dyson-speaking-out-on-global-warming/

That's nice. When you've shown me that he knows what he's talking about above people who put all their scientific focus into the subject, that will mean more to me than what they say.

Stroller

2009-Mar-26, 05:12 PM

More specifically, *snip*

You read what I wrote about the main discussion, and yet you try to spin this to make it appear I'm trying to hoodwink you.

:naughty:

When you are ready for the main discussion let me know.

Stroller

2009-Mar-26, 05:19 PM

Do you really think I'm going to trust your quotes again? You never acknowledged the problems with your last batch.

More rhetoric! It turned out my quotes were correct and by people who are sceptical of AGW, contrary to your claim half of them weren't.

I suppose you have documentation for that claim.

Yes, I have a copy of the global temperature graph personally signed in blood by Jim Hansen

That's nice. When you've shown me that he knows what he's talking about above people who put all their scientific focus into the subject, that will mean more to me than what they say.

Oh the irony! Read the article Gillian, a strong thread in it is about amateurs who turn out to get it right where 'experts' collectively get it wrong.

nauthiz

2009-Mar-26, 05:30 PM

You read what I wrote about the main discussion, and yet you try to spin this to make it appear I'm trying to hoodwink you.

:naughty:

When you are ready for the main discussion let me know.

What is this main discussion?

If it has anything to do with all the graphs that have been posted, then discussing whether or not the graphs are legitimate is quite central to the main discussion.

Gillianren

2009-Mar-26, 06:30 PM

More rhetoric! It turned out my quotes were correct and by people who are sceptical of AGW, contrary to your claim half of them weren't.

You didn't even bother to defend most of them yourself, I'll note.

Yes, I have a copy of the global temperature graph personally signed in blood by Jim Hansen

Since you've consistently shown that you don't understand the science, you'll understand when I say that I don't just take your word for things.

Oh the irony! Read the article Gillian, a strong thread in it is about amateurs who turn out to get it right where 'experts' collectively get it wrong.

Yes. How often does that happen, exactly? In any field? I'm sure Dyson gets infuriated by amateurs who tell him he's wrong about quantum physics.

nauthiz

2009-Mar-26, 06:34 PM

Yes. How often does that happen, exactly? In any field? I'm sure Dyson gets infuriated by amateurs who tell him he's wrong about quantum physics.

At the very least, I don't think he'd be impressed by an amateur whose support for that opinion consists of insisting on an incorrect understanding of how quantum physics works and then presenting evidence to show that that misunderstanding is incorrect.

Stroller

2009-Mar-26, 07:59 PM

What is this main discussion?

If it has anything to do with all the graphs that have been posted, then discussing whether or not the graphs are legitimate is quite central to the main discussion.

You are the one who said what the main discussion was. Have you forgotten already?

the question is whether a long-term rise in CO2 levels is associated with a long-term rise in global temperatures.

nauthiz

2009-Mar-26, 09:02 PM

And exactly how does this not relate to that?

More specifically, it tells us seasonal variations in temperature drive seasonal changes in CO2. (ETA: Or that some third factor is driving both, but with different lag times - correlation != causation.)

Unfortunately, that observation is a red herring. The question is whether long-term trends in CO2 concentration can drive long-term changes in temperature. Since the question is about long-term trends, removing the long-term trends is exactly the wrong thing to do.

(ETA: Remember back when you said that CO2 is involved in a feedback mechanism? If feedback mechanisms exist, then the "causal chain" is either cyclical or it is not a one-way road. Think about that for a moment.)

I even re-iterate almost exactly the same sentence in the middle paragraph.

Stroller

2009-Mar-26, 09:13 PM

And exactly how does this not relate to that?

That might be what the main discussion is about, but this came up because Ari didn't believe that changes in temperature lead changes in co2 level in the modern era.

So are you going to present any real evidence that long term rises in co2 cause long term rises in temperature?

nauthiz

2009-Mar-26, 09:29 PM

Stroller

2009-Mar-26, 09:47 PM

My evidence still lies in the following:

a) At the most basic level, the fact that many of these factors are called climate forcings means that altering them can influence the climate.
b) On top of that, a large number of climate models based on what researchers have been able to determine about exactly how these forcings interact with the climate have been shown to have adequate precision when it comes to making testable predictions about how forcings influence climate.
c) These same models cannot reproduce the contemporary climate record if anthropogenic forcings are not taken into account.

a) So if I call my dog a climate forcing, and then cut his hair, will that influence the climate too?
b) Computer games. Give me the proof of adequate precision and the testable predictions and we'll take a look.
c) They could if they lowered the ridiculous negative forcing they assign to aerosols, and took account of the positive phases of oceanic cycles. Even a random walk model (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/85655-did-global-warming-happen-chance.html) can reproduce the C20th warming, it's so last millenium.

So that's it? Nomenclature and computer models? What about real science? You know, empirical observations and boring stuff like that?

As for the Ari thing, I might have missed something but I was under the impression that his case all along was that CO2 does lag temperature variations in many cases, but that does not falsify the idea that changes in CO2 levels cannot have an influence on the climate. I read his disputes about the graphs as simply pointing out that many of the graphs you were presenting had been constructed in ways that caused them to misrepresent the truth. Possibly that was a misreading, but for my part I do believe that seasonal variations can influence CO2 levels, but at the same time agree that the graphs in question were subject to a number of serious problems that needed to be addressed simply for the sake of making sure that what we're looking at is realistic.

Well, we've done the graph thing to death, and they all show that temperature leads co2 at all timescales. Unless you can find one that doesn't?

nauthiz

2009-Mar-26, 11:20 PM

a) So if I call my dog a climate forcing, and then cut his hair, will that influence the climate too?
Well, you can't just call your dog a climate forcing. What you can do is study him, collect some data, and develop a theory about how he interacts with certain parts of the climate. Then you can test parts of that theory in the lab to see if they hold up, and, if they do, proceed to compare the theory to remote sensing and ground truth data and make sure everything lines up there, too. If your idea holds up after all of that, then yes, it's fair to call your dog a climate forcing.

b)Computer games. Give me the testable predictions and we'll take a look.
Do you even know how global climate models work? Have you, say, ever heard of the Navier-Stokes equations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier-Stokes)? Would you care to propose a better way of doing the millions and millions of calculations involved in working out all the fluid interactions involved?

c) They could if they lowered the ridiculous negative forcing they assign to aerosols, and took account of the positive phases of oceanic cycles.
Could you elaborate on that? What's wrong with the handling of aerosols? What are the inadequacies of the AOGCM's with regards to handling oceanic cycles and what sort of influence do they have on mean temperature predictions?

So that's it? Nomenclature and computer models? What about real science? You know, empirical observations and boring stuff like that?
It turns out that another important part of real science is developing mathematical models that can describe the empirical observations (what you apparently dismiss as nomenclature) and then working through those mathematical models to verify that their predictions match the empirical data (what you apparently dismiss as computer games).

nauthiz

2009-Mar-26, 11:41 PM

Well, we've done the graph thing to death, and they all show that temperature leads co2 at all timescales. Unless you can find one that doesn't?
I don't know that I could, and frankly I don't know if I want to try. Way back when, I made the point that the anthropogenic component of any forcing's effect on the climate is not supposed to be something that can be clearly illustrated on a graph. The idea that it would be is, as far as I can figure, something that could only come out of a very simplistic concept of how the whole shebang is supposed to fit together.

nauthiz

2009-Mar-26, 11:47 PM

Even a random walk model (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/85655-did-global-warming-happen-chance.html) can reproduce the C20th warming, it's so last millenium.

Awesome. Now gimme a random walk model that can reliably simulate the northern and southern annular modes, and I'll be ready to entertain the idea that the climate really is random.

William

2009-Mar-26, 11:57 PM

nauthiz

2009-Mar-27, 12:20 AM

As noted the warming has stopped and there is modest cooling.
Also note that the graph shows that having happened more than once in the past.

orionjim

2009-Mar-27, 01:01 AM

nauthiz

2009-Mar-27, 01:22 AM

Try this:
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=11636&tid=282&cid=19947

It's an interesting experiment, but the ultimate conclusion of that writeup is that there may be random elements, but the annular modes cannot be completely described by a stochastic process. From the author's projects page:

A simple model of this process suffices to explain the majority of intra- and interseasonal variability of the atmosphere’s annular modes, but importantly, the atmosphere-only stochastic model cannot explain all of the variability: we identify the parts of the data which require a process like ocean-atmosphere coupling to complete the explanation.

Thanks for the link, btw - I poked around on his site some more, and he's doing some interesting work with Enceladus (http://www.whoi.edu/hpb/viewPage.do?id=6997&cl=3) and Europa (http://www.whoi.edu/hpb/viewPage.do?id=6997&cl=2).

William

2009-Mar-27, 01:39 AM

Also note that the graph shows that having happened more than once in the past.

Yes the planet was cooled before and was warmed before. What is/are the mechanism(s)? As I noted there is discussion of 20 to 30 years of cooling.

The Medieval warming was 0.2C to 0.3C above the 20th century base which almost equals the late 20th century warming.

flynjack1

2009-Mar-27, 01:50 AM

This is a good summary of planetary temperature change over the last 100 years of so.

As noted the warming has stopped and there is modest cooling.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html

The historical record of climate during the Maunder minimum notes very cold springs, unusually heavy rain fall, and long periods of daily heavy rain. In the UK, during the Little Ice Age, there were crop failures due to the heavy rains in the summer.

Some of you may have already noticed this but the peaks of the noted chart coincide with the end of various sun cycles. My calibrated eye seemed to indicate that the peaks were about 2-3 years after solar max. This followed by a cooling trend during minimum, so it would follow that we would be experiencing some cooling. The real question is will the cooling continue or abate and that would seem to depend on el sol.

orionjim

2009-Mar-27, 03:06 AM

It's an interesting experiment, but the ultimate conclusion of that writeup is that there may be random elements, but the annular modes cannot be completely described by a stochastic process. From the author's projects page:

A simple model of this process suffices to explain the majority of intra- and interseasonal variability of the atmosphere’s annular modes, but importantly, the atmosphere-only stochastic model cannot explain all of the variability: we identify the parts of the data which require a process like ocean-atmosphere coupling to complete the explanation.

...

What are you asking? :confused:

You originally ask:

Awesome. Now gimme a random walk model that can reliably simulate the northern and southern annular modes, and I'll be ready to entertain the idea that the climate really is random.

This is what they found:

After running our model, we found that a great deal of the fluctuation of both the northern and southern annular modes (and the weather patterns they spawn) can be explained using the "random walk" idea.

They went on to say that some things didn’t fit:

But there were some noticeable departures. Intriguingly, we found that the air mass motions that drive the annular mode are not just like flipping a coin. In some cases they're slightly non-random, depending on the state of the annular mode; it's as if my coin was more likely to come up "heads" when I stood at one end of the hallway, and more likely "tails" at the other end. That sort of behavior can lead to long-term, semi-random oscillations in the climate that, in principle, may be predictable.

Now you are asking that what drives the annular modes to fit their coin flip model. You didn’t originally ask for that.

Note: Considering they basically used a modified coin flip model and came up close to a random walk definition then I would think that using an underlying Gaussian model with a base standard deviation set from existing data they may have nailed it.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Mar-27, 07:34 AM

One of them is that the agencies which measure temperature have been upwardly adjusting more and more as time has gone on:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/2...w-or-adjusted/

Perhaps you know the reason for this upward adjustment?
Your own "reference" gives the source for the presented graphs (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ndp019.html), but of course fails to mention that the source also gives explanations for the adjustments (here is slightly more detailed version (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html)). This is an example of ignorance being the best friend of climate denialism propaganda agents, blog writer trusts that people don't check these things for themselves, and it apparently worked in your case.

Your comments become more outlandish by the hour. I'll leave you to it.
That doesn't seem to change anything here; so far you have just presented your claims and then either ignored all comments and questions about them, or then responded just to repeat the same claim, but you don't discuss your claims.

It's not real science. It's computer games and bad analysis, and a lot of well meaning, well funded, but gullible graduates, all backed up by a lot of rhetoric and a political agenda.
We have seen here what your idea of good analysis is... lot of fabricated graphs, made up claims, and denialist blogs as primary "science" source.

The real aim of Hansen, Schneider and the rest of the Club of Rome cabal is to drastically cut world population. Read a few of the quotes on this page before replying.
http://www.green-agenda.com/
Ahh, the conspiratory theories kick in...

Neither Hansen's or Schneider's quotes there say nothing like you said.

I keep having to tinker with the graphing utility because Ari, bless him, has difficulty understanding what is important in the selection of parameters and what is not. So for example, to deal with his complaint that the start dates and averaging period are not identical I've had to tinker with the graphing utility yet again.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esr...:8/offset:-2.6
Yes, tinkering is correct expression for your actions. Now we have 13 months averaging instead of 12 months (or multiples of it) which would be correct for removing seasonal changes (which for some reason Stroller wants to remove). Nauthiz already commented on this, but I'll just add that averaging over 13 months doesn't remove all the seasonal variations which makes the result here look better for Stroller. We can see from graph averaged over 12 months (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/mean:12/detrend:18.5/offset:-365/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1998/mean:12/scale:8/offset:-2.6) that nauthiz made, that correlation between the two is not very good. Another trick Stroller uses here is false detrending. The CO2 curve has upwards slope in order to match temperature better. Removing the slope (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/mean:13/detrend:20/offset:-365/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1998/mean:13/scale:8/offset:-2.6) makes the result look much worse correlation-wise. Doing so in 12 month averaged graph makes it even worse (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/mean:12/detrend:20/offset:-365/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1998/mean:12/scale:8/offset:-2.6).

But if Stroller insists that the original graph (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/mean:13/detrend:18.5/offset:-365/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1998/mean:13/scale:8/offset:-2.6) should prove something, then let's look at it more closely. Stroller has cited this as proof that "CO2 follows temperature". Let's see... beginning of 2002 CO2 starts to rise, and continues it to the end of 2003 (early 2003 there's minor drop, though); in the beginning of 2003, temperature starts to rise, so temperature follows CO2 there. Also, early 2004, substantially smaller rise starts in CO2 and following that, temperature makes similarily smaller rise starting at end of 2004. So, even with Stroller's own "analysis methods", CO2 can be said to lead temperature.

That might be what the main discussion is about, but this came up because Ari didn't believe that changes in temperature lead changes in co2 level in the modern era.
That is a lie. I already have explained my position, in the post #661 (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-23.html#post1461054) for example. It is not about if CO2 can lead temperature or not, it is about your rubbish claims about CO2 lagging temperature at all timescales and your manipulated graphs made from global temperatures and local CO2 concentrations (and cited as proof).

Incorrect, nothing is removed, but the detrend enables us to see the precedence in the causal chain. The graph tells us the opposite of what you said, seasonal variations in temperature drives CO2
False. Your averaging over 13 months removes seasonal variations but only partly because a season is 12 months long, so your graph is faulty in seasonal variation sense. You can also check from your temperature graph that there's actually not seasonal variations there (the "cycles" last about 2 years). That means that not only are you trying to compare global things to local things, you also are trying to compare intra-annual variations (in local CO2) to interannual variations (in global temperature).

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Mar-27, 07:39 AM

It raises the question as to why the AGW mantra is so heavily defended here.
I don't know about the others, but I do object when I see false claims presented, like when I showed your claim to be false (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-15.html#post1439495) (which you ignored). it doesn't have anything to do with defending any mantras. I have no objection to showing true scepticism to climate science, or any other science.

Stroller

2009-Mar-27, 08:22 AM

Awesome. Now gimme a random walk model that can reliably simulate the northern and southern annular modes, and I'll be ready to entertain the idea that the climate really is random.

I'll tackle this one first, as it relates to your discussion with Jim.
If you read his ATM thread right through, you'll know my take on Random vs Cyclic. For your consideration I offer the following graphs.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y2787E/y2787e03b.htm#FiguraB
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y2787E/y2787e03a.htm#FiguraA

The implication is that the annular modes are affected by the atmospheric circulation patterns which are correlated with changes in LOD, length of day. In turn, these correlate rather well with the movement of the earth in relation to the Sun and planets. Small changes in our orbit induce energy exchanges between the terra firma and the atmosphere. Woe betide any modeler who ignores such fundamental geophysical processes.

There is also a correlation with the AA index (earth's magnetosphere), but we'd better not get into that or we'll be here all year.

Stroller

2009-Mar-27, 08:34 AM

Well, you can't just call your dog a climate forcing. What you can do is study him, collect some data, and develop a theory about how he interacts with certain parts of the climate. Then you can test parts of that theory in the lab to see if they hold up, and, if they do, proceed to compare the theory to remote sensing and ground truth data and make sure everything lines up there, too. If your idea holds up after all of that, then yes, it's fair to call your dog a climate forcing.

Good stuff. The problem is with the lining up the theory with the observed facts.

Do you even know how global climate models work? Have you, say, ever heard of the Navier-Stokes equations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier-Stokes)? Would you care to propose a better way of doing the millions and millions of calculations involved in working out all the fluid interactions involved?

I think the project of trying to model all the fluid interactions to calculate future climate is doomed to failure. The meteorologists can't even get a computer to tell us what'll be happening in a few days time, let alone making forecasts for overall climate for the rest of the century. Sheer hubris.

Could you elaborate on that? What's wrong with the handling of aerosols? What are the inadequacies of the AOGCM's with regards to handling oceanic cycles and what sort of influence do they have on mean temperature predictions?

For the inadequacies of the models I'll refer you to chapter 2 of the AR4 report by the IPCC. The modelers have fudged the aerosol figures to offset their overblown climate-co2 sensitivity so that it'll generate a hindcast which less rather than more, fits the historic data. Also, they don't account for important reversals:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/dust-study-suggests-only-30-of-atlantic-temp-increase-due-to-warming-climate/
"but newer climate models will need to include dust storms as a factor to accurately predict how ocean temperatures will change"

It turns out that another important part of real science is developing mathematical models that can describe the empirical observations (what you apparently dismiss as nomenclature) and then working through those mathematical models to verify that their predictions match the empirical data (what you apparently dismiss as computer games).
No, I dismissed as nomenclature the magical act of making something affect the climate by simply calling it a forcing, as per your point (a)
Mathematical models have their place in the scientists toolbox, however, when the data is forced to fit the model, and the parameters of the model are tweaked to deliver a preconceived outcome, all is lost.

You can torture the data until it confesses
Even to crimes it did not commit.

Stroller

2009-Mar-27, 08:39 AM

ignorance ,denialism propaganda agents, fabricated graphs, made up claims, conspiratory theories, tinkering, trick, a lie.

I won't discuss climate with someone who cannot keep a civil tongue in their head.

nauthiz

2009-Mar-27, 01:29 PM

Now you are asking that what drives the annular modes to fit their coin flip model. You didn’t originally ask for that.

Possibly you misinterpreted me. My implied point in the original comment you were responding to was that while I'm perfectly willing to believe that stochastic models can produce similar results, and even that the climate includes many stochastic elements, a random walk is still ultimately an incomplete model. I didn't expect that it would model the annular modes quite so well, so they may have been a poor example, but ultimately the paper still agrees with the opinion I was trying to express.

nauthiz

2009-Mar-27, 01:36 PM

The implication is that the annular modes are affected by the atmospheric circulation patterns which are correlated with changes in LOD, length of day. In turn, these correlate rather well with the movement of the earth in relation to the Sun and planets. Small changes in our orbit induce energy exchanges between the terra firma and the atmosphere. Woe betide any modeler who ignores such fundamental geophysical processes.

So, do modelers ignore changes in insolation? What about modelers who take it into account? According to the IPCC report, the AOGCMs do a pretty good job of simulating the annular modes, and insolation is included in the models I've looked at, so maybe you're just looking at the wrong models?

As far as kinetic energy exchange between the ground and the atmosphere, can you give me any more information than that? How, precisely, does it work and who has been working on it?

nauthiz

2009-Mar-27, 02:17 PM

Good stuff. The problem is with the lining up the theory with the observed facts.
You're right, that can be a problem. . . but so far you've been barking up the wrong tree at challenging carbon. Possibly you should do some research and find the work that's been done on determining how CO2 interacts with the system and verify that scientists think it works the way you think it works. Because right now, I'm still under the impression that your theory about what climatologists believe does not line up with the facts that you'd find in a research library or other decent account of how scientists think carbon is supposed to work.

I think the project of trying to model all the fluid interactions to calculate future climate is doomed to failure. The meteorologists can't even get a computer to tell us what'll be happening in a few days time, let alone making forecasts for overall climate for the rest of the century. Sheer hubris.
Answered in every single FAQ ever - here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/short-and-simple-arguments-for-why-climate-can-be-predicted/), for example. The short and sweet answer is, climate and weather are similar, but there are some important differences, particularly if you're looking for very large-scale climate parameters such as mean surface temperature on a decadal scale. In those sorts of situations the system can be much more predictable due to factors such as a more limited set of boundary conditions.

Anyway, that particular argument comes up so very often and gets answered so very many times that I'd much rather if you could give some specific complains - say, address one of the many, many responses to that question that are floating around on the Internet. We'll never get anywhere if we have to keep re-hashing aimed-from-the-hip assertions like that over and over.

As for the aerosol figures, I'll have to take some time to read more about that before I can form an opinion, so I'll be back once I've done that.

orionjim

2009-Mar-27, 03:30 PM

Possibly you misinterpreted me. My implied point in the original comment you were responding to was that while I'm perfectly willing to believe that stochastic models can produce similar results, and even that the climate includes many stochastic elements, a random walk is still ultimately an incomplete model.
...

I think I did misinterpret you. And I agree a random walk “would be/could be/is” an incomplete model. I think you, me and Stroller all agree on this. There probably is something definable driving the climate system. We do however disagree on what this driving system is.

…
I didn't expect that it would model the annular modes quite so well, so they may have been a poor example, but ultimately the paper still agrees with the opinion I was trying to express.

Quite frankly I didn’t think the random walk would model the annular modes at all, and I was surprised when I found the study. BTW, I don’t think it was a poor example; it gets at the heart of the real issue and that is – is the underlying causal system defined or even definable. This study is suggesting it might be definable, even when the resulting data says otherwise. What this study says to me is a rethink needs to be done on the system of cause and effect relationships.

nauthiz

2009-Mar-27, 04:05 PM

Quite frankly I didn’t think the random walk would model the annular modes at all, and I was surprised when I found the study. BTW, I don’t think it was a poor example; it gets at the heart of the real issue and that is – is the underlying causal system defined or even definable. This study is suggesting it might be definable, even when the resulting data says otherwise. What this study says to me is a rethink needs to be done on the system of cause and effect relationships.

Well, there's definitely some room for improvement in our understanding of the annular modes, no doubt, but I'm not sure a complete rethink is necessary, as the AOGCM's supposedly provide a fairly good simulation of the annular modes already. It might even be that a "random walk" like behavior along the lines of what Goodman was experimenting with already naturally pops out of them in much the same way that it does in the real world.

Maybe we'll see more fruit come of this paper in the future - I did a search for Goodman in AR4 and this paper didn't show up (not surprisingly considering it was published in 2006) but others did, so presumably someone's paying attention to him. That said, according to the section on annular modes in chapter 8 it looks like the most fruitful avenues of effort for improving the models is coming from improving the simulation of interactions among different portions of the climate such as troposphere/stratosphere coupling. I don't think that would necessarily be inconsistent with what's being suggested, though, since it's very plausible that such modifications could foster the emergence of more random-looking behavior.

nauthiz

2009-Mar-27, 04:49 PM

For the inadequacies of the models I'll refer you to chapter 2 of the AR4 report by the IPCC. The modelers have fudged the aerosol figures to offset their overblown climate-co2 sensitivity so that it'll generate a hindcast which less rather than more, fits the historic data. Also, they don't account for important reversals:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/dust-study-suggests-only-30-of-atlantic-temp-increase-due-to-warming-climate/
"but newer climate models will need to include dust storms as a factor to accurately predict how ocean temperatures will change"
So could you give me a page number or identify a section or something for AR4 ch2? 106 pages is a lot to try to suss through without any idea which bit you were talking about, especially when the world aerosol shows up on basically every page of it.

I found a copy of the Evan paper (it's available on his website (http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~amatoe/index.html)), so I'll take a look at it when I get a chance. I did notice, though, that another quote by the author makes it quite clear that he doesn't think his finding is particularly damaging to AGW. In a writeup of the paper (http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/03/settling_of_dust_warms_tropica.html) that he links from his homepage they have an interesting comment by another oceanographer that sums up my suspicions quite a bit more articulately than I could put it myself:

What the paper doesn't imply, says oceanographer Greg Foltz of the University of Washington, is that the previously proposed causes for warming are moot. He wrote in an email:

This does not mean that the AMO [Atlantic meridional overturning circulation] is unimportant or that global warming is unimportant (greenhouse gas emissions will most likely lead to significant warming of the tropical North Atlantic during the next few decades), but that there is a lot of natural variability (for example, volcanic eruptions and changes in dust coming off of Africa) that may obscure or enhance the global warming signal on time scales of 0-20 years.

Finally, the first paragraph of the paper itself suggests that this finding isn't exactly overturning anything that folks previously thought was a solved problem. He details a fair bit of information about the difficulties that oceanographers and climatologists have had accounting for the temperature anomaly in the tropical North Atlantic. Assuming that this particular uncertainty is known and quantified (I'll look into that when I get a moment, too), it may well be that what this finding does is indicate another way to improve the model, not call its overall validity into question.

(Also, Evans's work was based on a computer model. Aren't computer models supposed to be bunkum?)

No, I dismissed as nomenclature the magical act of making something affect the climate by simply calling it a forcing, as per your point (a)
I think maybe what ultimately happened is that you misinterpreted me.

Stroller

2009-Mar-27, 09:36 PM

So could you give me a page number or identify a section or something for AR4 ch2? 106 pages is a lot to try to suss through without any idea which bit you were talking about, especially when the world aerosol shows up on basically every page of it.

I gave the chapter and verse to lomiller1 about 10 pages ago. It feels like groundhog day around here sometimes. I just don't have the energy to wade through it all just now. Sorry.

I found a copy of the Evan paper (it's available on his website (http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~amatoe/index.html)), so I'll take a look at it when I get a chance. I did notice, though, that another quote by the author makes it quite clear that he doesn't think his finding is particularly damaging to AGW. In a writeup of the paper (http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/03/settling_of_dust_warms_tropica.html) that he links from his homepage they have an interesting comment by another oceanographer that sums up my suspicions quite a bit more articulately than I could put it myself:

There are a host of factors out there which don't behave as people thought they did. And even when they do, the stop doing it next year...

Finally, the first paragraph of the paper itself suggests that this finding isn't exactly overturning anything that folks previously thought was a solved problem. He details a fair bit of information about the difficulties that oceanographers and climatologists have had accounting for the temperature anomaly in the tropical North Atlantic. Assuming that this particular uncertainty is known and quantified (I'll look into that when I get a moment, too), it may well be that what this finding does is indicate another way to improve the model, not call its overall validity into question.

(Also, Evans's work was based on a computer model. Aren't computer models supposed to be bunkum?)

Bob tisdale has done some great work documenting and interpreting oceanic cycles and their interactions. A lot of northern hemisphere warming (most of 1980-2005 global warming) is down to the warming ocean, largely due to the dust abatement as it turns out. The AMO has gone negative for the first time in 30 years. Colder times ahead methinks.

I think maybe what ultimately happened is that you misinterpreted me.
Always possible. Still, sane people can get over it. I'm busy this weekend, so don't worry if I'm not answering. I'm busy with some research too, and need to rein in a bit on banter. You're right that a lot of the arguments just get rehashed and I'll take a bit of time out to consider where I want to take my side of the discussion. Thanks for your time and input.

nauthiz

2009-Mar-27, 10:20 PM

Also, they don't account for important reversals:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/dust-study-suggests-only-30-of-atlantic-temp-increase-due-to-warming-climate/
"but newer climate models will need to include dust storms as a factor to accurately predict how ocean temperatures will change"

OK, I finished reading the paper. The first two observations I really have on it relate to the computer models:

The first is that, as I mentioned before, this entire paper is based on computer model simulations. If you think the climate models are rubbish, then what makes you think this particular finding is compelling?

Second, the paper talks about how the models had been consistently underestimating sea surface temperatures in this region, and the efforts that had gone into figuring out why that is. There's no mention of just fudging the numbers to make it fit, as you seem to think these things are done. Furthermore, according to the paper the disconnect comes from underestimating the influence of aerosols in this region, not overestimating them. So at least in this particular case, the skew is in the opposite direction of what you were suggesting. So I'm still wondering - where did you hear about these fudge factors that you implied were built into the handling of aerosols?

Finally, my summary interpretation:

This paper doesn't do anything to discount the impact of anthropogenic forcings. The experiment he was running worked by adding a new natural source that influences aerosol forcing, but there is no indication that he did a thing to alter the way known anthropogenic forcings were being handled. If anything, his discovery that the missing factor was a natural effect and confirmation that the model becomes a whole lot more accurate when it is taken into account helps to confirm the quality of our understanding of the effect of anthropogenic forcings in this region.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Mar-28, 07:21 AM

As for the Ari thing, I might have missed something but I was under the impression that his case all along was that CO2 does lag temperature variations in many cases, but that does not falsify the idea that changes in CO2 levels cannot have an influence on the climate. I read his disputes about the graphs as simply pointing out that many of the graphs you were presenting had been constructed in ways that caused them to misrepresent the truth. Possibly that was a misreading, but for my part I do believe that seasonal variations can influence CO2 levels, but at the same time agree that the graphs in question were subject to a number of serious problems that needed to be addressed simply for the sake of making sure that what we're looking at is realistic.
Yes, you have understood my point of view correctly.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Mar-28, 07:27 AM

I won't discuss climate with someone who cannot keep a civil tongue in their head.
Oh, sorry. I thought you would understand me better if I would use your own argumentation style. By the way, if you claim that I believe something that I don't actually believe (and have even said otherwise in public), then I know it is a lie.

So, this means that you won't respond to my arguments now... how is that different to before then?

b) Computer games. Give me the proof of adequate precision and the testable predictions and we'll take a look.
Keller (2003) (http://www.thescientificworldjournal.com/headeradmin/upload/2003.03.26.pdf) and Keller (2007) (http://www.thescientificworldjournal.com/headeradmin/upload/2007.03.91.pdf) are good place to start on this. Keller (2007) says (CFK03 is the Keller 2003 paper):

In CFK03, I gave several examples of significant predictive capability from predicting the actual warming twenty years in advance to simulating accurate ocean warming in different ocean basins before the data corroborating it were known.

And:

Perhaps the most dramatic prediction was that the middle troposphere was warming as much or more than the surface. For a decade models were attacked because reductions of satellite and radiosonde data (see Section 1) were showing no such warming. Thus, it was said that, if the models couldn't even get this fundamental aspect of climate correctly, how could we put faith in any of their more general predictions? Today we know that the data reductions were the ones in error and that the models were correct all along.

This is also worth a read (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm).

c) They could if they lowered the ridiculous negative forcing they assign to aerosols,...
Above mentioned Keller (2007) also talks about aerosols:

Satellite data and laboratory study are beginning to quantify this effect, and it is seen that in some cases the net cooling caused by heavy concentrations can still nearly cancel the warming effect of AGHGs[6,24].

And:

Nowhere has this effect been better observed than in the Indian Ocean as reported by Ramanathan and colleagues[39,10]. In a large multi-year observational exercise called INDOEX, they documented large "brown cloud" pollution moving south from the Indian subcontinent. This caused global dimming and the northern Indian Ocean cooled, thus reducing evaporation and consequent monsoon rains by some 10% since the 1950s. Meanwhile the southern Indian Ocean has continued to warm with the rest of the planet resulting in increased rainfall in parts of the Sahel in Africa.
So, just as pretty much everything else relating to AGW, cooling effect of aerosols is based on observations. Let's just add Kaufman et al. (2005) (http://aerocenter.gsfc.nasa.gov/ae/pub/anthropogenic-aer.pdf) as further example of observations of aerosol forcing (they indeed find aerosols to have a cooling effect).

So that's it? Nomenclature and computer models? What about real science? You know, empirical observations and boring stuff like that?
I see that you missed practically all of the papers I have mentioned in this thread. They are about observations. Why not try to find out yourself about the real science? The information is available for you. It is not in those denialist blogs you keep citing, though. If you only read them, you end up thinking that whole climate science is only about made up models, and that those models ignore just about everything else but CO2 for which the forcing is only guessed. But wait a minute, didn't somebody make some claims that climate models ignore this and that even in this thread, and weren't those claims shown to be nonsense?

nauthiz

2009-Mar-28, 03:20 PM

Yes, you have understood my point of view correctly.

Even with the can/cannot substitution in place? :doh:

nauthiz

2009-Mar-28, 03:31 PM

Why not try to find out yourself about the real science? The information is available for you. It is not in those denialist blogs you keep citing, though.

Well, to be fair it often is, to the extent that the blogs are a decent place to find out about new research. But to reliably find out what the research says, you have to look at the paper. And to be fair again, this tends to be true for the blogs on both sides of the debate - regardless of the particular ideology, the climate blogs tend to be about quote mining and spin as much as anything else.

Stroller

2009-Mar-30, 01:47 PM

I think maybe what ultimately happened is that you misinterpreted me.

To use my favorite example, when researchers have observed that global cloud cover decreases with warming, they have assumed that the warming caused the cloud cover to dissipate. This would be a positive feedback since such a response by clouds would let more sunlight in and enhance the warming.

But what they have ignored is the possibility that causation is actually working in the opposite direction: That the decrease in cloud cover caused the warming…not the other way around. And as shown by Spencer and Braswell (2008 J. Climate), this can mask the true existence of negative feedback.

All 20 of the IPCC climate models now have positive cloud feedbacks, which amplify the small about of warming from extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But if cloud feedbacks in the climate system are negative, then the climate system does not particularly care how much you drive your SUV. This is an issue of obvious importance to global warming research. Even the IPCC has admitted that cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in predicting global warming.

Significantly, our new work provides a method for identifying which direction of causation is occurring (forcing or feedback), and for obtaining a more accurate estimate of feedback in the presence of clouds forcing a temperature change. The method involves a new way of analyzing graphs of time filtered satellite observations of the Earth (or even of climate model output).

Well…at least I thought it was new way of analyzing graphs. It turns out that we have simply rediscovered a method used in other physical sciences: phase space analysis. This methodology was first introduced by Willard Gibbs in 1901.

This is what I'm on about with repect to calling some things forcings and others feedbacks. They can be both at the same time. Co2 is a weak forcing, but as the lead of temperature shows, it is also a feedback.

Clouds are probably the most important forcing/feedback in the climate system. As the discussion between Ari and myself many pages back showed, we have woefully inadequate data on long term cloud albedo. Why is the IPCC not putting any effort into rectifying this? There is one satllite which can't measure cloud albedo poperly, and one shoestring operation called the earthshine project, which is obviously underfunded.

This doesn't make sense to me.

Then again, you can't tax clouds...

nauthiz

2009-Mar-30, 03:44 PM

Stroller

2009-Mar-30, 04:34 PM

Hey, I think I recognize that name - isn't he also a somewhat prominent cdesign proponentsist? :silenced:

Anyway, obviously just going for the ad hom is no fair, so I'll take a closer look. Here's the original source (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/03/set-phasers-on-stun/), btw, and the paper (http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-08.pdf) he's talking about. I'll give 'em a look-through and report back.

In the meantime, I asked a couple questions in my comments on the aerosols paper. . .

If a man's science is to be judged by his religion, we'll have to manage without Newton and quite a few others too.

I think you'll find Spencer's arguments don't rely on "God made the fluffy white clouds to keep earth cool" ;)

I'll take a look at your questions.

Stroller

2009-Mar-30, 04:44 PM

If you think the climate models are rubbish, then what makes you think this particular finding is compelling?
according to the paper the disconnect comes from underestimating the influence of aerosols in this region, not overestimating them. So at least in this particular case, the skew is in the opposite direction of what you were suggesting. So I'm still wondering - where did you hear about these fudge factors that you implied were built into the handling of aerosols?

This paper doesn't do anything to discount the impact of anthropogenic forcings. The experiment he was running worked by adding a new natural source that influences aerosol forcing, but there is no indication that he did a thing to alter the way known anthropogenic forcings were being handled. If anything, his discovery that the missing factor was a natural effect and confirmation that the model becomes a whole lot more accurate when it is taken into account helps to confirm the quality of our understanding of the effect of anthropogenic forcings in this region.

Evan clearly knows how to get a paper published. Perhaps Roy Spencer could do with a consultation. Aerosols have been overestimated as a negative forcing in the GCM's to help offset an overinflated co2 sensitivity. This graph (http://1.2.3.13/bmi/img175.imageshack.us/img175/2107/modeleextraev0.png) shows part of the problem. According to GISS, Pinatubo started negatively forcing temperature years before it errupted...

Evan's findings show a major instance where the decline in dust has meant that over the last 30 years, the negative forcing has diminished in a region of the world which is crucial to the whole 'global warming' thang. Truth is, it has always been more a northern hemispheric warming than a global warming. The positive phase of the AMO plus the diminishing dust has meant the Atlantic has warmed considerably faster than other oceans, and represents a large part of the warming signal (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/22/the-impact-of-the-north-atlantic-and-volcanic-aerosols-on-short-term-global-sst-trends/).

But it has bog all to do with co2.

nauthiz

2009-Mar-30, 04:54 PM

Evan clearly knows how to get a paper published. Perhaps Roy Spencer could do with a consultation. Aerosols have been overestimated as a negative forcing in the GCM's to help offset an overinflated co2 sensitivity. Evan's findings show a major instance where the decline in dust has meant that over the last 30 years, the negative forcing has diminished in a region of the world which is crucial to the whole 'global warming' thang. Truth is, it has always been more a northern hemispheric warming than a global warming. The positive phase of the AMO plus the diminishing dust has meant the Atlantic has warmed considerably faster than other oceans, and represents a large part of the warming signal.

But it has bog all to do with co2.

That didn't answer either of my questions. Here they are again:

- Do you have any sort of source for this information about the impact of aerosols being overestimated? I'm asking for some tangible scientific information here, not just a re-iteration of your original statement.

- Why do you think this paper, whose findings are heavily based on computer modeling, is valid, even though you earlier dismissed computer modeling as a worthless technique?

Gillianren

2009-Mar-30, 05:41 PM

If a man's science is to be judged by his religion, we'll have to manage without Newton and quite a few others too.

Did Newton himself make it an issue? Cdesign proponentsists are doing sloppy science in one field; it is not unreasonable to assume they are doing sloppy science in another unless evidence can be provided that the science is valid.

nauthiz

2009-Mar-30, 06:00 PM

Cdesign proponentsists are doing sloppy science in one field; it is not unreasonable to assume they are doing sloppy science in another unless evidence can be provided that the science is valid.

. . . although, in case it wasn't noticed the first time I mentioned it, I took the time to find the paper in question and am working my way through it in order to see for myself whether the science is valid.

Without doing that, though, we're still in the realm of deciding whether or not to believe something just because some guy (with some letters after his name, I'll grant) said so. Within the bounds of that realm the issue isn't being approached rigorously in the first place, so why not trot out the ad hominem? What's another unrigourous approach between friends? Actually it's not even another, considering that there was a recent attempt to offhandedly dismiss all researchers who believe there is an anthropogenic component to climate change as being politically motivated. So, to correct myself, what's wrong with taking advantage of a logical fallacy that's already on the table?

Stroller

2009-Mar-30, 06:34 PM

Did Newton himself make it an issue? Cdesign proponentsists are doing sloppy science in one field; it is not unreasonable to assume they are doing sloppy science in another unless evidence can be provided that the science is valid.

About a third of Newton's published output was about his unconventional religious views. Challenged on these by Sir Edmund Halley (Yes, the man who's name is on the comet) He replied:
"I have studied it, you Sir, have not!"

Which pretty much is what I'll say to you too, Madam.

In other words, since the only evidence of Spencer's correctness you would accept would be that provided by your own reading of his work, I suggest you read his work.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research

Stroller

2009-Mar-30, 06:39 PM

That didn't answer either of my questions. Here they are again:

- Do you have any sort of source for this information about the impact of aerosols being overestimated? I'm asking for some tangible scientific information here, not just a re-iteration of your original statement.

I just linked a graph for you to look at which has a strong negative forcing starting several years before Pinatubo errupted. Let's start there.

- Why do you think this paper, whose findings are heavily based on computer modeling, is valid, even though you earlier dismissed computer modeling as a worthless technique?

No I didn't. I said that modelling was a useful tool in the statisticians box, but when the parameters get distorted and the data gets adjusted to fit the desired outcome, all is lost.

Gillianren

2009-Mar-30, 07:03 PM

About a third of Newton's published output was about his unconventional religious views. Challenged on these by Sir Edmund Halley (Yes, the man who's name is on the comet) He replied:
"I have studied it, you Sir, have not!"

Which pretty much is what I'll say to you too, Madam.

So you're equating crackpot religious ideas with your science? You're also implying that I'm not educated enough to know who Sir Edmund Halley was, despite the fact that I have, in another thread, corrected the spelling thereof. I'm also going to correct you--it's whose name is on the comet, not who's.

In other words, since the only evidence of Spencer's correctness you would accept would be that provided by your own reading of his work, I suggest you read his work.

Not true. Bluntly, I don't know enough to understand a properly-written, properly-researched paper on climatology. I do indeed rely on the work of other people. However, unlike you, I prefer to rely on other people who have actually shown evidence of doing enough research to know what they're talking about. I don't blindly parrot the words of economists and quantum physicists without evidence that they know a thing about climatology. Now, Roy Spencer is indeed a climatologist. I believe you've brought him up before. However, I don't really look on him as a reliable source anyway, given that he also denies the negative health effects of secondhand smoke, is as mentioned a cdesign proponentist, and otherwise shows sloppy science contrary to what other experts in the field have provided evidence about. You can equate his sloppy science to Newton's bizarre religious beliefs if you like; I certainly won't argue.

nauthiz

2009-Mar-30, 07:06 PM

Now, Roy Spencer is indeed a climatologist. I believe you've brought him up before. However, I don't really look on him as a reliable source anyway, given that he also denies the negative health effects of secondhand smoke, is as mentioned a cdesign proponentist, and otherwise shows sloppy science contrary to what other experts in the field have provided evidence about.

Don't forget the financial ties to ExxonMobil. :shifty:

nauthiz

2009-Mar-30, 07:22 PM

No I didn't. I said that modelling was a useful tool in the statisticians box, but when the parameters get distorted and the data gets adjusted to fit the desired outcome, all is lost.

Here are the things you said:

All in all, it's a very complex system and there's no reason to believe that the way it behaves can be summed up in a nutshell.or a computer model.
b) Computer games.

I think the project of trying to model all the fluid interactions to calculate future climate is doomed to failure.
That last one in particular seems to be in pretty glaring contrast to your apparent belief that the Evan article is worth the paper it's printed on.

As far as distorting parameters to force the data to fit the desired outcome, check out this critique of a different (though related) paper by Spencer: How to Cook a Graph in Three Easy Lessons (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/)

nauthiz

2009-Mar-30, 07:45 PM

I just linked a graph for you to look at which has a strong negative forcing starting several years before Pinatubo errupted. Let's start there.

OK, I think you were talking about one of the graphs from this article (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/22/the-impact-of-the-north-atlantic-and-volcanic-aerosols-on-short-term-global-sst-trends/), but I'm not sure exactly which one.

There's figure 1, which shows the global SST anomaly dropping after the 1991 Pinatubo eruption.

There's figure 2, which shows the North Atlantic SST trend and a decrease that's beginning in the late 80s - but as was indicated by a paper you recently presented, there's a lot going on when it comes to SST in that region, so we'd need to do a little more digging to figure out what's going on there.

There's the graph where the author tries to remove the North Atlantic portion from the global records, which shows the global SST anomaly dropping after the 1991 Pinatubo eruption.

and so on. . .

More importantly, other than an incidental mention in a quote from the IPCC report, this article doesn't talk about modeling at all. Where from this do you glean any information about how aerosol data is being handled by the modelers?

Gillianren

2009-Mar-30, 08:24 PM

Don't forget the financial ties to ExxonMobil. :shifty:

I noticed that the think tank he's part of has ties to them, as they do to the tobacco industry, but I wasn't sure about him personally. It wouldn't surprise me, though.

Stroller

2009-Mar-30, 08:35 PM

Bluntly, I don't know enough to understand a properly-written, properly-researched paper on climatology.

Enough said.

Stroller

2009-Mar-30, 08:36 PM

OK, I think you were talking about one of the graphs from this article (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/22/the-impact-of-the-north-atlantic-and-volcanic-aerosols-on-short-term-global-sst-trends/), but I'm not sure exactly which one.

No, the one with the aerosol forcing parameters included in the 'non GHG component' (http://1.2.3.13/bmi/img175.imageshack.us/img175/2107/modeleextraev0.png)

Gillianren

2009-Mar-30, 09:28 PM

Enough said.

No. I do know how to evaluate scientific credentials, and the credentials of your "expert" are sadly lacking. Knowing what we've presented, how do you reconcile using him as a source with the poor science he does in other fields?

Stroller

2009-Mar-30, 10:06 PM

No. I do know how to evaluate scientific credentials, and the credentials of your "expert" are sadly lacking. Knowing what we've presented, how do you reconcile using him as a source with the poor science he does in other fields?

And are you such an expert in these other fields that you are able to pass such a judgement? Is Spencer active in these other fields at the moment or is he concentrating his effort on his climate research? Isn't he entitled to his opinions on other matters the same as anyone else is without without you coming along and casting aspersions on his expertise in a field you proclaim you know nothing about?

P.S. proponentsists ???

nauthiz

2009-Mar-30, 10:17 PM

No, the one with the aerosol forcing parameters included in the 'non GHG component' (http://1.2.3.13/bmi/img175.imageshack.us/img175/2107/modeleextraev0.png)

And what's the source for this graph?

nauthiz

2009-Mar-30, 10:41 PM

And are you such an expert in these other fields that you are able to pass such a judgement? Is Spencer active in these other fields at the moment or is he concentrating his effort on his climate research? Isn't he entitled to his opinions on other matters the same as anyone else is without without you coming along and casting aspersions on his expertise in a field you proclaim you know nothing about?
He's allowed to have whatever opinion he wants, but at the same time we're allowed to make inferences about his level of intellectual rigor from his statements about those inferences. And the stuff he's said about evolution is very unimpressive, to say the least.

Granted, the paper deserves to stand on its own merits, at least for people who are willing to take the time to read it. I must say, though, so far all he's impressed on me is his ability to write obtusely, which is why it's taking me so long to make sense of this thing.

ETA: That, and the model he uses is simplistic in the extreme (it explicitly does not include an actual model of the atmosphere :eh: ), and is only concerned with tropical ocean regions - no provision for interaction with areas further from the equator, and no provision for any effects from terrestrial surfaces rather than the ocean. From what I can tell, that means the extent to which the actual numbers this paper produces apply to true global climate models is anybody's guess.

P.S. proponentsists ???
cdesign proponentsists (http://ncseweb.org/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists)

nauthiz

2009-Mar-30, 11:40 PM

Gillianren

2009-Mar-31, 12:44 AM

And are you such an expert in these other fields that you are able to pass such a judgement? Is Spencer active in these other fields at the moment or is he concentrating his effort on his climate research? Isn't he entitled to his opinions on other matters the same as anyone else is without without you coming along and casting aspersions on his expertise in a field you proclaim you know nothing about?

Well, no, he's not entitled to believe intelligent design over the evidence for evolution if he expects anyone to take him seriously about it. He's not entitled to believe secondhand smoke isn't harmful if he expects anyone to take him seriously about it. These are not places where you need expertise to know that he's wrong. He just is; it's that simple. And if he is wrong about such phenomenally basic things, why should I believe he's put any more research into climatology? He has shown himself willing to embrace sloppy science, or at least to have his name attached to it. No, it doesn't present a certainty that all his work is similarly sloppy, but there is a strong presumption.

No, I'm not claiming to be an expert on climatology; yes, I admit freely that I don't understand it. But I do know what the scientific method is, and if he's so incredibly wrong about such basic science, it doesn't bode well for the rest of his work. Still, I'll let people who know more than I--such as, clearly, Nauthiz--to analyze the quality of this paper.

nauthiz

2009-Mar-31, 01:18 AM

Still, I'll let people who know more than I--such as, clearly, Nauthiz--to analyze the quality of this paper.

Well, don't give me too much credit. I looked into going into a related field (remote sensing) years ago and got some exposure to this stuff while I was trying to figure out what schools I wanted to go to, but I didn't actually end up going to grad school after all and I don't have any formal training in this stuff. Just whatever understanding I've been able to glean from trying to hack my way through papers on my own time.

nauthiz

2009-Mar-31, 01:49 AM

Gillianren

2009-Mar-31, 02:19 AM

Well, don't give me too much credit. I looked into going into a related field (remote sensing) years ago and got some exposure to this stuff while I was trying to figure out what schools I wanted to go to, but I didn't actually end up going to grad school after all and I don't have any formal training in this stuff. Just whatever understanding I've been able to glean from trying to hack my way through papers on my own time.

Hey, don't knock it. It's still more than I've got.

Stroller

2009-Mar-31, 07:12 AM

Well, no, he's not entitled to believe intelligent design over the evidence for evolution if he expects anyone to take him seriously about it. He's not entitled to believe secondhand smoke isn't harmful if he expects anyone to take him seriously about it. These are not places where you need expertise to know that he's wrong. He just is; it's that simple.

How do you know he believes it? It could be an intellectual game to him, or to placate his wife, or any one of a number of other things. You are making assumptions and piling on. I haven't looked into the secondhand smoke stuff, but I have heard there is controversial and conflicting evidence regarding how allegedly harmful it is. Neither of us are experts in this field, and this is a debate about climate science, so give it a rest.

One thing not in doubt is that Spencer is phd qualified in the field relevant to this debate, so stop trying to undermine his credibility with irrelevances and let us get on with looking at his climate science.

Stroller

2009-Mar-31, 07:16 AM

In other news, here's an interesting survey (http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf)

About 3,000 earth scientists responded to the survey. 80% said they think "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures". More interestingly, there was a positive correlation between a scientist's level of involvement in climate science and their likelihood to answer yes to that question. Among researchers who publish a majority of their work on the subject of climate change, the yes rate is 97%.

The lowest yes rates by specialty were for economic geologists* (47%) and meteorologists (64%).

*As in, stuff you can dig up and sell like gold, petroleum, or marble.

Oh no. Groundhog day again...

Go back 10 squares and miss a turn Nauthiz, we already did this one to death until I had to show Ronald Bark the basic errors in his arithmetic.

I'll be back when I have some spare time. Please see if you can find some convincing evidence that co2 raises global temperature significantly over multidecadal timescales and that it's not just settling dust from the sahara and some fudged adjustments to the temperature record.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Mar-31, 07:47 AM

CO2 warming effect has been demonstrated in this thread many times by numerous research papers, but Stroller keeps ignoring those (like everything else that doesn't fit to his/her agenda).

Clouds are probably the most important forcing/feedback in the climate system. As the discussion between Ari and myself many pages back showed, we have woefully inadequate data on long term cloud albedo. Why is the IPCC not putting any effort into rectifying this? There is one satllite which can't measure cloud albedo poperly, and one shoestring operation called the earthshine project, which is obviously underfunded.
GW denialist claims about clouds usually have been originating from studies showing decrease in global cloud cover. Those studies also usually have been based on International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) data, which has been shown to be in error by Campbell (2004) (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/79041.pdf), Evan et al. (2007) (http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~dvimont/Papers/Evan_etal_GL028083.pdf), Knapp (2008) (ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/publications/GEO-HIRS_IR_calibration_revision_2.pdf), and Berthier et al. (2008) (http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/32/83/16/PDF/acpd-8-5269-2008.pdf).

Of those not using ISCCP data, Wylie et al. (2005) (http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS_spring2006/Wylie2005.pdf) find that between 1979 and 2001:

Trends in cloud cover and high-cloud frequency were found to be small in these data. High clouds show a small but statistically significant increase in the Tropics and the Northern Hemisphere. The HIRS analysis contrasts with the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP), which shows a decrease in both total cloud cover and high clouds during most of this period.
So generally no trends, but a weak trend in high clouds, and even that is in opposite direction than in ISCCP data.

Warren et al. (2007) (http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~ignatius/CloudMap/Publications/WarrenEtal2007_CloudSurvey.pdf) study period of 1971 and 1996 and find:

The global average trend of total cloud cover over land is small, -0.7% decade-1, offsetting the small positive trend that had been found for the ocean, and resulting in no significant trend for the land–ocean average.
It seems that datasets we do have show no global trend in cloud cover.

Stroller tries to claim it's only one satellite and one earthshine project, but papers above reported data from other sources, so we see that once again Stroller has presented false things as facts.

Aerosols have been overestimated as a negative forcing in the GCM's to help offset an overinflated co2 sensitivity.
I already showed that aerosol effects are not estimated, they are measured. A review paper by Yu et al. (2006) (http://hal-cea.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/32/84/20/PDF/acp-6-613-2006.pdf) discusses this, and aerosol forcing is indeed substantially negative. One more false thing that Stroller tries to pass as a fact.

nauthiz

2009-Mar-31, 01:56 PM

One thing not in doubt is that Spencer is phd qualified in the field relevant to this debate, so stop trying to undermine his credibility with irrelevances and let us get on with looking at his climate science.
We can drop the ad hominem stuff, now. I read the paper, I reported on it, and we now know the incredible contrast between what the paper actually says and the sensationalist stuff he's writing about it in his blog is perfectly capable of undermining its own credibility.

Oh, I forgot, that cooked graph in an earlier paper was pretty impressive, too.

nauthiz

2009-Mar-31, 01:59 PM

Please see if you can find some convincing evidence that co2 raises global temperature significantly over multidecadal timescales and that it's not just settling dust from the sahara and some fudged adjustments to the temperature record.

Please see if you can learn how to answer direct questions* and read your own papers**.

* I'm still waiting for a source on that graph. . . possibly also an explanation of what exactly it has to do with aerosol parameterizations if it's not explained in the original source.

** You should start with that Gerlich paper on CO2. It's a hoot.

Judging from that "settling dust from the Sahara" bit, maybe you should also read what I've been posting a little more carefully. Or if you disagree with it, the honest approach would be to say why you disagree with it rather than dropping the subject only to resurrect the original claim in the hope that the person you're talking to won't remember the conversation from the previous page.

danscope

2009-Mar-31, 05:00 PM

How do you know he believes it? It could be an intellectual game to him, or to placate his wife, or any one of a number of other things. You are making assumptions and piling on. I haven't looked into the secondhand smoke stuff, but I have heard there is controversial and conflicting evidence regarding how allegedly harmful it is. Neither of us are experts in this field, and this is a debate about climate science, so give it a rest.

One thing not in doubt is that Spencer is phd qualified in the field relevant to this debate, so stop trying to undermine his credibility with irrelevances and let us get on with looking at his climate science.

Sir: Smoke is bad.

Gillianren

2009-Mar-31, 07:06 PM

How do you know he believes it? It could be an intellectual game to him, or to placate his wife, or any one of a number of other things.

So your defense of his sloppy science is that he may just be saying things to appease other people? Interesting. (Incidentally, if he's appeasing anyone, it is most likely the corporate sponsors of the thinktank for which he works--namely, as mentioned, Exxon-Mobil.)

You are making assumptions and piling on. I haven't looked into the secondhand smoke stuff, but I have heard there is controversial and conflicting evidence regarding how allegedly harmful it is. Neither of us are experts in this field, and this is a debate about climate science, so give it a rest.

Actually, contrary to what Nauthiz has stated, I don't think this is ad hominem argument. I think it is fairly evaluating the credentials of a proposed expert. You heard wrong about secondhand smoke. All credible studies--ie, studies not funded by the tobacco industry (and surely you've heard about studies funded by the tobacco industry)--show significant health detriments attributable to secondhand smoke. True, the debate at hand is about climate science. However, I do strongly feel that the qualifications of any expert may be brought into question if they show a pattern of poor science.

One thing not in doubt is that Spencer is phd qualified in the field relevant to this debate, so stop trying to undermine his credibility with irrelevances and let us get on with looking at his climate science.

First, it's "PhD." Second, it is very relevant. We have shown that you cannot just take his word for the quality of his science; he has repeatedly shown that, if you like it better this way, he's willing to have his credibility twisted for other people's preferences.

Besides, as Nauthiz has worked out, the paper's worthless as a reasonable predictive tool anyway.

nauthiz

2009-Mar-31, 08:55 PM

Besides, as Nauthiz has worked out, the paper's worthless as a reasonable predictive tool anyway.

The paper is a demonstration of an interesting statistical technique. When viewed as such, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with it.

What it is not, though, is an indication of how Earth's climate works. He demonstrated it by feeding garbage data in, and you know what they say - garbage in, garbage out. This assessment isn't actually in conflict with how Spencer presents it in the paper. As the paper's title says, it's merely a "simple model demonstration", and he uses very muted language in the conclusions portion of the paper. For example, its first sentence is "Forcing of our simple model with daily random, nonfeedback radiative flux variations suggests the possibility of substantial positive biases in current observational estimates of feedback." (emphasis mine)

However, he does speak very differently about it in his blog post. That certainly calls the credibility of anything he says on his blog into question. Though it was already in question - judging from some rooting around I did, Dr. Spencer has quite a reputation for making extravagant (and untenable) claims about modest research findings in his blog posts and magazine articles and whatnot.

Stroller

2009-Mar-31, 09:33 PM

So ...

Hey Gillian, I've got 100 more PhD scientists and emeritus professors for you to vilify and discredit.

Meet the new list. :)

http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/cato_climate.pdf

"We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.
Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net
global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been
no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature
change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts
regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect."

geonuc

2009-Mar-31, 09:37 PM

Do you have a non-partisan list we can look at?

nauthiz

2009-Mar-31, 10:25 PM

Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest. . .
:doh:

and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.
I'll wager it's precisely eleven years - if you do the regression over 10 years or 12 years instead, this annoying positive trend sneaks in.

Swanson and Tsonis disagree with the Cato Institute on what their paper means, btw.

Stroller

2009-Mar-31, 10:26 PM

Do you have a non-partisan list we can look at?

Everyone is pretty much taking sides on this issue now. It's becoming more polarised.

Probably the polarisation is more coincident with political lines in America than in other countries. Of course, Pres Obama won't heed these scientists, a third of his budgeted income is at stake...

nauthiz

2009-Mar-31, 10:30 PM

Of course, Pres Obama won't heed these scientists, not if that Douglass paper is the best they can come up with, anyway.

Fixed. :D

nauthiz

2009-Mar-31, 11:12 PM

Gillianren

2009-Mar-31, 11:49 PM

Hey Gillian, I've got 100 more PhD scientists and emeritus professors for you to vilify and discredit.

If I can so easily discredit him, whose problem is that? I'll also note that you're not really answering my response about your idea of how he determines his scientific stance.

You'll also forgive me if I suspect that an organization devoted to "the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace" is perhaps not entirely to be trusted on a subject that would by its very nature require more governmental control, more controlled markets, and limitations on certain individual liberties. Though I cannot fault their stance on peace.

Stroller

2009-Apr-01, 06:35 AM

:doh:

I'll wager it's precisely eleven years - if you do the regression over 10 years or 12 years instead, this annoying positive trend sneaks in.

True, but from 8 years ago onwards, an increasingly negative trend (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2001/trend/plot/wti/from:2002/trend/plot/wti/from:2003/trend/plot/wti/from:2004/trend/plot/wti/from:2005/trend/plot/wti/from:2006/trend/plot/wti/from:2001) sneaks in.

Swanson and Tsonis think it might get cooler for the next thirty years don't they?

"Tsonis and Swanson found that the Earth is in the beginning of a long-term climate cycle where temperatures will level off or drop over the next few decades.

The reason for the change is that, inevitably, climatic forces begin to work so closely together that a slight change creates instability and throws the climate into a new state."

"James Hansen, a climate scientist and director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, said during an appearance in Milwaukee on Wednesday that he agreed that natural factors play a role in the climate, but they are dwarfed by the impact of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.
Natural variations linked to sun spots and volcano eruptions can create short-term cooling factors, but these are not significant enough to counter the long-term trend of higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, said Hansen."

The 'consensus' is cracking. The two statements above are contradictory. Which one is wrong?
If "natural factors play a role in the climate, but they are dwarfed by the impact of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases", how come the temperature is falling increasingly quickly, while co2 emissions and the atmospheric level continue to rise?

Enjoy the warmth while it's around.

Warm is nice and plenty of rice.
Cold is failed crops and increased energy needs.

Stroller

2009-Apr-01, 06:40 AM

If I can so easily discredit him, whose problem is that? I'll also note that you're not really answering my response about your idea of how he determines his scientific stance.

You'll also forgive me if I suspect that an organization devoted to "the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace" is perhaps not entirely to be trusted on a subject that would by its very nature require more governmental control, more controlled markets, and limitations on certain individual liberties. Though I cannot fault their stance on peace.
You haven't discredited him, you just think you have.
The point I was making is that I don't know how he determines his stance. And neither do you.

By the same token, a pro agw lobby devoted to big profits from selling carbon credits, controlling and reducing population, and taxing essential services to the hilt is not entirely to be trusted either.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Apr-01, 06:52 AM

One thing not in doubt is that Spencer is phd qualified in the field relevant to this debate, so stop trying to undermine his credibility with irrelevances and let us get on with looking at his climate science.
Nauthiz already looked at his science, but as usual you seem to have lost interest to that side of the debate. It is you who have tried to emphasize the credentials of Spencer, so it is relevant to look at his credentials also. The fact that he is a creationist doesn't necessarily mean that he has to be wrong about everything, but it means that probability that he is wrong about scientific issues is very high. That is because creationists as a group are very openly enemies of science, and they do just about anything to make things look like they want.

Besides, your argumentation on climate science that has been seen in this forum suggests that you don't actually want to look at the science. If you would want to look at the science you would answer our questions honestly, and respond to all of our arguments concentrating seriously to the argument instead of using it just a bridge to some other claims or to repeating the original claims. Especially you wouldn't repeat your claims when convincing counterarguments have been presented. You would also acknowledge when you have been shown to be wrong about something. You would also not use logical fallacies (such as appeal to authority) all the time in your argumentation. You certainly wouldn't be presenting fabricated graphs or false things as facts, if you would be interested in science of climate.

Gillianren

2009-Apr-01, 07:41 AM

You haven't discredited him, you just think you have.
The point I was making is that I don't know how he determines his stance. And neither do you.

Well, let's see. Either he applies proper scientific rigor, or he does not. Surely you will agree that those are the only two reasonable choices. Now, it's certainly possible that he applies proper scientific rigor sometimes and not others; he wouldn't be the first one. (See also your example of Newton, which undermined your own argument as well.) If, as you suggest, he is influenced by things other than scientific rigor, surely we can agree that it's bad science, yes? Now, we know that intelligent design is bad science (you do know that, right?). We know that any belief that secondhand smoke doesn't cause health problems is bad science. It's true that there is more evidence for either than there is for AGW, but that undermines his scientific rigor, not emphasizes it. We know that he works for a thinktank that is sponsored by the very industries to whom his findings would be most beneficial. No, he's not alone in that, either. No argument from me. However, in cases like that, his science must be under more scrutiny.

So do you really want to argue that he may be using something other than proper scientific rigor to decide how he feels about science?

Stroller

2009-Apr-01, 08:00 AM

Well, let's see. Either he applies proper scientific rigor, or he does not.

You can twist and spin it whichever way you like but you still don't know what makes Spencer tick.

Your gross oversimplification of the way these things work demonstrates your lack of ability to successfully audit peoples fitness to do science.

Nauthiz' summary of his work missed out the important bits AGW proponents have no good answer to, but you'll never know that, because you on your own admission know so little about climate you can't assess the work for yourself.

You are wasting your own time and mine.

Stroller

2009-Apr-01, 08:07 AM

he uses very muted language in the conclusions portion of the paper. For example, its first sentence is "Forcing of our simple model with daily random, nonfeedback radiative flux variations suggests the possibility of substantial positive biases in current observational estimates of feedback." (emphasis mine)

However, he does speak very differently about it in his blog post. That certainly calls the credibility of anything he says on his blog into question.

It principally calls into question the difficulty of getting anything which challenges AGW published. This is probably why he muted the findings in the submission.

Stroller

2009-Apr-01, 08:09 AM

And what's the source for this graph?
Data downloaded from GISS.

Stroller

2009-Apr-01, 08:17 AM

OK, so what's going on is he starts with the following model:

Cp (dT/dt) = -aT + N + f + S

Where Cp is the heat capacity of the system, T is temperature, t is time, -aT is total feedback, N is any unknown nonfeedback radiative source, f is all other forcings (both anthropogenic and natural), and S is heating anomaly not related to radiative flux such as heat exchange from outside the system.

The next step is to, arbitrarily as far as I can tell, declare f to be zero in all cases. I'm really not sure what to say about that. I thought we were supposed to be figuring out what goes on on planet Earth, here, and since we're not I'm fairly convinced that this paper is not actually relevant to anything at all. Except, of course, how things would work on this hypothetical planet where f = 0, there are no land masses, nothing exists north or south of 20 degrees from the equator, and the atmosphere is a monolithic object rather than a large collection of fluid material with varying composition.

But we'll proceed anyway.

The next step is to run the model using Gaussian noise for N and a random constant for* S. No explanation is given for why this is the input data, which seems rather odd since I'm pretty sure that neither the planet's daily radiation dose nor the amount of heat exchange with the ocean can reasonably be described as Gaussian noise. The oceans' surface temperatures just don't jiggle around quite that radically. But as I mentioned before, I'm not sure we're looking at planet Earth anymore, anyway, so OK then.

Long story short, he's shown how clouds might work on an alien planet that doesn't act like ours and might not even be acting according to the laws of physics, but I'm not convinced that he's shown how clouds work on our planet.

*Sorry, I misspoke here. The noise for N has varying magnitude, whereas S is also Gaussian noise with a constant magnitude. But the daily values are still randomly generated in both cases.

Take a proper look at the mans work and stop playing to the crowd Nauthiz. He examines real empirical satellite data of our planet, applies a statistical technique which has been validated since 1901, and finds clouds operate as a negative feedback. A negative feedback, in contrast to the GCM models used by the hockey jockeys where it is modeled as a positive feedback, increasing warming.

The simplified model is there to illustrate a point, and is sufficient to that purpose. You are being disingenuous.

Their mistake he summarizes as follows:

"when researchers have observed that global cloud cover decreases with warming, they have assumed that the warming caused the cloud cover to dissipate. This would be a positive feedback since such a response by clouds would let more sunlight in and enhance the warming.

But what they have ignored is the possibility that causation is actually working in the opposite direction: That the decrease in cloud cover caused the warming…not the other way around. And as shown by Spencer and Braswell (2008 J. Climate), this can mask the true existence of negative feedback."

This is so clear and unambiguous, even Gillian can understand it.

As usual the hockey team have their cause and effect back to front. Just like they have when they claim changes in co2 produce changes in temperature, when in fact temperature leads co2 at all timescales, as has been demonstrated over and over again in ice core samples and simple comparisons of indices.

Stroller

2009-Apr-01, 09:50 AM

Just to cast a little more aspersion on the Cato Institute, here's a little tidbit (http://www.desmogblog.com/files/IREA-memo.pdf) on one of their top guys, Patrick Michaels, not exactly being a disinterested third party.

And there's more where that came from (http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/GreenMtDoc521-3.pdf), too.

How about that other big media advertiser on global warming, Al Gore?

Do you think he is a disinterested party?
Non exec director of Kleiner Perkins. Nose in the carbon credit trough...

Time you lot started thinking with your brains instead of your knees.

Stroller

2009-Apr-01, 12:25 PM

Look at the way last interglacials have topped in Hansen et al. (2008) (http://www.biochar-international.org/images/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf) Figure 2 (temperature is the red line + black line for recent past). See in that figure also how greenhouse gas forcing (green line) tops at same level during interglacials. Now look how greenhouse gas forcing of today (green line at the right side of Figure 2) compares with last interglacials, quite a remarkable difference.

Hansen's handling of temperature data is a standing joke.
His fig 2 is a splicing of thermometer record data and proxy data, just like Mann's hockey stick was. And you have the gall to call me on graph construction?
Fig2 has the current temperature much hotter than the Holocene maximum about 9000 years ago. This is laughably incorrect.

His paper says co2/doubling will do 4W/m^2 or around 3C yet he bandies various higher figures around when speaking in public.

His 3C/doubling of co2 is not supported by empirical data, nor by a correct assessment by theoretical physics of gases.

Hansen is a protest rabble rouser and policy advocate. He departed from science long ago.

nauthiz

2009-Apr-01, 01:29 PM

The two statements above are contradictory.

To put it bluntly, the two statements are only contradictory if your picture of how climate works is drawn in crayon.

nauthiz

2009-Apr-01, 01:32 PM

Take a proper look at the mans work and stop playing to the crowd Nauthiz. He examines real empirical satellite data of our planet, applies a statistical technique which has been validated since 1901, and finds clouds operate as a negative feedback.

You forgot one key detail. Here's the amended assessment:

He examines real empirical satellite data of our planet, applies a statistical technique which has been validated since 1901 to random data that is vaguely inspired by the satellite data, and finds clouds operate as a negative feedback.

nauthiz

2009-Apr-01, 01:36 PM

How about that other big media advertiser on global warming, Al Gore?

Do you think he is a disinterested party?
I think Al Gore mostly only comes up in conversations like these when the denialist brings him up, and that speaks volumes.

Someone gave me a copy of An Inconvenient Truth several years ago, and I still haven't watched it. I think it's in the bottom of a box somewhere, but I could have thrown it away the last time I moved.

Stroller

2009-Apr-01, 02:53 PM

You forgot one key detail. Here's the amended assessment:

He examines real empirical satellite data of our planet, applies a statistical technique which has been validated since 1901 to random data that is vaguely inspired by the satellite data, and finds clouds operate as a negative feedback.

Incorrect.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
Look at fig 1

"Fig. 1. Sixty years of global average variations in near-surface air temperature versus top-of-atmosphere infrared radiative flux in three of the climate models tracked by the IPCC."

"Plots of the total (reflected solar plus emitted infrared) radiative imbalance versus temperature variability are shown in Fig. 4 at various averaging intervals from five years of satellite measurements of global average SST variations (left panels) and tropospheric temperature variations (right panels). The radiative fluxes come from the CERES instrument, the SSTs from the AMSR-E instrument, and the tropospheric temperatures come from the AMSU-A instrument flying on the NOAA-15 satellite."

This isn't looking like "random data" to me.

"The adjustable parameters in the model were then tuned to mimic the lag correlation and autocorrelation structures computed from the five years of daily satellite satellite measurements of tropospheric temperature, sea surface temperature, and radiative flux"

So tuned model, and plenty of real data.

Disinformation will not win the day Nauthiz.

Stroller

2009-Apr-01, 02:54 PM

To put it bluntly, the two statements are only contradictory if your picture of how climate works is drawn in crayon.

I think we'll let globalwarmingart.com handle that side of the AGW supporters needs.

Swift

2009-Apr-01, 02:55 PM

Time you lot started thinking with your brains instead of your knees.
That comment is not appropriate for BAUT, especially since it is unclear if you are talking about public figures, or BAUT members. If this discussion can not remain civil, it will be ended.

nauthiz

2009-Apr-01, 03:41 PM

Incorrect.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
Look at fig 1

That is a different paper.

Anyway, looking at it a bit deeper, I find that when he gets to the bit about running the model, he again says it is randomly driven: "The model was driven by radiative and non-radiative forcings that varied randomly in time, having a time scale of days to weeks."

Another bit that's worth discussing more:
"The adjustable parameters in the model were then tuned to mimic the lag correlation and autocorrelation structures computed from the five years of daily satellite satellite measurements of tropospheric temperature, sea surface temperature, and radiative flux."
I do agree with you on one point - that kind of tuning is questionable. It should be avoided when possible (and cogently defended if it's found to be unavoidable). That level of tuning on a model this simple makes it all that much harder for me to believe that it is accurately portraying how the climate really works.

nauthiz

2009-Apr-01, 03:47 PM

He examines real empirical satellite data of our planet, applies a statistical technique which has been validated since 1901 to random data that is vaguely inspired by the satellite data, and finds clouds operate as a negative feedback.

I forgot some other important details:

He examines real empirical satellite data of our planet, applies a statistical technique which has been validated since 1901 to random data that is vaguely inspired by the satellite data to a horribly oversimplifed model that does not take into account land, the varying impact of different kinds of cloud formation, or atmospheric circulation, and assumes the only forcings on the system are induced by either variations in incident radiation or heat exchange from outside the system, and finds clouds operate as a negative feedback.

Gillianren

2009-Apr-01, 05:31 PM

=You are wasting your own time and mine.

Certainly mine. The arguments you are presented with are completely cogent, and it is clear that you either do not or choose not to understand them. I fail to see how the man's work falls outside the categories of "scientifically rigorous" or "not scientifically rigorous." You are certainly welcome to explain otherwise, but merely dismissing my argument is not actually doing that. You might want to realize that that isn't true of any debate.

nauthiz

2009-Apr-01, 05:37 PM

Data downloaded from GISS.

So you produced this graph?

Could you point me at the particular data you used and run through how it was constructed, maybe give some more details on how you're interpreting it?

HenrikOlsen

2009-Apr-01, 05:38 PM

Hansen is a protest rabble rouser and policy advocate. He departed from science long ago.
Attack the data, not the people.

Stroller

2009-Apr-01, 06:40 PM

Certainly mine. The arguments you are presented with are completely cogent, and it is clear that you either do not or choose not to understand them. I fail to see how the man's work falls outside the categories of "scientifically rigorous" or "not scientifically rigorous." You are certainly welcome to explain otherwise, but merely dismissing my argument is not actually doing that. You might want to realize that that isn't true of any debate.
Hi Gillian. You said you were qualified to assess people's credentials. Do you work in H.R.?

Stroller

2009-Apr-01, 06:44 PM

Attack the data, not the people.
Which data should I attack, the data where Hansen says a co2 doubling would cause a 3C rise in temperature, or the data where Hansen says a co2 doubling would cause a 5.7C rise in temperature?

Stroller

2009-Apr-01, 06:53 PM

So you produced this graph?

Could you point me at the particular data you used and run through how it was constructed, maybe give some more details on how you're interpreting it?

No. It was produced by fellow sceptic Bill Illis. He did give a link to the data source at GISS and I'll try to dig it out for you.
I'm all for people running the data for themselves and making their own interpretation.

Stroller

2009-Apr-01, 06:56 PM

That comment is not appropriate for BAUT, especially since it is unclear if you are talking about public figures, or BAUT members. If this discussion can not remain civil, it will be ended.
Swift, I apologise to BAUT and my fellow contributors, The pace of the debate got the better of me.

nauthiz

2009-Apr-01, 07:06 PM

His fig 2 is a splicing of thermometer record data and proxy data, just like Mann's hockey stick was. And you have the gall to call me on graph construction?
What's wrong with using both? If you're happy to verbally compare the present instrument-measured temperature to the Holocene proxy-derived temperature data as you do in the next sentence, why can't someone else compare them visually on the graph?

Fig2 has the current temperature much hotter than the Holocene maximum about 9000 years ago.
No it doesn't. Temperature is the purple one.

This is laughably incorrect.
A quick Wikipediaing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum) suggests otherwise:

"In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns)."

As for the 3C/6C thing, he actually talks about that a bit right below figure 2. Long story short, the sensitivity varies depending on other factors.

nauthiz

2009-Apr-01, 07:08 PM

No. It was produced by fellow sceptic Bill Illis. He did give a link to the data source at GISS and I'll try to dig it out for you.
I'm all for people running the data for themselves and making their own interpretation.

Does he have a writeup or anything of it posted online?

lomiller1

2009-Apr-01, 07:50 PM

Well, let's see. Either he applies proper scientific rigor, or he does not. Surely you will agree that those are the only two reasonable choices. Now, it's certainly possible that he applies proper scientific rigor sometimes and not others; he wouldn't be the first one.

Choice three seems to be the correct one in Spencer’s case. He does apply different levels of scientific rigor in his published papers then in his unpublished commentary. If you read only his published papers it would be difficult to determine where he stands on the subject. Spencer’s most recent outing discusses the uncertainty in cloud formation. This is pretty much in line with mainstream climatology.

It’s only is his unpublished work that he makes any claims regarding the impact of that uncertainty. It’s his non-published stuff where he tries to advance the idea changes in cloud behavior will offset CO2 changes. There is no way this claim would stand up to peer review since he would be expected to quantify the uncertainty, show that it broke in favor of his position rather then against it, and explain why this behavior only exhibits itself now and not, say, when the climate warms coming out of glaciations.

Since he has no answers to any of these questions he avoids the claim when he publishes then cites his published work as “evidence” for claims he makes outside of peer review. I.E. it’s a fairly basic bait and switch strategy.

Gillianren

2009-Apr-01, 09:08 PM

Charming.

Stroller

2009-Apr-01, 10:34 PM

General question to all:

In your whole life experience is the weather colder when it's cloudy?

A simple yes or no poll.

nauthiz

2009-Apr-01, 10:55 PM

Yes, it does tend to feel cooler when it's cloudy - at least when the clouds are blocking the sun. I don't really notice a difference for formations like cirrus clouds, and if it's partly cloudy then the temperature I sense varies as I go in and out of the shadows.

If you're getting at cloud forcing, though, that question doesn't really get at the whole story. The radiative forcing of clouds themselves is indeed negative - I haven't noticed anyone credibly dispute that. The positive forcing that's associated with clouds is really due to the greenhouse effect caused by extra water vapor that contributes to cloud formation. During that period before it condenses and becomes a cloud, water works as a very strong greenhouse gas. This component is sometimes grouped in with the actual clouds themselves because the two are so closely interrelated that, in the opinion of at least some researchers, you can get away with it as long as the scale you're looking at is broad enough.

It's a bit like how if you're looking at it in a large enough scale, it's easier to talk about the energy carried by sound waves as "sound energy", rather than the mix of potential energy (from compression of the medium) and kinetic energy (from the motion of particles) that it really is.

ETA: This kind of parameterization is particularly pertinent if we're talking about general circulation models, and I suspect that's the reason a lot of climate scientists get into the habit of talking about clouds that way. Clouds and the processes that create them tend to operate at far too coarse a spatial resolution to allow modeling of individual clouds, which tend to be a couple orders of magnitude smaller than your average climate model gridbox.

Gillianren

2009-Apr-02, 12:44 AM

General question to all:

In your whole life experience is the weather colder when it's cloudy?

A simple yes or no poll.

But it isn't a yes or no question. Back in California, the weather was hardly ever cloudy; it's just how LA is. Was it colder when it was cloudy? Compared to what? How can you know what temperature it would be if it weren't cloudy?

Klausnh

2009-Apr-02, 12:49 AM

General question to all:

In your whole life experience is the weather colder when it's cloudy?

A simple yes or no poll.Cooler in the day; warmer at night.

lomiller1

2009-Apr-02, 03:28 AM

Cooler in the day; warmer at night.

Summer or winter makes a big difference too. In summer it tends to feel cooler on cloudy day (doesn’t mean it is though). In winter a clear day means its freeze your nuts off cold.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Apr-02, 07:01 AM

For some reason Stroller responded to my argument in this thread, but I made the argument in this ATM-thread (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/85655-did-global-warming-happen-chance-2.html#post1465325). Note also that Stroller didn't answer any of my questions in that post. In that same ATM-thread there is also earlier post by me with questions that Stroller has ignored.

Hansen's handling of temperature data is a standing joke.
This is a logical fallacy called "appeal to ridicule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule).

His fig 2 is a splicing of thermometer record data and proxy data, just like Mann's hockey stick was.
First, this is another fallacy called "red herring" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi#Red_herring) because original issue was about greenhouse gas forcing and the fact how it seems to top at certain level during interglacials but currently is climbing much higher than those interglacial tops.

Second, there is nothing wrong with showing measured temperature record with temperature records reconstructed from proxies like Mann et al. have done. Temperature measured with "thermometer" is also a proxy.

And you have the gall to call me on graph construction?
Absolutely. It's not about what kind of graph you present, it's about how you present it and what kind of conclusions you draw from them. You fiddled with the graphs to make them arbitrarily look like they supported your pre-determined conclusions, and you presented the graphs without any mention of your fiddling and cited them as proof of your conclusions. That is pseudoscience, to express it mildly. Hansen et al. don't present their graph like that. They tell what the graph is about and what assumptions are made in that graph, and they don't make rubbish conclusions about the graph.

And besides, even if you would find an example where someone else would have fabricated a graph (and there are lot of those from denialists), that wouldn't make your actions any more acceptable.

Fig2 has the current temperature much hotter than the Holocene maximum about 9000 years ago. This is laughably incorrect.
This is another "appeal to ridicule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule).

I note that I made a mistake in my post when I said that black line in Fig. 2 is modern temperature, it is the purple line, as nauthiz noted. But at least that allowed us to see that you didn't actually find out about the contents of the graph before starting to make claims about it. It wouldn't be strange even if temperature would seem to be higher than 9000 years ago. We have observational evidence that modern temperatures are higher than at least in last 5000 years from Thompson et al. (2006) (http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/thompson_pnas_2006.pdf). Menounos et al. (2009) (http://web.unbc.ca/~menounos/www/Menounos_2009.pdf) report even older ages, see for example Sphinx Glacier values in their table 2 and how the dated samples get older and older according to how near to the glacier snout they have been found, closest samples are dated to be over 8000 years old. So, as these are minimum ages, it wouldn't be that big surprise to find out that current day temperature indeed would be warmer than 9000 years ago.

His paper says co2/doubling will do 4W/m^2 or around 3C yet he bandies various higher figures around when speaking in public.
Even the abstract of the paper mentions two different values. It seems that you are trying to brush off this paper without reading it. Like I said to William here before, you don't have to read the papers I offer, but making claims about them without reading them is not a good idea.

His 3C/doubling of co2 is not supported by empirical data, nor by a correct assessment by theoretical physics of gases.
Go ahead and put some substance behind these words. Your claims have been shown to be nonsense time and time again, so without references or other proof they are meaningless.

In your whole life experience is the weather colder when it's cloudy?

A simple yes or no poll.
As you can see from the answers, it is not simple yes or no poll. In this part of the Earth, generally in summer answer is yes and generally in winter answer is no. And the real question about the clouds versus global temperature is not if clouds cause cooling or warming to the weather, it is if there has been globally long time trends in clouds that could be associated with global temperature trends. So far the answer to that is that there haven't been such trends.

orionjim

2009-Apr-02, 04:29 PM

Choice three seems to be the correct one in Spencer’s case. He does apply different levels of scientific rigor in his published papers then in his unpublished commentary. If you read only his published papers it would be difficult to determine where he stands on the subject. Spencer’s most recent outing discusses the uncertainty in cloud formation. This is pretty much in line with mainstream climatology.

It’s only is his unpublished work that he makes any claims regarding the impact of that uncertainty. It’s his non-published stuff where he tries to advance the idea changes in cloud behavior will offset CO2 changes. There is no way this claim would stand up to peer review since he would be expected to quantify the uncertainty, show that it broke in favor of his position rather then against it, and explain why this behavior only exhibits itself now and not, say, when the climate warms coming out of glaciations.

Since he has no answers to any of these questions he avoids the claim when he publishes then cites his published work as “evidence” for claims he makes outside of peer review. I.E. it’s a fairly basic bait and switch strategy.

I think you have defined Spencer as a scientist!

Read this wiki on Scientific Method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

This is a quote from it:

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

…
If you read only his published papers it would be difficult to determine where he stands on the subject. Spencer’s most recent outing discusses the uncertainty in cloud formation. This is pretty much in line with mainstream climatology.
…

What you're saying is Spencer is unbiased in his scientific work. That's the way the scientific method works!

And he shares all of his data and methodology.

He keeps his political views separate from his science, and that’s the way it should be.

Did you know that some people that are called scientists have real problems separating their personal bias from their science? And did you know that some of these people won’t share their data and methodology?

Hmmmm. :think:

Stroller

2009-Apr-02, 04:35 PM

Does he have a writeup or anything of it posted online?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/19/short-term-trends-from-giss-model-e-the-model-would-be-off-by-about-015c-in-the-first-five-years/

flynjack1

2009-Apr-02, 04:50 PM

I think at this point it would be instructive to review the definition of a hypothesis. Essentially a hypothesis is a hunch based on incomplete data. Given this it would not be unexpected that Spencer would form some opinions even though his data is incomplete. Having a hypothesis is part of the scientific method, and as such it only becames a theory when backed by rigourous repeatable scientific testing. Just because someone dosnt agree with his hypothesis dosnt make him a bad scientist.

Gillianren

2009-Apr-02, 05:09 PM

What you're saying is Spencer is unbiased in his scientific work. That's the way the scientific method works!

And he shares all of his data and methodology.

He keeps his political views separate from his science, and that’s the way it should be.

Did you know that some people that are called scientists have real problems separating their personal bias from their science? And did you know that some of these people won’t share their data and methodology?

Hmmmm. :think:

Okay, how about this. Some scientists keep their personal bias out of their science and then don't publish their personal bias as fact without testing it. Advocating intelligent design is about as personally biased as it gets.

orionjim

2009-Apr-02, 05:45 PM

Okay, how about this. Some scientists keep their personal bias out of their science and then don't publish their personal bias as fact without testing it. Advocating intelligent design is about as personally biased as it gets.

I think part of the peer review process is to see that personal bias, politics and other non science things are not included.

I think our job as individuals reading or studying anything else has that task. Let’s face it; it’s a big problem on both sides of global warming issue. We tend to look for things we believe in and we look at people that are considered scientist on the side we’re on and believe anything they say. We forget they’re human and have personal beliefs. What we tend to forget is they know where real science goes and when they can speak their beliefs. Again, leaving us the task to do the sorting.

I agree that believing in intelligent design is a lot of baggage, but getting through the peer review process should separate it out.

Gillianren

2009-Apr-02, 05:55 PM

I think part of the peer review process is to see that personal bias, politics and other non science things are not included.

I think our job as individuals reading or studying anything else has that task. Let’s face it; it’s a big problem on both sides of global warming issue. We tend to look for things we believe in and we look at people that are considered scientist on the side we’re on and believe anything they say. We forget they’re human and have personal beliefs. What we tend to forget is they know where real science goes and when they can speak their beliefs. Again, leaving us the task to do the sorting.

I agree that believing in intelligent design is a lot of baggage, but getting through the peer review process should separate it out.

So when the peer review process pretty much weeds out anything that suggests that AGW isn't happening, that's a failing in the peer review process, or is a failing in the science?

orionjim

2009-Apr-02, 06:11 PM

So when the peer review process pretty much weeds out anything that suggests that AGW isn't happening, that's a failing in the peer review process, or is a failing in the science?

I think the peer review process, among other things, looks at the science and makes sure non-science and political issues are removed. The peer review process isn’t a protector of AGW; it’s the protector of real science.

BTW, I see the peer review process as part of the scientific process.

Gillianren

2009-Apr-02, 06:50 PM

I think the peer review process, among other things, looks at the science and makes sure non-science and political issues are removed. The peer review process isn’t a protector of AGW; it’s the protector of real science.

BTW, I see the peer review process as part of the scientific process.

So the fact that the peer-reviewed science supports AGW means . . . .

Stroller

2009-Apr-02, 06:56 PM

If you're getting at cloud forcing, though, that question doesn't really get at the whole story. The radiative forcing of clouds themselves is indeed negative - I haven't noticed anyone credibly dispute that. The positive forcing that's associated with clouds is really due to the greenhouse effect caused by extra water vapor that contributes to cloud formation. During that period before it condenses and becomes a cloud, water works as a very strong greenhouse gas. This component is sometimes grouped in with the actual clouds themselves because the two are so closely interrelated that, in the opinion of at least some researchers, you can get away with it as long as the scale you're looking at is broad enough.

This is interesting. How long does water spend as free vapour before forming clouds - and how long does it remain as cloud once it's formed? Very difficult questions to answer due to questions about humidity and pressure and wind. As you say, the GCM's don't operate at a fine enough resolution to reproduc the action with any certainty.

Thanks for your replies to my question. It seems the general view is it's colder when cloudy when the sun is up than it would be otherwise, and warmer when cloudy when the sun is down, because they hold in heat which would otherwise escape, despite the best efforts of the 0.0385% of the atmosphere which is co2.

Another related question is; How has the temperature of the earth remained relatively stable over the last 3 billion years while the sun has increased it's output by around 30%?

orionjim

2009-Apr-02, 07:06 PM

So the fact that the peer-reviewed science supports AGW means . . . .

Let me say it again: The peer review process supports science not AGW. And yes there is a lot of science that says there is AGW.

But science is science, we continue to learn. When this stops then AGW real or not real is a very, very small issue.

lomiller1

2009-Apr-02, 08:58 PM

What you're saying is Spencer is unbiased in his scientific work.

Not unbiased but relatively uncontroversial. This uncontroversial work isn’t going to change the consensus, because it’s mostly mild unconstructive quibbling over techniques that don’t offer much opportunity to build on. It seems the people who like to cite him, however can’t seem to stick to what his published work actually says and insist on claiming his unpublished work must also be credible where there is good reason to suspect it’s not.

lomiller1

2009-Apr-02, 09:05 PM

I agree that believing in intelligent design is a lot of baggage, but getting through the peer review process should separate it out.

You say that like the published science is even remotely balanced. It’s not. Spencer has few published papers and almost no citations on the subject of climate. If this were any other subject he’d be a nobody, but because he’s one of a very small number of people on your side of the argument who publishes anything at all you feel the need to defend him.

orionjim

2009-Apr-02, 11:17 PM

You say that like the published science is even remotely balanced. It’s not. Spencer has few published papers and almost no citations on the subject of climate. If this were any other subject he’d be a nobody, but because he’s one of a very small number of people on your side of the argument who publishes anything at all you feel the need to defend him.

Well you took what I said and morphed it into something totally different and then set out to attack something that resides only in your mind.

So the only thing left for me to do is let you answer yourself.

BTW, you aren’t even close to what I was trying to get across.

Have fun…

Bright_Light

2009-Apr-03, 02:59 AM

I wish I could jump into this fray with the knowledge and verbal debating dexterity you all poses on both sides of this argument.
As a non scientist and neophyte on this subject, I use my common sense and logical reasoning capabilities to answer this question for myself. I use a number of simple factors that tell me that there is no such thing as Man Made Global warming. If we think that we are that capable of affecting the earth we are the real fools. How long has the earth been in existence, what calamities has she faced over that time, events that damaged the core atmospheric and land structures on a global scale, and yet the planet survived. Mother earth is doing just fine.

1. Volcano’s - On any given day what is their emissions CO2 and SO2 and other gases output as compared to all the industry and fossil fuel burning pollutants?
Volcano's by some unknown factor which I presume is 1,000's of times greater. Volcanos have been doing this albeit to a lesser degree today since the earth was formed and even during the ice ages.
2. The oceans. A tiny little organism called Plankton do a very fine job in keeping CO2 levels balanced. 75% of the surface of the earth acts as a cleansing mechanism along with the great forests that make up another 10 -15%.
3. Historical warming and cooling cycles. Something caused the ice sheets that created and sculpted much of the northern North American landscape seemed to come and then receded without the benefit of my CO2 spewing gas hog Mustangs.
4. The non issue of melting glaciers and polar ice caps caused by GW. This is the most ridiculous argument put forth since the banning of Freon and aerosol sprays. The seas are going to rise and coastal cities will be lost, give me a break.

The only real global warming is the changes I experienced when I moved from Denver to Las Vegas.
This most is my first post on BAUT but I think my comments would be echoed by many common folk who look to the sky and clouds and read the earth changes not from behind graphs and position papers by from what truly makes sense. But thanks for the hours of entertainment in this thread and I truly did learn a few things
Bill

Gillianren

2009-Apr-03, 03:20 AM

Well, first off, welcome to BAUT. I really, really hate disagreeing with your very first post, but I'm going to have to.

As a non scientist and neophyte on this subject, I use my common sense and logical reasoning capabilities to answer this question for myself.

See, that's your first problem. Your common sense can be wrong, and in fact is. It's really, really important to understand the science. Oh, I freely admit that I don't. However, I do understand the basics of how science works, and if the consensus, overwhelmingly, of peer-reviewed papers show logically and reasonably, using actual measurements, that AGW exists, I'm afraid I'm going to have to trust that over your common sense. The rate of introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere has been speeding up, and it's going faster than nature can absorb it. Ergo, since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, our influence is heating the planet. That's just how it works.

4. The non issue of melting glaciers and polar ice caps caused by GW. This is the most ridiculous argument put forth since the banning of Freon and aerosol sprays. The seas are going to rise and coastal cities will be lost, give me a break.

So you dispute the measurements by, again, actual scientists? Or is this a gut instinct?

Bright_Light

2009-Apr-03, 04:31 AM

Gillian, thanks for the welcome, I really enjoy reading all of this site I have spent hours on end reading all sorts of subjects but this one compelled me to jump into this lively discussion.
No it doesn't and I don't trust it. Nothing in the previous 26-pages have changed my mind so far. If it can't absorb it then please explain how mother nature cleaned up after herself after eons of volcanic abuse?

Yes I dispute this notion totally. Once again put on your common sense hat and back away from the GW mantra. I grew-up on Long Island New York. How was Long Island formed? Glacial deposits. The ice sheet that covered this entire region did what; melt. When all of that ice melted from New York to Oregon why wasn't Long Island under water. What about the Great Lakes? You mean to tell me that some slight shrinkage of the polar ice caps will contain more water that the ice sheets that were in place during the last ice age?

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Apr-03, 06:37 AM

If we think that we are that capable of affecting the earth we are the real fools.
That is a statement of belief and has nothing to do with science.

How long has the earth been in existence, what calamities has she faced over that time, events that damaged the core atmospheric and land structures on a global scale, and yet the planet survived. Mother earth is doing just fine.
What these have to do with anthropogenic global warming?

1. Volcano’s - On any given day what is their emissions CO2 and SO2 and other gases output as compared to all the industry and fossil fuel burning pollutants?
Annual CO2 emissions from volcanoes are minor compared to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Leavitt (1982) (http://www.springerlink.com/content/631t022372116213/) gives values of 1.5 x 1011 moles per year for volcanic CO2 and 4-5 x 1014 moles per year for anthropogenic CO2. Kerrick (2001) (http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/2001RG000105.pdf) gives 2-2.5 x 1012 moles per year for volcanic CO2. So, you see that, according to these numbers, there's at least 150 times more anthropogenic CO2 than volcanic CO2.

2. The oceans. A tiny little organism called Plankton do a very fine job in keeping CO2 levels balanced. 75% of the surface of the earth acts as a cleansing mechanism along with the great forests that make up another 10 -15%.
All this is known by climate scientists, your point? (Sabine et al., 2004, (http://www1.whoi.edu/mzweb/smpdatadocs/gruber_anthro_co2.pdf) show that ocean took up about half of anthropogenic CO2 between 1800 and 1994 and that "the terrestrial biosphere was a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere". Instead of picking on individual points here and there, why not concentrate to whole global carbon budget, like Houghton (2007) (http://terra.whrc.org/resources/published_literature/pdf/HoughtonAnnRevEarthPlanet.07.pdf) for example?)

3. Historical warming and cooling cycles. Something caused the ice sheets that created and sculpted much of the northern North American landscape seemed to come and then receded without the benefit of my CO2 spewing gas hog Mustangs.
So what? It doesn't mean that anthropogenic CO2 cannot be cause now. And, as we already have shown here, CO2 had very important role in historical climate changes (Hansen et al., 2008 (http://www.biochar-international.org/images/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf)).

Yes I dispute this notion totally. Once again put on your common sense hat and back away from the GW mantra. I grew-up on Long Island New York. How was Long Island formed? Glacial deposits. The ice sheet that covered this entire region did what; melt. When all of that ice melted from New York to Oregon why wasn't Long Island under water. What about the Great Lakes? You mean to tell me that some slight shrinkage of the polar ice caps will contain more water that the ice sheets that were in place during the last ice age?
During the last ice age sea level was more than 120 meters lower than today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png). When all that ice melted and temperature was rising, the sea level elevated that 120 meters to what it is today. Couple of meters rise predicted due to anthropogenic global warming seems to compare very well with that. There's some common sense for you.

Stroller

2009-Apr-03, 07:37 AM

3. Historical warming and cooling cycles. Something caused the ice sheets that created and sculpted much of the northern North American landscape seemed to come and then receded without the benefit of my CO2 spewing gas hog Mustangs.

The only real global warming is the changes I experienced when I moved from Denver to Las Vegas.

This most is my first post on BAUT
Bill

Hi Bright light and welcome to BAUT.

You have Mustangs? Nice! I have a 1984 V8 TVR 350i (http://www.classicandperformancecar.com/front_website/octane_interact/modelpicture.php?id=684)

You raise an important point about your move from Denver to Vegas. The estimate for temperature change is that 1f=100 miles north-south. This helps put a 1.5f rise in global temperature over 100 years into perspective. Compared to the growing and receding of continent covering glaciers it's pretty small potatoes.

When you need a break from being challenged by the acute minds on the other side of the debate here, you might try this site (http://wattsupwiththat.com/) for a bit of R&R.

It's run by a professional meteorologist. Ari calls it 'a denialist blog' :)

geonuc

2009-Apr-03, 09:16 AM

Bright Light, I don't think that global warming is something an individual person can get a 'sense' of, common or otherwise. All of your points have been quickly and effectively disputed by others here.

You seem to view the topic with the notion that we humans cannot possibly affect the earth, which has, after all, existed for over four billion years. This is true, but it is not the earth that is any danger here. If sea level rises ten, twenty or a hundred feet, the earth will be just fine. The city of New York, however, will not.

Stroller

2009-Apr-03, 09:34 AM

You seem to view the topic with the notion that we humans cannot possibly affect the earth, which has, after all, existed for over four billion years. This is true, but it is not the earth that is any danger here. If sea level rises ten, twenty or a hundred feet, the earth will be just fine. The city of New York, however, will not.

Good point Geonuc.
So when the politicians tell us we have to submit to draconian taxes on the strength of an unproven theory, because "we have five years to save the planet", what they really mean is "We're worried about our real estate values"?

By the way, the IPCC estimate on potential sea level rise has been reduced from 'many metres' to about 20 inches over the next 50 years.

Nils Axel Morner, who has spent his career as a sea level researcher, has travelled all over the world actually looking at coastlines for evidence, and says the levels are hardly changing at all. Where they have, it's due to hysterisis(sp?), the rebound of land masses from the ice age, and subduction, the pushing of one tectonic plate under another.

Of course, the computer modelers disagree...

geonuc

2009-Apr-03, 09:49 AM

Good point Geonuc.
So when the politicians tell us we have to submit to draconian taxes on the strength of an unproven theory, because "we have five years to save the planet", what they really mean is "We're worried about our real estate values"?
Well, no. Aside from the fact that sea level rise is not the only effect we worry about, flooding New York City, and other low-lying cities, would produce undesireable consequences beyond 'real estate values'.

I used the example of sea level rise and NYC to illustrate how the effects of AGW would fall upon the human race, not the planet earth. As you point out, sea level rise is not projected to be as large as a hundred feet in any case (I don't think). But I'm not buying any property in the Maldives. :)

Stroller

2009-Apr-03, 12:29 PM

I'm not buying any property in the Maldives. :)

You'd probably be ok. Morner found the sea level has actually fallen there since the start of the '70's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner

Bright_Light

2009-Apr-03, 04:48 PM

I did some further reflecting on the whole Global Warming premise and I now agree that this must be real.
Here are the major components that I now accept as fact that are the center of the man made global warming phenomenon:

Burning fossil fuel creates carbon dioxide in greater quantities than the earth can absorb

All of the unabsorbed CO2 molecules are forming a global blanket around the globe that trap in the radiant heat from the surface both land and sea

This blanket is causing a rise in global temperatures that will cause the polar ice caps to melt causing ocean/sea levels to rise and cover coastal cities and islands

Not!
I have seen nothing definitive on where this fictitious blanket is forming. At which layer of the atmosphere/altitude will these molecules collect, bond(?) and form this barrier? I would like to know what physical mechanism is creating this blanket and keeping it intact. This must be something new in science that can be made to block the escape of radiant heat transfer from surface to the atmosphere and ultimately into space. Is this some magical area in the atmosphere that that remains static and never allows for any natural forces to act upon it as is continual done in all of the layers that I have ever studied?

I'll respond to the so-called disputing "evidence" later today. Thanks for the engauging discussion.

Swift

2009-Apr-03, 04:56 PM

I have seen nothing definitive on where this fictitious blanket is forming. At which layer of the atmosphere/altitude will these molecules collect, bond(?) and form this barrier? I would like to know what physical mechanism is creating this blanket and keeping it intact. This must be something new in science that can be made to block the escape of radiant heat transfer from surface to the atmosphere and ultimately into space. Is this some magical area in the atmosphere that that remains static and never allows for any natural forces to act upon it as is continual done in all of the layers that I have ever studied?

Here (http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm) is one of many websites available that explain the Greenhouse Effect. It is far from fictional or something new to science or magical. The Greenhouse Effect explains the current conditions on Earth, as well as on Venus. It is obvious from this thread that one might dispute the details and the effects of human generated CO2, but not the entire process.

Gillianren

2009-Apr-03, 05:13 PM

So when the politicians tell us we have to submit to draconian taxes on the strength of an unproven theory, because "we have five years to save the planet", what they really mean is "We're worried about our real estate values"?

Oh, brother. Where to start?

Do you expect to be taken seriously around here when you refer to an "unproven theory"? No wonder you don't see believing in intelligent design as a flaw in one's science.

Also, you remind me of someone I knew in college, when I was taking oceanography. This guy was well known for not being capable of understanding the answers to the questions he was asked. He, too, didn't understand what the big deal was with global warming, if the planet has been warmer in the past than it is now. So our professor told him about the melting of the Antarctic ice cap and how high it would raise sea levels were it to melt completely. The guy said, "So?" So our professor told him that the average elevation of the State of Florida is fifteen feet above sea level. The guy said, "So?" So our professor told him about the billions of dollars Florida contributes to the economy and the millions of people who live there and would become homeless. The guy said, "So?"

"Worried about our real estate values"? You don't understand half the consequences flooding out Manhattan would have, do you?

cope

2009-Apr-03, 06:37 PM

You'd probably be ok. Morner found the sea level has actually fallen there since the start of the '70's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner

Thanks for the wiki link on Morner. That's an interesting bit about his "Views on dowsing".

As for changing sea level however, the consensus view is opposite what Morner claims to be seeing in the Maldives. Again, from Wikipedia, this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png) describing long-term, world-wide sea level fluctuations.

Swift

2009-Apr-03, 07:03 PM

Good point Geonuc.
So when the politicians tell us we have to submit to draconian taxes on the strength of an unproven theory, because "we have five years to save the planet", what they really mean is "We're worried about our real estate values"?

Oh, brother. Where to start?

Do you expect to be taken seriously around here when you refer to an "unproven theory"? No wonder you don't see believing in intelligent design as a flaw in one's science.

Ok, everyone knock it off. Please don't prove to me why GW threads on BAUT are a bad idea.

Everyone will confine their posts to the science of global warming; not politics, not ID, not anything else, or this thread will be closed.

Gillianren

2009-Apr-03, 07:20 PM

Sorry, Swift.

flynjack1

2009-Apr-03, 08:21 PM

Bright light,
Pilots refer to "that warm and fuzzy feeling" as the last feeling you get before things go seriously wrong. I equate that to the feeling AGW supporters have that their theory is undoubtably correct. Science revels is demolishing theories in the light of new information. The facts as we know them do support that CO2 is a warming gas(as is methane and water vapor). The facts support that man is causing C02 levels to increase beyond the naturally produced ones. The contention is the degree of impact of C02 as a forcing agent as opposed to other forcing factors such as the sun or cloud formation etc... Thats what the debate is about IMHO. By the way, welcome to the forum.

Stroller

2009-Apr-03, 09:44 PM

Thanks for the wiki link on Morner. That's an interesting bit about his "Views on dowsing".

Wikipedia is a bit like Forrest Gump's box of choc-o-lates. Each time you reload the page, you not sure what you're going to get.

Morner's documentary shows a shoreline on the Maldives, complete with dried out bits and bobs in a ridgeline of material a foot or so *above* the current high water mark. There's no mistaking the signature of a previous high water mark above the current one.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Apr-04, 06:12 AM

At which layer of the atmosphere/altitude will these molecules collect, bond(?) and form this barrier?
For example Stephens et al. (2007) (http://www.purdue.edu/eas/carbon/Stephens.et.al.Science.2007.pdf) show in their figure 1 how the measured CO2 concentration varies by altitude.

I would like to know what physical mechanism is creating this blanket and keeping it intact.
It is called "absorption".

This must be something new in science that can be made to block the escape of radiant heat transfer from surface to the atmosphere and ultimately into space.
It is not new, the studies on the subject started almost 200 years ago and already 150 years ago it was shown observationally that some gases block thermal radiation. Here you can find about the history (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) of the subject.

Is this some magical area in the atmosphere that that remains static and never allows for any natural forces to act upon it as is continual done in all of the layers that I have ever studied?
What you mean by this? The gas concentration remains "static" (or in fact grows steadily) because the emissions of gases are continuous.

William

2009-Apr-04, 03:57 PM

http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf

Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere by Jack Barrett

As most are aware the CO2 molecule can only absorb certain specific frequencies. The CO2 molecule both absorbs and emits those specific light frequencies.

The lower atmosphere is saturated with CO2. Adding additional CO2 to the lower atmosphere has no affect on the absorption and emission of infrared light in that region. The statement that CO2 is saturated in the lower atmosphere is not controversial.

Now AGW (C02) theory predicts that there will be warming higher in the atmosphere where CO2 is not saturated.

That is the theory, however, actual measurements of the tropical troposphere shows there has not been warming of the tropical troposphere.

“A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions” David Douglass, John Christy, Benjamin Pearson and Fred Singer

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

There are other mechanisms to dissipate heat in the upper atmosphere that do not occur in the lower atmosphere such as a higher level of ions. The ions unlike a neutral atom will emit radiation at all frequencies when there is acceleration (change of direction due to a collision is of course acceleration) of the ion.

Now when the CO2 molecule absorbs an infrared photon it moves faster. There is a significant delay (Radiation absorption and emission by neutral atoms a is statistical quantum process) before the CO2 molecule can re-emit the absorbed photon. During the time period before the CO2 molecule re-emits a infrared photon, energy is transferred from the CO2 molecule to surrounding atoms and ions by collisions.

What is stated above would explain Douglass et al’s paper's finding that shows there was been no warming of the tropical troposphere which disproves the AWG CO2 hypothesis.

Stroller

2009-Apr-04, 04:29 PM

Interesting paper William, thanks for posting the link to it. What was the reaction of the realclimate crowd to the Douglas et al paper?

Bright_Light

2009-Apr-04, 06:34 PM

Ari, Gilliam, & Swift – I wish to offer my sincere thanks for the resources you all have provided to me to perform actual research, instead of using my “gut” opinions and unscientific postulations. This will allow me form a better understanding of the “other side” of this discussion. I don’t mean to be flip by some of my earlier comments but I’ll put forth a good faith effort to use this information.
I don’t like re-quoting posts if I can avoid it as this sometimes detracts from the post.

Absorption – I do recall that now that you mention that property, thanks Ari. And it is something to contend with but to compare the greenhouse effect that we see on Venus to a potential developing situation on earth, humm. I don’t quite get it yet. Is this just a one-way blanket? Meaning wouldn’t this developing increase in CO2 also keep heat from getting to the surface. I’ll educate my self more.

Quote from Ari: “What you mean by this? The gas concentration remains "static" (or in fact grows steadily) because the emissions of gases are continuous.” My understanding is that all levels of the atmosphere are impacted by forces from weather (troposphere), to solar forces such as ultraviolet light, cosmic rays, etc. (ozone, stratosphere & ionosphere). What I meant by this comment was all these forces influence the concentrations of gases. With CO2 being such a small percentage of the total atmosphere these forces should have an impact on creation of a blanket. But I’m wrong. (But what happened to that pesky shrinking ozone layer anyway, we’re not all fried yet?)

Stroller – I really enjoy your posts even the politically incorrect ones! Re my mustangs, I have a pair of ’03 Mach1’s they are blast.

I’ll back out of this discussion for now until I read my homework. Again thanks to all.

Bill

Gillianren

2009-Apr-04, 06:52 PM

Good luck with your studies, Bright Light. And please--it's Gillian, with an "n."

Stroller

2009-Apr-04, 06:53 PM

Bill, you're welcome, call again soon.

cope

2009-Apr-04, 09:05 PM

... What was the reaction of the realclimate crowd to the Douglas et al paper?

For the record, Gavin at RealClimate called into question two aspects of the Douglass (spelling corrected) paper. He challenged the calculations of model uncertainties and he noted the lack of discussion of the uncertainty of the observed values. He noted that two newer versions of the RAOBCORE values had been produced and, although Douglass was aware of versions 1.3 and 1.4 (which would show less diversion between observed and modeled), he used version 1.2 (which showed the greatest diversion).

William

2009-Apr-04, 10:48 PM

For the record, Gavin at RealClimate called into question two aspects of the Douglass (spelling corrected) paper. He challenged the calculations of model uncertainties and he noted the lack of discussion of the uncertainty of the observed values. He noted that two newer versions of the RAOBCORE values had been produced and, although Douglass was aware of versions 1.3 and 1.4 (which would show less diversion between observed and modeled), he used version 1.2 (which showed the greatest diversion).

A new paper has been submitted that analyzes the most recent tropical tropospheric temperatures. The new data supports Douglass et al's conclusion, the tropical troposphere has not warmed which disproves the AWG hypothesis.

When the planet was warming, everyone assumed there was no possibility the AWG fundamental science could be incorrect.

However, as the planet was quite clearly stopped warming and has started to cool there are two new question, why is the planet cooling and how extreme will this cooling event be?

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/rss_global_lt_march2009.png

Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere, by Jack Barrett

On a radiative-alone basis, the 47.7 K of warming may be divided up into contributions from water and carbon dioxide from the figures given in Table 2 and amount to 37.4 K from water and 9.3 K from carbon dioxide. The water contribution should then be reduced by the cooling effect from evaporation to 24.0 K. The above calculations apply only to the first 100 m of the atmosphere and water is less and less effective in comparison to carbon dioxide as altitude increases. This is because the contribution to the atmospheric content of water reduces very rapidly with altitude, the ever-lower temperatures determining that the water vapour content decreases, that of carbon dioxide only decreasing with the decreasing pressure. At sea level the mean molecular ratio of water vapour to CO2 is around 23, but at an altitude of 10 km the value is as low as 0.2. It would be expected that more CO2 would have a greater effect on atmospheric warming at higher altitudes, but this seems not to be occurring in spite of the predictions of most GCMs.

Comment:
CO2 increases are as noted above beneficial to planet life (doubling of CO2 will increase C3 type plants (C3 type plants are trees, shrubs and broad leaf plants) growth by 50% and water requirements for both C3 and C4 type (C4 plants are grasses) plants by 30%.)

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Apr-05, 05:15 AM

Note that William has presented the Douglass et al. paper many times in this thread before, and ignored all the counter-arguments for it. Here is the post (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-22.html#post1460039) where I last time tried to remind William about this, but he ignored that too, and soon went on advertising Douglass et al. again.

Couple of papers on the subject that show Douglass et al. to be wrong:

Haimberger et al. (2008) (http://homepage.univie.ac.at/leopold.haimberger/i1520-0442-21-18-4587.pdf):

While no climate model data are included in the present intercomparison, we note that the temperature trends from RICH–RAOBCORE version 1.4 are more consistent with trends from recent climate model runs than earlier radiosonde datasets. In the tropical upper troposphere, where the predicted amplification of surface trends is largest, there is no significant discrepancy between trends from RICH–RAOBCORE version 1.4 and the range of temperature trends from climate models. This result directly contradicts the conclusions of a recent paper by Douglass et al. (2007).

Santer et al. (2008) (http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/santer_IJoC_published_2008.pdf) look into Douglass et al. methods, and find that (DCPS07 is Douglass et al.):

DCPS07’s conclusions are erroneous, and are primarily due to the neglect of observed trend uncertainties in their statistical test (see Section 4.2).
See the list of reasons in page 7 for why Douglass et al. statistical test is invalid. Santer et al. also show that there is no serious discrepancy:

We revisit such comparisons here using new observational estimates of surface and tropospheric temperature changes. We find that there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Apr-05, 05:25 AM

Is this just a one-way blanket? Meaning wouldn’t this developing increase in CO2 also keep heat from getting to the surface.
Yes, it works to both directions, but you have to remember that this "blanket" is for infrared radiation. The blanket doesn't stop visible light from the Sun, so the visible light gets through the atmosphere and warms ocean and land here on the surface of the Earth. Warmed ocean and land then start to emit infrared radiation (warm things do that when they cool). Without greenhouse effect that radiation would be free to fly out to the space. But the presence of the greenhouse effect keeps some of the radiation within the atmosphere, and the Earth is therefore warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect.

William

2009-Apr-05, 11:28 AM

Couple of papers on the subject that show Douglass et al. to be wrong:

Haimberger et al. (2008) (http://homepage.univie.ac.at/leopold.haimberger/i1520-0442-21-18-4587.pdf):

Santer et al. (2008) (http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/santer_IJoC_published_2008.pdf) look into Douglass et al. methods, and find that (DCPS07 is Douglass et al.):

See the list of reasons in page 7 for why Douglass et al. statistical test is invalid. Santer et al. also show that there is no serious discrepancy:

Ari,

The data does show the tropical stratosphere did not warm in the late 20th century which disproves the AWG CO2 hypothesis. What this paper asserts is that the previous temperature data taken from both satellites and balloon measurement (radiosonde) was biased to the warm side. This paper states if you remove the "warm bias" in the past data, then the late 20th century data shows the tropical troposphere did warm. There does seem to be a curious conspiracy of public available data that disproves AWG CO2.

Now the troposphere is currently warming because there was been a massive increase in planetary cloud cover. Clouds reflect short wave radiation back up to space. As the troposphere has ozone which absorbs short wave radiation it now has a second chance to absorb short wave radiation and hence warms.

If the late 20th century planetary warming was due to a decrease in clouds due to electroscavenging (mechanism where solar wind bursts removes cloud forming ions from the atmosphere), now that there is an increase in planetary clouds the planet should cool.

Comment:
The mechanism is somewhat more complicate than more clouds cold and less clouds warm. It appears the solar changes also affects the ionosphere which results in more heat being lost to space at night. It is the ionospheric changes I would assume that is resulting in record cold temperatures during the winter. In the region where I live we had -41C March 9 which is the coldest every recorded in March at this location. The previous low was -29C.

http://homepage.univie.ac.at/leopold.haimberger/i1520-0442-21-18-4587.pdf

Toward Elimination of the Warm Bias in Historic Radiosonde Temperature Records—Some New Results from a Comprehensive Intercomparison of Upper-Air Data

Despite much research in upper-air observations there is still sizeable discrepancy between layer mean atmospheric temperatures derived from radiances of the Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) and MSU equivalent
temperatures calculated from radiosonde data (see, e.g., Santer et al. 2005; Karl et al. 2006; Trenberth et al. 2007). Mears et al. (2006) suspect that especially the lower stratospheric time series from radiosondes are biased and Sherwood et al. (2005) and Randel and Wu (2006) have described pervasive daytime biases in the tropics. Allen and Sherwood (2007) have further shown that the apparent cooling in tropical radiosonde temperatures is not consistent with wind shear changes in this region. However, all this evidence has been fragmentary so far and the radiosonde biases have yet to be removed in a comprehensive manner.

As I have been saying the planet is about to abruptly cool. For sometime those people who strongly advocate the AWG CO2 hypothesis have said that changes in the solar magnetic cycle will have little if any affect on the climate. The data shows the planet is abruptly cooling. Any comments?

Snowiest winter ever recorded in North Dakota

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/27/snowiest-winter-ever-recorded-in-north-dakota/

Temperature drops to 50 F in Alaska. Roofs collapse in Spokane due to 100 year record snowfall.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/30/temperatures-could-drop-to-50-below-zero-in-parts-of-alaska/

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/rss_global_lt_march2009.png

cope

2009-Apr-05, 03:02 PM

A new paper has been submitted that analyzes the most recent tropical tropospheric temperatures. The new data supports Douglass et al's conclusion, the tropical troposphere has not warmed which disproves the AWG hypothesis.

The paper by Douglass to which you provided a link is the same paper Gavin critiqued. To which more recent paper are you referring?

nauthiz

2009-Apr-05, 03:40 PM

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/19/short-term-trends-from-giss-model-e-the-model-would-be-off-by-about-015c-in-the-first-five-years/

OK, just rewinding a bit:

This graph (http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2107/modeleextraev0.png) is one we (finally) got to after Stroller said that it shows a strong negative forcing happening before Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991.

Note how the non-GHG trace levels off in the period from 1988-1991, and then takes a nosedive around 1991. The data is wiggly, so you could interpret it to mean that the drop started in late 1990, but we can't really be sure that the forcing is actually getting stronger until the late part of 1991, which would be after the Pinatubo eruption.
Stroller describes this feature as
a strong negative forcing starting several years before Pinatubo errupted.(emphasis mine)
I think I'll refrain from any further comment on that and just let it speak for itself instead.

Moving on, this graph was originally linked as evidence to show that the modelers are throwing in (apparently large) tweaks to how aerosols are handled in order to help force the models to match nature. The main reason they don't match nature is because of an artificial exaggeration of the influence of CO2. Here's the original spot where the graph came up:
Aerosols have been overestimated as a negative forcing in the GCM's to help offset an overinflated co2 sensitivity. This graph (http://1.2.3.13/bmi/img175.imageshack.us/img175/2107/modeleextraev0.png) shows part of the problem.
Now, I'm resurrecting this for two reasons. The first is just that I was away for a couple days so I'm playing catch-up. The second is that the source for this graph ultimately failed to be impressive (although I think I am starting to understand why so many people have such spectacular misconceptions about how GCMs work).

That means that we still have two very major claims that are still in need of tangible support:
1. We need evidence that the handling of aerosols is being artificially fudged in order to force the models to fit nature. So far the support we have on that has consisted of a painfully misread graph, and a paper that actually shows how a discrepancy between models and nature was handled in exactly the opposite way: they didn't sweep the discrepancy under the carpet, they used it to help guide better research into figuring out exactly how aerosols work.

2. We need evidence that the handling of CO2 is being artificially fudged. This one should be a lot easier. All it would take is showing the numbers that are fed into, say, one of the IPCC runs of GISS ModelE, and comparing them to lab-determined numbers for how CO2 actually behaves.

William

2009-Apr-05, 06:30 PM

The paper by Douglass to which you provided a link is the same paper Gavin critiqued. To which more recent paper are you referring?

Hi cope,

This a reference to the paper.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4991

A debate exists over whether tropical troposphere temperature trends in climate models are inconsistent with observations (Karl et al. 2006, IPCC (2007), Douglass et al 2007, Santer et al 2008). Most recently, Santer et al (2008, herein S08) asserted that the Douglass et al statistical methodology was flawed and that a correct methodology showed there is no statistically significant difference between the model ensemble mean trend and either RSS or UAH satellite observations. However this result was based on data ending in 1999. Using data up to the end of 2007 (as available to S08) or to the end of 2008 and applying exactly the same methodology as S08 results in a statistically significant difference between the ensemble mean trend and UAH observations and approaching statistical significance for the RSS T2 data. The claim by S08 to have achieved a “partial resolution” of the discrepancy between observations and the model ensemble mean trend is unwarranted.

lomiller1

2009-Apr-05, 07:17 PM

Come back in the unlikely event it’s published. McIntyre has a poor record of actuly publishing the stuff he posts on his blog.

William

2009-Apr-05, 10:05 PM

Come back in the unlikely event it’s published. McIntyre has a poor record of actuly publishing the stuff he posts on his blog.

Lomiller,

Steve McIntyre’s blog is science based. There is no name calling or sarcasm. McIntyre does not censor those people who present data on his blog that challenges his scientific viewpoint.

McIntyre has published papers and has a record for thoughtful logical analysis of data. Analyzing the published data using Santer’s methodology does not seem to be controversial. If the new data analyzed using Santer's own methodogy shows that the AWG hypothesis is incorrect, perhaps it is.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4991

Another means in which to test the correctness of the AWG CO2 hypothesis would be to look for any evidence of the end of global warming.

Arctic sea ice recovering nicely.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

Oceans continuing to cool.

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.4.2.2009.gif

Planetary temperature is trending down. The trend down in the first significant down year is not remarkable except for record cold temperatures in specific locations and 100 year snowfall records.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/rss_global_lt_march2009.png

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/30/temperatures-could-drop-to-50-below-zero-in-parts-of-alaska/

lomiller1

2009-Apr-06, 02:08 AM

Lomiller,

Steve McIntyre’s blog is science based. There is no name calling or sarcasm. McIntyre does not censor those people who present data on his blog that challenges his scientific viewpoint.

McIntyre’s background is mining, not climate and his blog is no more science based then Behe’s. It’s highly unlikely he will get this paper published and if he does it will be shredded or ignored.

Arctic sea ice recovering nicely.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

The site you link to doesn’t support your assessment of their data.

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.4.2.2009.gif

That’s surface temperature, which is a wind driven phenomenon and says nothing about global warming.

Stroller

2009-Apr-06, 09:15 AM

It’s highly unlikely he will get this paper published and if he does it will be shredded or ignored.

I agree this does seem likely.
You can lead a horse to water...

nauthiz

2009-Apr-06, 02:03 PM

This horse would love to drink. He's been begging and pleading for someone to actually deliver some of that water that was promised.

1. We need evidence that the handling of aerosols is being artificially fudged in order to force the models to fit nature.

. . .

2. We need evidence that the handling of CO2 is being artificially fudged.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Apr-08, 02:40 PM

The data does show the tropical stratosphere did not warm in the late 20th century which disproves the AWG CO2 hypothesis.
You keep ignoring the counter-arguments.

1. You offer some blog-entry from ClimateAudit about some paper nobody in public has seen yet. Apparently, that should show that even with Santer et al. method some statistically significant difference between models and observations arises. Note that they do not (according to abstract) show Santer et al. analysis method wrong and especially they do not show Santer et al. arguments about flaws in Douglass et al. wrong. You are ignoring those arguments.

2. You highlight a paragraph from Haimberger et al. I mentioned, but ignore that results of the same paper are contradicting Douglass et al. conclusions. In fact, if you look at the conclusion section of Haimberger et al., you will see that their bias corrections remove most of the cooling bias, and that the remaining cooling is not statistically significant. You are ignoring that.

3. Earlier I have pointed out that Allen & Sherwood (2008) (http://lubos.motl.googlepages.com/sherwood-allen-ngeo-2008.pdf) found that there is no discrepancy between the models and observations. You have ignored also that.

4. Earlier I also said (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-18.html#post1449775):

But let's assume for argument's sake that Douglass et al. (2007) are correct and there is a real difference between the models and the observations in the tropical troposphere. In this situation, nobody would yet know why the models don't follow the observations in tropics. Yet, you claim that Douglass et al. "essentially disproves that CO2 has the cause of the 20th century warming". How would you know that it is specifically the CO2 that is wrong instead of numerous other possibilities? Douglass et al. discuss possible differences in tropical temperatures between the models and the observations, and they don't even mention CO2 in their paper. Claiming that CO2 effects are ruled out based on this paper is false.
You have ignored that argument.

5. Earlier I also said (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-18.html#post1449775):

Even if you believe that Douglass et al. is correct, you need to ask why it is happening only in tropics, where (coincidentally) the distribution of radiosondes is sparse. You also need to ask what other causes there might be for models to be wrong (that is, if they even would be wrong) only in tropics. Could there be some grand but yet local phenomenon that might be difficult to model, such as some large oscillation? Instead of asking these questions, you are leaping to a conclusion that CO2 is not causing warming. I find your approach very unscientific.
You have ignored also that argument.

...

I won't bother with your cloud claims once again.

The data shows the planet is abruptly cooling. Any comments?
Yes, my comment is that citing anomalous weather events doesn't have anything to do with climate. For some reason you just don't get that. And even when looking at short time temperature changes, it seems that surface has been warming from the beginning of 2008 (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif). Your claims are therefore baseless. Repeating them over and over don't improve them at all.

McIntyre has published papers and has a record for thoughtful logical analysis of data.
Apparently you have missed the part where I showed a McIntyre blog-entry that made a conclusion without studying the subject.

William

2009-Apr-09, 02:05 AM

You keep ignoring the counter-arguments.

Ari,

Besides name calling do you have any scientific evidence, say current data that shows the planet is warming? Is 2008/2009 a problem for you?

Can you explain this graph?

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/rss_global_lt_march2009.png

Please keep coming back. I am interested to see if it is possible for you to change your mind based on the facts.

Hint. Extreme cold records are broken when the planet cools.

In my location, March 9th -41C. That is the coldest ever recorded in April for this location. The previous record was -29C.

Snowiest winter ever recorded in North Dakota

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/27/snowiest-winter-ever-recorded-in-north-dakota/

Temperature drops to 50 F in Alaska. Roofs collapse in Spokane due to 100 year record snowfall.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/30/temperatures-could-drop-to-50-below-zero-in-parts-of-alaska/

William

2009-Apr-09, 02:16 AM

Ari,

Planetary sea ice is now above the 1979 to 2000 year mean. What could be causing that change? Any answers?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Antarctic sea is making great progress.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg

I am curious how cold the planet will need to get before the news is reported.

Same question for the sun.

Gillianren

2009-Apr-09, 02:19 AM

William, will you please define "weather" and "climate"? In your own words.

pumpkinpie

2009-Apr-09, 02:59 AM

Hint. Extreme cold records are broken when the planet cools.

In my location, March 9th -41C. That is the coldest ever recorded in April for this location. The previous record was -29C.

I didn't see data for March, but the same season your location was having record cold, another was having record heat. This (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1201) happened in February:

The most notable extreme February heat occurred February 7 in southern Australia. Many locations set new all-time hottest temperature records, including an all-time state record for Victoria when temperatures reached 48.8°C (119.8°F) in Hopetoun, shattering the previous record of 47.2°C (117.0°F) set in January 1939.

So, if I look just at this data, to me it would say the planet is warming. By your above reasoning, wouldn't extreme warm records be broken when the planet warms? How can both be happening at the same time?

The answer, as Gillianren points out, is that we are providing examples of weather at specific locations. Not climate.

William

2009-Apr-09, 03:11 AM

William, will you please define "weather" and "climate"? In your own words.

Gillianren,

I can answer your question with a couple of graphs.

This is a graph of cyclic changes to the planetary temperature. What ever causes these cyclic temperature temperature changes, the yearly "seasonal" changes in insolation, and the small external/internal non-periodic functions creates what we call weather.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/rss_global_lt_march2009.png

This graph shows a planet that is in an ice epoch, at the end of interglacial period. What is shown in this graph is what we call "climate change". It should be noted that the planet does not overshoot to the warm side. When the planet is warmer there are more clouds which regulates the planet's temperature.

The area where I live is covered with a 2 km thick ice sheet during the glacial phase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

Specifically what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle is not known. The data indicates that it is some external massive forcing function.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100348&org=ATM

And, said Kaplan, "During the last two times in Earth's history when glaciers formed in North America, the Andes also had major glacial periods." The results address a major debate in the scientific community, according to Singer and Kaplan, because they seem to undermine a widely held idea that global redistribution of heat through the oceans is the primary mechanism that drove major climate shifts of the past.

The implications of the new work, say the study authors, support a different hypothesis: Rapid cooling of the Earth's atmosphere synchronized climate change around the globe during each of the last two glacial epochs. "Because the Earth is oriented in space in such a way that the hemispheres are out of phase in the amount of solar radiation they receive, it is surprising to find that the climate in the Southern Hemisphere cooled off repeatedly during a period when it received its largest dose of solar radiation," says Singer. "Moreover, this rapid synchronization of atmospheric temperature between the polar hemispheres appears to have occurred during both of the last major ice ages that gripped the Earth."

Comment:
Currently the deep ocean is around 4C. When the planet was warmer, the deep ocean was around 12C. When water evaporates, it becomes salter and denser. When the oceans where warmer the salty water fell to the bottom of the ocean bringing nutrients to the oceans surface. Due to the lack of ocean circulation vast areas of the ocean are currently dead. One of the largest extinctions of ocean life occurred roughly 12 million years ago do to very cold water created by the Antarctic ice sheet.

Also when the oceans were warmer the was life - trees, animals, and so forth - at both poles, rather than the ice sheets.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Apr-09, 04:44 AM

Besides name calling do you have any scientific evidence, say current data that shows the planet is warming?
What name calling? I only said you are ignoring arguments, which you are doing again. You are also trying to change the subject. So, are you going to keep ignoring all these arguments and keep pretending that Douglass et al. is proof that AGW CO2 warming is false?

Gillianren

2009-Apr-09, 04:54 AM

I can answer your question with a couple of graphs.

But that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking you to define it in words. Give me a definition, in your own words, of "climate" and "weather."

William

2009-Apr-09, 05:24 AM

What name calling? I only said you are ignoring arguments, which you are doing again. You are also trying to change the subject. So, are you going to keep ignoring all these arguments and keep pretending that Douglass et al. is proof that AGW CO2 warming is false?

To me it seems obvious the planet was stopped warming. CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to increase the planet’s temperature has dropped.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/rss_global_lt_march2009.png

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Why is sea ice above the long term average?

I provided papers that show there are multiple periods in the past when there was not correlation of planetary temperature and CO2. Your response is well it is different then as opposed to now.

When the data does not support the AWG hypothesis the retort is perhaps those presenting the data and analysis are scoundrels.

Roger Pielke Jr. has submitted a paper that shows the conclusions of the tropospheric wind paper were incorrect.

http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-342.pdf

Recent work has concluded that there has been significant warming in the tropical upper troposphere using the thermal wind equation to diagnose temperature trends from observed winds; a result which diverges from all other observational data. In our paper we examine evidence for this conclusion from a variety of directions and find that evidence for a significant tropical tropospheric warming is weak. In support of this conclusion we provide evidence that, for the period 1979-2007, except for the highest latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, both the thermal wind, as estimated by the zonal

When I presented uncontested fundamental scientific that a doubling of CO2 will result in a 50% increase in plant growth (C3) on the entire planet and 30% more efficient use of water (C3 and C4 plants), you response is off in left field. The absolute highest CO2 levels could rise if all of the "fossil" fuels were burnt is less than the levels of CO2 that are currently injected into greenhouses to increase plant growth and yield.

We both live on this planet. Increased CO2 is positive for the biosphere. Increased CO2 will not result in significant global warming.

In the past some cyclic event was caused abrupt cooling of the planet. Interglacial periods in the past have been short and have ended abruptly. That is a fact.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Apr-09, 08:10 AM

To me it seems obvious the planet was stopped warming... [followed by usual William's weather report]
Why you aren't answering my questions?

Pielke's paper at best might take care one of the arguments, what about the rest?

Stroller

2009-Apr-09, 12:51 PM

An interesting article here on aerosols for Nauthiz

http://www.physorg.com/news158423459.html

"There's a tendency to think of aerosols as small players, but they're not," said Shindell. "Right now, in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the Arctic, the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases."

The growing recognition that aerosols may play a larger climate role can have implications for policymakers.

"We will have very little leverage over climate in the next couple of decades if we're just looking at carbon dioxide," Shindell said. "If we want to try to stop the Arctic summer sea ice from melting completely over the next few decades, we're much better off looking at aerosols and ozone."

I think it's telling that aerosols and ozone get lumped together here. I wonder what the conclusion would be if they were separated. I suspect ozone has a far greater impact, but since it's production is largely driven by solar activity, that wouldn't sit well with the taxation regime about to be imposed. I expect a lot of forthcoming disinformation on this matter.

Time to start making the best lifesaving device to be banned by an earlier 'man made climate catastrophe scare' again? - the Halon fire extinguisher

nauthiz

2009-Apr-09, 01:01 PM

William

2009-Apr-09, 02:33 PM

Why you aren't answering my questions?

Pielke's paper at best might take care one of the arguments, what about the rest?

Ari,

I am not sure what arguments or questions you have. I am sure what your position is.

I have provided evidence in published papers that CO2 levels in the past do not correlate with planetary temperature. CO2 levels have been high when the planet was cool and low when the planet was warm.

http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-12.html#post1431153

I have provided Douglass et al’s paper that shows the tropospheric stratosphere has not warmed. Santer disputed that finding however recent data supports Douglass et al’s analysis and conclusions. Recent tropospheric wind data supports the assertion that there is not something incorrect with the tropospheric temperature data.

CO2 levels are rising the planet’s temperature is not. Why is that?

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/rss_global_lt_march2009.png

And lastly, I provided unequivocal data that shows increases in CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere.

As plants require CO2 to live and CO2 is currently only 0.03% by volume (the lowest level in 500 million years) an increase in CO2 on this planet’s plants is unequivocally beneficial.

http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-23.html#post1461875

The AWG (CO2) hypothesis appears to be incorrect. Limiting CO2 emissions will not help the biosphere.

Protecting habitat, limiting population growth, and reduced consumption per person is the solution.

From an environmental and humanity standpoint, abrupt cooling is a clear and present danger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

William

2009-Apr-09, 02:46 PM

CO2 is required for life. More CO2 will help the biosphere. "Environmentalists" need a basis lesson in biology.

I have not heard a single comment refuting this statement. I am sincerely interested in why people believe CO2 is a dangerous "greenhouse" gas. The data and analysis does not support that assertion.

CO2 is injection is used in commercial greenhouse to increase plant growth and yield.

Use of CO2 in Greenhouses

Carbon dioxide is one of the essential ingredients in green plant growth and is a primary environmental factor in greenhouses. CO2 enrichment at 2, 3 or four times natural concentration will cause plants to grow faster and improve plant will quality...

Plants are made up of about 90% carbon and water with other elements like nitrogen calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus and trace elements making up only a small percentage. Almost all the carbon in plants comes from this minor 300 ppm of carbon dioxide in the air...

The process called photosynthesis is that plants take in CO2 through pores called stoma, in their leaves during the daylight hours. They give off oxygen at the same time. Without this oxygen animal and human life would not be possible...

The reason you will get more rapid and efficient growth and better plant quality with a higher CO2 level is because plants must absorb CO2 in combination with water, soil nutrients and sunlight which produces sugars which are vital for growth. If any of these elements are missing or low, plant growth will be retarded. When CO2 is increased to over 1000 ppm it results in higher production and plant quality...

http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/use_of_co2_in_a_greenhouse.htm

http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/greenhouse_co2_generators_from_a.htm

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Apr-09, 02:54 PM

I am not sure what arguments or questions you have.
Yes you are. Questions were presented in the post you yourself quoted. First question was "what name calling?" and the second question was "are you going to keep ignoring all these arguments and keep pretending that Douglass et al. is proof that AGW CO2 warming is false?". You already answered this second question indirectly in this latest post of yours by parroting your claim about Douglass et al. once more, so it is clear that you will go on ignoring counter-arguments.

Of course it might get confusing when you routinely ignore pretty much all the questions presented to you.

Arguments were presented in this post (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-29.html#post1468851) (latest presentation of them anyway, most were presented already in my original post dealing with your claims about Douglass et al. I also have posted reminders about these arguments from time to time when you have been parroting your claims over and over, so it is very strange that you ask about the arguments), I even numbered them for you. You must have read them because you responded to argument number 3 with your Pielke paper.

I am sure what your position is.
Go ahead and enlighten me; what my position is?

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Apr-09, 03:05 PM

Stroller

2009-Apr-09, 03:17 PM

That is an interesting article, but what would be even more interesting is if you would answer my questions.

And while we're at it, this is more model-based research. How can you possibly think this is valid? I thought you thought aerosols were handled in the models by just tweaking numbers to get the results they wanted.

I think it's telling that you would say that. It tells me that you didn't read, oh, say, the fourth through sixth paragraphs of the article.

Tell me, are you just parroting a blog again?

I't's clear that Shindell, a stout member of the AGW community, is shifting his emphasis from co2 to other factors. This tells you everything about his own belief in the reliability of the IPCC models you need to know. The Hockey Jockey's who authored those models said the arctic warming was wholly consistent with their models. They and Shindell clearly can't both be right if 45% of the arctic warming is down to soot and ozone.

I read all of the article, and it's very revealing. Coupled with the Swanson and Tsonis paper expecting up to 30 years of cooling, it's clear that change in climate change theory is afoot.

The science is not settled, and never was.

Interesting times ahead.

It's clear from your ad hominem insult about 'parroting from blogs' that like Ari, you are incapable of civil discussion, so I'll leave it there.

nauthiz

2009-Apr-09, 03:55 PM

I't's clear that Shindell, a stout member of the AGW community, is shifting his emphasis from co2 to other factors.
That's not clear to me at all. What was Shindell's previous opinion on the influence of CO2?

This tells you everything about his own belief in the reliability of the IPCC models you need to know.
Shindell works at GISS, so this work was presumably based on GISS ModelE (their coupled atmospheric-ocean model), which is one of the IPCC models. This gets back to that question I keep asking - I have such a hard time figuring out your opinion on the validity of computer modeling as a scientific tool that at this point I'm all but convinced that you don't even know what your own opinion on it is.

Your willingness to trust a particular computer model finding seems to have nothing to do with the scientific validity of the techniques involved and everything to do with whether the finding agrees with your preconceptions.

The Hockey Jockey's who authored those models said the arctic warming was wholly consistent with their models.
Mann, Bradley, and Hughes are in charge of all the models? That's news to me.

They and Shindell clearly can't both be right if 45% of the arctic warming is down to soot and ozone.
What numbers have teams who were working with other models come up with?

It's clear from your ad hominem insult about 'parroting from blogs' that like Ari, you are incapable of civil discussion, so I'll leave it there.
That wasn't an ad hominem, it was an observation. Several times now I've seen that you'll post something as evidence based on what's said in a blog post, and upon further investigation of the actual science I discover that the paper itself says nothing of the source. In at least one case (about aerosols, no less) I found out that the story the paper told was more-or-less the opposite of the spin you claimed it had. Not only that, but there are two cases in recent memory where you've posted comments about a graph that a) seem to have been inherited from a third-party source and b) didn't stand up to even a cursory visual inspection of the graph itself.

Besides, I stand by my previous statement: You should be very cautious about accusing people who make statements that go alongside a more in-depth analysis or can be backed up with concrete examples of ad hominems. If something like that is an ad hom, then I shudder to think what this would be:

It's computer games and bad analysis, and a lot of well meaning, well funded, but gullible graduates, all backed up by a lot of rhetoric and a political agenda.

Gillianren

2009-Apr-09, 04:30 PM

CO2 is required for life. More CO2 will help the biosphere. "Environmentalists" need a basis lesson in biology.

What a delightful argument! Let's extend it, since you're not going to answer my question. Water is required for life. More water will help the biosphere. Sunlight is required for life. More sunlight will help the biosphere. You see how that argument doesn't actually work?

nauthiz

2009-Apr-09, 04:50 PM

Sulphur is needed for life. . .

lomiller1

2009-Apr-09, 05:17 PM

I't's clear that Shindell, a stout member of the AGW community, is shifting his emphasis from co2 to other factors.

If you read the paper you clearly didn’t understand it. Aerosols are indeed a big player, but they have a net *cooling* effect. This offsets the warming cause by CO2 until such a time as the aerosols begin to disappear, then you get warming as the full effect of CO2 is felt.

Current aerosol emissions is Asia seem to be less sulfate based and may be causing warming instead of cooling, but this isn't well documented. What Shindell does document is how the disappearance of sulfate based aerosols is a big player in North America and Europe at the moment. As I said though that’s CO2 warming that was being covered by sulfates not warming caused by the sulfates themselves.

Joe Durnavich

2009-Apr-09, 05:17 PM

...as Gillianren points out, is that we are providing examples of weather at specific locations. Not climate.

If weather is what is happening locally around me and climate something else, how can the fire-breathing dragon of global warming ever affect me? Will I ever be able to step outside and say that this right here is global warming?

Gillianren

2009-Apr-09, 05:49 PM

If weather is what is happening locally around me and climate something else, how can the fire-breathing dragon of global warming ever affect me? Will I ever be able to step outside and say that this right here is global warming?

Okay, let's try this. Climate is made up of weather. Your individual weather is different from your specific climate. The fact that it's warmer or colder one day, or even one season, does not mean that the entire climate has changed. However, when your climate has changed, it will change your weather. Because we're looking at global climate, your individual climate may actually have cooled, but the worldwide total average temperature will go up. Does that make any sense?

nauthiz

2009-Apr-09, 06:17 PM

To take a pedestrian analogy:

It's absolutely impossible to predict when a particular uranium atom will decay. But if you take a bunch of them together and average out their behavior you can determine its half-life, which is a fairly precise measure we can use to determine how many atoms in that lump of uranium will have decayed in a given amount of time.

The relationship between climate and weather is similar - climate can be thought of as the average of a whole lot of weather. And, mathematically speaking, the reason why the overall decay behavior of a whole lot of uranium atoms is much more predictable than the decay behavior of a single uranium atom is essentially the same as the reason why climate is more predictable than weather.

Joe Durnavich

2009-Apr-09, 11:19 PM

It's absolutely impossible to predict when a particular uranium atom will decay.The relationship between climate and weather is similar - climate can be thought of as the average of a whole lot of weather.
When somebody complains about the heat and drought in a region of Australia, say, we say that is weather, not climate, correct? Could we construct a parallel saying for the decaying uranium atom example? My first thought on this is that when a decay event happens, it is a genuine instance of, well, radioactive decay.

I suppose I am looking for instances of global warming. Don't take this a back door denial of global warming. Two years ago, northern Wisconsin was experiencing a drought while the southern part of the state and northern Illinois was flooding. I was asked if this was due to global warming.

I didn't know how to answer because of the phrase often echoed here and elsewhere: "That's weather, not climate." It seemed to me that I would never be able to attribute any atmospheric event actually experienced to global warming. It seemed that global warming could be directly experienced only some years afterward while viewing an Excel spreadsheet or some other calculating and summarizing mechanism.

nauthiz

2009-Apr-09, 11:33 PM

I'm not sure that you can really attribute any one shorter-term event to climate change. You might be able to predict that certain kinds of weather will become more or less common as a region's climate changes, but even if things stayed exactly as they are you'd still have the occasional drought and it's a very chaotic system so it's extremely difficult (if not impossible) to pin any one cause to a particular event.

Weather's also a kind of fuzzy term. In the context of climate study, anything that happens at a scale smaller than very long-term trends might be referred to as weather. Even global surface temperature variations that happen on a scale smaller than a few years are commonly referred to as weather.

Long story short, the only truly clear-cut example of global warming I can think of is the global temperature record.

Stroller

2009-Apr-09, 11:48 PM

the only truly clear-cut example of global warming I can think of is the global temperature record.

Which is on a 9000 year downtrend with a few humps of warmness such as the Roman and Medieval optima in it.

William

2009-Apr-10, 12:28 AM

What a delightful argument! Let's extend it, since you're not going to answer my question. Water is required for life. More water will help the biosphere. Sunlight is required for life. More sunlight will help the biosphere. You see how that argument doesn't actually work?

Gillianren, Plants require CO2 to live. Greenhouses inject CO2 at 3 to 4 times current atmospheric levels to increase plant growth and yield. (Up to around 1000 ppm. Plants continue to make use of additional CO2 at 2000 ppm.) CO2 levels are at there lowest level in 500 million years. Climbers on Everest speak of the death zone. An altitude at which O2 levels are below what is required to sustain animal life. For C3 type plants (Trees and all broad leaf plants) the death level for CO2 is 120 ppm. Increasing CO2 increases plant growth, yield, and reduces desertification.

Gillianren, I believe I answered your question as to what is weather and what is climate change. There is no evidence that CO2 has changed the climate. The is unequivocal evidence of the interglacial/glacial cycle, which is climate change. The ice epoch which we are currently in is climate change.

The entire biosphere will benefit from increased CO2 levels. The reason you believe CO2 is a dangerous poison has nothing to do with science.

Ari,
The Permian-Triassic extinction was not caused by too high CO2 levels. CO2 levels in the Permian-Triassic period were 10 times current levels. CO2 levels have been as high as 12 times and no extinction.

There are multiple theories for what caused the Permian-Triassic extinction and no consensus and proof to resolve the issue. One theory is that O2 levels were too high. O2 is deadly to life at very high levels and there is a danger of massive forest fires as O2 levels rise.

Any way as I noted, the absolute highest C02 levels can get in the atmosphere are around 3 times. (Around 1000 ppm or 0.1%) CO2 levels in the Permian-Triassic period were around 10 times, so there is no logical connection. You provide a link to your comment, but there is no logical in your comment, that refutes P.Sinha's statement of fact.

Desertification P.Sinha

http://books.google.ca/books?id=jZb2Qq9cEz0C&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=Desertification++CO2+Levels+C3+Plants&source=bl&ots=eh6yLwyyeN&sig=WrhGi0OVb6faQpAzdyaZpL1LNZs&hl=en&ei=bJvLSffHDImGsQPs_82wCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

While scientists disagree about the likely effects of additional carbon dioxide on global temperature… … agree on another important effect of a rise in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, as it is projected, would increase plant production by almost one-third (1/3). Most plants would grow faster and bigger, with increases in… The number of fruits and flowers would increase. Root/top ratios would increase, giving many plants better root systems for access to water and nutrients.

…C3 plants respond most dramatically to higher levels of CO2. At current levels of CO2, up to half of the photosynthate in C3 plants is typically lost and returned to the air by a process called photo-respiration, which occurs simultaneously with photosynthesis in sunlight.

Elevated levels of atmospheric C02 virtually eliminate photo-respiration in C3 plants. Higher levels of CO2 also sharply reduce …

C4 plants also experience a boost in photosynthesis in response to a higher carbon dioxide level…

…the largest benefit for C4 plants received from high CO2 levels comes from reduced water loss. Loss of water through leaf pores declines by about 30 per cent in C4 with a doubling of CO2 concentration from the current atmosphere.

Comments:
Plants have develop evolutionary methods to survive with the current ultra low levels of CO2. At around 120 ppm almost all C3 plants die. CO2 levels reached 0.018% during the glacial phase which killed off a large number of C3 plants (Trees and other broad leaf plants. C4 plants, grasses can survive with less CO2). During the glacial phase 1/3 of the amazon rain forest became savanna (grassland) due to a lack of CO2 and less precipitation, as a colder planet has significantly less rainfall.

nauthiz

2009-Apr-10, 02:09 AM

Which is on a 9000 year downtrend with a few humps of warmness such as the Roman and Medieval optima in it.

Possibly, but questions of scale cut both ways. The whole AGW thing is about events on the century and decadal scale. Millennial doesn't necessarily have much bearing on that any more than daily or annual do.

So what about those questions I asked you the other day? Or should I take your silence as a tacit retraction of the claim that the impact of aerosols both aerosols and CO2 has been grossly overestimated?

Gillianren

2009-Apr-10, 02:24 AM

Gillianren, Plants require CO2 to live. Greenhouses inject CO2 at 3 to 4 times current atmospheric levels to increase plant growth and yield. (Up to around 1000 ppm. Plants continue to make use of additional CO2 at 2000 ppm.) CO2 levels are at there lowest level in 500 million years. Climbers on Everest speak of the death zone. An altitude at which O2 levels are below what is required to sustain animal life. For C3 type plants (Trees and all broad leaf plants) the death level for CO2 is 120 ppm. Increasing CO2 increases plant growth, yield, and reduces desertification.

Humans need iron to live. What happens when we get too much of it? Or vitamin A?

Gillianren, I believe I answered your question as to what is weather and what is climate change. There is no evidence that CO2 has changed the climate. The is unequivocal evidence of the interglacial/glacial cycle, which is climate change. The ice epoch which we are currently in is climate change.

Well, first off, that wasn't my question. My question is what is weather and what is climate. No change stated or implied. Second, you absolutely did not. I asked, quite nicely I thought, for you to write a few words of your own defining "weather" and "climate." I don't want graphs. I don't want summaries of someone's arguments. I don't even want what you followed that statement with--argument about what evidence there is or isn't for anything. I want two short paragraphs--two long sentences, even. That's what I want from you.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Apr-10, 05:58 AM

The Permian-Triassic extinction was not caused by too high CO2 levels.
Why, just because you say so? Like I said in my earlier post, Kiehl & Shields (2005) (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/aboutus/staff/kiehl/Kiehl-Shields.pdf) have studied the issue and show that elevated CO2 led to Permian-Triassic extinction event.

You are also once again concentrating on only one of my arguments. You did exactly the same last time this was discussed (if it can be called a "discussion" when other party of the discussion ignores most of the arguments and uses the rest just as a bridge to repeat the same claims over and over). In my earlier post in another thread (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/70431-planetary-temperature-change-3.html#post1457374) I also offered references that were discussing the effects of current CO2 levels, but you haven't shown any interest in those, and yet here you say that:

I am sincerely interested in why people believe CO2 is a dangerous "greenhouse" gas.

You also forgot to comment the arguments on Douglass et al. and answer the questions (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-29.html#post1469427).

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Apr-10, 06:04 AM

Long story short, the only truly clear-cut example of global warming I can think of is the global temperature record.
There are plenty of others; globally ongoing glacier melting (evidence from this shows that global temperature is currently higher than it was during the medieval warm period), changes in ecosystems and behavior of species, for example.

Stroller

2009-Apr-10, 07:54 AM

The whole AGW thing is about events on the century and decadal scale.

I think you mean the whole AGW thing is about cherry picking a time period where the data coincides with the theory. Though as the planet continues to cool, the interpretation of the data has to become increasingly contrived to maintain the untenable position it has created for itself.

I posted a link to an article on aerosols yesterday which should have shown you that their effect cuts both ways too. But as usual you only picked up on the bit you thought you could refute me with, apparently without understanding the context of pollution reduction in the latter part of the C20th in America and Europe. Fortunately the authors do understand, and are saying up to 45% of the arctic warming may be due to this and ozone, rather than abeing mostly due to co2 causing global temperature to rise. Rather similar to the reduction in airbourne saharan sand being responsible for much of the Atlantic warming of the AGW decades. Even NASA has realised much of the modern meltback in the arctic has been due to shifting wind patterns moving older ice out of the arctic into the north Atlantic.

I'll offer you another interesting piece concerning ozone and await your selective spin and derision of the authors lack of published mainstream papers.

http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/solar-warming-solar-cooling/

Stroller

2009-Apr-10, 07:59 AM

There are plenty of others; globally ongoing glacier melting (evidence from this shows that global temperature is currently higher than it was during the medieval warm period)

Never let the truth get in the way of a good assumption eh Ari?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=434
Note: The article was auto-translated from German.

"these finds from several centuries are just as important." Because they represent not only a snapshot, but as it were a diagram of the settlement and climatic history in the central Alps. The oldest finds are clothing remnants and articles of equipment dated from the Late Stone Age and the epoch between 2800 and 2500 BC. Among them are a birchbark arrow-quiver, some stone arrowheads as well as fragments of Stone Age leather shoes and trousers. The researchers found also particles of human skin as well as skin remnants, which may come from a horse. "One asks oneself, what was a horse doing there?", so Peter Suter.

If DNA investigations confirm the fact that it actually comes from a horse, it could show a completely early form of domestication. A second group of finds originate from the Bronze Age between 2000 and 1750 BC, among them bronze aristocracy and remnants of a splinter box, which obviously served for the transport of goods. From Roman times, a Wollguertel, numerous shoe nails were held together and a booklet from the 1st or early 2nd century AD were found with the dresses. The youngest find is part of a shoe dated to the 14/15th Century.

Afterwards the pass over the Schnidejoch was locked in again by ice and snow until 2003."

How did all those Stone age, Bronze age, Roman and medieval artifacts end up under that glacier? Hmmm?

And since the temperature has been going down since 2005, how much time did the modern maximum have to get much warmer than the medieval and roman and bronze age periods? Two years?

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Apr-10, 10:35 AM

Never let the truth get in the way of a good assumption eh Ari?
You whine about others not having civil discussions, and yet you keep on making comments like this one, and have done so as long as I have been involved with discussions on climate here.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=434
So, you keep offering this ClimateAudit nonsense, but long ago I showed that McIntyre's research methods are rubbish (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-15.html#post1437936). You are acting here hypercritical on research methods of climate scientists, but apparently you are completely uncritical about your own sources.

How did all those Stone age, Bronze age, Roman and medieval artifacts end up under that glacier? Hmmm?

And since the temperature has been going down since 2005, how much time did the modern maximum have to get much warmer than the medieval and roman and bronze age periods? Two years?
This is just cherry picking the evidence (no surprises there). After medieval warm period, we had something called Little Ice Age (LIA). LIA was cold period, so glaciers advanced during that time. It is clear that when glaciers advanced during LIA, some objects were buried under the ice. When those glaciers melt, they expose the buried objects, and the objects can then be dated. Some glaciers haven't yet melted so much that they would reveal much older objects, so they reveal objects that had been buried during LIA. So, you can cherry-pick these local evidence (that is what you have there, a local sample). However, as I have mentioned many times, there are lot of evidence globally that glaciers are exposing objects that are far older than those buried by LIA ice advance, for decent global analysis, see Thompson et al. (2006) (http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/thompson_pnas_2006.pdf) for example. They mention another object that melted out of a glacier in the Alps in 1991 and turned out to be over 5000 years old. Dates like that are quite common these days for the objects exposed by melting glaciers (even your reference suggests that age depending on where the samples were found, oldest objects might have been just exposed and youngest objects might have been found further away from the glacier). It is also common that those samples are in such a good condition that they have been under the ice the whole time (which is their radiocarbon age) from their burial to their recent exposure.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Apr-10, 10:54 AM

Well, I knew I had seen mention of Schnidejoch somewhere, and now I know where it was. The findings that ClimateAudit blog-entry writes about have been discussed in Grosjean et al. (2007) (http://www.geography.unibe.ch/lenya/giub/live/research/see/publikationen/articles/Grosjean_et_el_2007_JQS.pdf). Note what their abstract says:

The preservation of Neolithic leather indicates permanent ice cover at that site from ca. 4900 cal. yr BP until AD 2003, implying that the ice cover was smaller in 2003 than at any time during the last 5000 years. Current glacier retreat is unprecedented since at least that time. This is highly significant regarding the interpretation of the recent warming and the rapid loss of ice in the Alps.
So, even Stroller's own references (with some subsequent digging) reveal that current climate is warmer than medieval warm period.

William

2009-Apr-10, 01:32 PM

Why, just because you say so? Like I said in my earlier post, Kiehl & Shields (2005) (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/aboutus/staff/kiehl/Kiehl-Shields.pdf) have studied the issue and show that elevated CO2 led to Permian-Triassic extinction event.

You are also once again concentrating on only one of my arguments. You did exactly the same last time this was discussed (if it can be called a "discussion" when other party of the discussion ignores most of the arguments and uses the rest just as a bridge to repeat the same claims over and over). In my earlier post in another thread (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/70431-planetary-temperature-change-3.html#post1457374) I also offered references that were discussing the effects of current CO2 levels, but you haven't shown any interest in those, and yet here you say that:....
[/url].

Ari,

As shown in this graph CO2 levels have been as high as 5000 ppm and there were no extinctions. In addition there was been ice epoches during the period when CO2 levels have been above 1000 ppm. If you remember, I have provided links to papers that shows there is a lack of simple correlation between CO2 levels and planetary climate change. (i.e. The planet in the past has been cold when CO2 levels were high and warm when CO2 levels were low.)

You pick a side to argue (like a lawyer or a debate participant) and continue to repeat irrational comments when facts and logic do not support the AGW (C02) hypothesis.

The climate change hypothesis for the Permian-Triassic extinction assumes the climate change event was caused by a massive methane release from the deep ocean not CO2. Methane must be the mechanism because CO2 has been as high as Permian-Trissiac period and the planet was not warm and there were not extinctions.

My point is a doubling of CO2 levels on the earth from 0.028 % to 0.056 % will result in increased plant growth (C3 type plants of 30%) and will result in a reduction in water requirements for both C3 and C4 plants of 30% also. Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into the greenhouse at 1000 ppm to 2000 ppm to increase plant growth and yields.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event

The Permian–Triassic (P–Tr) extinction event, informally known as the Great Dying,[1] was an extinction event that occurred 251.4 million years ago,[2][3] forming the boundary between the Permian and Triassic geologic periods. It was the Earth's most severe extinction event, with up to 96 percent of all marine species[4] and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct; it is the only known mass extinction of insects.[5][6] 57% of all families and 83% of all genera were killed off. Because so much biodiversity was lost, the recovery of life on earth took significantly longer than after other extinction events.[4] This event has been described as the "mother of all mass extinctions".[7] The pattern of extinction is still disputed,[8] as different studies suggest one[2] to three[9] different pulses. There are several proposed mechanisms for the extinctions; the earlier peak was likely due to gradualistic environmental change, while the latter was probably due to a catastrophic event. Possible mechanisms for the latter include large or multiple bolide impact events, increased volcanism, or sudden release of methane hydrates from the sea floor; gradual changes include sea-level change, anoxia, increasing aridity,[10] and a shift in ocean circulation driven by climate change.

The Coal Gap

No coal deposits are known from the Early Triassic, and those in the Middle Triassic are thin and low-grade.[13] This "coal gap" has been explained in many ways. It has been suggested that new, more aggressive fungi, insects and vertebrates evolved, and killed vast amounts of trees. However these decomposers themselves suffered heavy losses of species during the extinction, and not considered a likely cause of the coal gap.[13] It could simply be that all coal forming plants were rendered extinct by the P/T extinction, and that it took 10 million years for a new suite of plants to adapt to the moist, acid conditions of peat bogs.[13] On the other hand abiotic factors (not caused by organisms), such as decreased rainfall or increased input of clastic sediments, may also be to blame.[12] Finally, it is also true that there are very few sediments of any type known from the Early Triassic, and the lack of coal may simply reflect this scarcity. This opens the possibility that coal-producing ecosystems may have responded to the changed conditions by relocating, perhaps to areas where we have no sedimentary record for the Early Triassic.[12] For example in eastern Australia a cold climate had been the norm for a long period of time, with a peat mire ecosystem specialising to these conditions. Approximately 95% of these peat-producing plants went locally extinct at the P-Tr boundary;[49] Interestingly, coal deposits in Australia and Antarctica disappear significantly before the P-Tr boundary.[12]

nauthiz

2009-Apr-10, 02:05 PM

I posted a link to an article on aerosols yesterday which should have shown you that their effect cuts both ways too. But as usual you only picked up on the bit you thought you could refute me with, apparently without understanding the context of pollution reduction in the latter part of the C20th in America and Europe. Fortunately the authors do understand, and are saying up to 45% of the arctic warming may be due to this and ozone, rather than abeing mostly due to co2 causing global temperature to rise. Rather similar to the reduction in airbourne saharan sand being responsible for much of the Atlantic warming of the AGW decades. Even NASA has realised much of the modern meltback in the arctic has been due to shifting wind patterns moving older ice out of the arctic into the north Atlantic.

I think the possibility that reductions in aerosol emissions can have that effect is only news to you. . . I first heard it many years ago. Not only that, but I'm still not sure what you think is so damning about this article. I asked you to explain further with a few specific questions, but they have yet to be answered.

I have a large pool of questions that's been building up, including about that particular paper. I think we should settle those before proceeding to another article. You haven't clearly articulated any scientific claims yet, and you have built up quite the track record of changing the subject as soon as anyone challenges you asks you to try to more clearly articulate your scientific position. And that's on a good day; the other half of the time your supporting evidence is cooked or doesn't even remotely say what you claim it says - a couple recent graphs come to mind, or that Spencer paper.

That's not open, honest scientific debate. That's a Gish gallop. (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Gish_gallop) So no, no I am not going to vet another paper for you. Not until you start giving me some tangible reason to believe you're putting one iota of mental effort into this yourself, rather than just wasting my time on a wild goose chase.

lomiller1

2009-Apr-10, 02:19 PM

I suppose I am looking for instances of global warming.

Artic summer sea ice is direct visible effect of climate change, as is the ongoing breakup of the Wilkins ice shelf. In general though nauthiz is right, you can’t look at single events but have to look at their frequency. Climate is after all a description of a frequency and range of events.

In a way it’s like saying cigarette smoking causes cancer. It does and it can be proved, but you can’t say a specific instance of cancer was caused by smoking cigarettes.

lomiller1

2009-Apr-10, 02:31 PM

The oldest finds are clothing remnants and articles of equipment dated from the Late Stone Age and the epoch between 2800 and 2500 BC.

When receding ice reveals something it had previously covered it shows it’s currently warmer then the time that object was overtaken or any time in between. IOW you’re article is strong evidence the Alps are warmer then any time in the last 3000 years which is certainly a climatic effect rather then weather.

Stroller

2009-Apr-10, 06:51 PM

When receding ice reveals something it had previously covered it shows it’s currently warmer then the time that object was overtaken or any time in between. IOW you’re article is strong evidence the Alps are warmer then any time in the last 3000 years which is certainly a climatic effect rather then weather.

Except for the Roman and Medieval items you and Ari seem so keen to brush back under the glacier.

Stroller

2009-Apr-10, 07:07 PM

Hey, Nauthiz, the blog is parroting me! :)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/09/nasa-giss-suggests-aerosols-play-a-large-role-in-arctic-warming/

Joe Durnavich

2009-Apr-10, 08:14 PM

I'm not sure that you can really attribute any one shorter-term event to climate change. You might be able to predict that certain kinds of weather will become more or less common as a region's climate changes, but even if things stayed exactly as they are you'd still have the occasional drought and it's a very chaotic system so it's extremely difficult (if not impossible) to pin any one cause to a particular event.

We are telling people on one hand that global warming is doing and will do tangible harm to them, but at the same time we are saying that it is unknowable whether this drought, that heat wave, that flood, or any local weather event is global warming,

Joe Durnavich

2009-Apr-10, 08:29 PM

In a way it’s like saying cigarette smoking causes cancer. It does and it can be proved, but you can’t say a specific instance of cancer was caused by smoking cigarettes.

I wonder if trial lawyers agree with this viewpoint.

The Washington Times posted an article today about a provision of a new climate bill that allows people to sue the US government for the effects of global warming:

Climate bill could trigger lawsuit landslide (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/10/climate-bill-could-trigger-lawsuit-landslide/)

The fact that any specific weather event cannot be tied to global warming seems to undermine any basis for this provision.

Joe Durnavich

2009-Apr-10, 09:55 PM

One other question about the cigarette smoking/cancer analogy: Smoking and cancer are two distinct things, with one the presumed cause of the other. But is this comparable to the phrase, "that's weather, not climate" that we say when somebody offers the cold winter as evidence against global warming?

I notice too that global warming is almost spoken of here as a distinct thing itself, something that could cause something else.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Apr-11, 06:11 AM

As shown in this graph CO2 levels have been as high as 5000 ppm and there were no extinctions.
And yet I have shown you papers that describe how the current levels of CO2 are harmful and causing extinctions. If you want to show a graph that tells us that high CO2 levels don't cause extinctions, you should show a graph that has both CO2 concentration and extinction rate, don't you think? It is not enough to show a CO2 graph and then claim there were no extinctions, especially with your history of nonsense claims.

In addition there was been ice epoches during the period when CO2 levels have been above 1000 ppm. If you remember, I have provided links to papers that shows there is a lack of simple correlation between CO2 levels and planetary climate change. (i.e. The planet in the past has been cold when CO2 levels were high and warm when CO2 levels were low.)
In this post (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-19.html#post1453139) I commented on your papers, but you weren't interested in my comments. It is clear that your evidence is very weak, and there's lot of contradictory evidence showing you wrong. We also can see there that you have misinterpreted some of the papers you thought were supporting your claims. By the way, your response to this post was just to repeat that you have offered multiple papers, ignoring that I had already shown that they weren't actually very supportive of your position. That is also another example where you left all the questions unanswered.

Now you are here once again providing those papers as proof of your claims. Why is it that you keep ignoring all the counter-arguments to your claims?

You pick a side to argue (like a lawyer or a debate participant) and continue to repeat irrational comments when facts and logic do not support the AGW (C02) hypothesis.
So you claim that it is the others that are doing the parroting when everyone can look back to the "discussion" and see that you are repeating same claims over and over ignoring counter-arguments and questions? I invite you to show that my comments in this post (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-19.html#post1453139) were irrational.

My point is a doubling of CO2 levels on the earth from 0.028 % to 0.056 % will result in increased plant growth (C3 type plants of 30%) and will result in a reduction in water requirements for both C3 and C4 plants of 30% also. Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into the greenhouse at 1000 ppm to 2000 ppm to increase plant growth and yields.
You are not considering the whole issue. It is not relevant if some plants like to have lot of CO2 if they cannot deal with rapidly rising temperature that goes with rising atmospheric CO2.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Apr-11, 06:17 AM

Except for the Roman and Medieval items you and Ari seem so keen to brush back under the glacier.
Ahh, so you are ignoring evidence presented to you, once again. Grosjean et al. (2007) (http://www.geography.unibe.ch/lenya/giub/live/research/see/publikationen/articles/Grosjean_et_el_2007_JQS.pdf) explain the situation. The glacier in question were melting so rapidly that during one year it revealed all the mentioned items. They also say that:

The critical point in the context of this paper is that leather requires permanent embedding in ice in order to stay preserved and, as it is observed today, deteriorates very quickly if exposed at the surface. In consequence, the finds at Schnidejoch suggest permanent ice cover at that site for the last 5000 years, more specifically from ca. 3000 BC until AD 2003.
But, go ahead and show that they are wrong.

mugaliens

2009-Apr-11, 07:02 AM

I don't think it's so much that things are being fudged, as it's a matter of oversimplification of a more complex and varied system, with significant, but missing variables, than some people think or others are willing to admit.

Stroller

2009-Apr-11, 10:42 AM

Ahh, so you are ignoring evidence presented to you, once again. Grosjean et al. (2007) (http://www.geography.unibe.ch/lenya/giub/live/research/see/publikationen/articles/Grosjean_et_el_2007_JQS.pdf) explain the situation. The glacier in question were melting so rapidly that during one year it revealed all the mentioned items.

I'm not ignoring anything Ari, and thanks for the links. What I'm getting at is that the evidence indicates that there have been large upward temperature swings in the past which made it possible for the pass to be navigated by peoples of different epochs, with a long colder hiatus in between.

This puts the lie to the Mannian dendro temperature reconstruction hockey stick graph and proves that the recent warming is not as 'unprecedented' as the AGW camp would have us believe.

You also committed the fallacy you accused me of by stating that this local evidence proves the global climate is warmer now than during previous epochs.

That a patch of ice separated from the main glacier would melt back sufficiently for evidence of human presence from all four previous warm periods to all appear in the same year is no surprise to me. Neither is the observation by Grosjean that the finds were not stratified.

Of interest to me is that the Roman, early medieval and late medieval finds and the modern maximum fall on a recurring 600 year interval, indicative of a cyclicity in the climate, which is a natural variation and has nothing to do with co2. Grosjean doesn't point this obvious fact out of course.

William

2009-Apr-11, 11:12 AM

You are not considering the whole issue. It is not relevant if some plants like to have lot of CO2 if they cannot deal with rapidly rising temperature that goes with rising atmospheric CO2.

William: Ari, Plants require CO2 to live. Plants die without CO2. All plants require CO2. Currently C3 plants (trees and all broad leaf plants) lose 50% of the sun's energy due to extremely low levels of CO2. Google CO2 and read about C3 and C4 plants. Increasing CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere.

http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-29.html#post1469786

http://books.google.ca/books?id=jZb2Qq9cEz0C&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=Desertification++CO2+Levels+C3+Plants&source=bl&ots=eh6yLwyyeN&sig=WrhGi0OVb6faQpAzdyaZpL1LNZs&hl=en&ei=bJvLSffHDImGsQPs_82wCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

And yet I have shown you papers that describe how the current levels of CO2 are harmful and causing extinctions. If you want to show a graph that tells us that high CO2 levels don't cause extinctions, you should show a graph that has both CO2 concentration and extinction rate, don't you think? It is not enough to show a CO2 graph and then claim there were no extinctions, especially with your history of nonsense claims.

William: Ari, CO2 levels have been above 1000 ppm except from the last 15 million years. What extinctions? What is causing the extinctions? Mechanism please?

Now you are here once again providing those papers as proof of your claims. Why is it that you keep ignoring all the counter-arguments to your claims?

William: Ari, C02 was above 1000 ppm for 100's of millions of years. The planet was both warm and cold during that period there was no correlation of planetary temperature and CO2 levels.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
So you claim that it is the others that are doing the parroting when everyone can look back to the "discussion" and see that you are repeating same claims over and over ignoring counter-arguments and questions? I invite you to show that my comments in this post (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-19.html#post1453139) were irrational.

The AWG (CO2) hypothesis is shown to be incorrect because CO2 levels are rising and the planet is not warming.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/rss_global_lt_march2009.png

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Contrary to the news releases. Extinctions occur when the massive ice sheets cover both poles of the planet. There is no life on the ice sheets. Life flourishes when the planet is warm.

This is what has happened in the past. Interglacial periods are short and end abruptly. There is a pattern as to how climate changes on this planet.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Apr-11, 01:41 PM

I'm not ignoring anything Ari, and thanks for the links. What I'm getting at is that the evidence indicates that there have been large upward temperature swings in the past which made it possible for the pass to be navigated by peoples of different epochs, with a long colder hiatus in between.

This puts the lie to the Mannian dendro temperature reconstruction hockey stick graph and proves that the recent warming is not as 'unprecedented' as the AGW camp would have us believe.
You are setting up a strawman argument. Nobody is claiming that Earth is currently warmer than ever. Currently it seems that the recent warming is unprecedented at least in the last 5000 years. Also, whether the climate was warmer or colder during medieval warm period has nothing to do with the theory of AGW or the capability of CO2 in general to warm the planet.

However, the global analysis of the situation, like Thompson et al. did, shows that MWP was not as warm as current times, giving supporting evidence for Mann et al. who you are so keen on pouring insults over. The obsession of denialists about Mann is rather curious considering that AGW theory doesn't depend on work of Mann et al. at all.

You also committed the fallacy you accused me of by stating that this local evidence proves the global climate is warmer now than during previous epochs.
I never said global relating to this Schnidejoch sample. Earlier I talked about global having specifically Thompson et al. in mind, to which I also provided a link.

Of interest to me is that the Roman, early medieval and late medieval finds and the modern maximum fall on a recurring 600 year interval, indicative of a cyclicity in the climate, which is a natural variation and has nothing to do with co2. Grosjean doesn't point this obvious fact out of course.
Curious usage of "of course" there. Are you suggesting, in your normal manner, that Grosjean is not being honest?

Why do you think that natural variation cannot have nothing to do with CO2? Do you really think that if you can spot a single instance where CO2 hasn't been controlling the global temperature (this particular evidence is of course local...), then it cannot be in control ever? Do you not understand that there are several factors contributing to global temperature?

Glacier fluctuations have been known to exist for a long time, so this evidence is nothing new in that sense. This particular glacier is rather special, though, as Grosjean et al. say:

Thus the mass balance at the archaeological site is at the most critical elevation to respond without delay to interannual climate fluctuations. Today, the site is clearly below the ELA. The thin ice is rapidly disintegrating and exposes archaeological finds. Glaciologically speaking, this is very different from changes at Alpine glacier tongues, where typical response lags vary depending on the size and geometry of the glacier between 21 and 67 years...
What they are saying is that Schnidejoch ice field responds to climatic changes much faster than glaciers do normally, so it is to be expected to fluctuations to show much stronger in this ice field (and hence to be more probable to turn up samples from different ages within brief periods of melting). Note also the response lag time they mention. That means the fossil findings near more normal glaciers have corresponded to the temperature levels of (about) 1980's (like Grosjean et al. say). That suggests that already in 1980's the global temperature was higher than in preceding 5000 years, and there has been 20 years of warming after that. Yet, we find these 5000 year dates even from those samples from normal glaciers, like in Thompson et al. for example.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Apr-11, 01:45 PM

The AWG (CO2) hypothesis is shown to be incorrect because CO2 levels are rising and the planet is not warming.
...
Here we go again to yet another round of William ignoring everything others say or ask.

So, do you really think that global warming means that every day has to be warmer than the day before?

Stroller

2009-Apr-11, 02:21 PM

Here we go again to yet another round of William ignoring everything others say or ask.

So, do you really think that global warming means that every day has to be warmer than the day before?

And you wonder why people don't always answer your questions?

There's a large difference between daily weather, inter-annual variability, and average cooling over six years.

Stroller

2009-Apr-11, 02:24 PM

You are setting up a strawman argument. Nobody is claiming that Earth is currently warmer than ever. Currently it seems that the recent warming is unprecedented at least in the last 5000 years.

This is a bit of a one dimensional way of considering things. It may also be a brief spike of considerable shorter duration than the Holocene Optimum. Which may of course have had it's own spikes which are difficult to reconstruct at this historical distance.

lomiller1

2009-Apr-12, 01:26 AM

I wonder if trial lawyers agree with this viewpoint.

The Washington Times posted an article today about a provision of a new climate bill that allows people to sue the US government for the effects of global warming:

Climate bill could trigger lawsuit landslide (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/10/climate-bill-could-trigger-lawsuit-landslide/)

The fact that any specific weather event cannot be tied to global warming seems to undermine any basis for this provision.

it hasn't prevented courts from ruling against cigarette companies

lomiller1

2009-Apr-12, 01:29 AM

Except for the Roman and Medieval items you and Ari seem so keen to brush back under the glacier.

There is no evidence to support either of those being warmer then today, and the preponderance of the evidence suggests the last 2 decades have been warmer then either the Roman of Medieval period.

The evidence *you* presented is falls into the category of suggesting the last few decades are warmer then either of those periods.

lomiller1

2009-Apr-12, 01:32 AM

One other question about the cigarette smoking/cancer analogy: Smoking and cancer are two distinct things, with one the presumed cause of the other. But is this comparable to the phrase, "that's weather, not climate" that we say when somebody offers the cold winter as evidence against global warming?

They are similar in that they both have multiple causes. This makes it impossible to attribute a specific cause to a single event, it does not prevent you from concluding the cause makes those events more common. Weather referes to the specific events that make up climate.

lomiller1

2009-Apr-12, 01:37 AM

And you wonder why people don't always answer your questions?

Neither is statistically significant, so in the way that matters they are not different.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Apr-13, 07:11 AM

And you wonder why people don't always answer your questions?
No, I don't. I don't wonder about reason why my questions don't get answered by you or William. It is also not that you don't answer "always"; "never" is far more accurate approximation of reality here. It is also not only my questions, but you two don't answer most of anyone's questions here. It is also not that my questions are not answered in general; it specifically happens here in these discussions of climate by you and William.

There's a large difference between daily weather, inter-annual variability, and average cooling over six years.
Not in the context of climate. And I suggest people to estimate the length of cooling period themselves from this 5-year mean global temperature graph of GISS (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif) (red line is the 5-year mean). To me it seems more like two years of cooling. One can also look at global monthly means (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif) and wonder where that dramatic global cooling, that climate denialists keep advertising, actually is. Sure there are some cold spikes, but you only get "average cooling" by carefully selecting proper starting years for linear trend lines, and from there we get these statements of cooling "over six years". Long time means tell you what really is going on with climate, and drawing few year trends out of monthly data is about weather, not climate.

This is a bit of a one dimensional way of considering things. It may also be a brief spike of considerable shorter duration than the Holocene Optimum. Which may of course have had it's own spikes which are difficult to reconstruct at this historical distance.
Sure, there always can be spikes that won't show up in any climatically meaningful observational records, but current body of evidence points to medieval warm period not being as warm as present times. Present warmth certainly is melting globally more glacier ice than medieval warm period did.