General AGW discussion thread [Archive] - Page 9

heldervelez

2009-Sep-16, 08:07 AM

Post Glacial Sea level Rise Graph by Robert A. Rhode (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hrgRgSNj0mo/Sp4YwxIncLI/AAAAAAAAAl4/BJIukER-XAo/s1600-h/POST+GLACIAL+SEA+LEVEL+RISE.jpg)

Do we have any recent noticeable sea level rise?
The answer is NO.
Do we have any recente alarmist predictions on sea level rise ?
The answer is YES.
The predictions are not OK!

The actual last century sea leval rise (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml)by Simon J. Holgate (Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool, UK) reports an yearly increase of 1,74 mm ± 0,16 mm
The study reports a 2,03 mm ± 0,35 mm yearly from 1904-1953 and from 1954 to 2003 was 1,45 mm ± 0,34 mm.

All that ice is sunking into the sea and the sea does not rise?
Or all that ice that sunks has been replaced by fresh one on top of Artic and Antarctic?

Of course all of us know but usually forget that the IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political structure dependent on politics and it is not scientifically independent.

The glaciation period beeing longer and cooler is far more important as a proxy to the general trend. When we are presented with anomalies of a parts of a degree C and a time-span on decenial scale compared to geological time-spans and more than 10ºC of variation. What is the graph that we should look with more atention?

What do we must fear most ?
HOT or COLD ?

(hehe : last week I was at Caraibas latitude: 18ºN and LIFE (plants and animals) UAU : FOOD)

HOT means food.
COLD means no food.

Unfortunately we cannot choose. We are doomed to the cold.
The cells of my body work at 37ºC (remembering the ambient weather existent at the time of life origin)

James Balot? nice pictures.

The sun is dimmer than the expectations. Wrong model.

djellison

2009-Sep-16, 08:28 AM

James Balot? nice pictures.

I asked for specifics, on that one particular graph. That graph alone makes the case that there is a modern and dramatic problem quite obvious.

My question is - is the graph a lie, or is the problem real.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Sep-16, 01:41 PM

Actually, he's sharing an article with a professor from the University of Sydney.

Terrific. Who's that?

The article William shared mentions a professor Iver Cairns. Has his stuff been shown to be wrong?

By the way, Ari, you apparently didn't read the article, as it mentions nothing about cloud cover. So, please read the article (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/when-the-sun-goes-quiet-earth-shivers-20090913-fltr.html)instead of jumping to conclusions.
I think you should take a peek at William's post #1987 and then check my comments again.

parejkoj

2009-Sep-16, 02:01 PM

Do we have any recent noticeable sea level rise?
The answer is NO.
.
.
.
The actual last century sea leval rise (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml)by Simon J. Holgate (Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool, UK) reports an yearly increase of 1,74 mm ± 0,16 mm
The study reports a 2,03 mm ± 0,35 mm yearly from 1904-1953 and from 1954 to 2003 was 1,45 mm ± 0,34 mm.

You seem confused. The numbers you cite above from Holgate (2006) clearly show a yearly increase in sea level. Sea level has increased ~20cm over the past century. This is faster than the central value of the IPCC 2001 predictions.

William

2009-Sep-17, 06:22 PM

For those people who are interested in the solar magnetic cycle's affect on planetary cloud cover the finding that the sun was been unusually activity during the minimum of solar cycle 24.

Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR, mainly high speed protons) that strike the earth have increased 18% due the weakening heliosphere, planetary cloud cover has not, however, significantly increased. A explanation for that finding is something is removing the ions that are produced by GCR from the planet's atmosphere.

Solar wind bursts are hypothesized to remove cloud forming ions via the process called electroscavenging. (The solar wind bursts create a space charge in the ionosphere which removes the ions from the atmosphere.) Planetary temperature has tracked the geomagnetic field measurement Ak which is directly proportional to the number, strength, and duration of the solar wind bursts. Solar wind bursts cause fast changes in the geomagnetic field intensity. Ak is a measure of the rate of change of the geomagnetic field intensity.

Solar wind bursts are just recently starting to abate. If the GCR modulation of clouds hypothesis is correct there should be a significant increase in planetary cloud cover and a drop in planetary temperature.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml

If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.

Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle's Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle's WSM campaign.

In response, geospace and upper atmospheric parameters continued to ring with the periodicities of the solar wind in a manner that was absent last cycle minimum, and the flux of relativistic electrons in the Earth's outer radiation belt was elevated to levels more than three times higher in WHI than in WSM. Such behavior could not have been predicted using sunspot numbers alone, indicating the importance of considering variation within and between solar minima in analyzing and predicting space weather responses at the Earth during solar quiet intervals, as well as in interpreting the Sun's past behavior as preserved in geological and historical records.

William

2009-Sep-18, 02:01 PM

It appears the planet is about to abruptly cool. In the past there have been cyclic abrupt cooling events that are three to four times greater than the climate change observed in the last 2000 years. (Recorded history.) The past abrupt cooling events correlate with cosmogenic isotope changes.

It appears the sun is abruptly moving from the highest solar magnetic activity in 10,000 years to a deep magnetic minimum. The cosmogenic isotopes changes that are being produced by that solar change will match those of past abrupt cooling events. The general public and governments are not prepared for abrupt planetary cooling. Based on the information provide by the IPCC most people believe the planet will warm and abrupt planetary cooling is impossible.

The abrupt cooling events are cyclic.

There has been no scientific evaluation of the impact of abrupt cooling. There is no strategy prepared to deal with abrupt cooling.

The following is evidence of a lack of balanced scientific debate concerning planetary climate change.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/letters/87/8730letters.html

Instead of debate, members are constantly subjected to your arrogant self-righteousness and the left-wing practice of stifling debate by personal attacks on anyone who disagrees. I think ACS should make an effort to educate its membership about the science of climate change and let them draw their own conclusions. Although under your editorial leadership, I suspect we would be treated to a biased and skewed version of scientific debate. I think its time to find a new editor.

http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/07/revolt-at-american-physical-society.html

As physicists who are familiar with the science issues, and as current and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned urge the Council to revise its current statement on climate change as follows, so as to more accurately represent the current state of the science:

Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, accompany human industrial and agricultural activity. While substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/global-cooling-wanna-bet/

Global cooling appears to be the “flavour of the month”. First, a rather misguided media discussion erupted on whether global warming had stopped, based on the observed temperatures of the past 8 years or so (see our post). Now, an entirely new discussion is capturing the imagination, based on a group of scientists from Germany predicting a pause in global warming last week in the journal Nature (Keenlyside et al. 2008).

William

2009-Sep-18, 02:11 PM

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full

Ice-core evidence of abrupt climate changes

Ice-core records show that climate changes in the past have been large, rapid, and synchronous over broad areas extending into low latitudes, with less variability over historical times. These ice-core records come from high mountain glaciers and the polar regions, including small ice caps and the large ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. As the world slid into and out of the last ice age, the general cooling and warming trends were punctuated by abrupt changes.

Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric or broader regions in mere years to decades. Such abrupt changes have been absent during the few key millennia when agriculture and industry have arisen. The speed, size, and extent of these abrupt changes required a reappraisal of climate stability.

Records of these changes are especially clear in high-resolution ice cores. Ice cores can preserve histories of local climate (snowfall, temperature), regional (wind-blown dust, sea salt, etc.), and broader (trace gases in the air) conditions, on a common time scale, demonstrating synchrony of climate changes over broad regions.

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331/F1.large.jpg

heldervelez

2009-Sep-18, 02:50 PM

You seem confused. The numbers you cite above from Holgate (2006) clearly show a yearly increase in sea level. Sea level has increased ~20cm over the past century. This is faster than the central value of the IPCC 2001 predictions.

the year - lower-upper-central values of SLR from IPCC are :
by 1995 ?? - 94 cm - ??
by 2001 9 cm - 88 cm - 48 cm
by 2007 19 cm - 59 cm - ??

the maximum bound has been pregressively revised to lowers values.

The central value of 2001 prediction is 48 cm, far bellow the 20 cm.
Am I confused, as you said?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
-----
google for 6m 2100 sea level rise ipcc
and look at the first results from ipcc
I do remember mediatic maps of my country (Portugal) swallowed by the water of estimate scenarios in press magazines.
I call it alarmist or 'algorist'
------
The growing rate of SLR on the 150 years was 0.013 mm/year^2
and IMMO it is a quite small value.
During the interglacial period the GSL has to grow, naturally.

Jevrejeva, S., A. Grinsted, J. C. Moore, and S. Holgate (2006), Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records, J. Geophys. Res., 111, C09012, doi:10.1029/2005JC003229.
based on 12 regions on global scale
Jevrejeva et al in this more recent papper (2008)
Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago?
S. Jevrejeva, J. C. Moore, A. Grinsted and P. L. Woodworth
at
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/jevrejeva_etal_1700/2008GL033611.pdf
pretends to show an recent increase in the gsl rate but if forgets to say that the Little Ice Age ended by 1850 and forcibly the rate had to increase. And this study is based only on 3 stations of the same basin (local scale).

heldervelez

2009-Sep-18, 03:44 PM

I asked for specifics, on that one particular graph. That graph alone makes the case that there is a modern and dramatic problem quite obvious.

My question is - is the graph a lie, or is the problem real.

I found that graph highly questionable, and also my own opinion.
I think that it shows that Temperature increase precedes CO2 increase.
I think that it shows the famous 'hockey stick' feature and I found suficcient information to disregard it.
I digged the net and made my opinion. Anyone can do the same.

But that graph is not my question.

When I saw the James Balot video (he makes a living on that, yes?) what the images do stress is the ice going to the ocean. Impressive. Mile after mile of ice.

He cannot do a video, and make money, showing the inch by inch increase on top of Greenland and Antarctic that exceeds the loss of ice. Not impressive. Inch after inch of ice.

A 1000 years ago at the Medieval_Warm_Period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period), the temp was +-1ºC higher than now and, ... no CO2 increase, no industrial era..., no IPCC. And the vikings stared at those fiords,without ice, and wondering: 'Its the end of the world, as we know it'.

parejkoj

2009-Sep-18, 04:21 PM

the year - lower-upper-central values of SLR from IPCC are :
by 1995 ?? - 94 cm - ??
by 2001 9 cm - 88 cm - 48 cm
by 2007 19 cm - 59 cm - ??

the maximum bound has been pregressively revised to lowers values.

The central value of 2001 prediction is 48 cm, far bellow the 20 cm.
Am I confused, as you said?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

You are confusing the 1990 - 2100 prediction with the 1890-1990 predictions. Quoting from the 2001 IPCC "Scientific Basis" working group (http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/409.htm), which is already quoted almost verbatim on the exact page you linked!

The sum of these components indicates a rate of eustatic sea level rise (corresponding to a change in ocean volume) from 1910 to 1990 ranging from -0.8 to 2.2 mm/yr, with a central value of 0.7 mm/yr. The upper bound is close to the observational upper bound (2.0 mm/yr), but the central value is less than the observational lower bound (1.0 mm/yr), i.e., the sum of components is biased low compared to the observational estimates. The sum of components indicates an acceleration of only 0.2 mm/yr/century, with a range from -1.1 to +0.7 mm/yr/century, consistent with observational finding of no acceleration in sea level rise during the 20th century. The estimated rate of sea level rise from anthropogenic climate change from 1910 to 1990 (from modelling studies of thermal expansion, glaciers and ice sheets) ranges from 0.3 to 0.8 mm/yr. It is very likely that 20th century warming has contributed significantly to the observed sea level rise, through thermal expansion of sea water and widespread loss of land ice.

The IPCC predictions for the past century's sea level rise are less than the measured values. Both are positive, meaning that there has been significant, measurable sea level rise this past century. As shown in the first plot on wikipedia the page you linked!

google for 6m 2100 sea level rise ipcc
and look at the first results from ipcc
I do remember mediatic maps of my country (Portugal) swallowed by the water of estimate scenarios in press magazines.
I call it alarmist or 'algorist'

I'm not talking about the 2100 see level rise, I'm talking about the measured vs. predicted sea level rise from ~1900 to ~2000. Look at the first plot on the wikipedia page you linked to above, it shows the sea level rise of ~17cm quite clearly.

The growing rate of SLR on the 150 years was 0.013 mm/year^2
and IMMO it is a quite small value.
During the interglacial period the GSL has to grow, naturally.

Your opinion doesn't enter into it. Sea level has been relatively constant for the past several thousand years, as seen in the second plot on the Wikipedia page that you linked. Sea level rise of ~2mm/year is significant.

And in your next post, if you are suggesting that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, then you're going against about a century and a half of very solid physics.

Ivan Viehoff

2009-Sep-22, 01:45 PM

It appears the planet is about to abruptly cool.

Whether that is true or not doesn't really bear on whether anthropogenic CO2 will make the earth's surface a warmer place than it otherwise would have been without it. We can have abrupt cooling, and AGW will make it less painful that it otherwise would have been for our civilisation.

For the sake of historic perspective on dire cooling predictions, it's useful to look at this exhibit, showing the history of cooling and warming predictions going back 100 years or so.

http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/

Some interesting snippets:

- Most geologists think the world is getting warmer - by 1929

- Anthopogenic CO2 identified as a cause of the surface temperature being warmer than it otherwise would be - by 1938

- Predictions of the imminent arrival of a dire ice age - every time there was a downward wiggle in the temperature curve.

We can argue about what the exhibit it shows. For example, I disagree with what the author says it shows, and would advise him to be a bit more careful about the relative status of the different warming/cooling predictions. But whatever it shows, it surely illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from surface temperature changes over short periods.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Sep-23, 05:57 AM

We can argue about what the exhibit it shows. For example, I disagree with what the author says it shows, and would advise him to be a bit more careful about the relative status of the different warming/cooling predictions. But whatever it shows, it surely illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from surface temperature changes over short periods.
And the part about 1970's seems to be against what scientists at that time really thought (sure there were some talking about ice age, but majority seemed to say that there's anthropogenic warming coming up):
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/papers-on-climate-predictions-of-1970s/

Atraveller

2009-Sep-25, 01:47 AM

And the part about 1970's seems to be against what scientists at that time really thought (sure there were some talking about ice age, but majority seemed to say that there's anthropogenic warming coming up):
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/papers-on-climate-predictions-of-1970s/

Does anyone know if there has been any research into the anthropogenic effect of air born lead?

Into the 1970's there did seem to be a cooling trend. In 1977 an amendment to the the clean air act was passed. Lead was removed as an additive to gasoline.

In his Documentary Al Gore says you can actually see the line in the ice cores where the clean air act was passed.

Is it possible that the air born lead was in part responsible for the cooling trend? What is the effect of air born lead? Is it an IR filter? Were we blocking sunlight with air born lead?

parejkoj

2009-Sep-25, 03:37 AM

Is it possible that the air born lead was in part responsible for the cooling trend? What is the effect of air born lead? Is it an IR filter? Were we blocking sunlight with air born lead?

Not lead specifically, but all aerosols (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7046/full/nature03671.html). The cooling effect of aerosols are a likely reason why Earth didn't warm as much from the ~1940s through the ~1970s. Aerosols are, in general, a net negative radiative forcing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing), but it is much harder to calculate their total effect than it is to calculate the forcing of CO2.

But yes, laws that improve air quality by removing sulfur dioxide, diesel particulate emission, ash (from coal fires, burning forests, etc.), and other sources, also remove one of the impediments to global warming. But being able to breathe the air is rather helpful.

Atraveller

2009-Sep-25, 06:19 AM

But yes, laws that improve air quality by removing sulfur dioxide, diesel particulate emission, ash (from coal fires, burning forests, etc.), and other sources, also remove one of the impediments to global warming. But being able to breathe the air is rather helpful.

Thanks for that - so based on your comments, we could "Terra form" this planet and reduce climate change by finding some inert aerosol - and then mandate that it be added to the atmophere, perhaps through gasoline - as a for instance?

I would expect we would have to have very accurate climate models - or negative temperature controls could very easily get out of control.

It might work out much cheaper in the long run to add these aerosols rather than disrupt a whole industry geared around fossil fuels....

Ivan Viehoff

2009-Sep-25, 08:17 AM

the anthropogenic effect of air born lead?

We know what you meant. Which was "the meteorological or climatic effect of anthropogenic airborne lead". "Anthropogenic" means "created by man".

SolusLupus

2009-Sep-25, 09:00 AM

Thanks for that - so based on your comments, we could "Terra form" this planet and reduce climate change by finding some inert aerosol - and then mandate that it be added to the atmophere, perhaps through gasoline - as a for instance?

I would expect we would have to have very accurate climate models - or negative temperature controls could very easily get out of control.

It might work out much cheaper in the long run to add these aerosols rather than disrupt a whole industry geared around fossil fuels....

Why is "disrupting a whole industry" so bad? Fossil fuels will not last forever; it seems a good idea to start implementing some alternatives now, instead of waiting until just the last minute.

Stroller

2009-Oct-10, 07:11 AM

http://i34.tinypic.com/dev5ld.png
http://i34.tinypic.com/dev5ld.png
Data from KNMI website. NOAA hasn't updated their graphs for some reason...

Exactly as I predicted, OHC is falling further during this long solar minimum. Sea surface temperatures have been high recently. Heat is leaving the ocean rapidly.

After the end of the current mild el nino, global temperature will fall to below jan 2007 levels within the next 14-18 months.

That is a prediction derived from my calculations on OHC/sunspot activity. I'll revisit it at that time

Gillianren

2009-Oct-10, 06:36 PM

I thought William might do with a little light reading.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/07/plantsneedco2org/plantsneedco2org-claim-carbon-dioxide-not-pollutan/

Trakar

2009-Oct-10, 07:37 PM

http://i34.tinypic.com/dev5ld.png
http://i34.tinypic.com/dev5ld.png
Data from KNMI website. NOAA hasn't updated their graphs for some reason...

In general such graphs are only updated every year or two, as longer term trends are more relevent and important to climate studies than month-to-month, or even year-to-year variations.

If, however, you are merely looking for shorter term data, the following is rather easy to come by:

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/heat_tlon.shtml

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/index/heat_content_index.txt

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Exactly what is the scale on your graph and how do you explain the discrepancies between what it seems to portray and the data values and graphs portrayed in these NOAA sites?

Stroller

2009-Oct-10, 10:37 PM

In general such graphs are only updated every year or two, as longer term trends are more relevent and important to climate studies than month-to-month, or even year-to-year variations.

If, however, you are merely looking for shorter term data, the following is rather easy to come by:

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/heat_tlon.shtml

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/index/heat_content_index.txt

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Exactly what is the scale on your graph and how do you explain the discrepancies between what it seems to portray and the data values and graphs portrayed in these NOAA sites?

Hi Trakar. Your first two links are for equatorial heat content not global.
The last is global but is a static non-updated graph as presented in the Levitus et al 2009 paper linked on that page.

The KNMI data I showed is exactly the same data as used by Levitus et al continually updated with the latest information from ARGO. Perhaps you could clarify what the "discrepancies" are you mention.

The scale is that used by KNMI and expresses Ocean Heat content in GJ/m^2 rather than the global total expressed in J by Levitus et al and the NOAA.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-11, 07:39 AM

Note how Stroller avoids to give you a decent link to the original data publication (Stroller brings this up probably because this exactly the same graph has just been given in Tisdale's blog (http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/update-of-nodc-levitus-et-al-2009-ohc.html)).

As we can see from the Tisdale's blog entry, this new data value is so recent, that it is not even up in the NODC yet. Here's a note from the NODC website about the new data (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/SELECT/dbsearch/dbsearch.html):

Note: new data added after the release of the WOD09 have not gone through the full set of quality control
procedures and should be considered preliminary. The set of all casts that fall into this category are also
available on the WOD updates page.

And yet, here we go again, blog entries and spreading the Message to the world based on one preliminary number.

By the way, there is not even a sign of a drop here (CPC Monthly Ocean Briefing - Upper 300m Heat Content):
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing/hc300_ts_13mo.gif

Stroller

2009-Oct-11, 10:01 AM

Note how Stroller avoids...

And yet, here we go again, blog entries and spreading the Message to the world.

[/url]

Here we go again with the ascription of motivation, the impoliteness, the unpleasantness.

Please learn some manners Ari.

Stroller

2009-Oct-11, 10:03 AM

The 300m data Ari linked would seem to indicate that the high sea surface temperatures recently seen are being fed from below as heat leaves the deeper ocean.

There is a low level of scientific understanding regarding the transport of energy through the vertical column in the ocean and a better understanding is crucial to a correct interpretation of the oceans heat storage and release dynamics.

There is a free draft copy of the Von Schukmann et al paper.

http://www.euro-argo.eu/content/download/49437/368494/file/VonSchukmann_et_al_2009_inpress.pdf

This is fascinating. Von Schukman et al find a rise in the ocean heat content 2004-2008 to a depth of 2000m (The Argo buoys dive limit). So if the preliminary ARGO data to 700m is showing sharp falls in all basins (not a "single number" as Ari said), yet the deeper ocean is warming, and the top 300m is fairly static in it's equilibrium of transferring the heat from the 300-700m zone to the atmosphere, this illustrates something important about the way energy is transported through the upper ocean.

It also raises interesting questions about the warming in the deeper ocean. How would heat from the 300-700m depth range be going both upwards and downwards at the same time?

I'm open minded and ready to learn.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-11, 10:32 AM

Another interesting thing from NODC website:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/WOD/bt_bias_notes.html

Think twice before taking brand new values from there as truth. And even if that latest value would be correct, we wouldn't have any evidence (yet) that it is anything else than an anomalous drop, of which there are similar examples in that same graph. Yet, we have factual statements here about heat leaving ocean rapidly. This is once again an example of weather being mistaken for climate, and even that with one (so far) obscure data source.

parejkoj

2009-Oct-11, 02:53 PM

Stoller, I've got a few questions for you.

1. Do you consider CO2 to be a greenhouse gas? If not, what evidence do you have to disprove the past ~150 years of molecular physics?

2. If you think CO2 is a greenhouse gas, what do you think is the correct value of the climate forcing (in W/m2) for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, and why do you think that is the correct value?

3. Given your answer to question 2, what do you think the present global temperature anomaly should be, given the ~35% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the mid 1800s?

Stroller

2009-Oct-11, 05:48 PM

Stoller, I've got a few questions for you.
Hi Parejoky, I'll try to answer for you.

1. Do you consider CO2 to be a greenhouse gas? If not, what evidence do you have to disprove the past ~150 years of molecular physics?
A greenhouse is an poor analogy for the action of trace gases such as co2 in the atmosphere. Water vapour is much more prevalent and effective, and absorbs radiation at roughly the same wavelengths, but can act as a positive or negative forcing depending on factors such as ionisation, air pressure, aerosol levels, time of day, season of year, latitude of location, height of cloud etc.

2. If you think CO2 is a greenhouse gas, what do you think is the correct value of the climate forcing (in W/m2) for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, and why do you think that is the correct value?
If changes in co2 levels have any effect on temperature at all in the real world given the other processes which might compensate for them, it would be a complex task to quantify them, since we would have to understand and be able to quantify all the other effects which are in play. Which we do not and can not at present. A couple of other inconvenient facts call into question the effectiveness of co2 as a climate forcing factor:
i) Changes in co2 levels lag behind changes in temperature at all timescales. Despite attempted rationalisations, this presents a basic difficulty for the co2 driven climate theory with regards to cause and effect.
ii) Even according to the co2 theorists own theory, co2 isn't a particularly effective greenhouse gas unless increases in it's levels produce much bigger increases in the more potent greenhouse gases such as water vapour and methane. Neither of these two gases atmospheric concentrations have increased in line with modeled expectations.

3. Given your answer to question 2, what do you think the present global temperature anomaly should be, given the ~35% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the mid 1800s?
At the philosophical level, I don't see the up and downs of temperature as 'anomalous'. Variation is quite natural, historically and empirically verified, and is the usual way the Earth continues it's course through history.
At the empirical level, I would say that going by observations of the past, and utilising some deductional and inductional reasoning, it seems likely to me that we are just past the top of several mutually additional positive phases of several natural cycles (E.g. Solar, Oceanic), and that temperatures are likely to fall on the average for a while now. Maybe 20-50 years or so. There are a couple of climate scientists such as Swanson and Tsonis who also think this is a strong possibility looking 30 years out.

I will happily engage in polite and open minded conversation about these points, but I won't engage with people who are rude, uncivil, impolite, unpleasant or adopt a litigious tone.

Stroller

2009-Oct-11, 06:12 PM

Trakar

2009-Oct-11, 06:56 PM

Your first two links are for equatorial heat content not global.

your statements seemed to be saying that NOAA was not updating any of their Ocean Heat content data over some unspecified and curiously incongruous period of time. If I misunderstood your indistinctions, I apologize for my own perceptual ineptness.

The last is global but is a static non-updated graph as presented in the Levitus et al 2009 paper linked on that page.

As per my post, my reference was to the data, not the graph, which is largely incidental in any serious examination of data. The point being, that the data is presented through the second quarter of 2009, and we are just entering the fourth qtr of 2009, so NOAA is not obviously withholding any data that I can perceive, but then I don't normally expect data to be analyzed, verified and released within days of the end of a qtr. In general, quarterly data is a seasonal blip on its own and can only be accurately interpretted as it is integrated into 30+ year trends. Now if there were a 5 or 10 year period where there were no data or updates, I could see your commentary, but here we are 11 days into the fourth quarter and they don't have the third quarter data available yet! Surely you jest!

The KNMI data I showed is exactly the same data as used by Levitus et al continually updated with the latest information from ARGO. Perhaps you could clarify what the "discrepancies" are you mention.

The scale is that used by KNMI and expresses Ocean Heat content in GJ/m^2 rather than the global total expressed in J by Levitus et al and the NOAA.

The discrepancies in the graphs are seem obvious. As to the scales, I apologize for my own indistinctness, I am wondering about the scale of the abcissa (x-axis) on your graph, and to my inspection, the scale of both the ordinal and the abcissa are different from that used in the Levitus (et al) paper, though I could be mistaken. please demonstrate precisely which graph in the Levitus paper (ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf)your graph represents a simple extension of.

Trakar

2009-Oct-11, 07:05 PM

The 300m data Ari linked would seem to indicate that the high sea surface temperatures recently seen are being fed from below as heat leaves the deeper ocean..

Precisely what about this data in isolation, that makes it "seem" to you that it is the result of heat from below? What information in this data allows you to distinguish it from heat that is absorbed from the atmospheric interface? Are these directional flows actually indicated in this data, or is this a personal interpretation you are overlaying onto the data?

dmr81

2009-Oct-11, 07:09 PM

Changes in co2 levels lag behind changes in temperature at all timescales.
So the reason the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased isn't because we've released huge amounts of it by burning fossil fuels, it's because the temperature has increased!

:D

temperatures are likely to fall on the average for a while now. Maybe 20-50 years or so. There are a couple of climate scientists such as Swanson and Tsonis who also think this is a strong possibility looking 30 years out.
:liar:

it’s important to note that we are not talking about global cooling
[...]
We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/

Stroller

2009-Oct-11, 07:47 PM

Precisely what about this data in isolation, that makes it "seem" to you that it is the result of heat from below? What information in this data allows you to distinguish it from heat that is absorbed from the atmospheric interface? Are these directional flows actually indicated in this data, or is this a personal interpretation you are overlaying onto the data?

Compared to the continual emission of longwave radiation from the ocean surface the amount absorbed from the air ocean interface via conduction is miniscule. Radiation from the atmosphere doesn't penetrate the surface of water beyond it's own wavelength. This causes concentration of energy on the surface of the water which causes the prompt evaporation of water molecules, which then rise into the atmosphere, being much less dense than air.

In short, the atmosphere doesn't heat the ocean to any noteworthy extent, the ocean heats the atmosphere, by emitting a large number of Joules of long wave radiative energy into it.

Unless you know of another viable physical mechanism?

Quick Praisee. The Sun warms the ocean, the ocean warms the air, the water vapour and some other gases in the air including co2 reradiate some heat energy to the surface and lose the rest to space.

Agreed so far?

Stroller

2009-Oct-11, 08:02 PM

So the reason the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased isn't because we've released huge amounts of it by burning fossil fuels, it's because the temperature has increased!

I was refrring to the timing of inflexion points, i.e. changes, and what cause them, not about relative levels, which have a non linear relationship.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/

And I was referring to their published work, not Swanson's comment on a blog.

Good link though, I like this quote by the author of the headline post the best:

I think the interesting question raised (though not definitively answered) by this line of work is the extent to which some of the pause in warming mid-century might have been more due to decadal ocean variability rather than aerosols than is commonly thought. If that is the case, then a pause or temporary reduction in warming rate could recur even if aerosols are unchanged. Learning how to detect and interpret such things is important, lest a temporary pause be confused with evidence for low climate sensitivity. --raypierre]

I wonder if it has occurred to Ray Pierre-Humbug that the two reductions in warming rate caused by the oceans he posits must logically have an intervening period in which the warming rate is increased by the oceans. And since this wasn't admitted or taken into account before, it must necessarily have an effect on the radiative forcing value for co2 and climate sensitivity.

mugaliens

2009-Oct-11, 08:25 PM

Therefore, a sizeable proportion of any effect additional co2 has on limiting the escape of longwave radiation from the Earth's surface would be offset by the same co2 preventing some of the sun's energy reaching the Earth's surface.

Why is this not accounted for in the radiation budget data I've been shown?

Indeed.

And why is stratospheric water vapor included in this Wiki Commons graph on Radiative Forcing Components (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg), while the vastly more powerful trophospheric water vapor undeniably absent?

Speaking of which? Why is water vapor listed throughout the IPCC Reports but strangely absent (! Text not found) throughout the entirety of Wikipedia's entry on Radiative Forcing?

Interestingly, water vapor used to be prominently listed as the most powerful greenhouse gas under Wiki's entry on Greenhouse gas. Then, for a time, it completely disappeared!

Now it's back, once again ranked at the top of the heap, with a 36% to 72% contribution (mean of 54%), compared to CO2's 9-26% contribution (mean of 17.5%).

Put simply, water vapor has 300% (3x) greater of an effect on global warming that does CO2.

So let's examine this claim: "Emissions of CO2 by human activities ... amounting to about 27 billion tonnes per year."

However, this is CO2, not just carbon. So, in light of this fact: "Around 42,000 gigatonnes of carbon are present in the biosphere."

We have to convert the carbon weight in CO2 to find the appropriate ratio, with C being 12.0106g/mol, and O being 15.9994 g/mol.

Thus, carbon fraction is 27.29%, and human activities release about 7.37 billion tones per year of carbon."

Thus, humans are increasing the biosphere's carbon content by 0.0175% per year. Thus, since 1750, the year used as the "reference point" for the claim that we've increased it by 37% since 1750, 259 years ago, we humans have actually increased it by (2009-1750)*0.0175=0.0454.

That's 4.54%, folks. Not 37%.

So how'd they get 37%? Simple. First, they assumed a steady-state amospheric model, where everything remainds hunky-dory without human input, and they then assume, self-effacingly, that we must be the culprit. Second, they take a look at the change in atmospheric CO2 between 1750 and today, find it's 37%, and heap the blame on us. Third, they go looking for any and all possibly reasons and justifications, while ignoring the fact that we contributed a total increase into the biosphere carbon cycle of just 4.54%.

So why the additional rise in CO2?

If you really want to be self-effacing, try these possibilities

- Deforestation blocks atmospheric CO2 access to one of the largest carbon sinks on our planet

- Gross oceanic pollution and gross overfishing has drastically reduced the biological capability of the ocean to moderate the oceaning portion of the carbon cycle, involving CO2 dissolved in the oceans.

- Contrails (not chemtrails) have resulted in slight increases in the Earth's overall albedo, but much more of an increase over forested areas, as that's where most of the flights occur. The increase in albedo results in the reflection of a slight amount of solar influx, but of a serious reflection of the blues and reds absorbed in photosynthesis, with a corresponding reduction in carbon fixation.

So, in a way, these mechanisms are indeed anthropogenic, but not in the way most people mistakenly believe, that of us producing more carbon than the earth can handle. Rather, it's been a reduction in the Earth's ability to handle it. Until we effect changes to the above mechanisms, our efforts in curbing CO2 emissions as a means will have, at best, just 12% of the effect we think they will.

And these simply examine the planetary issues. They don't begin to touch the known effects of sunspot activity on the Earth, or the relatively unknown effects of our passage through the interstellar medium.

Carbon sinks:

Forests: 86% of the planet's above-ground carbon; 73% of the planet's soil carbon

Gillianren

2009-Oct-11, 08:45 PM

A greenhouse is an poor analogy for the action of trace gases such as co2 in the atmosphere. Water vapour is much more prevalent and effective, and absorbs radiation at roughly the same wavelengths, but can act as a positive or negative forcing depending on factors such as ionisation, air pressure, aerosol levels, time of day, season of year, latitude of location, height of cloud etc.

I read the question and answer to my boyfriend. We agreed that, while this is very clearly an answer, it is not actually an answer to the question that was asked.

Stroller, you may consider other people to be rude for pointing out that you did not/have not/will not answer the questions presented to you and expressing frustration over it. However, that one little excerpt is all my boyfriend knows about this argument in its particulars; he doesn't know who anyone participating even is except me. But he spotted that you did not answer the question which was asked. This is why we are frustrated--it's just that easy to tell. He also asked if you're doing it on purpose or not, a question I now pass on to you. Are you?

Trakar

2009-Oct-11, 09:16 PM

If I may ask a question in return.

I've looked at several papers on co2's alleged radiative forcing, but none seem to take into account the offset it would cause. Around 80W/m^2 of incoming solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere is longwave radiation in the range of co2's absorption spectrum. Logic dictates that around half of that which is absorbed by co2 would be re-radiated back into space.

Therefore, a sizeable proportion of any effect additional co2 has on limiting the escape of longwave radiation from the Earth's surface would be offset by the same co2 preventing some of the sun's energy reaching the Earth's surface.

Why is this not accounted for in the radiation budget data I've been shown?

Many, if not most, simple representations of the radiation budget group this very small fraction of the total shortwave (in comparison to microwave and Radio wave spectra) solar impingement. Presuming that your 80W/m^2 figure is correct at the upper atmosphere, which may or may not be accurate, then we can see how this is a very small fraction of the total solar energy from the shortwave spectra at the upper boundary of the atmosphere, which measures in at around 1400W/m^2. Of that total amount, roughly 30% is reflected back out into space, at the narrow wavelength of particular interest to your post, the actual figure may be higher or lower, but its value is included within that overall figure.

It is a part of almost all detailed radiation budget calculations.

Basic background and overview explanation:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm

More detailed explanations and maths, try chapters 2-6:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/images/instruments/tim/Kiehl_Trenberth_revised.gif

even looking at simplified depictions like this, the IR radiation you are concerned about is included as a fraction of the energy flow depicted in the upper Left hand corner of the image.

Stroller

2009-Oct-11, 09:18 PM

I read the question and answer to my boyfriend. We agreed that, while this is very clearly an answer, it is not actually an answer to the question that was asked.
He also asked if you're doing it on purpose or not, a question I now pass on to you. Are you?

Hi Gillian, and Gillian's boyfriend!

Here's the question again:

1. Do you consider CO2 to be a greenhouse gas? If not, what evidence do you have to disprove the past ~150 years of molecular physics?

It's actually two questions, though they don't really follow from one another. In fact they form what is known in in Latin as a non-sequiteur.

In my answer, I explained why I don't think the analogy of a greenhouse is a very useful one for understanding climate. I widened the context by explaining that water vapour is a more powerful and far more prevalent gas than co2, and that because there is far more of it than there is co2, and it absorbs in the same frequency range as co2, it 'steals' the longwave radiation coming from Earth and sun from co2. But also, in the form of clouds, it shades the Earth from the sun some of the time, and blankets the Earth some of the time.

So the greenhouse has got more sophisticated. It has an automatic shading system for when the sun is very hot, i.e. the cumulonimbus that forms over the tropics in the early afternoon. It also has vents which automatically open to let excess heat out. This is the funnel up through the storm systems which sucks hot air and water vapour up to great heights above the clouds and the level at which heavier than air co2 resides, allowing the heat to escape directly to space, bypassing the co2 blanket. It also has a sprinkler system which irrigates the Earth and cools the sea surface, altering the sea's salinity and affecting it's heat retention behaviour.

Can you see or appreciate that what I'm trying to do is widen the perspective of those thinking about climate beyond overly simplistic concepts which have acquired too much baggage for their scope?

The second question is the nonsequiteur. No-one believes that the development of the last 150 years of molecular physics rests on the concept of a greenhouse. Or at least, I hope they don't.

Co2 certainly is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse growers the world over know that by raising the co2 level in their greenhouse to around 1000 ppm they get better yields and healthier plants which need less irrigation. Recent epigenetic studies show that plants suddenly switch on hundreds of extra genes when the co2 level rises above 500ppm. Clearly, plants know how to deal with higher co2 concentrations. A recent study by a professor of climate in my home town has shown trees have got fatter since the co2 levels have risen. Nature is talking, who is listening?

parejkoj

2009-Oct-11, 09:28 PM

First of all, Stroller, thank you for replying. However, you didn't answer my questions at all, and your most recent reply is completely disingenuous. You know full well what the definition of greenhouse gas is. And if you honestly don't know what the common usage of that term means, then you really need to do two things:

1. Head over to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas) and learn some basic terminology.

2. Stop claiming that you have any kind of authority when discussing climate science.

To jlhredshift: I'm sure this could be viewed as a "trap." But if Stroller does not consider CO2 to be a greenhouse gas, then we have no common ground on which to discuss any aspects of climate science, since he apparently denies one of the most basic facts of atmospheric physics.

This goes for anyone who claims that anthropogenic global warming isn't real. If you wish to argue that, then you either have to claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, or that the radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 is much smaller than all current estimates, or that there is some completely unknown effect that cancels out CO2's radiative forcing. It's really that simple. I'm just trying to see which of these points Stroller believes is correct.

1. Do you consider CO2 to be a greenhouse gas? If not, what evidence do you have to disprove the past ~150 years of molecular physics?

A greenhouse is an poor analogy for the action of trace gases such as co2 in the atmosphere. Water vapour is much more prevalent and effective, and absorbs radiation at roughly the same wavelengths, but can act as a positive or negative forcing depending on factors such as ionisation, air pressure, aerosol levels, time of day, season of year, latitude of location, height of cloud etc.

That's not an answer. You know full well what the term "greenhouse gas" means. So, I'll ask again: do you consider CO2 to be a greenhouse gas, or not?

2. If you think CO2 is a greenhouse gas, what do you think is the correct value of the climate forcing (in W/m2) for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, and why do you think that is the correct value?

If changes in co2 levels have any effect on temperature at all in the real world given the other processes which might compensate for them, it would be a complex task to quantify them, since we would have to understand and be able to quantify all the other effects which are in play. Which we do not and can not at present. A couple of other inconvenient facts call into question the effectiveness of co2 as a climate forcing factor:
i) Changes in co2 levels lag behind changes in temperature at all timescales. Despite attempted rationalisations, this presents a basic difficulty for the co2 driven climate theory with regards to cause and effect.
ii) Even according to the co2 theorists own theory, co2 isn't a particularly effective greenhouse gas unless increases in it's levels produce much bigger increases in the more potent greenhouse gases such as water vapour and methane. Neither of these two gases atmospheric concentrations have increased in line with modeled expectations.

You've again dodged the question, which is unsurprising since you couldn't even give a yes or no answer to the first, very simple, question.

Also, CO2 both leads and lags temperature (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/), as has been mentioned dozens of times before. And that's not really relevant to the amount of radiative forcing produced by a doubling of atmospheric CO2, which can be roughly estimated from some fairly basic physics, less roughly estimated through observations of Earth's past climate, and directly calculated (with errorbars) through modeling of the climate system.

However, since you seem to be claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, "If changes in co2 levels have any effect on temperature at all in the real world given the other processes which might compensate for them...", I'll assume the answer to your first question is "no." In which case, how do you reconcile that with the past ~150 years of molecular physics?

3. Given your answer to question 2, what do you think the present global temperature anomaly should be, given the ~35% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the mid 1800s?

At the philosophical level, I don't see the up and downs of temperature as 'anomalous'. Variation is quite natural, historically and empirically verified, and is the usual way the Earth continues it's course through history.
At the empirical level, I would say that going by observations of the past, and utilising some deductional and inductional reasoning, it seems likely to me that we are just past the top of several mutually additional positive phases of several natural cycles (E.g. Solar, Oceanic), and that temperatures are likely to fall on the average for a while now. Maybe 20-50 years or so. There are a couple of climate scientists such as Swanson and Tsonis who also think this is a strong possibility looking 30 years out.

You are again dodging the question by playing with semantics. The temperature anomaly is a measure of the temperature difference between two baselines. But I'm quite sure that you already knew that and were just avoiding the question.

However, taking your answers to the previous questions, I'll assume that you don't think CO2 contributes any positive radiative forcing to the global energy budget. How do you reconcile that with the inability of any climate model to reproduce the past century without both natural and anthropogenic forcings? (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm)

Stroller

2009-Oct-11, 09:31 PM

jlhredshift - Aaaarrgghh too late. :) But I love debating Gillian, she's such a sweetie.

Trakar - thanks for the lovely Radiation Budget graphic. Trenberth's wasn't it? Bless him.
What about the co2 radiative forcing calculation though?

Stroller

2009-Oct-11, 09:51 PM

First of all, Stroller, thank you for replying.
Welcome, and thanks for your response. I think it's sufficiently played out for others to make up their own minds, but two points I will address:

you either have to claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, or that the radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 is much smaller than all current estimates, or that there is some completely unknown effect that cancels out CO2's radiative forcing.

What I'm sure of is that:
1) All the windows are busted in the greenhouse.
2) The radiative forcing calculation for co2 is highly debatable.
3) Far from unknown effects there are several known ones which are cancelling out the effect of co2's radiative forcing as we speak. Or hadn't you noticed that temperature hasn't been going up for the last decade?

I'll assume that you don't think CO2 contributes any positive radiative forcing to the global energy budget. How do you reconcile that with the inability of any climate model to reproduce the past century without both natural and anthropogenic forcings? (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm)

Ah, but skeptical science hasn't got a copy of my model, which very accurately replicates the last 150 years of global temperature data from just two related variables. Neither of which are gaseous :)

Trakar

2009-Oct-11, 09:51 PM

Compared to the continual emission of longwave radiation from the ocean surface the amount absorbed from the air ocean interface via conduction is miniscule.

Conduction isn't the issue, but the atmospheric interface layer is where almost all of the solar heating occurs, as you are evidently aware of from the rest of your response.

This causes concentration of energy on the surface of the water which causes the prompt evaporation of water molecules, which then rise into the atmosphere, being much less dense than air.

Are you trying to say that the sun does not heat the oceans, that all of the energy it deposits results in prompt evaporation of surface water? Can you support this allegation, it seems both counterintuitive and at odds with mainstream understandings and conventions.

In short, the atmosphere doesn't heat the ocean to any noteworthy extent, the ocean heats the atmosphere, by emitting a large number of Joules of long wave radiative energy into it.

My mention of the atmospheric interface layer, was in identification of the very uppermost layer of the ocean's surface, not in an attempt to posit a mechanism. I apologize if I wasn't clear in my meaning.

Unless you know of another viable physical mechanism?

Quick Praisee. The Sun warms the ocean, the ocean warms the air, the water vapour and some other gases in the air including co2 reradiate some heat energy to the surface and lose the rest to space.

Agreed so far?

How about responding to the question I asked?

Precisely what about this data in isolation, that makes it "seem" to you that it is the result of heat from below? What information in this data allows you to distinguish it from heat that is absorbed from the atmospheric interface? Are these directional flows actually indicated in this data, or is this a personal interpretation you are overlaying onto the data?

Trakar

2009-Oct-11, 09:55 PM

What about the co2 radiative forcing calculation though?

What about it?

TheHalcyonYear

2009-Oct-11, 10:01 PM

1. Do you consider CO2 to be a greenhouse gas? If not, what evidence do you have to disprove the past ~150 years of molecular physics?

I love this question. It is posted as if this is the root and end of the argument. Yes, C02 is classified as a "greenhouse" gas because of its ability to absorb and hold heat. The question, however, is: "Are C02 levels the driving factor in past and current temperature levels. It is possible that they are. It is also possible that these levels are a secondary factor and not the driving factor in global warming. This is possible even given the fact that C02 is a "greenhouse" gas; something many don't want to accept.

dmr81

2009-Oct-11, 10:05 PM

I was referring to their published work, not Swanson's comment on a blog.

Their published paper does not in any way support the claim that you made. Swanson's comment that I quoted was made precisely to address misrepresentations such as yours.

Gillianren

2009-Oct-11, 10:07 PM

Co2 certainly is a greenhouse gas.

You see that right there? That was all the answer needed for the first part of the first question. It was a yes-or-no question. That's it. You can clarify beyond that, but you needed to start there, because yes-or-no question.

For the second part? Since your answer is yes, you don't even need to answer it. No one's pretending that the whole of the science depends on that one thing. The issue was that, if you were disputing CO2 as a greenhouse gas, you needed to explain how you were able to argue against the 150 years of science which shows that it is. You see how simple that is?

dmr81

2009-Oct-11, 10:08 PM

hadn't you noticed that temperature hasn't been going up for the last decade?

:liar:

All four data sets show that it has been going up for the last decade (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1999/to:2009/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1999/to:2009/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/to:2009/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/to:2009/trend).

TheHalcyonYear

2009-Oct-11, 10:11 PM

:liar:

All four data sets show that it has been going up for the last decade (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1999/to:2009/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1999/to:2009/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/to:2009/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/to:2009/trend).
Yeah and this has happened before in the last 5000 years. In addition, the temperature has not risen to unprecedented hights as of now.

Stroller

2009-Oct-11, 10:30 PM

Conduction isn't the issue, but the atmospheric interface layer is where almost all of the solar heating occurs, as you are evidently aware of from the rest of your response.

Are you trying to say that the sun does not heat the oceans, that all of the energy it deposits results in prompt evaporation of surface water? Can you support this allegation, it seems both counterintuitive and at odds with mainstream understandings and conventions.

My mention of the atmospheric interface layer, was in identification of the very uppermost layer of the ocean's surface, not in an attempt to posit a mechanism. I apologize if I wasn't clear in my meaning.

How about responding to the question I asked?

In turn my apologies, I misunderstood your original question. The sun's shortwave radiation does indeed penetrate the ocean to a good depth and transfer it's heat energy to the water. It is longwave radiation from the air that doesn't, and just causes evaporation

The reason I think the heat is coming up from below is because I have discovered that there is an equilibrium level for the ocean, which equates to a certain level of TSI (total solar insolation) which we are currently well below. The Earthshine data hasn't been showing any big albedo changes, so if the surface of the ocean is getting warmer, I have a strong reason to believe that the energy is coming up from below. This is bourne out by the fact that SST's are up at the same time OHC is falling.

cope

2009-Oct-11, 10:31 PM

Stroller

2009-Oct-11, 10:37 PM

You see that right there? That was all the answer needed for the first part of the first question.

For the second part? Since your answer is yes, you don't even need to answer it.

Terrific! glad we got that one nailed in two posts. Great stuff, a record for you and me.

Now, would you answer my question?

"Can you see or appreciate that what I'm trying to do is widen the perspective of those thinking about climate beyond overly simplistic concepts which have acquired too much baggage for their scope?"

Gillianren

2009-Oct-11, 10:49 PM

"Can you see or appreciate that what I'm trying to do is widen the perspective of those thinking about climate beyond overly simplistic concepts which have acquired too much baggage for their scope?"

Yes. However, the climatologists aren't, so your arguments are futile, political, ATM, and inappropriate to this section of the board.

Stroller

2009-Oct-11, 10:51 PM

Since this game of semantic ping-pong is giving me a headache, I would like to turn the issue back to the graph in question.

Specifically, why is the 2009 precipitous decrease likely to be different than those of 2002 or 1990 or 1985 or 1983? Each of them was followed by a general increase in the slope of the line.

Good question cope.

My hypothesis is that OHC drops for one of a few reasons.

The ocean burps out a big chunk of it's heat energy into the atmosphere during an el nino (1985)

The ocean loses heat energy during a period when it isn't being being replenished by the sun because of heightened albedo (1983 - post El Chichon volcanic erruption)

The ocean loses heat energy during an extended solar minimum (2009 - Now)

In my estimation, the ocean heat recovered and rose following these events because a very active late C20th sun was putting in extra energy over the oceanic equilibrium value, and the ~60 year oceanic cycles were in their positive phase.

Things are different now, because:

The sun has been quiet for several years, and shows no sign of really getting going with solar cycle 24.

The oceanic cycles have turned to their negative phase and ocean heat content is falling in all major basins as heat rises to the surface and escapes to space via the atmosphere.

SolusLupus

2009-Oct-11, 10:53 PM

TheHalcyonYear

2009-Oct-11, 10:55 PM

Stroller

2009-Oct-11, 10:56 PM

Yes. However, the climatologists aren't, so your arguments are futile, political, ATM, and inappropriate to this section of the board.

Ouch!

Which climatologists? Come on, 'fess up, who here is a qualified climatologist?

TheHalcyonYear

2009-Oct-11, 10:58 PM

Ouch!

Which climatologists? Come on, 'fess up, who here is a qualified climatologist?
Wow, no qualified climatologists disagree with AGW? Amazing!!

Well lets lock up this thread until we can find someone who knows what they are talking about.

captain swoop

2009-Oct-11, 11:56 PM

Yes. However, the climatologists aren't, so your arguments are futile, political, ATM, and inappropriate to this section of the board.

If you have a problem with the content of a post then please report it, don't comment in the thread

More generaly to all posting in this thread. Please concentrate on the subject, cut out the snarkyness, keep it polite

Stroller

2009-Oct-12, 08:43 AM

The SST's maps indicate that a lot of heat is being released from the North Atlantic. The action isn't always only in the Pacific. I believe this is due to the long solar minimum. When the sunspot count is above 40 or so, the oceans are net gainers of solar heat energy. When the sun is quiet for a while, that energy makes it's way back to the surface and is released. The last five solar minima have been followed within 12 months by an el nino.
Sea surface temperatures are currently high, but ocean heat content is dropping (if the preliminary figiures are verified). The simple logic of the situation is that heat previously stored in the oceans is being released to the atmosphere.

Counterintuitively, solar maximum is often accompanied by la nina and some cold winters. I believe this indicates that the oceans are long term modulators of solar energy. A long run of high amplitude cycles will raise ocean heat content. This is bourne out by the increase in steric sea level observed by satellite altimetry. The lag in the system means the oceans don't start releasing the built up energy until a while after the sun goes quiet, and the fact that the ocean has so much more heat capacity than the atmosphere means that it takes quite a while for the heat to dissipate, because when the escaping oceanic heat warms the atmosphere as at present, the increase in humidity traps more heat for longer and suppresses the oceanic output again. This is why we get 'waves' of 'modoki'el nino events as the ocean cools. It's more a diffuse global phenomenon than the big burps of el nino heat release which occur when the pacific warm pool shifts. The big '98 el nino occurred soon after the solar cycle 22/23 minimum, and just after another very strong cycle (23) had got going.

A further consequence of the way the ocean behaves with regard to absorbing and releasing solar heat is that the amplitude of the climate response to the changing solar input over the 11 year Schwabe cycle is damped because we tend to get el nino at solar minimum, raising temperatures and la nina at solar max, lowering temperatures. It is my contention that this has led to an underestimation of the climate's sensitivity to solar variation.

The latest paper form eminent solar physicist Leif Svalgaard shows that the heliospheric magnetic field increased in strength by around 40% from 1900 to 1988, before declining to 1900 levels again now. Although he is cautious about my ideas, he was kind enough to verify the calculations I have done on Ocean Heat Content, steric sea level rise and the gradient of temperature form sea surface to thermocline. These calculations indicate that the sun is a much bigger player in climate change than has been previously thought.

I don't believe my ideas are ATM, but the application of well known simple physics to well known and internationally verified data, and I sincerely hope I can get some intelligent and dispassionate discussion of them here from the well qualified and highly intelligent readership.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-12, 10:18 AM

Water vapour is much more prevalent and effective, and absorbs radiation at roughly the same wavelengths,
Very misleading statement. See the figure 1 of Clerbaux et al. (2003) (http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/3/2027/2003/acpd-3-2027-2003.pdf) (page 25 of PDF). We are perfectly capable of retrieving different gases from the atmospheric spectrum. We also have measured the effect of the increase of the carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. Some papers doing that are listed in these pages:
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/papers-on-changes-in-dlr/

All this have been discussed in this thread several times, with Stroller present in the discussion.

Even according to the co2 theorists own theory, co2 isn't a particularly effective greenhouse gas unless increases in it's levels produce much bigger increases in the more potent greenhouse gases such as water vapour and methane. Neither of these two gases atmospheric concentrations have increased in line with modeled expectations.
Prata (2008) (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/tres/2008/00000029/F0020017/art00023) disagrees, and so does Rind et al. (1991) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu//abs/1991Natur.349..500R), among others.

Stroller

2009-Oct-12, 11:36 AM

Very misleading statement. See the figure 1 of Clerbaux et al. (2003) (http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/3/2027/2003/acpd-3-2027-2003.pdf) (page 25 of PDF). We are perfectly capable of retrieving different gases from the atmospheric spectrum. We also have measured the effect of the increase of the carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. Some papers doing that are listed in these pages:
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/papers-on-changes-in-dlr/

All this have been discussed in this thread several times, with Stroller present in the discussion.

Prata (2008) (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/tres/2008/00000029/F0020017/art00023) disagrees, and so does Rind et al. (1991) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu//abs/1991Natur.349..500R), among others.

Rind et al 1991

"Thus, we conclude that the water vapour feedback is not overestimated in models and should amplify the climate response to increased trace-gas concentrations."

Still waiting for greenhouse 18 years later.

Prata (2008)
"Here long-term (more than 25 years) mean monthly profiles obtained from globally distributed land-based radiosonde stations are subjected to detailed radiative transfer computations and Fourier time-series analysis."

Aren't these the same radiosonde data that I was told are unreliable when I mentioned them as support for a paper with opposite conclusions?

Clerbaux et al. (2003)[/url] (page 25 of PDF)

Seems to confirm that water does indeed overlap co2's absorbance spectrum to a large degree, thanks.
Add to that the fact that water vapour absorbs strongly right across the spectrum whereas co2 only in narrow bands of it.
And add to that the fact that there is far more water vapour in the air than co2 all the time regardless of obfuscations about 'residence time' and most people can easily see that water vapour is a far more prevalent and stronger GHG than co2, which is exactly what I said in the first place.

Water vapour forms clouds, and clouds, when their function as deliverers of nice cool rain is accounted for as well as their radiative properties, are an overall negative feedback on the climate system. Whatever Rind et al think should be the case.

http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/papers-on-changes-in-dlr/

We did the OLR discussion a while ago and I seem to recall your interpretation of the graphs was called into question by one of our moderators. Tusenfem IIRC.

I may get around to looking at these links but I'd really like to discuss my own ideas for a change if you don't mind.

Trakar

2009-Oct-12, 02:52 PM

In turn my apologies, I misunderstood your original question.

apologies are completely unnecessary, it is my writing that is poor in this format. I will strive to improve the clarity of my postings and appreciate when others help me to understand when I am not clear in my expositions.

The rust grows quick and thick, it seems, when I stray from regular posting habits. But I often get so caught up in my life away from cyberville that its hard to maintain a decent discussion online.

The reason I think the heat is coming up from below is because I have discovered that there is an equilibrium level for the ocean, which equates to a certain level of TSI (total solar insolation) which we are currently well below. The Earthshine data hasn't been showing any big albedo changes, so if the surface of the ocean is getting warmer, I have a strong reason to believe that the energy is coming up from below. This is bourne out by the fact that SST's are up at the same time OHC is falling.

Ah, I thought you said that it was this data that led you to believe the things you do. From the above, however, it looks more like you had this understanding beforehand and merely see how this data supports or at the least, doesn't seem to contradict that position.

Did you look to see if there was any contradictory indications or evidences to your understandings and beliefs in this data, or in general? Doesn't the fact that, for the most part, the deeper one goes into the oceans, the cooler the water gets, make for a difficult conundrum with regards to your heat from below supposition?

Trakar

2009-Oct-12, 03:32 PM

Since this game of semantic ping-pong is giving me a headache, I would like to turn the issue back to the graph in question.

Specifically, why is the 2009 precipitous decrease likely to be different than those of 2002 or 1990 or 1985 or 1983? Each of them was followed by a general increase in the slope of the line.

What 2009 precipitous decrease? There are some negative anomaly numbers in the first couple of months of 2009 data, but the rest of 2009's readings are all positive anomaly numbers, at least as far as I can see. The 2009 annual average can't be figured out until we have a full year's worth of data, but the 3-month average isn't dropping, in fact it seems rather flat for the the first two quarters and with a possible slight uptick. Of course, I could be misreading something, so if you have a link to the data that is being claimed to indicate a drop, please provide it (BTW, I'm really not interested graphs that someone has drawn claiming it represents the data, I'd prefer the data and from a reputable source).

Trakar

2009-Oct-12, 03:36 PM

In my estimation, the ocean heat recovered and rose following these events because a very active late C20th sun was putting in extra energy over the oceanic equilibrium value, and the ~60 year oceanic cycles were in their positive phase.

And you can support this with evidence that the sun generated sufficient additional shortwave EM energy to account for the noticed rise in OHC?

Stroller

2009-Oct-12, 03:40 PM

Ah, I thought you said that it was this data that led you to believe the things you do. From the above, however, it looks more like you had this understanding beforehand and merely see how this data supports or at the least, doesn't seem to contradict that position.

Sorry, yes, I was being a bit elliptical. I did put forward some of these ideas on the thread a couple of months ago before the summer break, but they got a bit lost in the flow of traffic.

Did you look to see if there was any contradictory indications or evidences to your understandings and beliefs in this data, or in general? Doesn't the fact that, for the most part, the deeper one goes into the oceans, the cooler the water gets, make for a difficult conundrum with regards to your heat from below supposition?
I think the key here is to avoid getting bamboozled by the loose terminology used by climate science in general. I try to steer things the right way by referring to heat energy rather than simply, heat. Although a sample of water from say 700m down will be cooler than near surface water, the deeper ocean contains a huge amount of energy, and the water that contains this energy will move upwards as the water at the surface which gives up energy to the atmosphere sinks. There is a mass of other factors including salinity, surface currents, equatorial-arctic flows, vertical columnar flows etc to consider, but trying to keep it simple, there are a few useful general logical deductions which can be made from simple observations.

1) The brute facts of steric sea level rise and direct temperature measurement tell us that the ocean has gained and stored a lot of solar injected heat energy since ocean heat content measurement began in the '50's

2) This heat energy is mixed downwards, as can be demonstrated by the observation of the fairly linear fall of temperature from surface to thermocline.

3) There have been times in the past when there has been major ice accretion at the poles. The fact of current steric sea level rise concomitant with ice loss at the poles indicates that there has been steric sea level falls in the past. - The oceans don't just get hotter and hotter, or they would have boiled away long ago.

4) Therefore, the heat mixed downwards during times of ocean heat accumulation can escape again. Since the heat can't transfer through the seabed to the hotter mantle, it must rise up and be radiated from the surface.

5) Logically, there must be an equilibrium level of solar input and oceanic heat energy output at which the oceans neither gain nor lose heat energy content.

6) By constructing a simple model, I have determined that this equilibrium level is at a Total solar insolation level equivalent to around 40sunspots/month.

7) The average sunspot number from 1980 - 2003 was well above this value, so the oceans gained heat energy and steric sea level rose.

8) The sunspot level fell below 40 at the beginning of 2004 and hasn't recovered since. There has been some rejigging of ARGO data, but after the first rejig, ARGO cheif data analyst Josh Willis said in 2008 that since 2003 there had been a "slight cooling" in ocean heat content. Later in an official NASA publication, he backpedalled and said it was about level. Independent researcher Craig Loehle plots a definite fall.

9) Total sea level rise has markedly slowed down in the last 3 years.

10) The latest sea surface temperatures are up, the latest ocean heat content data (preliminary) is showing a steep drop in all basins, especially the north atlantic, which had anomalously high temperatures at the surface during the positive phase ot the AMO.

11) I deduce from the above, that heat energy is rising from the depths and is being radiated into the atmosphere and out into space.

12) Conclusion. It's going to get colder unless solar cycle 24 pulls it's socks up and starts producing more than 40 sunspots a month. However, surface temperatures are currently mitigated by the current weak modoki el nino taking place globally and this will mask the situation for the next 12-18 months. After that, surface temperatures will be lower than jan 2007 and we will be heading further downwards in a succession of decreasing amplitude waves of oceanic heat release if the sun stays quiet.

I am ready to have my analysis picked apart and criticised, have at it.

cope

2009-Oct-12, 06:11 PM

What 2009 precipitous decrease?...(BTW, I'm really not interested graphs that someone has drawn claiming it represents the data, I'd prefer the data and from a reputable source).

You are not the only one who needs to apologize for writing a response too poorly to be clearly understood so I offer my apologies for the same thing.

I was trying to make the same point, that the graph as a stand-alone representation of complicated data is, in and of itself, pretty meaningless.

Trakar

2009-Oct-12, 09:04 PM

I am ready to have my analysis picked apart and criticised, have at it.

Your theory seems at odds, in many respects, with established and generally accepted science in a variety of fields. You are certainly welcome to your beliefs but I see no compelling evidences for them, nor is there any mainstream scientific acceptance of these concepts within the relevent fields of study, that I am aware of.

Trakar

2009-Oct-12, 09:06 PM

You are not the only one who needs to apologize for writing a response too poorly to be clearly understood so I offer my apologies for the same thing.

I was trying to make the same point, that the graph as a stand-alone representation of complicated data is, in and of itself, pretty meaningless.

Agreed, not only meaningless, occassionally such are even misleading!

Stroller

2009-Oct-12, 09:53 PM

Agreed, not only meaningless, occassionally such are even misleading!

For a bit of context you can see all the basin data on the original post here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/update-of-nodc-levitus-et-al-2009-ohc.html

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-13, 06:16 AM

Rind et al 1991

"Thus, we conclude that the water vapour feedback is not overestimated in models and should amplify the climate response to increased trace-gas concentrations."

Still waiting for greenhouse 18 years later.
Play with words all you like. I already showed you some evidence of observed water vapor feedback, and I also said they were examples "among others". That should have switched the alarm bells on in your end, but instead of actually checking the situation (which you should have done already before making any claims about it), you just went on trying to drag your claims a bit longer. Some more evidence of already observed positive water vapor feedback are here (http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/papers-on-water-vapor-feedback-observations/).

Why did you claim that water vapor concentrations haven't increased in line with modeled expectations when the existing body of evidence seems to say the opposite?

Seems to confirm that water does indeed overlap co2's absorbance spectrum to a large degree, thanks.
Are you claiming that we are not able to separate water vapor and carbon dioxide from the spectrum such as presented in Clerbaux et al. (2003)? By the way, that is transmittance presented in Clerbaux et al. Figure 1, not absorbance.

Water vapour forms clouds, and clouds, when their function as deliverers of nice cool rain is accounted for as well as their radiative properties, are an overall negative feedback on the climate system. Whatever Rind et al think should be the case.
All I see is claims, and claims from you but I don't see you offering (or even trying to offer) any evidence for your claims. Perhaps you should check out the current observational situation of cloud feedback yourself this time.

We did the OLR discussion a while ago and I seem to recall your interpretation of the graphs was called into question by one of our moderators. Tusenfem IIRC.
That was a discussion about total OLR, not about individual bands. That also is an appeal to authority.

I may get around to looking at these links but I'd really like to discuss my own ideas for a change if you don't mind.
- These are your claims we are checking here.
- Do it in ATM forum like everybode else.
- This is a thread about AGW, like the title suggests.

mugaliens

2009-Oct-13, 07:02 AM

It's so wonderful to spend one's afternoon producing a detailed reply such as this one (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/70431-general-agw-discussion-thread-69.html#post1595285)only to have it ignored by those bantering back and forth.

Tsss.. Can't touch this...

Stroller

2009-Oct-13, 08:05 AM

Your theory seems at odds, in many respects, with established and generally accepted science in a variety of fields. You are certainly welcome to your beliefs but I see no compelling evidences for them,

Ask away, I'll do my best to provide the supporting evidence I've amassed. Maybe this graph I've produced from a cumulative count of sunspot numbers above and below the equilibrium value I've determined will pique your interest again.

http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/temp-hist-80.gif

http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/temp-hist-80.gif

nor is there any mainstream scientific acceptance of these concepts within the relevent fields of study, that I am aware of.

That's because it is my original research.

Mugs: Know how you feel.

Stroller

2009-Oct-13, 10:17 PM

Trakar, peer reviewed evidence supporting point 9 of my post at the top of the page.

http://etienne.berthier.free.fr/ download/ Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2009.pdf

The Cazenave et al paper I link above re-examines the JASON/TOPEX satellite altimetry data and finds that since 2005, the rate of increase in sea level rise fell from around 3mm/year to around 1mm/year. Furthermore, they estimate that since 2003, the steric component of sea level rise has fallen to 20% of the total.

This means that the oceans have risen only 0.8mm due to temperature increase since 2005. I put it to you that when error margins are considered, it is possible that the oceans are not warming. The North Atlantic has certainly been cooling for several years:

http://i36.tinypic.com/ddkeas.png
http://i36.tinypic.com/ddkeas.png

mugaliens

2009-Oct-13, 11:53 PM

- These are your claims we are checking here.

I've never seen you do any "checking," here, Ari. A lot of bashing, yes. But not checking.

- Do it in ATM forum like everybode else.

It's not ATM.

- This is a thread about AGW, like the title suggests.

Precisely, including the debate, pro and con, of mankind's contribution to global warming.

Trakar

2009-Oct-14, 05:04 AM

For a bit of context you can see all the basin data on the original post here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/update-of-nodc-levitus-et-al-2009-ohc.html

Blogs, particularly one from such a contra-mainstream perspective such as the one offered, are not generally considered reliable sources of data or information, especially on a board that is supposedly dedicated to peer-reviewed, mainstream science.

Trakar

2009-Oct-14, 05:11 AM

Ask away, I'll do my best to provide the supporting evidence I've amassed.

This forum and thread are primarily for the discussion of the mainstream scientific perspective regarding climate change, I don't feel it is appropriate to discuss your alternative speculations here, but I will be happy to follow and participate in such a discussion in the ATM forum if you care to initiate a discussion of your perspective there.

Trakar

2009-Oct-14, 05:15 AM

Trakar, peer reviewed evidence supporting point 9 of my post at the top of the page.

http://etienne.berthier.free.fr/ download/ Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2009.pdf

All I get is an error message, which recognized journal was it originally published in, and what is the full title, I have access to most of the field relevent journals.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-14, 06:02 AM

Stroller

2009-Oct-14, 08:17 AM

Why did you claim that water vapor concentrations haven't increased in line with modeled expectations when the existing body of evidence seems to say the opposite?

Because there is plenty of evidence to the contrary

Are you claiming that we are not able to separate water vapor and carbon dioxide from the spectrum such as presented in Clerbaux et al. (2003)? By the way, that is transmittance presented in Clerbaux et al. Figure 1, not absorbance.

No, I'm just saying that because there is far, far more water vapour in the air at any one time than co2 that the overlap means the vater vapour intercepts far more of the radiation than co2 does. I'm aware of the differences and link between transmittance and absorption, The one being inversely proportional to the other, thanks.

All I see is claims, and claims from you but I don't see you offering (or even trying to offer) any evidence for your claims. Perhaps you should check out the current observational situation of cloud feedback yourself this time.

I don't play cite the scientist with you any more Ari, because when I do, you resort to ad hominem attacks on them, or try to discredit them with irrelevances such as their religion or smoking habits.

That was a discussion about total OLR, not about individual bands. That also is an appeal to authority.

Your entire contribution to the debate rests on appeals to authority, except when you try to make your own graphs and interpret them or other peoples, and get it wrong.

- These are your claims we are checking here.

No, it's my responses to your claims that you address. You avoid responding to my claims, because doing so would involve discussing natural phenomena other than co2.

- Do it in ATM forum like everybode else.

Did you read Captain Swoops earlier post?

- This is a thread about AGW, like the title suggests.
I know you'd like a one sided debate, but there are other people on this board with other ideas and proposals. I'd like to discuss mine with intelligent well informed people with the ability to use logic and reason. Show me that you are one of them.

Stroller

2009-Oct-14, 08:22 AM

Blogs, particularly one from such a contra-mainstream perspective such as the one offered, are not generally considered reliable sources of data or information, especially on a board that is supposedly dedicated to peer-reviewed, mainstream science.

The data presented by Bob is directly from the KNMI climate explorer and is the same data used by Levitus et al 2009 plus the most recent updates.

Bob provides a link to the data in his article.

If you don't like discussing the science presented on websites, what are you doing here? ;)

Stroller

2009-Oct-14, 08:35 AM

All I get is an error message, which recognized journal was it originally published in, and what is the full title, I have access to most of the field relevent journals.

Hmmm, I agree it has stopped working.

Sea Level Budget over 2003–2008: A Reevaluation from GRACE Space Gravimetry, Satellite Altimetry and Argo by Cazenave et al. 2008

Aha, this link works:
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2008.pdf

Here's the relevant quote:

“The steric sea level estimated from the difference between altimetric (total) sea level and ocean mass displays increase over 2003-2006 and decrease since 2006. On average over the 5 year period (2003-2008), the steric contribution has been small (on the order of 0.3+/-0.15 mm/yr), confirming recent Argo results (this study and Willis et al., 2008).”

My memory was slightly out, it's 2008 not 2009 and the steric contribution is 0.3mm/year not 0.2mm.

Not that we should quibble over 0.1mm measured from space! :)

Stroller

2009-Oct-14, 09:01 AM

There are couple of interesting recently published papers.

Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years - Tripati et al. (2009) (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1178296)

"Originally Posted by Tripati et al.
During the Middle Miocene, when temperatures were ~3 to 6°C warmer and sea level 25 to 40 meters higher than present, pCO2 was similar to modern levels."

Perhaps an indication to what we are heading.

So if it was 3~6C warmer, but co2 levels were like today's, what makes you think co2 and temperature are closely correlated? Or is the extra 3~6C "already in the pipeline?" If so, where is it hiding at the moment?

Also, the paper says nothing about the 800-2800 year lag of co2 level change behind temperature change.

Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation - Kulmala et al. (2009) (http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/21525/2009/acpd-9-21525-2009.pdf)

Yet another nail in the coffin of the cosmic ray - climate connection.

There is also a new peer reviewed paper just been published by Henrik Svensmark et al which shows the opposite.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038429.shtml

CERN take his ideas seriously enough that they are going to devote a lot of resources to testing the theory. Jasper Kirby of CERN has put together a great slideshow for those who like a visual summary:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/kirkby_cern_slideshow09.pdf

I always prefer science which is setting out to make discoveries to science which sets out to discredit by finding negative results and attempting to persuade tha they have fulfilled necessary and sufficient conditions for a conclusive refutation.

dmr81

2009-Oct-14, 10:43 AM

why is stratospheric water vapor included in this Wiki Commons graph on Radiative Forcing Components (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg), while the vastly more powerful trophospheric water vapor undeniably absent?
Because tropospheric water vapor is not a forcing (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/).

Thus, humans are increasing the biosphere's carbon content by 0.0175% per year. Thus, since 1750, the year used as the "reference point" for the claim that we've increased it by 37% since 1750
:liar: Nobody is claiming that we've increased the mass of carbon in the biosphere by 37%.

The greenhouse effect works in the atmosphere so it is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere that counts. We have increased that by 37%, from 280ppm to about 383ppm.

The amount we have emitted by burning fossil fuels is greater than the increase in the atmosphere, because a significant proportion of it is being taken up by natural sinks. FAQ: What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been produced by human beings through the burning of fossil fuels? (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html#Q7)

Using the latest figures (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2006.ems) we've emitted enough to increase it by over 50% (329Gt / 596Gt = 55%) since 1750.

BTW...

we humans have actually increased it by (2009-1750)*0.0175
You're assuming that we've emitted the current annual amount every year since 1750, so you're overestimating emissions by about 600%. Since that works in the opposite direction to your other error it reduces your overall error to only one order of magnitude. :doh:

Trakar

2009-Oct-14, 04:03 PM

The data presented by Bob is directly from the KNMI climate explorer and is the same data used by Levitus et al 2009 plus the most recent updates.

Bob provides a link to the data in his article.

If you don't like discussing the science presented on websites, what are you doing here? ;)

Mr Tisdale, is not a reliable source of accurate mainstream science opinion or information on this subject matter.

I have no problem discussing the mainstream scientific perspectives, understandings or even speculations, but there is a difference between this and the discussion and exploration of Against The Mainstream pseudoscientific imaginings, musings and machinations, which is why I generally don't spend much time on the ATM forums. If you wish to discuss the established and accepted science and scientific understandings I will be happy to enjoin such a discussion, if you wish to propose and defend an alternative theory over in the ATM forum, I will even join you over there for such a discussion, but I do not feel it is appropriate to conflate such musings here, in a thread supposedly discussing the mainstream scientific views of the human forcing element of modern climate change.

Trakar

2009-Oct-14, 04:11 PM

Hmmm, I agree it has stopped working.

Sea Level Budget over 2003–2008: A Reevaluation from GRACE Space Gravimetry, Satellite Altimetry and Argo by Cazenave et al. 2008

Aha, this link works:
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2008.pdf

Again, not really the appropriate forum, IMO, but how do you see this information as supportive of your proposal that deeper, cooler waters somehow magically concentrate and transfer their heat energy to the uppermost layer of the ocean, so as to increase the surface temperature?

Trakar

2009-Oct-14, 04:33 PM

There is also a new peer reviewed paper just been published by Henrik Svensmark et al which shows the opposite.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038429.shtml

Interesting, unfortunately, an error that seems to have slipped by the AGU reviewers exists. Svensmark's satellite data is not in agreement with the data from the source he claims to have gotten the data. http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/climanal7.html (http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/climanal7.html)

Of course, this should be, and probably has been, better addressed to and by Svensmark, and so is not appropriate to discuss here, but again such against the mainstream perspectives are generally more appropriately discussed in their proper forum.

I am curious however, as to how you see this as supportive of your own "heat from below" theory as it seems completely contradictory to the GCR theory which postulates lowered cloud as the mechanism responsible for greater surface temps (IOW more "heat from above").

Stroller

2009-Oct-14, 04:48 PM

Again, not really the appropriate forum, IMO, but how do you see this information as supportive of your proposal that deeper, cooler waters somehow magically concentrate and transfer their heat energy to the uppermost layer of the ocean, so as to increase the surface temperature?

I don't. As I said when I posted the link, it is support for my statement 9) in the top of page post:

9) Total sea level rise has markedly slowed down in the last 3 years.

Personally, I find the coincidence between the timing of the dropoff in solar activity and it's ensuing quietness from 2006, and the cessation of rise and subsequent decline of steric sea level from 2006 too obviously connected to ignore. After all, it's shortwave solar energy which penetrates the ocean surface and warms the water.

But to return to your evident belief that the lower ocean strata don't affect the rate of emission at the surface I appeal to the points of logic I raised in 3) and 4). It must happen, the question is how.

In retrospect, I expressed 11) badly. Rather than the stored energy "rising from the depths and being radiated at the surface" I think it is more a case of the energy state of the deeper, slowly mixed and warmed waters affecting the rate at which further heat can be mixed downwards from the surface. I think this forces a greater rate of energy emission against the atmosphere's tendency to damp it through raised air temperature and humidity decreasing the rate at which energy can be emitted from the ocean by convection and evaporation.

Thank you for forcing me to work through and clarify my thinking. It is exactly the kind of useful critical feedback I hoped to get. I'm not trying to propose an ATM theory, I'm exploring lacunae in our understanding of the atmosphere-ocean heeat budget which don't add up. Mainstream science knows there is a 40W/m^2 gap in the budget presently, and is looking for the answers too.

Stroller

2009-Oct-14, 04:55 PM

I am curious however, as to how you see this as supportive of your own "heat from below" theory as it seems completely contradictory to the GCR theory which postulates lowered cloud as the mechanism responsible for greater surface temps (IOW more "heat from above").

I don't. I was just pointing out to Ari that there is peer reviewed science for and against the theory regarding the influence of galactic cosmic rays on earth's climate. It's not an essential part of the ideas I'm exploring with regard to ocean heat content and the frequencies of it's absorption/emission.

Nonetheless, changes in cloud levels are obviously important WRT surface recieved insolation and OHC, however they are effected.

With respect to the inconsistency you have noted between Svensmarks paper and the data posted on the ISCCP website, it may be worth noting that there have been several independent re-analyses of the data done since it came to light that there is an issue with observation angles from the geostationary weather satellites used in the data collation.

For a good overview on clouds there is a 50 minute video of a lecture by Joel Norris from the Scripps Oceanography Institute you may find of interest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRsSwp8vk9A

Stroller

2009-Oct-14, 05:09 PM

Interesting pop up fact

"I calculate the characteristic time constant of the oceans to be 55 000 years by conduction alone and ~55 years with mixing and convection. What does this mean? It means that if the heat balance of the oceans suddenly is changed dramatically enforcing the equilibrium temperature in the oceans to decrease by 10 C, it would take ~55 years for the temperature to drop 3.68 C."

[T0 – T1] exp(-t/tau) = [10 – 20] exp(-55/55) = -3.68 C.

Stroller

2009-Oct-14, 05:15 PM

Mr Tisdale, is not a reliable source of accurate mainstream science opinion or information on this subject matter.

Bob is known as 'the vulcan' because of his dispassionate presentation of the facts, and his scrupulously unopinionated discourse. May he blog long and prosper. :)

I have no problem discussing the mainstream scientific perspectives, understandings or even speculations, but there is a difference between this and the discussion and exploration of Against The Mainstream pseudoscientific imaginings, musings and machinations, which is why I generally don't spend much time on the ATM forums. If you wish to discuss the established and accepted science and scientific understandings I will be happy to enjoin such a discussion, if you wish to propose and defend an alternative theory over in the ATM forum, I will even join you over there for such a discussion, but I do not feel it is appropriate to conflate such musings here, in a thread supposedly discussing the mainstream scientific views of the human forcing element of modern climate change.

Take a look at the very first post on this thread. ;)

Trakar

2009-Oct-15, 12:28 AM

Bob is known as 'the vulcan' because of his dispassionate presentation of the facts, and his scrupulously unopinionated discourse. May he blog long and prosper. :)

Take a look at the very first post on this thread. ;)

Mr Tisdale is an eccentric curmudgeon with essentially zero standing in the global climatic science field.

The fact that the moderators of this forum do not seem to understand or acknowledge the mainstream scientific perspective of this issue, does not mean that all other participants should so lower their standards and thresholds. It is not my place, nor topical to this thread, to engage in an extended discussion of these issues in this thread, but, IMO, the science and technology board is an inappropriate venue in which to discuss your alternative to mainstream concepts. If you wish to discuss the mainstream perspective of human influenced climate change forcing, I will be happy to enjoin that discussion, if that is not your purpose, then my free online time is too limited for me to waste in inappropriate distractions and pseudoscientific meanderings.

Torsten

2009-Oct-15, 03:17 AM

As I recall it, this thread is the result of merging three separate threads some months ago. None of the previous threads had the current title.

Stroller

2009-Oct-15, 04:06 AM

If you wish to discuss the mainstream perspective of human influenced climate change forcing, I will be happy to enjoin that discussion

Which aspect of 'mainstream climate science' would you prefer to discuss?

Tree ring proxies?

Seems to me a consideration of the nature of the sun-ocean-air energy cycle will get us further forward, but whatever floats your boat.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-15, 07:16 AM

Because there is plenty of evidence to the contrary
You haven't provided any.

No, I'm just saying that because there is far, far more water vapour in the air at any one time than co2 that the overlap means the vater vapour intercepts far more of the radiation than co2 does.
And yet, as one can see from Clerbaux et al. (2003) we are able to retrieve the CO2 effect quantitatively.

...[Skipping the personal attacks]...

No, it's my responses to your claims that you address.
There were some questions presented by parejkoj (post #2033), to which you responded with some water vapor claims, etc. (post #2034). I responded to that (post #2066) and we are still on that road. Once again you have presented clearly false statement here.

So if it was 3~6C warmer, but co2 levels were like today's, what makes you think co2 and temperature are closely correlated? Or is the extra 3~6C "already in the pipeline?" If so, where is it hiding at the moment?
Oceans warm slowly, current change has been very rapid.

Also, the paper says nothing about the 800-2800 year lag of co2 level change behind temperature change.
Once again an effort to mislead people from you:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

There is also a new peer reviewed paper just been published by Henrik Svensmark et al which shows the opposite.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL038429.shtml
Which seems to address the issue by indirect means. Kulmala et al. measure the nucleation processes directly and find that cosmic rays don't have significant effect.

CERN take his ideas seriously enough that they are going to devote a lot of resources to testing the theory.
They already are publishing some results (I also heard that Svensmark was kicked out of the project but it's only hearsay for the moment, I'm not sure about that):

Results from the CERN pilot CLOUD experiment - Duplissy et al. (2009)
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/18235/2009/acpd-9-18235-2009.pdf

In conclusion, therefore, the experimental variables were not well enough controlled to exclude the presence of ion-induced nucleation on the basis of Fig. 7; it merely does not support the presence of strong contributions from this source.
So, apparently no strong contribution from cosmic rays, what a surprise...

Stroller

2009-Oct-15, 07:59 AM

Quote:Ari
Originally Posted by Stroller
Because there is plenty of evidence to the contrary

You haven't provided any.

Here you go.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/WaterVapor.htm

:Ari

Originally Posted by Stroller
So if it was 3~6C warmer, but co2 levels were like today's, what makes you think co2 and temperature are closely correlated? Or is the extra 3~6C "already in the pipeline?" If so, where is it hiding at the moment?
Oceans warm slowly, current change has been very rapid.
Oceans are what primarily interest me at the moment, so I'll stick with this one for now.

Oceans warm slowly, but the readily mixed upper 50-80m is where most of the short - medium term action occurs.
The change was no faster than 1920-1940, when the arctic got warmer than now. Not unprecedented, not any more rapid than before, and as soon as the PDO and AMO went negative, started reversing. What a surprise...

The SST's rose at pretty much the same rate as air temperature while the solar cycles were high amplitude - short minimum, but that has now stopped and is reversing just as quickly, now that the sun has gone quiet, SST's have been falling since 2003. Ocean heat content has (prelim results) dropped globally and has been falling rapidly in the north atlantic for several years now as my earlier graph (http://i36.tinypic.com/ddkeas.png/bmi_orig_img/ddkeas.png) shows.

These things correlate far more strongly than co2, which continues it's steady upward plod. I predict we'll see dropping temperature cause it to start levelling off in the next few years, in it's usual laggy sort of way.

here's the mid month SST update from Dr Roy Spencer's (http://www.drroyspencer.com/) site:

http://1.2.3.13/bmi/www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSR-E-SST-thru-10-14-09.jpg

20% of the U.S. is already covered in snow (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/14/early-start-to-winter-20-of-usa-is-covered-in-snow-already/). Very early this year. It's not melting rapidly either.

Low temperature records are dropping like ninepins in the U.S.

The antarctic and global sea ice extent looks set to reach a new record this year

Even the BBC is starting to have doubts (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm).

Quote:Ari
Originally Posted by Stroller
Also, the paper says nothing about the 800-2800 year lag of co2 level change behind temperature change.

Once again an effort to mislead people from you:

Once again an ascription of motivation and an accusation of dishonesty from you.

Goodbye Ari.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-15, 10:02 AM

There is an interesting series of articles ongoing by John Cook:
How do we know global warming is still happening (http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-global-warming-is-still-happening.html)
How we know global warming is happening Part 2 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-global-warming-is-happening-Part-2.html)
Are humans too insignificant to affect global climate (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.html)
How do we know CO2 is causing warming (http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html)
Comparing CO2 emissions to CO2 levels (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparing-CO2-emissions-to-CO2-levels.html)
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html)

Stroller

2009-Oct-15, 10:33 AM

John Cook is a nice guy. I was swapping a few emails with him yesterday.

I posted a couple of corrections to his articles, but it looks like a long task.

Klausnh

2009-Oct-15, 02:50 PM

here's the mid month SST update from Dr Roy Spencer's (http://www.drroyspencer.com/) site:

Why the limit of 60N to 60S?

Gillianren

2009-Oct-15, 04:44 PM

Once again an ascription of motivation and an accusation of dishonesty from you.

Okay, let's take away accusations of dishonesty when you're wrong. What are our other options?

thoth II

2009-Oct-15, 04:51 PM

I would not presume to be a climate scientist, so I read stuff by climate scientists. Below is an interesting debate between two great ones you can read debate and decide for yourself. I just don't know and find myself 50/50 on this one:

http://fortcollinsteaparty.com/index.php/2009/10/10/dr-william-gray-and-dr-kevin-trenberth-debate-global-warming/

But Dr. Gray really does make me wonder how accurate the GCMs are. But a contradictory statement by Dr. Trenberth:

"Dr. Trenberth says:

“When the models are run without human changes in the atmosphere, the natural forcings and intrinsic natural variability fail to capture the increase in global surface temperature over the past 35 years or so. But when the anthropogenic effects are included, the models simulate the observed global temperature record with impressive fidelity”

The models taking into account the natural factors do not show GW, but the ones including human emissions do.

Klausnh

2009-Oct-15, 05:06 PM

Gillianren

2009-Oct-15, 05:10 PM

And I must point out, again, that the US government wasn't exactly hoping the data would turn out the way it did, given oil companies and all.

Trakar

2009-Oct-16, 04:22 AM

He is also implying that scientists are dishonest. I can't imagine that claim goes over well in this forum.

Only when it comes to mainstream climate science, it appears.

SolusLupus

2009-Oct-16, 04:28 AM

Or aspartame.

Ivan Viehoff

2009-Oct-16, 10:22 AM

20% of the U.S. is already covered in snow (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/14/early-start-to-winter-20-of-usa-is-covered-in-snow-already/). Very early this year. It's not melting rapidly either.

Low temperature records are dropping like ninepins in the U.S.

And its been a lovely warm dry autumn here so far. How boring. Cherry-picking again. Climate vs weather again. How often do we have to have the same argument? We've been round and round this one in this very thread. My compliments to Ari for being bothered.

As it happens, some extensive parts of the US have been the main parts of the world with negative temperature anomaly over the last few months. But most of the world has positive temperature anomaly. You can see this on exhibits that were posted earlier this thread.

When you study the statistics of temperature records, you would still expect plenty of low temperature records still to be established from time to time even in a time of rising temperatures. Also, min can go down even if average goes up. In the very hot 2003 summer in Europe, plenty of places had the curious experience of recording unusually low night time temperatures at the same time that unusually high day time temperatures were recorded. Because it was so unusually dry, the summer day/night temperature difference widened by three degrees from average where I live, characteristic of more arid conditions.

neilzero

2009-Oct-16, 12:02 PM

As a technician, I was often told to change the data that I had collected. I even lost some jobs partly because, I told the boss that he could change my data if he wished, but I would not change it. If I could be convinced that the data was likely wrong, I was willing to attach my explanation of how the probable error occurred. Most of the time, my field was far less political than climate change, so I can believe some scientists lie, or pressure others to lie for what they suppose may be a good cause. Neil

SolusLupus

2009-Oct-16, 01:21 PM

Here's some help for AGW deniers:

1) Weather.

2) Climate.

One is not like the other.

Stroller

2009-Oct-16, 04:28 PM

Why the limit of 60N to 60S?
That's the limit of the satellite data he is plotting.

Given the year on year increase in arctic ice extent since 2007 and the near record extent of the antarctic sea ice upward 25 year trend, Which way do you think SST's are going beyond those latitudes?

Stroller

2009-Oct-16, 04:32 PM

Here's some help for AGW deniers:

1) Weather.

2) Climate.

One is not like the other.

Some say climate is the integral of weather. There is a certain logical appeal to this idea. However, there are many climates on Earth. The concept of a singular global climate is somewhat strained. All it really can be is the averaged totals of various local climates. Given the lack of truly global coverage of the metrics, this has it's limit of usefulness.

Stroller

2009-Oct-16, 04:37 PM

The models taking into account the natural factors do not show GW, but the ones including human emissions do.

The models come up with the results their parameters dictate. The wide spread of their output is mostly due to their inability to model cloud to a sufficient resolution. The way aerosol forcing has been assigned arbitrary quantities during the time series in order to help the models give 'the right answer' and accurately hindcast undermines their validity. You won't see any of them starting from before 1900 because their unrealistic GHG forcing component drives them well off track with the temperature record.

Garbage in - Garbage out.

Stroller

2009-Oct-16, 04:43 PM

Okay, let's take away accusations of dishonesty when you're wrong. What are our other options?

Pleasant and respectful conversation?

Gillianren

2009-Oct-16, 04:54 PM

Pleasant and respectful conversation?

I think you missed my point. I am not surprised by this.

So. You are wrong. Many times. On the same point. You are not being intellectually dishonest. Fine. What are you being?

Stroller

2009-Oct-16, 05:32 PM

I think you missed my point. I am not surprised by this.

So. You are wrong. Many times. On the same point. You are not being intellectually dishonest. Fine. What are you being?

I think you should read the peer reviewed science on the 800-2800 year lag of co2 behind temperature.

Gillianren

2009-Oct-16, 07:41 PM

I think you should read the peer reviewed science on the 800-2800 year lag of co2 behind temperature.

Ah, yes. The question dodge. How unusual.

Stroller

2009-Oct-16, 08:00 PM

Ah, yes. The question dodge. How unusual.
Ah yes, the person who admits to knowing nothing about climate science, but feels qualified to tell others they are wrong.

Stroller

2009-Oct-16, 08:43 PM

And its been a lovely warm dry autumn here so far. How boring. Cherry-picking again. Climate vs weather again. How often do we have to have the same argument? We've been round and round this one in this very thread. My compliments to Ari for being bothered.

As it happens, some extensive parts of the US have been the main parts of the world with negative temperature anomaly over the last few months. But most of the world has positive temperature anomaly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/snowandski/6338140/Snow-arrives-in-Europes-Alpine-resorts.html
The paper copy of today’s The Daily Telegraph, notes
“Unseasonably early snow storms have blanketed much of central Europe..”
“Austria’s Alps have had as much as 35 inches of snow in the past two days, prompting several ski resorts to open their slopes for the earliest season start on record

It's strange how the extra warmest parts of the world seem to be those with the fewest temperature measuring stations in them too.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/2009_christynm_eafrica.pdf

Stroller

2009-Oct-16, 09:28 PM

Ari was right to be cautious about NODC's preliminary data.
The tireless Mr Tisdale has a posting up of the corrected values here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/nodc-corrections-to-ocean-heat-content_16.html

Gillianren

2009-Oct-17, 01:07 AM

Ah yes, the person who admits to knowing nothing about climate science, but feels qualified to tell others they are wrong.

I know the difference between weather and climate. Do you?

mugaliens

2009-Oct-17, 06:07 AM

I would not presume to be a climate scientist, so I read stuff by climate scientists. Below is an interesting debate between two great ones you can read debate and decide for yourself. I just don't know and find myself 50/50 on this one:

http://fortcollinsteaparty.com/index.php/2009/10/10/dr-william-gray-and-dr-kevin-trenberth-debate-global-warming/

Outstanding! I may just stop by and shake Dr. Gray's hand next month while visiting a friend of mine in Ft. Collins.

It's so nice when someone with the education, skill, experience, and clout affirms what I've been trying to say for the last year or two: "This is because nearly 20 years of gross exaggeration on the part of scientists, environmentalists, politicians, and media; most of whom wish to profit in some way from the public’s lack of knowledge on the topic-have distorted the subject of human-induced global warming out of all sensible proportion." - Dr. Gray

I read the full article. Dr. Gray makes a lot of sense, but Dr. Kenburth's on the payroll and is merely repeating the party line.

Sounds familiar...

Stroller

2009-Oct-17, 07:12 AM

I know the difference between weather and climate. Do you?

Let's deal with the lag of co2 behind temperature first. You say I'm wrong about this and have been told many times and therefore I'm intellectually dishonest. That's an unpleasant accusation. I think that rather than dodging the issue, you need to either show I'm wrong or admit you are wrong and apologize with good grace.

Have you actually looked at the evidence?
Can you point to any climate studies which show I'm wrong and that co2 doesn't lag behind temperature?

Gillianren

2009-Oct-17, 07:59 AM

Let's deal with the lag of co2 behind temperature first.

No, let's not. Let's deal with the single most basic argument you're making. "The weather in X place is showing record lows this year; ergo, there is no global warming!" This statement is so flawed that I really think you need to examine it before we move on to anything else. William does this, too, and it makes it nigh impossible to take anything else said on the subject seriously. Lagging, forcing, whatever. Weather versus climate. Explain that first--shouldn't you always be sure everyone is using the same terms, and those the proper ones for the science?

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-17, 11:06 AM

Here you go.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/WaterVapor.htm
No, that doesn't tell us why you claimed it as a fact that that water vapor concentrations haven't increased in line with modeled expectations when the existing body of evidence seems to say the opposite. Most of the relevant research on the issue seems to go against your claim. One can always find by cherry picking some studies that seems to support your case, especially if water vapor situation in upper troposphere is highlighted (as your reference seems to be doing) where that issue is especially complicated to both measure and model, but when the issue is inspected objectively from scientific literature, it clearly seems to lean against your claim. You are overstating the case. That is the problem.

Have you actually looked at the evidence?
Can you point to any climate studies which show I'm wrong and that co2 doesn't lag behind temperature?
Nobody claimed that you are wrong, but the misleading part is that the lag in past climate changes doesn't take anything away from the theory of AGW. You have been told this several times but you still continue to present it as if it would be a problem.

But, I took a look at the evidence:
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/timing-of-carbon-dioxide-and-temperature-in-vostok-ice-core/

It seems that your claim even might be wrong.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-17, 11:09 AM

My compliments to Ari for being bothered.
Thanks. :)

It bothers me when false information is being forced on people, so in many cases I don't have the option of not being bothered.

captain swoop

2009-Oct-17, 03:25 PM

I would not presume to be a climate scientist, so I read stuff by climate scientists. Below is an interesting debate between two great ones you can read debate and decide for yourself. I just don't know and find myself 50/50 on this one:

http://fortcollinsteaparty.com/index.php/2009/10/10/dr-william-gray-and-dr-kevin-trenberth-debate-global-warming/

Outstanding! I may just stop by and shake Dr. Gray's hand next month while visiting a friend of mine in Ft. Collins.

It's so nice when someone with the education, skill, experience, and clout affirms what I've been trying to say for the last year or two: "This is because nearly 20 years of gross exaggeration on the part of scientists, environmentalists, politicians, and media; most of whom wish to profit in some way from the public’s lack of knowledge on the topic-have distorted the subject of human-induced global warming out of all sensible proportion." - Dr. Gray

I read the full article. Dr. Gray makes a lot of sense, but Dr. Kenburth's on the payroll and is merely repeating the party line.

Sounds familiar...

Thoth II and Mugaliens. Between you I see advocating politics and a conspiracy theory involving Climate Scientists.
Please keep this focussed on science (as ironic as that is in this thread)

Klausnh

2009-Oct-17, 04:19 PM

That's the limit of the satellite data he is plotting.

Given the year on year increase in arctic ice extent since 2007 and the near record extent of the antarctic sea ice upward 25 year trend, Which way do you think SST's are going beyond those latitudes?For me the two time frames raise a red flag. Why 2 different time frames? Why "since" and the other "trend"? Why not use the same time frame for both, preferably a trend rather than 2 data points?
And 2003 was the high point of SSTs. So are we going to here the same logic after every time temps or SSTs or ice extent hit a max/min? "The temp/ extent has been going down/up for the last x years so Gw must be ending"?

samkent

2009-Oct-17, 08:40 PM

Tuckerfan you seem to be on the side of the Doomsday crowd. I hope you didn’t put too much credence into Mr. Gores pseudo-science entertainment show. It has been shown to have glaring errors in the actual science involved.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

• Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.

The concept of “We are using up the Earths resources so we have to leave the planet!” is far fetched. The only thing we are running out of is oil. And that is a good thing for the future. Already we are seeing a movement towards self sustaining energy sources.

There is need to leave the planet either now or in the future.

Stroller

2009-Oct-17, 08:49 PM

For me the two time frames raise a red flag. Why 2 different time frames? Why "since" and the other "trend"? Why not use the same time frame for both, preferably a trend rather than 2 data points?
And 2003 was the high point of SSTs. So are we going to here the same logic after every time temps or SSTs or ice extent hit a max/min? "The temp/ extent has been going down/up for the last x years so Gw must be ending"?

If you look at the ocean heat content maps (http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/nodc-corrections-to-ocean-heat-content_16.html), you can see that the falls are now occuring primarily in the northern hemisphere ocean basins.
Cazenave et al 2008 (http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2008.pdf), after a re-analysis of the satellite, Argo and TOPEX data conclude that the steric component of sea level rise has been falling since 2006 globally. Antarctic sea ice extant has been increasing during the whole of the 30 year satellite record (http://nsidc.org/seaice/images/gsfc.nasateam.extent.Total-Antarctic.1978-2007.s.png). Arctic ice has been declining until 2007. Now it is increasing again. There is a well recognised cycle in arctic ice, ignored by AGW proponents.

Now perhaps we'll see the cycle changing. The oceans are cooling as a whole, and arctic ice has seen a year on year increase recently, while antarctic ice hasn't again reached the record extent it did 2-3 years ago.
Arctic ice hit minimum at the same time antarctic ice hit maximum.

'Global warming' was predominantly a northern hemisphere phenomenon. The most vocal scientists on the AGW side of the argument continually harped on about the reduction of arctic sea ice, but they kept quiet about the increase of antarctic sea ice. The trend in the southern hemisphere 1980-2005 was much lower than that in the north. Quite a lot of this is likely an artifact of poor surface measurement methods, but I think some is a natural north-south oscillation which we will see more clearly as time goes on.

So, you and Gillian and Ari and some others here think what we are seeing is a bit of cold weather. The conclusion from my own research is that we've seen the turning point of a longer trend. Time will tell.

My money is where my mouth is, I have a $1000 dollar bet riding on it.

Stroller

2009-Oct-17, 09:08 PM

One can always find by cherry picking some studies that seems to support your case

Well there you go Ari, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Torsten

2009-Oct-17, 10:16 PM

And since "changes in CO2 levels lag behind changes in temperature at all timescales", is there a prediction for when the atmospheric CO2 will start to decline?

Stroller

2009-Oct-17, 11:52 PM

And since "changes in CO2 levels lag behind changes in temperature at all timescales", is there a prediction for when the atmospheric CO2 will start to decline?

The changes lag by between a few months and a couple of years, the absolute levels don't correlate with temperature well enough to judge.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1999.5/offset:-367.1/mean:12/detrend:18/scale:0.3/plot/gistemp/from:1998.5/mean:12

BrentArsement

2009-Oct-18, 01:56 AM

I have a $1000 dollar bet riding on it.

I like your bet Stroller.

I have my left pinkie bet on something a little bit different, though you would agree that the odds are in my favor. Overall, life is a game and a gamble, why not make it unboring, aye?

Time will tell.....

Torsten

2009-Oct-18, 04:48 AM

The changes lag by between a few months and a couple of years, the absolute levels don't correlate with temperature well enough to judge.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1999.5/offset:-367.1/mean:12/detrend:18/scale:0.3/plot/gistemp/from:1998.5/mean:12

Why is the CO2 detrended in that chart?

Tuckerfan

2009-Oct-18, 05:11 AM

Tuckerfan you seem to be on the side of the Doomsday crowd. I hope you didn’t put too much credence into Mr. Gores pseudo-science entertainment show. It has been shown to have glaring errors in the actual science involved.Ah, yes, Gore, the leader of a vast conspiracy who is able to get legions of scientists to either agree with many of the things he's said, or get them to at least suppress the findings of those who disagree with him. Curiously enough, the people I know who work in energy related fields who'd make more money if Gore's statements were false (or even slightly exaggerated) agree with Gore. (BTW, Gore's predictions are not what I'd call the "worst case scenario," by any stretch of the imagination. James Lovelock predicts that due to global warming by 2100 human population will be down to 2 billion people, all fighting over the remaining bits of viable land. (http://65.69.77.33/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20853) Lovelock's got actual degrees in science and has worked for NASA, but I think that he's overly pessimistic by a long shot. Though, if he's right about how bad things are going to get, I can't see there being even 2 billion people left alive.)

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Ah, the site which thinks that DDT isn't all that bad and has been shown in the past to get funding from certain "special interest" groups whose views "just happen" to match those exposed by Junk Science.

The concept of “We are using up the Earths resources so we have to leave the planet!” is far fetched. The only thing we are running out of is oil. Oh, no, we're running out of things besides oil. Fish stocks are declining, as are potable water supplies to name but a couple.
And that is a good thing for the future. Already we are seeing a movement towards self sustaining energy sources.Two words: Jevons Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)
In economics, the Jevons Paradox (sometimes called the Jevons effect) is the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used, tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource. It is historically called the Jevons Paradox as it ran counter to popular intuition. However, the situation is well understood in modern economics. In addition to reducing the amount needed for a given use, improved efficiency lowers the relative cost of using a resource – which increases demand and speeds economic growth, further increasing demand. Overall resource use increases or decreases depending on which effect predominates.This holds true for hybrid cars, as well. (http://green.autoblog.com/2009/07/16/study-despite-insurance-discounts-hybrids-are-driven-more-cos/)
Conventional wisdom is that hybrid vehicles reduce our dependence on foreign oil and emit fewer environment-hurting CO2 emissions. When comparing a hybrid to a conventional gasoline-powered model on a mile-by-mile basis, there's some logic to this argument, provided the pricing disparity between the two models isn't too broad. However, a new study by Quality Planning shows that hybrid owners drive much more than non-hybrid owners, potentially negating the benefits of the added battery pack and electric motor.Global warming isn't the real issue here, its human nature. Presently, the bulk of the world's resources are being gobbled up by roughly 1 billion people (adding together all the various people who have a First World lifestyle, no matter where they might live). This is putting a huge strain on the planet in terms of resource consumption. Sure, there's lots of untapped resources available, but getting those resources causes damage to the local environment, if not the global one. What happens when we have 7 billion or more people all living in a First World lifestyle? It'll royally screw things up. Sure, you can postulate that we'll solve the problems through the use of things like having more efficient devices and recycling, but that ignores a number of important factors. To get to the point where we are using more efficient devices and recycling everything, there's going to be a huge amount of government regulations intruding into our lives. Love your current home? Too bad, the newest homes are more energy efficient, so you've got to move into a newer model home. Don't really have the money to buy a new car, and because of the nature of your work, mass transit isn't a viable alternative? Tough. Buy a new car or find a new job, because the regulations state you can't drive your current car any longer.

Sure, it sounds absurd, now, but in the coming decades its exactly what you're going to see. Take water. There's rationing in many parts of the US and Australia because of fresh water shortages. Granted, there's plenty of water here on Earth, and none of its going away, but much of it is unfit to drink because of either salt or pollution contamination. Getting the contaminates out of the water is possible, but its expensive, and it takes energy. Energy that has to come from somewhere. Even if the source of that energy is "green," you're creating a new baseline of resource demands just to keep civilization running. Something happens to disrupt that, and there are tremendous consequences for the people involved. If a natural disaster or terrorist attack wipes out the water supply for a city of 10+ million people, how do you deal with that? You've either got to ship enough water into the city or get the people out. That's a tall order. If a hurricane, typhoon or tsunami threatens an area of 100+ million people how do you evacuate all (or even most) of them in time?

More mundanely, places like the Sistine Chapel and the Lascoux cave are damaged simply by having humans visit them, even if they don't directly touch anything. Things have gotten so bad with Lascoux that the general public is no longer allowed to go there. How long before they start (assuming they haven't already) limiting the number of people who can go to the Sistine Chapel or other historic sites simply because the sheer presence of all those people destroy those things? In the US, there's already strict limitations on how many people, where they can go, and what kinds of things they can bring, in some national parks, because if they let everyone in who wanted to, and they didn't control the kinds of things they brought with them, it would damage the park. Do want to live in a world where if you want to go to a park you have the choice of only being able to visit it if you're one of the select few allowed in (because you won a "lottery" or signed up months/years in advance) or you get to take a virtual reality tour of the park or you can simply fly over the park and not explore it from the ground to your heart's content? I don't.

There is need to leave the planet either now or in the future.I assume you meant to say, "There is no need to leave the planet either now or in the future." And, again, you're wrong. Even if you can somehow ignore the issues I've raised (and others that I haven't mentioned), the need to expand human knowledge about the universe dictates that we need to get off this planet.

Here's something to think about: Right now, the best climate models we have are inaccurate due to the inability to handle all the variables involved and the limitations of computing power. Granted, the models are getting better all the time, as is computing power, but its still going to be some decades (or longer) before we have accurate models. Even then, we're going to have to do a lot of fundamental re-examination of the theories used to create those models once we get the results in. No doubt we're going to find that a number of our theories are inaccurate in ways we didn't expect. Mars offers us a real world lab where we can tinker around, with fewer variables to worry about, and if we screw up doing geo-engineering there, its no big deal, since there's not lots of people who can be hurt if we discover that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of a planet by a few percentage points causes horrible things. (This would also come in handy if we decided we'd like to tinker around with the tectonic plates at some point. Mars doesn't have any, admittedly, but tinkering around with such things wouldn't be all that different than cracking the Martian crust to make tectonic plates.)

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-18, 06:13 AM

The models come up with the results their parameters dictate. The wide spread of their output is mostly due to their inability to model cloud to a sufficient resolution. The way aerosol forcing has been assigned arbitrary quantities during the time series in order to help the models give 'the right answer' and accurately hindcast undermines their validity. You won't see any of them starting from before 1900 because their unrealistic GHG forcing component drives them well off track with the temperature record.

Three first model papers I checked:

Lean & Rind (2008) (http://www.leif.org/research/LeanRindCauses.pdf) - model runs between 1889 and 2006.

Hansen et al. (2007) (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Hansen_etal_3.html) - model runs between 1880 and 2003.

Knutson et al. (2006) (http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~gera/papers_volc/Knutson2006.pdf) - model runs between 1861 and 2000.

Already we can see that your claim is false. But, let's not stop there:

Crowley (2000) (http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/tcrowley/crowley_science2000.pdf) - model runs between 1000 and 2000.

They stay on track too. We'll add this to the long list of your false claims about climate models.

Stroller

2009-Oct-18, 08:15 AM

Why is the CO2 detrended in that chart?

In order to extract useful information from the curve.

What I've been saying all along, which has been ignored by some and wilfully misinterpreted by others, is that changes in temperature preceed changes in co2, by an average of around 9 months at this timescale, by more at longer timescales.

The timing of the inflexion points is not affected by any of the parameters in my graphs, although this doesn't stop those who are apparently incapable of proper interpretation from accusing me of somehow monkeying with the data.

Ari says that the lag 'doesn't matter', because co2 once it starts to rise or fall, could amplify the temperature decrease or increase. He has yet to offer any quantitative backing for this idea which satisfies proper scientific analysis though.

The point is, the lag proves via the law of cause and effect that co2 doesn't cause temperature to stop rising and start falling or stop falling and start rising. Therefore it is other natural factors doing that, and their ongoing effect has to be accounted for in any theoretical 'amplification' of temperature change caused by changing co2 level.

Stroller

2009-Oct-18, 08:19 AM

Three first model papers I checked:

Lean & Rind (2008) (http://www.leif.org/research/LeanRindCauses.pdf) - model runs between 1889 and 2006.

Hansen et al. (2007) (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Hansen_etal_3.html) - model runs between 1880 and 2003.

Knutson et al. (2006) (http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~gera/papers_volc/Knutson2006.pdf) - model runs between 1861 and 2000.

Already we can see that your claim is false. But, let's not stop there:

Crowley (2000) (http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/tcrowley/crowley_science2000.pdf) - model runs between 1000 and 2000.

They stay on track too. We'll add this to the long list of your false claims about climate models.

Do any of them specify in the papers (or link to the data), details of the changing aerosol forcings thay have introduced to the models at various times in the sequence?

BrentArsement

2009-Oct-18, 03:43 PM

Tuckerfan and others, I have enjoyed these recent posts.

You point out something that polarized politics blinds many to. Gore and others are not wrong to recognize a shift in the recent, decadal cycles. The Earth is living and doing what it does, no matter how poorly we treat her. Trying to blame it on a specific cause is an exercise in futility, and sadly politics. Yogi Berra, once again, would have something to say about guessing and blaming.

I have seen with my own eyes the changes around me. I do not need to read a book; watch a movie; or listen to someone talk about it. I have experienced, within my home filled with children, the threat of weather. Anyone who under concerns themselves with the past 5 years of hurricane season probably did not live thru them. Me and millions of others have. Most are not on this site, but they are among us nonetheless.

My daughter asked why don't we name tornados. I told her hurricanes scare and damage more people at one time and so we decided to give them names long before she was born.

I admit that I have not been a great steward of Mother Earth. I try very hard and feel guilty about many activities. If my prayers come true, I can become a farmer and simpleton again. That way of living has to be much more peaceful and longer lasting and less dependent than my current situation as an American and Earthling.

Dr. Lovelock is not a doomsayer. However, he is fearful for his grandchildren. He will readily admit that he is an old man and it won't matter to him. He will be dead by the time the most difficult portion of what Mr. Gore and millions of others have politicized. I agree that he is too pessimistic about the future. It will be hard, but the polar regions of Earth will not be the only abundant places to live, IMO. Churning up the oceans in order regulate temperature is one of his over-the-top suggestions. First of all, who is going to pay for it. Me and other taxpayers? I can barely pay for all that we are spending as a country right now. I have at least earned a shot glass full of the Moon's H2O.:shifty:

The N.A. Continent, alone, is the most fertile, abundant, and livable of any on Earth. We have all that we should ever need to sustain ourselves for infinite generations to come. We can, however, do a much better job of caring for our resources. Sadly, most folks couldn't even point to the east while sitting on the front porch complaining about politics. Asking 90% of these same folks what the significance of the summer and winter solstices are is equally difficult for them to answer. Last I checked these two physical moments on Earth matter more than any other climate/weather shift we experience.

Its all about the basics of living, IMO. Seasons will always come and go. Knowing when one is ending and the other beginning is the challenge for all those wanting to plant crops and sustain themselves and their family. Bad news, but food won't always be on the shelf of the grocery store.

If it isn't planted, cared for, harvested, and its abundance preserved, the Moon won't really care about our food supply, but my starving children will. Therefore, the Arsements and our community shall always have food to eat. Maybe not cookies, but they are part of our obesity problem as a nation anyway. When 2/3 of Americans are overweight and nearly 50 million are obese, perhaps we have too much food on our shelves anyway.

Rhetorical questions: I wonder if us Americans will take better care of the water on the Moon, as we have not collectively improved our stewardship of the water on Earth?

Could all parties who recognize the changes be right? Could all parties who make absolute conclusions about why the changes occur be wrong?

To me, it’s all irrelevant at this point and I need to go tend to my fall garden. Good day friends.

Time will tell.......:)

Klausnh

2009-Oct-18, 04:06 PM

Stroller

2009-Oct-18, 05:44 PM

A lot of information, but no answer to my questions.
As to "'Global warming' was predominantly a northern hemisphere phenomenon. "; I know quite a few Australians who would differ with you on that opinion.

In fact I did specifically answer both your questions. If you can't read the answers be specific about what it is you don't get.

I wasn't offering an opinion about the fact that global warming was a predominantly northern hemisphere phenomenon, I was merely reporting what the data tells us.

Stroller

2009-Oct-18, 05:47 PM

From the "Weather is not climate" department:

Over 4500 new snowfall, low temp, and lowest max temp records set in the USA this last week

Read all about it. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/18/a-cold-start-to-fall-over-4500-new-snowfall-low-temp-and-lowest-max-temp-records-set-in-the-usa-this-last-week/)

Gillianren

2009-Oct-18, 06:24 PM

My daughter asked why don't we name tornados. I told her hurricanes scare and damage more people at one time and so we decided to give them names long before she was born.

Well, and you'd run out of names. There are a heck of a lot more tornadoes.

Torsten

2009-Oct-18, 07:15 PM

Stroller

2009-Oct-18, 07:59 PM

Stroller:
I've tried to replicate the results of applying the detrend at that site using raw data I acquired from the same source and a spreadsheet, and have been unsuccessful. Could you please explain what you believe is being done there, that is, the step-by-step manipulations of data that the detrend function executes.

Next, I'm not sure what you mean by useful information. There is an upward trend in atmospheric CO2 that's been uninterupted for longer than a century, and all you've written has led me to conclude that you still don't believe this increase is mostly due to anthropogenic releases of CO2. So I'm naturally curious whether you think CO2 levels could actually decline in response to declining temperatures, in the face of the current human emissions of CO2. Also, I'm very curious to your interpretation of which peaks and troughs in the temperature curve relate to which peaks and troughs in the CO2 curve.

Hi Torsten, I'll freely admit I don't know the intimate details of the way the detrend function works on the woodfortrees site. The C++ sourcecode is here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/downloads/analyse-0.7.2.tgz

I've read a lot of conflicting stuff on how much of the atmospheric level rise is due to human activity and still have an open mind about that and about what if any effect the rise might have on temperature.

If we extend back to 1994 I think it becomes pretty obvious which peaks/troughs the lag relates to.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1995/offset:-358.3/mean:12/detrend:25.5/scale:0.20/plot/gistemp/from:1994.5/mean:12

The 1970 - 2000 period makes it clear too:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1973/offset:-328.2/mean:12/detrend:51/scale:0.22/to:2000/plot/gistemp/from:1973/mean:12/to:2000

dmr81

2009-Oct-18, 10:30 PM

The 1970 - 2000 period makes it clear too:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1973/offset:-328.2/mean:12/detrend:51/scale:0.22/to:2000/plot/gistemp/from:1973/mean:12/to:2000

By detrending the CO2 data, you're effectively looking at the tiny variations around the trend in the one year average of the CO2 data -- variations that are negligible compared to both the trend itself and to the actual variations in the CO2 data, which shows a clear annual cycle -- and trying to match those tiny variations with the noise in the temperature data.

If we use your method but without cutting it off at 2000 like you did, it looks like this (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1973/offset:-328.2/mean:12/detrend:51/scale:0.22/plot/gistemp/from:1973/mean:12). :doh:
If we use your method but without removing the annual cycle in CO2, it looks like this (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1973/offset:-328.2/detrend:51/scale:0.22/plot/gistemp/from:1973/mean:12). :doh:

In reality the long term trend in CO2 is responsible for the long term trend in temperature.

If we plot it without detrending the CO2 data it looks like this (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1973/offset:-328.2/scale:0.01/plot/gistemp/from:1973/plot/gistemp/from:1973/trend), or using one year averages like this (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1973/offset:-328.2/scale:0.01/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1973/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1973/trend).

I've used a scale factor of 0.01 in those two plots, because the IPCC gives 3K per doubling of CO2 (an increase of about 300ppm in this data) as the best estimate of climate sensitivity. You used a scale factor of 0.22. If that was correct we should expect to get a 66K increase for a doubling of CO2, which really would be bad news. :doh:

Stroller

2009-Oct-18, 10:52 PM

In reality the long term trend in CO2 is responsible for the long term trend in temperature.

Well there's a classic non sequiteur.

Your other criticisms demonstrate your inabilitiy to understand the point my graphs were making, but nevermind.
My earlier graph from 1994 shows that changes in co2 still lag changes in temperature if you detrend that part of the data.

Also, if you'd extended the graph back earlier you'd have seen how co2 rise trended lower during the cooling period running into the '70's.

Lagging behind temperature as usual.

parejkoj

2009-Oct-18, 11:15 PM

Stroller: where is the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1900 coming from?

Torsten

2009-Oct-19, 12:17 AM

I finally managed to get a very close approximation of the curves that woodfortrees builds. I had to change the start and end points over which the 12 sample averaging occurs, and now I'm reasonably satisfied that I understand the mechanics of that particular function.

But I'm left with the same question: What useful signal is left in the detrended chart when the amount of the annual cycle, the Keeling curve, with an amplitude of about 5ppmv, totally swamps the little variations that are seen in the running 12 month averages? I don't think anyone argues that cycle is anything but a seasonal/temperature driven effect (i.e., rates of photosythesis going through their annual cycle, and the peculiar shape of the cycle attributable to differences in the land masses between northern and southern hemspheres).

And there's another thing about that detrending. Because the trend in CO2 growth has been non-linear - generally an increasing rate of growth over years - any linearly detrended chart will have a pronounced bow in it if it's depicting long periods.

But to me the biggest thing is this: The amount of atmospheric CO2 continues to grow, regardless of the little wiggles in the detrended chart. If the annual global release of CO2 from burning oil, coal, and gas (including flaring) and making cement averages 7,000 million tonnes/year over the next 5 years, the atmospheric CO2 will increase about 9 ppmv (barring a Pinatubo-like event). You can prorate that prediction by the amount of CO2 actually released over the period. Any further variation from that amount is probably due to varying rates of net primary production that are influenced by variations in global temperatures and aerosols.

Trakar

2009-Oct-19, 01:00 AM

Please keep this focussed on science (as ironic as that is in this thread)

Hear, Hear!

BrentArsement

2009-Oct-19, 02:29 AM

as ironic as that is

Agreed.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-19, 07:14 AM

Do any of them specify in the papers (or link to the data), details of the changing aerosol forcings thay have introduced to the models at various times in the sequence?
As you already made a conspiracy claim related to this, you therefore should already have the evidence for it so I'm not going to do your homework. I addressed your claim that we won't see any model runs starting before 1900, which turned out to be nonsense with simple peek to available scientific literature, but I don't see you admitting it.

Stroller

2009-Oct-19, 07:55 AM

But I'm left with the same question: What useful signal is left in the detrended chart when the amount of the annual cycle, the Keeling curve, with an amplitude of about 5ppmv, totally swamps the little variations that are seen in the running 12 month averages?
Try looking at the time axis rather than the amplitude axis. All I'm establishing is that changes in co2 levels lag behind changes in temperature levels at all timescales. This moves the debate on a bit I think.

And there's another thing about that detrending. Because the trend in CO2 growth has been non-linear - generally an increasing rate of growth over years - any linearly detrended chart will have a pronounced bow in it if it's depicting long periods.
Thanks, I think that amplifies the point I was trying to get dmr81 to understand.

But to me the biggest thing is this: The amount of atmospheric CO2 continues to grow, regardless of the little wiggles in the detrended chart. If the annual global release of CO2 from burning oil, coal, and gas (including flaring) and making cement averages 7,000 million tonnes/year over the next 5 years, the atmospheric CO2 will increase about 9 ppmv (barring a Pinatubo-like event). You can prorate that prediction by the amount of CO2 actually released over the period. Any further variation from that amount is probably due to varying rates of net primary production that are influenced by variations in global temperatures and aerosols.
True, atmospheric levels of co2 continue to grow, though only at half the rate predicted by the IPCC ten years ago. And I freely admit the possibility that a substantial part of the growth could be due to human emissions.

The big question as I see it is:

Does it matter?

The Earth has been on a cooling trend over the last 7000+ years. The holocene optimum was warmer than the Roman optimum was warmer than the medieval warm period which was warmer than today. Through these cyclic periods temperature goes up, then falls further down. If human activity is fractionally slowing that rate of cooling by causing half of the increase in the atmospheric level of co2 from 0.03% to 0.04% over the last 300 years or so, is it a problem?

The earth is currently well below it's long term (550m year) average temperature. Would you rather live in a cold world or an even colder one? The central alpine europeans were pretty brassed off when advancing glaciers wiped their villages off the map in the 1700's. The Romans were pretty brassed off when cooling climate brought the invading unwashed hordes down from the north who trashed the most advanced civilisation of the era in the 400's.

Cold brings conflict, failed crops, malnutrition, plague and death.
Warm brings bumper crops, excess labour to build pyramids and cathedrals, fatter trees and plenty.

Without knowing whether and how much extra co2 affects global temperature, whether it matters or not is currently a moot point.

While we are in this state of unknowing, it might not be a bad idea to be also looking at other climate affecting factors and working out how they have combined to overcome co2's allegedly mighty warming power over the last 8 years.

Better than having all the eggs in the one basket it seems to me.

Any chance of discussing my solar-ocean theory after we've finished doing co2 to death again?

Stroller

2009-Oct-19, 08:00 AM

conspiracy

.

Stroller

2009-Oct-19, 08:04 AM

Stroller: where is the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1900 coming from?
The biological activity on and in the ground and the oceans, plus the changing equilibrium brought about by an increase in global temperature.

I include humans and what they get up to to keep themselves warm and mobile in 'biological activity'.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-19, 08:05 AM

You claimed:

The way aerosol forcing has been assigned arbitrary quantities during the time series in order to help the models give 'the right answer' and accurately hindcast undermines their validity.
That is nothing but a conspiracy theory; your claim means that hundreds of scientists should be involved in fabricating results with climate models. But go ahead and dodge issues using that as an excuse.

Stroller

2009-Oct-19, 08:42 AM

Anderson et al. (2003) begin their review by noting there are two different ways by which the aerosol forcing of climate may be computed. The first approach is forward calculation, based on "knowledge of the pertinent aerosol physics and chemistry." The second approach is inverse calculation, based on "the total forcing required to match climate model simulations with observed temperature changes." The first approach is a first principles approach, which utilizes known physical and chemical laws and assumes nothing about the outcome of the calculation. The second approach, in considerable contrast, is a residual approach, where the aerosol forcing is computed from what is required to match the calculated temperature change with the observed temperature change over some period of time. Consequently; in the words of the authors, "to the extent that climate models rely on the results of inverse calculations, the possibility of circular reasoning arises."

Which of course begs the question: "How many of the models use each of the two different approaches?"

Anderson et al. report that, "unfortunately, virtually all climate model studies that have included anthropogenic aerosol forcing as a driver of climate change have used only aerosol forcing values that are consistent with the inverse approach."

:doh:

Ari said

"That is nothing but a conspiracy theory;your claim means that hundreds of scientists should be involved in fabricating results with climate models."

Well, claiming that the results they get represent reality rather than a fudged and kludged cyber-scenario would be fabrication, yes. But they seem to leave that to people like you who fail to see through the game.

I think it was Doug Hoyt or possibly Ken Schatten who proved that there had been no overall trend in aerosol globally over the C20th. I'll try to dig out the reference if I find the time to deal with your insulting and incorrect responses.

Stroller

2009-Oct-19, 09:25 AM

Ah yes, here we are:

Douglas Hoyt:
March 31st, 2007 at 2:31 pm

This paper, using pyrheliometers:

Hoyt, D. V. and C. Frohlich, 1983. Atmospheric transmission at Davos, Switzerland, 1909-1979. Climatic Change, 5, 61-72.

showed no trend in atmospheric transmission in central Europe between 1909 and 1979. It is where the IPCC claims the biggest trends in aerosols were occurring. The pyrheliometric ratioing technique used in that paper is very sensitive to aerosol changes and insensitive to calibration changes. It easily picked up changes due to explosive volcanic eruptions and the method even discovered one eruption previously overlooked as described in:

Hoyt, D. V., 1978. An explosive volcanic eruption in the Southern Hemisphere in 1928. Nature, 275, 630-632.

There are plenty of papers that measured atmospheric transmission and only one of them (published in Science) claimed a trend was occurring and it was pointed out that that paper was erroneous because the paint used on the detectors was degrading and turning green causing an apparent trend.

Also:

Douglas Hoyt:
March 31st, 2007 at 3:46 pm

How could the IPCC allow the aerosol argument to stand?

They had to put aerosols in the climate models to avoid runaway heating compared to actual temperature observations. The modelled aerosol trends had no relationship to the aerosol observations.

Is the world's leading expert on pyroheliometry part of the "conspiracy" along with Anderson et al Ari?

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-19, 11:02 AM

Is the world's leading expert on pyroheliometry part of the "conspiracy" along with Anderson et al Ari?
Why are you trying to twist the situation as if it would have been me who suggested conspiracy? I suggested that you are building a conspiracy theory.

As usual, Stroller doesn't give any source of the quotes. It turns out that the first source is CO2 science:
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V7/N15/EDIT.php

Instead of using proper scientific references I already gave, Stroller decides to lean on a blog interpretation of a review paper from 2003. Simple peeking for example to Hansen et al. (2007) aerosol chapter would have shown that they are using measured end estimated amounts of aerosols in their modelling.

By the way, Stroller, do you still think that model runs never start before 1900?

Stroller

2009-Oct-19, 11:28 AM

Why are you trying to twist the situation as if it would have been me who suggested conspiracy? I suggested that you are building a conspiracy theory.
You now accuse me of 'twisting' and in the very next sentence confirm that you are the one who suggested conspiracy, and you should be ashamed of yourself for your behaviour.

Simple peeking for example to Hansen et al. (2007) aerosol chapter would have shown that they are using measured end estimated amounts of aerosols in their modelling.
Sounds like they needed some spackle and caulk to patch up their model then doesn't it?

Instead of using proper scientific references I already gave, Stroller decides to lean on a blog interpretation of a review paper from 2003.
Why don't you address the actual quotes from the peer reviewed paper by Anderson et al instead of wriggling?
And the Quotes from Doug Hoyt are off Climate Audit. Does that make them or what Hoyt says any less valid? It shows the high calibre of these blogs you denigrate in my view, that eminent world class scientists contribute to them. Stop wriggling and discuss the substantive issue of fabricated model parameters predetermining their outcome.

By the way, Stroller, do you still think that model runs never start before 1900?
No, you were right there. But none use real world figures anyway. I'll ask again, do any of them specify their aerosol figures or link to real data?

Klausnh

2009-Oct-19, 04:14 PM

In fact I did specifically answer both your questions. If you can't read the answers be specific about what it is you don't get.

I wasn't offering an opinion about the fact that global warming was a predominantly northern hemisphere phenomenon, I was merely reporting what the data tells us.OK. Specific questions: What is the 25 year trend for arctic ice and what is the 25 year trend for antarctic ice?

Ivan Viehoff

2009-Oct-19, 04:20 PM

It's strange how the extra warmest parts of the world seem to be those with the fewest temperature measuring stations in them too.

From that rhetorical device, I conclude that you find the data such as "second warmest global september on record" inconvenient. ( http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=9&submitted=Get+Report)

But I do not seek to rely on such things, since I know that individual high temperatures are as meaningless as individual low temperatures.

Climate, incidentally, is the average of weather. A few cold days in a few locations, be they ever so unusually cold, do not a global downward trend make.

Misunderstanding of statistics is a common issue in these areas. If temperature is increasing at the rates typically mentioned, how often would we have a record breaking warm year, globally, over the whole year? I think the answer is about once every 10 years. So the great majority of years will not be record-breakers, even if temperature is going up. Some will be cooler, and if you cherry pick a few years, etc, you will expect to be able to spot localised downward trends. Just look over the last century or two of weather, and you can cherry pick such little downward trends.

I have also previously provided references for William on the subject of why winter sea-ice extent doesn't tell you very much, and I can't be bothered looking them out again.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-19, 04:36 PM

I'll ask again, do any of them specify their aerosol figures or link to real data?
I already gave you links and even hinted that Hansen et al. have separate chapter on aerosols in which they mention estimates and measurements. I though you can read. Also, you could consult IPCC AR4 (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_rep ort_the_physical_science_basis.htm) which has separate sections for forward calculations (9.2.1.1) and inverse calculations (9.2.1.2). Your "high calibre" blogs are using outdated information.

Stroller

2009-Oct-19, 06:37 PM

I already gave you links and even hinted that Hansen et al. have separate chapter on aerosols in which they mention estimates and measurements. I though you can read. Also, you could consult IPCC AR4 (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_rep ort_the_physical_science_basis.htm) which has separate sections for forward calculations (9.2.1.1) and inverse calculations (9.2.1.2). Your "high calibre" blogs are using outdated information.

Look at the dates on the posts Ari.

(9.2.1.1)
"the estimated global average surface temperature response
from these forcings may differ for a particular magnitude of
forcing since all forcings do not have the same ‘efficacy’ (i.e.,
effectiveness at changing the surface temperature compared to
CO2;"

In other words, they haven't a scoobies how the different aerosols affect the planet, nor the magnitude of their effects.

(9.2.1.2)

"Studies providing inverse estimates of aerosol forcing are
compared in Table 9.1" (studies date from 2001 to 2006 and vary from -0.14 to -1.7W/m^2)
"The separation between greenhouse gas and
aerosol fingerprints exploits the fact that the forcing from well mixed
greenhouse gases is well known, and that errors in the
model’s transient sensitivity can therefore be separated from errors
in aerosol forcing in the model (assuming that there are similar
errors in a model’s sensitivity to greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing)"

It's a heap of internally inconsistent rubbish riddled with circular reasoning dressed up with buzzwords to make it look like science rather than the word salad it is Ari. It ignores the inconvenient truth of Hoyt's pyrheliometry results and makes convenient assumptions to enable the models to fit the observations:

"Aerosol forcing appears to have grown rapidly during
the period from 1945 to 1980"

Yeah right! Just in time for the drop in temperature from 1940-1970 that even Ray Pierre-Humbug is now admitting may have been the oceanic oscillation after all.

This from your anthro co2 content guru Ferdinand Engelbeen:

"Ferdinand Engelbeen:
September 8th, 2009 at 7:07 am

Re: Andrew (#26),

The effect on incoming radiation of black carbon (absorbing) and sulfate (reflecting) measured at the surface is the same, but their total effect on the radiation balance is opposite. Black carbon absorbes light in the lower troposphere, adding in balance to the temperature increase (despite less radiation reaching the surface) and helps to melt the Himalayan glaciers due to surface deposit, while sulfate aerosols are the largest negative forcing, according to the climate modellers. In total, the IPCC/models give far more weight to sulfate aerosols than to black carbon, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg and the modelled effect 1750-2000 from the IPCC TAR here.

But that seems quite discutable, as the influence of aerosols as a whole is clearly overestimated, both in amount (models overestimate the ratio anthro/natural, see Heald e.a.) and in effect (there is no measurable effect of the huge reduction of SO2 emissions in Europe, see here, even the overall sign (cooling or warming) is discutable…

What I wonder in the NYT graphs is the large influence of black carbon from cooking in China, I thought that that was mainly a problem in India, not in China…"

In other words Ari, they make it up as they go along.

Stroller

2009-Oct-19, 06:45 PM

Climate, incidentally, is the average of weather.

I disagree. Climate is the integral of weather.

A few cold days in a few locations, be they ever so unusually cold, do not a global downward trend make.

True, but a look at minima and maxima over time and for different months over time is very informative.

Misunderstanding of statistics is a common issue in these areas.
You're not kidding :)

I have also previously provided references for William on the subject of why winter sea-ice extent doesn't tell you very much, and I can't be bothered looking them out again.

The big hooha in recent years has been the summer extent in the arctic. Particularly from those climate scientists keen to make a splash in the media while conveniently forgetting to mention the 1940's saw similar reductions in the arctic summer extent followed by a rise to 1978.

antoniseb

2009-Oct-19, 06:46 PM

... It's a heap of internally inconsistent rubbish riddled with circular reasoning dressed up with buzzwords to make it look like science rather than the word salad it is ...

Hi Stroller, the excerpted bit here is hyperbole, which is a fine rhetorical form in some circles, but since tempers flare on this the AGW topic, it would be nice if you could make your point without resorting to insulting the opposition with exaggeration. Your case would be made stronger if there was nothing you said that couldn't be found to be untrue. Hyperbole hurts your case.

Stroller

2009-Oct-19, 06:47 PM

OK. Specific questions: What is the 25 year trend for arctic ice and what is the 25 year trend for antarctic ice?
Maybe if you told me why you think a comparison of the two statistics is meaningful I might be bothered to go fetch for you.

What I will do though is give you a reasonable estimate of the 60 year trend:

Approximately zero.

Stroller

2009-Oct-19, 06:51 PM

Hi Stroller, the excerpted bit here is hyperbole, which is a fine rhetorical form in some circles, but since tempers flare on this the AGW topic, it would be nice if you could make your point without resorting to insulting the opposition with exaggeration. Your case would be made stronger if there was nothing you said that couldn't be found to be untrue. Hyperbole hurts your case.

Point taken Antoniseb, I should just have quoted more of it and let it speak(!) for itself.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-20, 05:13 AM

Look at the dates on the posts Ari.
(You haven't given us any link to posts. I dug out the other one, won't bother with the other.)

Dates on posts don't matter. The Anderson paper is from 2003, and Hoyt papers seem to be from 1978 and 1983. Anderson paper is not that old, but like I showed already, it is not true anymore that only inverse method is used, so even that is outdated. Your blogs simply don't give the latest information. Earlier I also have pointed out that Hansen et al. (2007) (link given above) is an example of a study where they use measurements and estimates of aerosols for the model runs. But, while you seem to be very keen on making lot of claims on this issue, you haven't shown any interest in that.

Stroller

2009-Oct-20, 05:36 AM

I commented on the Hansen et al paper above. Hoyt's findings haven't been superceeded, therefore they are the latest information. Pyrheliometry is an exact empirical science, unlike Hansen's "estimates". It's results are therefore not a moveable feast. The Anderson et al paper states that:

"unfortunately, virtually all climate model studies that have included anthropogenic aerosol forcing as a driver of climate change have used only aerosol forcing values that are consistent with the inverse approach."

In other words, the modelers have picked the forward calculation results that match the inverse method results and omitted those that don't.

It is not saying they only used inverse method results.

Therefore your analysis is in error.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-20, 07:31 AM

Hoyt's findings haven't been superceeded, therefore they are the latest information.
Here are some more papers on observations of aerosol forcing:
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/papers-on-aerosol-forcing-observations/

This is just a small sample of available research. Hoyt's work is definitely not the latest information on the subject.

...even Ray Pierre-Humbug is now...
Name of the scientist is Raymond Pierrehumbert. It is not nice to see climate scientists insulted here like Stroller routinely does.

Stroller

2009-Oct-20, 09:46 AM

Here are some more papers on observations of aerosol forcing:
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/papers-on-aerosol-forcing-observations/

This is just a small sample of available research. Hoyt's work is definitely not the latest information on the subject.

Yep, I was referring to pyrheliometry.

Name of the scientist is Raymond Pierrehumbert. It is not nice to see climate scientists insulted here like Stroller routinely does.

"Mr Kettle, there's a Mr Pot on line one for you"

"Raypierre"
Elsewhere, though, Allègre breaks new ground with regard to passing off nonsense as scientific argument. Here are a few examples.

* Allègre claims that the disappearance of the glaciers on Kilimanjaro is due to moisture supply changes arising from tectonic uplift, and has nothing to do with global warming.

Of course Allègre is quite right, the disappearance of the glaciers on Kilimanjaro is due to moisture supply changes (though possibly due to deforestation as much or more than tectonic uplift), and has nothing to do with global warming.

tusenfem

2009-Oct-20, 10:02 AM

"Mr Kettle, there's a Mr Pot on line one for you"

STOP IT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you guys cannot discuss in a normal way I will close this thread and you can find some other playground in your web neighbourhood to act as small children.

For crying out loud, one would think there would be ADULTS here on the board.

Ivan Viehoff

2009-Oct-21, 02:01 PM

I disagree. Climate is the integral of weather.
You said that before. I pointed out your error, but you insist on your error. So I have two choices. I can just leave your statement there uncommented on, relying on anyone who actually understood their high school mathematics and statistics just to laugh at you, as surely they will be doing, with wonderful effect on their expectation of the integrity of anything else you say on which they have less understanding. Or I can point out your error and hope you might obtain some education from it. Since the reality is that the great majority never fully understood high school maths/stats (which is why so many people, like say Mark McCutcheon, can make so much money from peddling pseudoscience that any scientifically educated person just laughs at) I have to rehearse the latter in case that majority are taken in.

In fact averages can be calculated by integral calculus, so, since you haven't defined which integrals you mean, we may of course be talking about the same thing. Suppose you you calculated, say, integral temperature d time, you would obtain an entirely meaningless number, until you thought to divide it by the length of time involved and so obtain an average! But then, of course, you would surely realise that, and not pretend you disagreed with me. But if you obtain a probability density function for temperature, call it f(T), then its integral dT is (by definition) 1, which tells you nothing, and you have calculate integral Tf(T)dT to get the average.

What do we see in a climate chart? Mainly:
Average temperature (by month, by year, by region, etc)
Average maximum daily temperature
Average minimum daily temperature
Average this
Average that
Average the other

And of course absolute maxima and minima are of some interest (especially to plant growers to know what plants they can grow). But in terms of "climate change" it's mainly the averages that are interesting. Because it is averages that relate to quantities of heat.

So, at a broad conceptual level climate is the average of weather. And when people (other than you) have been saying so in this thread, that is mainly what they mean, and why it is that statistical properties of averages are so important.

Stroller

2009-Oct-21, 05:58 PM

Hi Ivan,
You're right, I was considering the integral over time. I suppose I picked up your comment about the average, because we can lose some important detail by thinking in terms of averages. So by saying that climate is the integral of weather, I was trying to encompass other indicators beyond averages such as extrema, which inform our knowledge about climates. There has been too much homogenising going on in my view.

I think my emphasis was more linguistic and conceptual than mathematical in this regard.

mugaliens

2009-Oct-21, 10:59 PM

parejkoj

2009-Oct-22, 12:44 AM

Citing Monckton does not help your credibility.

He was never a "science advisor," and has no training in science. He's also a known liar (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/), who makes things up (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/moncktons-artful-graph/) when it suits his case.

Gillianren

2009-Oct-22, 04:03 AM

Oh, that guy! He's currently the top of the "Pants on Fire" ranking on PolitiFact! (Which I won't link to, for reasons I think the website's name make readily apparent.) That one's a combination of political and climate change, though the site refrains from making judgements on his science.

tusenfem

2009-Oct-22, 07:52 AM

Okay, can we keep the politics out of this thread, please!
No more Monckton or other stuff, do frakking science!
This thread is already on a short leash.

Ivan Viehoff

2009-Oct-22, 08:08 AM

And then there's Lord Chrostopher Monckton, former science advisor to the British Prime Minister, who had this to say (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/)...

... but Lord Monckton certainly expresses it rather well.
If Tusenfem will forgive me, since I will not mention politics, Monckton shows how incredibly plausible pseudoscientists can be. You have to be quite statistically sophisticated and scientifically knowledgeable to see through it. But at the end of the day he is playing the same game as Graham Hancock, Mark McCutcheon, Gavin Menzies, etc, albeit at a somewhat higher level, using misdirection (lots of footnotes and references which when you follow them up turn out not to support the contention, or be utterly discredited; and failing to draw attention to very inconvenient facts, etc) and other clever techniques to try and persuade you of something that is not supportable. There are utter demolition of his paper lying somewhere around, perhaps this list of 125 mistakes is one of the better ones, a remarkable number mistakes for such a short paper http://altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html You'll find Monckton's response to this lying around too, and you can make your own opinion of that.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-22, 09:50 AM

Yep, I was referring to pyrheliometry.
That's wrong too. Pyrheliometry is used even today in aerosol studies, its usage didn't stop in 1980's.

mugaliens

2009-Oct-22, 10:33 AM

Amazing!

In the five posts since mine, we've picked up 7 rules violations and 11 logical fallacies (also rules violations).

My post had no political element in and of itself, any more than the numerous posts here on BAUT concerning gun rights which link to the Constitution are "political" because they linked to the Constitution, or the countless references to Gore's inconvenient "truths."

Getting back to ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING, and to drive the point home, I submit to you one of our very own moderators:

Oh, it doesn't surprise me. I just don't think it proves anything significant about GW.

I've noticed a lot of people who disagree on global warming seem to like to attack Gore or his movie or things like that, rather than the IPCC or serious studies. But to me, showing that Al Gore misspoke in his movie, for example, has close to no significance as to whether global warming is real or not, IMHO.

I agree, Swift, and would submit this is true for any non-scientist politician.

Stroller

2009-Oct-22, 11:45 AM

That's wrong too. Pyrheliometry is used even today in aerosol studies, its usage didn't stop in 1980's.
Yes I know. Hoyt found that across Europe, there was no detectable trend in aerosols over most of the C20th. So far as I know, this result has not been superceeded by any newer study. It is an empirical result from real data.

This result is at odds with Hansen et al 2007 which uses 'estimated' aerosol forcings in order to reproduce among other features, the cooling from 1940-1970.

Anderson et al 2003 discovered that the models they examined only used data which agreed with the a posteriori method of deducing aerosol forcing from what they 'must have been' to keep the model with it's overblown climate sensitivity to co2/water vapour on track with the temperature record.

This circularity is inbuilt into the models, and it renders them unreliable as predictors of future climate, since we don't know future values for aerosols any better than future temperatures.

Along with the insufficient resolution to determine cloud feedback due to computing power constraints, this means the models are not a reliable indicator of future climate.

Since so much of AGW theory and conjecture of future 'scenarios' depends on the models due to the lack of any empirical evidence for the warming power of additional co2 on the climate as a whole, this is a serious problem for the AGW proponents hypothesis that extra co2 in the atmosphere is likely to have catastrophic consequences.

tusenfem

2009-Oct-22, 11:51 AM

Amazing!

In the five posts since mine, we've picked up 7 rules violations and 11 logical fallacies (also rules violations).

My post had no political element in and of itself, any more than the numerous posts here on BAUT concerning gun rights which link to the Constitution are "political" because they linked to the Constitution, or the countless references to Gore's inconvenient "truths."

Getting back to ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING, and to drive the point home, I submit to you one of our very own moderators:

I agree, Swift, and would submit this is true for any non-scientist politician.

Can you leave the moderation to the moderators please.
You're post could have been the start of a very political discussion, and if you look at it you find that I did not warn you, I put a warning for all in the thread.
If you have a complaint, then use the report button.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-22, 02:01 PM

Hoyt found that across Europe, there was no detectable trend in aerosols over most of the C20th. So far as I know, this result has not been superceeded by any newer study.
That's false. Philipona et al. (2002) (http://acp.web.psi.ch/acp_publ/documents/proceedings/2002_9_20_Atmos.Res.JFJ_Davos.pdf#page=23) (Link is to 7MB PDF) continue their work. Simple search for papers citing Hoyt & Fröhlich (1983) would have shown you that.

Stroller

2009-Oct-22, 03:29 PM

That's false. Philipona et al. (2002) (http://acp.web.psi.ch/acp_publ/documents/proceedings/2002_9_20_Atmos.Res.JFJ_Davos.pdf#page=23) (Link is to 7MB PDF) continue their work. Simple search for papers citing Hoyt & Fröhlich (1983) would have shown you that.
I don't know if there's a language barrier problem here, but for your information 'continue' does not mean 'supercede'.

In fact, Philipona et al use the Hoyt-Frolich result as their longterm baseline.

the long-term average of the atmospheric transparency (1909-1968) determined by Hoyd and Fröhlich (1983) was used as reference for this investigation. The analysis shows atmospheric transmission about 4% lower than the long-term reference at the beginning of 1982 and a decrease of additional 5 to 8 %, due to the volcanic eruption, were measured at the end of 1982. Only in 1985 the atmosphere seemed to partly recover from the volcanic aerosol burden reaching again a transparency level of 2 to 3 % below the (1909-1968) long-term reference.

more than 90% of the greenhouse radiative flux affecting the Earth's surface temperature and humidity originates from a 1000 meter thick layer right above the surface.

The first of these observations is empirical evidence that Hansen et al's claim that aerosols were higher in the 1940-1970 period to account for the cooling trend is false.

The second raises big questions about the power of additional co2 in the atmosphere to affect surface temperatures since it is as we are frequently told, such a well mixed gas.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-23, 05:14 AM

This result is at odds with Hansen et al 2007 which uses 'estimated' aerosol forcings in order to reproduce among other features, the cooling from 1940-1970.
I already said that Hansen et al. both estimates and uses real data, for example AERONET observations from Sato et al. (2003). But if you think that estimation is such a bad thing, perhaps you should look what Philipona et al. say about Hoyt & Fröhlich (1983):

The authors used the technique of estimating atmospheric transmission by taking the ratio of pyrheliometric measurements at one air mass to that at another air mass.
And there might be some amount of "estimating" left to do if we go from atmospheric transmission to aerosol forcing. Of course, atmospheric transmission is not the whole deal with aerosol forcing because aerosols cause greenhouse effect too. Hoyt & Fröhlich (1983) didn't estimate that. Furthermore, Hoyt & Fröhlich (1983) are only doing their estimation at one location, while Hansen et al. are doing a global analysis.

As you are claiming that Hansen et al. are reproducing the the 1940-1970 cooling by estimating aerosol forcing properly, you should have no trouble of pointing out from their Figure 3c, where does this reproductive estimation occurs (it doesn't in my eyes). You also should show from Figure 6 graph showing observed and measured surface temperature anomaly where your claimed reproductive estimation of 1940-1970 cooling even shows (it doesn't in my eyes).

Stroller

2009-Oct-23, 08:11 AM

I already said that Hansen et al. both estimates and uses real data, for example AERONET observations from Sato et al. (2003).

And I already said that:

The Anderson et al 2003 paper states that:

"unfortunately, virtually all climate model studies that have included anthropogenic aerosol forcing as a driver of climate change have used only aerosol forcing values that are consistent with the inverse approach."

In other words, the modelers have picked the forward calculation results (and observations) that match the inverse method results (which consist of circular reasoning, deducing the aerosol values from the variance of the co2 driven model from reality) and omitted those that don't.

This known in the trade as cherry picking, and egregious examples of it can be found all over the AGW peer reviewed literature.

Example: Paleodendroclimatology.
Michael Mann and Keith Briffa selectively use tree ring core series which confirm their bias, claiming their 'treemometers' are 'teleconnected' to world climate even when the local temperature series negate their findings. Briffa then refuses to reveal the original data even to his colleagues for nearly ten years. They nevertheless re-use the series in further peer reviewed studies, and the journals refuse to force the release of the data because the papers under review are not the originators of the data.

When the original author is finally forced to reveal the data by the British Royal Society, he prevaricates for another year, then it turns out Briffa bases the modern part of his temperature reconstruction on only eleven trees selected for their good match to global temperature. This goes against his own stated methodology for sample size using the RCS normalization technique he has developed.

In Mann's case, contradictory results from the same tree location found by PHD student Abebnah get swept under the carpet, and Mann persists in promoting his hockey stick graph even after the NAS tell him it's rubbish.

Briffa goes on to use his hockey stick paper in the IPCC chapter he is the lead author of, effectively blocking all criticism and being his own peer reviewer.

This is not how science should be done, and it leads to incorrect information being fed to public and policy makers. I'll stop short of getting into politics.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-23, 10:12 AM

And I already said that:

The Anderson et al 2003 paper states that:

"unfortunately, virtually all climate model studies that have included anthropogenic aerosol forcing as a driver of climate change have used only aerosol forcing values that are consistent with the inverse approach."

In other words, the modelers have picked the forward calculation results (and observations) that match the inverse method results (which consist of circular reasoning, deducing the aerosol values from the variance of the co2 driven model from reality) and omitted those that don't.
No. Inverse approach doesn't use observations or "forward calculation results". In inverse approach, the aerosol forcing is assumed to be the forcing that is left when other known forcings have been accounted for. See for example Rind et al. (2009) (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Rind_etal_1.pdf). Hansen et al. (2007) use observational data and estimates - they use forward modelling. Anderson et al. (2003) is outdated information. Aerosol forcing research is a field that has progressed remarkably in recent years.

Now would be good time to back up your claims by doing these:

As you are claiming that Hansen et al. are reproducing the the 1940-1970 cooling by estimating aerosol forcing properly, you should have no trouble of pointing out from their Figure 3c, where does this reproductive estimation occurs (it doesn't in my eyes). You also should show from Figure 6 graph showing observed and measured surface temperature anomaly where your claimed reproductive estimation of 1940-1970 cooling even shows (it doesn't in my eyes).

Stroller

2009-Oct-23, 11:20 AM

No. Inverse approach doesn't use observations or "forward calculation results".

We still seem to have a language barrier problem here, because I didn't say it did.

What I said was:
the modelers have picked the forward calculation results (and observations) that match the inverse method results.

Not that the inverse method uses forward calculation results or observations.

I want to believe you are not doing this to deliberately obfuscate the important reason why we can't trust the models and their reliance on cherry picked data.

In inverse approach, the aerosol forcing is assumed to be the forcing that is left when other known forcings have been accounted for.

And as Anderson et al 2003 point out:

"unfortunately, virtually all climate model studies that have included anthropogenic aerosol forcing as a driver of climate change have used only aerosol forcing values that are consistent with the inverse approach."

I'm not sure which part of this you don't understand.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-23, 04:42 PM

We still seem to have a language barrier problem here, because I didn't say it did.
No, just a bit of careless reading from my part.

What I said was:
the modelers have picked the forward calculation results (and observations) that match the inverse method results.
Go ahead and show that Hansen et al. (2007) have done that. Good place to start is your specific claim concerning their study that they, according to you, had "'estimated' aerosol forcings in order to reproduce among other features, the cooling from 1940-1970." I suggested that it is easy to check like this:

As you are claiming that Hansen et al. are reproducing the the 1940-1970 cooling by estimating aerosol forcing properly, you should have no trouble of pointing out from their Figure 3c, where does this reproductive estimation occurs (it doesn't in my eyes). You also should show from Figure 6 graph showing observed and measured surface temperature anomaly where your claimed reproductive estimation of 1940-1970 cooling even shows (it doesn't in my eyes).
So, show us these things. If your claim is true, this is very simple task to do. Don't back out now.

parejkoj

2009-Oct-23, 05:36 PM

Along with the insufficient resolution to determine cloud feedback due to computing power constraints, this means the models are not a reliable indicator of future climate.

Since so much of AGW theory and conjecture of future 'scenarios' depends on the models due to the lack of any empirical evidence for the warming power of additional co2 on the climate as a whole, this is a serious problem for the AGW proponents hypothesis that extra co2 in the atmosphere is likely to have catastrophic consequences.

Absolutely false. You keep stating things about climate science that are just plain false, even after people have shown that your statements are false.

(NOTE: I link to several blog posts below, but they all refer to the original, peer-reviewed papers.)

1. Hansen's 1988 scenario B model, which was much less sophisticated than current models, did a good job predicting the climate trends until now (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/). More recent models do an even better job (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/is-climate-modelling-science/), and cannot reproduce the current temperature trends without forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic greenhouse gasses.

2. There is plenty of direct evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (and since, from your (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/70431-general-agw-discussion-thread-69.html#post1595371) previous (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/70431-general-agw-discussion-thread-69.html#post1595332) responses (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/70431-general-agw-discussion-thread-68.html#post1595158), you apparently don't know what the definition of "greenhouse gas" is, here's Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas)). There are direct measurements of both outgoing and downward longwave radiation (http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html) that show an increase in the outgoing absorption spectrum due to CO2 and methane, and increases in the downward radiance spectra directly attributable to several different greenhouse gases. The correlation between temperature and CO2 is well known (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/), and CO2 acts as (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/) an amplifier (http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-does-past-climate-change-tell-us.html) to the initial forcing.

3. And again, anyone who claims there is no scientific consensus that the Earth has warmed significantly in the past 100 years has to come up with a valid response to Oreskes 2004 Science article (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686). No-one, either on this forum, or elsewhere, has done so.

Mugaliens:

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make in this post (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/70431-general-agw-discussion-thread-69.html#post1595285), but you seem to be very confused about a number of things.

1. It is well known (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Role_of_water_vapor) that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas on Earth, in terms of the total radiative forcing. You seemed to be suggesting that this was somehow neglected in modeling. It's not. (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/310/5749/795).

2. "Carbon" is not a greenhouse gas, CO2 is (see the absorption spectra linked above).

3. We can estimate the amount of anthropogenic CO2 from energy production, cement, and other sources, and we can then directly measure these fractions due to changes in atmospheric isotope ratios. There is good (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.html) agreement (http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm) between these values (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth's_atmosphere#Concentra tion), once carbon sinks, such as the ocean (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/305/5682/367) are accounted for. And ocean acidification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification) will soon become (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;321/5885/51) a major problem (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;318/5857/1737), and its effects on coral reefs may have already been observed (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;323/5910/116).

4. There was essentially no change in the level of atmospheric CO2 for at least the past 1000 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png), so if you want to suggest that non-anthropogenic sources are the cause, you'll have to, a) be very specific about which ones, b) show some evidence that those sources are producing a significant amount of CO2, and c) find a significant sink for the CO2 from known anthropogenic sources.

So, your apparent claim that the directly measured increase in atmospheric CO2 either a) hasn't happened, or b) is not due to anthropogenic sources (a claim that Stroller seems to support (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/70431-general-agw-discussion-thread-72.html#post1602063)) are both flat out wrong.

Stroller

2009-Oct-24, 12:07 PM

Absolutely false. You keep stating things about climate science that are just plain false, even after people have shown that your statements are false.

Repeatedly chanting this doesn't make it true.

1. More recent models do an even better job (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/is-climate-modelling-science/), and cannot reproduce the current temperature trends without forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic greenhouse gasses.

If you parameterize and program a model so that it shows a response to co2, you won't get the response if you remove the co2. Garbage in - Garbage out. However, if you reduced the climate sensitivity to about 0.4C and turned down the unrealistic negative feedbacks of the aerosols, you might get some slightly more sensible looking output.

Wouldn't produce a scary enough looking future for the likes of Gore, Hansen and Schneider though.

2. direct measurements of both outgoing and downward longwave radiation[/url] that show an increase in the outgoing absorption spectrum due to CO2 and methane, and increases in the downward radiance spectra directly attributable to several different greenhouse gases. The correlation between temperature and CO2 is well known (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/), and CO2 acts as (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/) an amplifier (http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-does-past-climate-change-tell-us.html) to the initial forcing.

None of this constitutes any proof that additional co2 is responsible for the observed late C20th warming.The 800-2800 year lag of changes in co2 behind changes in temperature is well known. Co2 does not initiate long term changes in temperature. Even if co2 enhances temperature changes which are already under way, it isn't strong enough to prevent other natural climatic factors reversing the temperature trend, and it clearly doesn't cause any kind of runaway feedback scenario.

3. And again, anyone who claims there is no scientific consensus that the Earth has warmed significantly in the past 100 years has to come up with a valid response to Oreste's 2004 Science article (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686). No-one, either on this forum, or elsewhere, has done so.

This is a typical AGW believers straw man argument and appeal to authority.
No-one is claiming there is no consensus for an increase in temperature, although the magnitude of the rise is in question due to the biased tendencies of the custodians of the data, the climate change activist James Hansen, and the secretive data hider Phil Jones.

However, an increasingly large proportion of scientists question the attribution of that increase in temperature to increased co2.

A lot of new evidence for the strength and longevity of other natural climatic factors has come to the fore since 2004. Oreskes is past her propagandize by date.

Stroller

2009-Oct-24, 12:28 PM

In inverse approach, the aerosol forcing is assumed to be the forcing that is left when other known forcings have been accounted for.

Where are the internal climate factors such as ~60 year oceanic surface temperature variation accounted for?

I'm not wasting my time on flawed studies until these fundamental issues are addressed.

Gillianren

2009-Oct-24, 04:49 PM

I'm not wasting my time on flawed studies until these fundamental issues are addressed.

I am desperately amused by this statement.

Stroller

2009-Oct-24, 09:00 PM

Trakar

2009-Oct-24, 11:00 PM

Gillian, once your mirth is under control why not educate yourself with this post:

Why does Ocean Heat Content diverge from GISS projections? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/24/why-does-ocean-heat-content-diverge-from-giss-projections/)

This does not constitute science, nor an educational reference.

SolusLupus

2009-Oct-24, 11:02 PM

Gillian, once your mirth is under control why not educate yourself with this post:

Why does Ocean Heat Content diverge from GISS projections? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/24/why-does-ocean-heat-content-diverge-from-giss-projections/)

Because it's not "education" at all.

Or, as you said:

I'm not wasting my time on flawed studies [...]

Stroller

2009-Oct-24, 11:27 PM

Okaay. So, divergence of GISS OHC predictions from the observed OHC, do you want to talk about it, or just flatly deny it, even though it's there for all to see?

mugaliens

2009-Oct-25, 08:19 AM

This does not constitute science, nor an educational reference.

Is Harvard's Climate Science or MIT's Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and
Climate too low on your totem pole to qualify as an "educational reference?"

On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data (http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/lindzen.choi.grl.2009.pdf)

Stroller

2009-Oct-25, 10:46 AM

No, that doesn't tell us why you claimed it as a fact that that water vapor concentrations haven't increased in line with modeled expectations when the existing body of evidence seems to say the opposite. Most of the relevant research on the issue seems to go against your claim. One can always find by cherry picking some studies that seems to support your case, especially if water vapor situation in upper troposphere is highlighted (as your reference seems to be doing) where that issue is especially complicated to both measure and model, but when the issue is inspected objectively from scientific literature, it clearly seems to lean against your claim. You are overstating the case. That is the problem.

The thing is Ari, the upper troposphere is exactly the area that matters:
Let's see if Ken Gregory can convince you.

Ken Gregory

This graph shows that the actual water vapour content in the upper troposphere has declined by 17% from 1948 to 2008 at the 400 mb pressure level (about 8 km altitude). Water vapour data is from the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/SH400mb.jpg

Every climate model shows water vapour specific humidity going up with increasing CO2, that is, increasing with temperature. But it is going down, the opposite of the projections.

1. The radiation balance is determined at the top of the troposphere. The line-by-line code HARTCODE was used to determine the effect of changes of water vapour at the upper atmosphere versus near the surface. This graph shows that changing the water vapour content at the 300 – 400 mb level has 41 times the effect on out-going radiation as the same change near the surface. So only water vapour changes in the upper atmosphere matter.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/H2O_OLR.jpg

2. A 3% increase in water vapour has the same effect as a 100% increase in CO2.

3. The IPCC estimate that doubling CO2 would increase temperatures by 1.06 C if there were no feedbacks, meaning holding water vapour and everything else constant. (This number is much too large, but that is another story.) They multiply this by the effects of feedbacks giving a final climate sensitivity of 3.28 C for doubling CO2. Water vapour and lapse rate together is by far the largest feedback, about half of all feedbacks, representing 1.04 C. So the models assume water vapour coupled with lapse rate doubles the warming effect of CO2. This feedback is entirely due to the belief the water vapour is increasing in the 300 to 400 mb altitude, but as the graph above shows, it is not increasing. It is decreasing. A temperature change can not cause this. It is a direct result of increasing CO2 content.

The result is that there has been no increase in the total effective amount of greenhouse gases, as characterized by optical depth (transparency to long-wave radiation), in sixty years, as demonstrated by the green line on this graph, according to the radiosonde data.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Optical%20Depth2008.jpg

Trakar

2009-Oct-25, 06:56 PM

Is Harvard's Climate Science or MIT's Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and
Climate too low on your totem pole to qualify as an "educational reference?"

On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data (http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/lindzen.choi.grl.2009.pdf)

Your link doesn't open for me so it is rather difficult to judge your offering, but while the legitimate findings of these two academic groups are perfectly acceptable as educational material, this consideration does not automatically extend to all who work at these organizations unless of course the work they present is endorsed and promoted by those organizations. I presume from the URL that you are referencing something in regards to Professor Lindzen? I'd prefer not to get into assessing individuals (as we can see from past incidents, that doesn't further discussion or understanding and is rather beside the point in a science forum where we should be focussed on ideas, instead of who spawned them) and would rather stick to the actual science (or lack thereof) in given proposals. If you'd care to present what specific element of Professor Lindzen's various works you would like to discuss, and clearly describe how you feel that this element substantially alters or should alter the current mainstream scientific perspective with regards to AGW, I will be happy to consider your presentation and discuss the issue with you or at the least offer my opinion and considerations of your offering.

Torsten

2009-Oct-25, 11:37 PM

Try looking at the time axis rather than the amplitude axis. All I'm establishing is that changes in co2 levels lag behind changes in temperature levels at all timescales. This moves the debate on a bit I think.

Well, yes, the time axis is the problem. I see timing separations varying by a range of several months to almost two years, and in no way can you use that to anticipate where the CO2 level will be given only temperature. By contrast, you can use the pattern in the Keeling Curve to project with certainty which months of the year CO2 will be on a rising or falling trajectory, and better yet, you can anticipate where it will be several years out. And the only clear driver of the latter is the emissions from human activities. It doesn't move the debate on if the wiggles in the lines of your chart are just a reflection of noise. As I stated earlier, the within-year variations in CO2 are undoubtedly related, at least in part, to seasonal temperature variations.

True, atmospheric levels of co2 continue to grow, though only at half the rate predicted by the IPCC ten years ago.

You state the part I bolded as if it were a fact. It is not. It is seriously wrong.

From this page (http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_co2.html) of the IPCC Data Distribution Centre (http://www.ipcc-data.org/index.html):

For each of the illustrative and marker emissions scenarios, CO2 concentration projections calculated by two different carbon cycle models were reported in IPCC (2001) (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/index.htm) and used as the bases for climate model projections there and in the Fourth Assessment Report. Thes are also shown in Figure 1. The carbon cycle models, ISAM and BERN, are described in Box 3.7 (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/122.htm#box37) of IPCC (2001). The projected concentrations are given in Annex II (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/531.htm) of the IPCC Third Assessment WG I report (the `reference' projections were used). The data can be obtained as plain text files here: ISAM (http://www.ipcc-data.org/ancilliary/tar-isam.txt), BERN (http://www.ipcc-data.org/ancilliary/tar-bern.txt).

So, just to be very clear on this, the reference above is to the projections used in the Third Assessment Report published in 2001 and used again in AR4 of 2007. Between the two models applied to 10 different scenarios, the lowest reference projection for 2010 was 385 ppm, and the highest was 393 ppm. The annual mean concentration at Mauna Loa (ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt) for 2008 was 385.57 ppm. With recent growth rates averaging about 2 ppm, that puts the globe on track for a mean of just under 390 ppm for 2010, or greater than the middle of the IPCC projected range.

Your statement grossly misrepresents what the IPCC was projecting, and casts the authors as a bunch of incompetents. Errors of fact such as this make it very difficult to take your other posts seriously. I feel it is necessary to fact-check all your claims, and I'm not prepared to do that.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-26, 06:31 AM

Go ahead and show that Hansen et al. (2007) have done that. Good place to start is your specific claim concerning their study that they, according to you, had "'estimated' aerosol forcings in order to reproduce among other features, the cooling from 1940-1970." I suggested that it is easy to check like this:

As you are claiming that Hansen et al. are reproducing the the 1940-1970 cooling by estimating aerosol forcing properly, you should have no trouble of pointing out from their Figure 3c, where does this reproductive estimation occurs (it doesn't in my eyes). You also should show from Figure 6 graph showing observed and measured surface temperature anomaly where your claimed reproductive estimation of 1940-1970 cooling even shows (it doesn't in my eyes).
So, show us these things. If your claim is true, this is very simple task to do. Don't back out now.
It seems that Stroller is not going to acknowledge the situation with this claim he/she presented, so I'll just explain explicitly what went wrong there.

Stroller claimed:

This result is at odds with Hansen et al 2007 which uses 'estimated' aerosol forcings in order to reproduce among other features, the cooling from 1940-1970.
And:

The first of these observations is empirical evidence that Hansen et al's claim that aerosols were higher in the 1940-1970 period to account for the cooling trend is false.
So, let us check the situation with these claims. The obvious place to look is the Hansen et al. (2007) (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=ha09210n) of course, because that is the paper Stroller's claims are about. Now, what do Hansen et al. (2007) say about 1940-1970 cooling? First, they say this (page 13 of the PDF):

Two noticeable discrepancies with the temporal variation of observed global surface temperature are the absence of strong cooling following the 1883 Krakatau eruption and the lack of a warm peak at about 1940.
And by looking at their Figure 6 (page 12 of the PDF), one can see that indeed, their model runs don't reproduce the 1940 warm peak, and therefore their model runs don't reproduce the 1940-1970 cooling. Yet, Stroller claimed that they are adjusting aerosol forcing to reproduce the 1940-1970 cooling. We can also check Hansen et al. figure 3c (page 7 of the PDF), which shows that there aren't anything special going on with aerosol forcing between 1940 and 1970. Not only do they fail to reproduce the 1940-1970 cooling, they are not even trying to do it with aerosols. It is clear that Stroller made the claims about this paper without actually looking at the paper.

Also, as Stroller likes to emphasize "internal climate factors", I note that Hansen et al. provide an explanation to 1940-1970 cooling:

It may be fruitless to search for an external forcing to produce peak warmth around 1940. It is shown below that the observed maximum is due almost entirely to temporary warmth in the Arctic. Such Arctic warmth could be a natural oscillation (Johannessen et al. 2004), possibly unforced.
So, Stroller, why are you claiming that Hansen et al. are reproducing 1940-1970 cooling in their model runs by aerosol forcing, when they cannot reproduce it in their model runs, are not even trying to do it by aerosols, and explain it by natural oscillation anyway?

mugaliens

2009-Oct-26, 07:34 AM

Your link doesn't open for me...

I'm sorry to hear you're unable to access a Harvard's .edu website. Are you unable to access any .edu website? Let me know when that's fixed and you've read the paper. Thanks.

...unless of course the work they present is endorsed and promoted by those organizations.

It is, but if you could access the link, you'd know that.

I'd prefer not to get into assessing individuals...

Then refrain from mentioning names.

Stroller

2009-Oct-26, 11:36 PM

Well, yes, the time axis is the problem. I see timing separations varying by a range of several months to almost two years, and in no way can you use that to anticipate where the CO2 level will be given only temperature. By contrast, you can use the pattern in the Keeling Curve to project with certainty which months of the year CO2 will be on a rising or falling trajectory, and better yet, you can anticipate where it will be several years out. And the only clear driver of the latter is the emissions from human activities. It doesn't move the debate on if the wiggles in the lines of your chart are just a reflection of noise. As I stated earlier, the within-year variations in CO2 are undoubtedly related, at least in part, to seasonal temperature variations.

I disagree. The rate of change in the increase of co2 varies by following ocean temperature more than it does following human emissions.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/mlo_co2_rateofchange_bracketed-5101.png?w=510&h=288

The long term rise of co2 may be caused by other natural processes than human emissions. The d13C-d12C ratio is affected by other factors apart from fossil fuel depletion e.g. algal growth. None of this is conclusive science.

The IPCC is a political body set up by politicians, bankrolled by politicians, for political ends. We had better not discuss it.

Stroller

2009-Oct-26, 11:56 PM

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/lindzen.choi.grl.2009.pdf

Works fine here Mugs, thanks for the link, it will be interesting to see what the climate science community has to say about this.

Pity Trakar can't get to it, maybe he has some kind of contrary evidence filter activated on his PC?

Stroller

2009-Oct-27, 12:03 AM

"Originally Posted by Hansen et al.
It may be fruitless to search for an external forcing to produce peak warmth around 1940. It is shown below that the observed maximum is due almost entirely to temporary warmth in the Arctic. Such Arctic warmth could be a natural oscillation (Johannessen et al. 2004), possibly unforced."

I'm glad to hear this Ari. Does Hansen think the modern arctic warming might also have something to do with a possibly unforced natural oscillation too? If not, why not?

I note the AMO is dropping like a stone, the north atlantic ocean heat content has been falling for several years, and the barents sea OHC is following suit. Co2 meanwhile, continues it's steady upward plod.

Torsten

2009-Oct-27, 04:19 AM

I disagree. The rate of change in the increase of co2 varies by following ocean temperature more than it does following human emissions.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/mlo_co2_rateofchange_bracketed-5101.png?w=510&h=288

Of course you disagree. What did Siddons do to make that chart? His axis labelling is useless. What do you think his chart actually shows?

And your disagreement doesn't change the fact that your chart is useless in telling us where CO2 will be at some future point. All your fiddling with microscopic wiggles doesn't address the fact of billions of tonnes of CO2 emitted and the corresponding increase in the atmospheric levels.

The long term rise of co2 may be caused by other natural processes than human emissions.

Hardly. I showed you the following chart back in March:

http://s259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/Cumulative_global_carbon_emissions_.png

Do you think it's a coincidence that the line representing our cumulative atmospheric dumping of CO2 so closely matches what accumulates in the atmosphere? If not, where are the emissions going?

In the following chart, I plotted the amount of CO2 as a function of the amount of emissions and then ran a least squares linear regression.

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/Mauna_Loa_CO2_f_Global_Emissions_19.png

Few relationships in nature have an r2 as high as that one.

The d13C-d12C ratio is affected by other factors apart from fossil fuel depletion e.g. algal growth. None of this is conclusive science.

Please, show some numbers in contrast to those for fossil fuels because I don't believe you.

The IPCC is a political body set up by politicians, bankrolled by politicians, for political ends. We had better not discuss it.

This is priceless Stroller. You made a statement regarding a prediction made by the IPCC. I checked up on it and found your statement to be false. Instead of admitting it was wrong, you now suggest we not discuss the IPCC. :rolleyes:

TheHalcyonYear

2009-Oct-27, 05:55 AM

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Oct-27, 06:18 AM

So, Stroller, why are you claiming that Hansen et al. are reproducing 1940-1970 cooling in their model runs by aerosol forcing, when they cannot reproduce it in their model runs, are not even trying to do it by aerosols, and explain it by natural oscillation anyway? (http://www.bautforum.com/1607419-post2208.html)

Torsten

2009-Oct-27, 06:53 AM

hmmmm... just for fun and apropos of nothing, I thought I'd throw out a graph of CO2concentrations (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif) for the last 600 million years or so for all those who are so convinced that since CO2 holds heat, it must correlate with warmer temperatures. Now granted the error bars around the earlier measurements are extremely large, but that's all that science has to work with since those concentrations can only be estimated from measurements of secondary effects or from small amounts of atmosphere collected from ice cores.

ciao :)

Yeah, there was a fellow here a little over a year ago who thought that chart was important (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/76506-another-catastrophie-due-global-warming-4.html#post1294751). You were in that thread too!

My take on it was (changed a bit because of context):

The chart incorporates the simple schematic of ancient climate (http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm) from Scotese's Paleomap Project, and a variation of a chart on page 197 of Berner and Kothavala's (2001) "GEOCARB III: A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME" (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf). This latter publication describes a model, and if I understand it properly (correct me if I'm mistaken), it uses a general circulation model to determine the temperatures that were necessary to drive the surface geologic processes that in turn affected the atmospheric CO2! The error bounds are fantastically wide in the deep time (see the chart in the conclusion). The publication contains disclaimers such as
However, if one compares figures 9 through 12, it is obvious that many factors, some of which were possibly more important than degassing, also could have affected CO2 during this period. This points to the importance of considering ALL factors affecting CO2 when modelling the long term carbon cycle and not concentrating only one cause. or
Even if our assumed functional response of plant induced weathering to CO2 may be correct, there is still no idea of what proportion of plants globally respond to CO2.
But I love this, from the conclusion:
This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

And mike alexander offered the following interpretation of the paper that described how the CO2 levels were determined:

Factors for temperature response to CO2 and changes in solar output, runoff and others were apparently derived by application of the current GCM to the data, then the factors were used in the GEOCARBIII modelling.

It's kind of ironic that a fellow who is bent on disproving a link between CO2 and global temperature would rely on a chart created by a model that uses that very relationship.

lomiller1

2009-Oct-27, 06:54 AM

Your statement grossly misrepresents what the IPCC was projecting, and casts the authors as a bunch of incompetents. Errors of fact such as this make it very difficult to take your other posts seriously. I feel it is necessary to fact-check all your claims, and I'm not prepared to do that.

It is incorrect to even call that a projection. These are scenarios not predictions or projections. The IPCC isn’t in the business of predicting how much fossil fuels will be burnt it’s in the business of showing what effect different levels of atmospheric CO2 will have. CO2 scenarios are the input to IPCC projections not the output.

TheHalcyonYear

2009-Oct-27, 07:02 AM

It's kind of ironic that a fellow who is bent on disproving a link between CO2 and global temperature would rely on a chart created by a model that uses that very relationship.
A fellow? I hope that doesn't refer to me.

Even if our assumed functional response of plant induced weathering to CO2 may be correct, there is still no idea of what proportion of plants globally respond to CO2.

Something that I have not seen mentioned here (perhaps I missed it somewhere) is that if one looks at the data from the vostok ice core data (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png), one sees that four times in that period, (ie, roughly every 100,000 years) the temperature has risen by as much as 2°C - 3°C above today's and then dropped back to roughly 8°C below today's temperature. This has suggested to some that the Earth's, non-linear climate system has two stable states and flips rhythmically between the two.

The data also suggest that the planet is currently hovering near the top of a cycle and a period of cooler temperatures would seem to be due. However, comparing the current situation to the 4 previous peaks would suggest that the temperature should have reached at least 2°C more some 10,000 years ago. Since it hasn't, the logical conclusion to draw would be that rather than being too warm, it is actually somewhat colder than would be expected

Another interesting aspect of the vostok data is the strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. This would lead one to suspect that they are causally connected. However, which plays the role of cause and which the role of effect. Well across the 400,000 year span of this data set temperature precedes CO2 change by several thousand (the sole exception to this is a short period 340,000 years ago). It may be sort of hard to see on the graph, but it shows up in the data very clearly. This would suggest that CO2 levels are an effect of the process that leads to warming rather than the driving element.

Torsten

2009-Oct-27, 07:07 AM

No, the reference is to the person who produced the chart you posted.

lomiller1

2009-Oct-27, 07:10 AM

Increasingly when scientists look to understand the earths climate history CO2 emerges as a leading cause.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091026132932.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090108111419.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080827163818.htm

Torsten

2009-Oct-27, 07:24 AM

It is incorrect to even call that a projection. These are scenarios not predictions or projections. The IPCC isn’t in the business of predicting how much fossil fuels will be burnt it’s in the business of showing what effect different levels of atmospheric CO2 will have. CO2 scenarios are the input to IPCC projections not the output.

As I understand it, several "storylines", which are scenarios of possible future emissions, landuse, etc. were developed based on what had been discussed by many in the literature, and then the two models were applied to determine what the CO2 levels might be. IPCC reported these projected concentrations and they are the CO2 levels that are used in the climate model runs for the various scenarios.

I wanted to add that it would be interesting to see which scenario is closest to what actually plays out between 2001 and 2010.

TheHalcyonYear

2009-Oct-27, 07:48 AM

No, the reference is to the person who produced the chart you posted.
I would suggest that you read the rest of my post. It didn't all show up at once. my bad.

mugaliens

2009-Oct-27, 08:24 AM

graph graph graph graph graph

Where's the data?

Then tell me what you think it means. I'll run some numbers and see if I agree with you or not.

Ivan Viehoff

2009-Oct-27, 10:48 AM

Has the surface temperature been getting cooler recently?

In view of all the chatter about this, Associated Press gathered 4 separate 120 year global temperature data sets, and asked some statisticians to examine the trends in each of them, without knowing what data they were examining. Among other things, they found the recent ups and downs of temperature just the same as the ups and downs of temperature that occur in other decades. And that there has been warming, not cooling, in the last 10 years.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_sc/us_sci_global_cooling

Sure, if you choose to take 10 years data starting with precisely 1998, a year with an unusually strong El Nino that was much warmer than its neighbours, you will find a small downward trend. But if you choose a neighbouring year instead, 1997 or 1999 or several others, you don't find it. That shows it is just a statistical artifact as a result of using a small dataset. The technical term is "cherry-picking".

Trakar

2009-Oct-27, 01:31 PM

I'm sorry to hear you're unable to access a Harvard's .edu website. Are you unable to access any .edu website? Let me know when that's fixed and you've read the paper. Thanks.

Being snarky does not argue your case for you, the link provided did not work at the time I made my response. But I shall be happy to review the offering and provide my considerations and opinion upon the paper.

GOURDHEAD

2009-Oct-27, 01:40 PM

Sure, if you choose to take 10 years data starting with precisely 1998, a year with an unusually strong El Nino that was much warmer than its neighbours, you will find a small downward trend. But if you choose a neighbouring year instead, 1997 or 1999 or several others, you don't find it. That shows it is just a statistical artifact as a result of using a small dataset. The technical term is "cherry-picking".It is very difficult to believe that the global average temperature of something with as much thermal capacity as has the relevant portions of the Earth's land, sea, and air would be sensitive to the year chosen as the starting point for some period of analysis. My guess is that no one has determined the actual global average temperature, but some have looked at regional, however large and sloppily measured, effects as if they were, within a few degrees celsius, valid indicators of global averages. Have there been similar variations in the CO2 ppm count?

Ivan Viehoff

2009-Oct-27, 02:19 PM

It is very difficult to believe that the global average temperature of something with as much thermal capacity as has the relevant portions of the Earth's land, sea, and air would be sensitive to the year chosen as the starting point for some period of analysis. My guess is that no one has determined the actual global average temperature, but some have looked at regional, however large and sloppily measured, effects as if they were, within a few degrees celsius, valid indicators of global averages. Have there been similar variations in the CO2 ppm count?

I should for clarity have said surface temperature. The datasets are only of surface temperature. The temperature of the earth's core, etc, is not taken into account.

Have you ever looked at the year to year graph of global average annual surface temperature? There was one conveniently supplied with the link I gave you, though you have to click on it to enlarge it to see it. Notice how it does go up and down from year to year in quite a wiggly curve? So you'd better get believing it does go up and down, however difficult you find it to believe.

Perhaps I can help you with your difficulty. Your main error is in thinking that there is a particularly large heat capacity in the substances in good thermal contact with the surface over short timescales.

(1) Only the atmosphere, a few metres ground depth and a few hundred metres of sea depth are in sufficient thermal contact at the surface to buffer surface temperature changes over periods of a few years. And less than that for shorter periods. The deep ocean, and still less the land beneath a very thin surface area, are not in good thermal contact with the surface, or each other. That's why it can remain freezing cold at the bottom of the ocean, and boiling hot at an equivalent distance into the earth's crust below land. So there is not a large quantity of energy in good thermal contact with the "surface" to buffer the small temperature changes that the earth's surface undergoes from year to year.

(2) Oceanic "oscillations" occur, which change the pattern of thermal contact between deeper parts of the ocean and the surface. In particular, in El Nino conditions, an upwelling of cold water in the SE Pacific is reduced. Thus in an El Nino year there is a temporary redistribution of heat whereby part of the deep sea gets colder and the surface gets warmer.

(3) The great majority of the energy flux to the earth's surface comes from the sun, either directly, or via interchange with the atmosphere or upper liquid/solid surfaces. In steady state, all of that solar heat escapes back from the earth to space. So processes which affect the heat flux from the sun and back to out to space can cause changes in the surface temperature. "Greenhouse" gas does not change sufficiently from one year to the next to make differences on the scale of the wiggles in the graph. But things such as cloud cover, particulates in the atmosphere, changes in albedo due to the timing and extent of snow/ice melt, etc, do.

Stroller

2009-Oct-28, 06:10 AM

Few relationships in nature have an r2 as high as that one.

That the best fit between two almost straight lines produces a high r^2 is not exactly exciting.

You made a statement regarding a prediction made by the IPCC. I checked up on it and found your statement to be false. Instead of admitting it was wrong, you now suggest we not discuss the IPCC. :rolleyes:
I made the statement before our moderator told us to leave political stuff out of the discussion.

Stroller

2009-Oct-28, 06:17 AM

Among other things, they found the recent ups and downs of temperature just the same as the ups and downs of temperature that occur in other decades.

Which fairly well demonstrates the vacuity of the exercise.

The dips in recent previous decades were associated with major volcanic events. The current cooling is not.

A comment on the AP article from another point of view:
http://devoidofnulls.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ap-promotes-the-third-kind-of-lie/

Ivan Viehoff

2009-Oct-28, 10:32 AM

The dips in recent previous decades were associated with major volcanic events. The current cooling is not.

A comment on the AP article from another point of view:
http://devoidofnulls.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ap-promotes-the-third-kind-of-lie/
Perhaps you could exhibit the level of statistical certainty you have for the "current cooling". Does it mean very much more than "1998 was surprisingly warm"?

I notice your commentator has a great deal of fondness for measuring things over 12 year periods. That's very convenient for him. Come the time when 1998 moves out of the 12 year period, I wonder if he'll change his mind.

You refer to episodes volcanic cooling. Perhaps we should adjust the dataset for volcanic effects. Perhaps we should further adjust the dataset for the El Nino/La Nina oscillation. I wonder what we would see.

Stroller

2009-Oct-28, 12:35 PM

Perhaps you could exhibit the level of statistical certainty you have for the "current cooling". Does it mean very much more than "1998 was surprisingly warm"?

You refer to episodes volcanic cooling. Perhaps we should adjust the dataset for volcanic effects. Perhaps we should further adjust the dataset for the El Nino/La Nina oscillation. I wonder what we would see.

I already reconstructed global temperature without volcanos and ENSO using a cumulative sunspot counting method I worked out.

http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/temp-hist-80.gif

I honestly can't be bothered with fruitless statistical arguments over warming/cooling trends. It's clear to me that over the last century or so, there have been approximate cyclicities in oceanic trends around a 60 year frequency.
My assessment is that due to inertia in the oceanic response, serious cooling won't set in until around 2013.

Stroller

2009-Oct-28, 01:24 PM

Thermageddon postponed. Again.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091015b.html
"Modelling of Arctic sea ice by the Met Office Hadley Centre climate model shows that ice invariably recovers from extreme events, and that the long-term trend of reduction is robust — with the first ice-free summer expected to occur between 2060 and 2080. It is unlikely that the Arctic will experience ice-free summers by 2020."

Has anyone told the polar bears?

Ivan Viehoff

2009-Oct-28, 01:30 PM

I honestly can't be bothered with fruitless statistical arguments over warming/cooling trends.
Of course you can't be bothered with arguments that will demonstrate a lack of proof for your claims. But at the end of the day statistics is all you have got when it comes to validating some proposed physical model of climate that you have, isn't it?

Quite by chance since making my last post I ran into some commentary on some work that corrects for solar irradiance, ENSO and volcanic aerosols. Some people trying to do much the same as you, it would seem, but coming to a different answer.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=137

You will appreciate the following comment.

"Decadal prediction is a stunningly difficult challenge because it will require better representation of the variability associated with the ocean, and the difficult problem of the interaction of the atmosphere and the ocean."

In the summary paper we find the following comment.

"The warming trend is opposite to recent projections of Keenlyside et al. [2008], who
forecast an absence of warming in the next decade based on weakening of the Atlantic Ocean meridional overturning circulation (a change not explicitly included in our empirical
model)."

I think this work was much publicised recently. When some scientists are predicting, for plausible physical reasons, a decade long pause in global warming, it makes what you are saying seem all the more plausible, sadly.

The reality is that it will likely be 20 years or so before we really know what has been going on around now. 'Twas ever thus.

Trakar

2009-Oct-28, 05:15 PM

In answer to your question:

Is Harvard's Climate Science or MIT's Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and
Climate too low on your totem pole to qualify as an "educational reference?"

On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data (http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/lindzen.choi.grl.2009.pdf)

Yes, there is educational value and merit in published science, regardless of the ultimate value of the material actually published.

Good science, with rigorous attention to accounting for all the relevant facts, evidences and data add to our knowledge and understanding of the universe we inhabit.

Poor science which does not give much attention to such accountings, usually represented by the distortion of principal scientific axioms and starting with a preconceived goal and then relentlessly searching through and manipulating data to construct support for that goal, help us to learn the flaws of that process and teach us to be always introspective with regards to our own potential for bias.

In review of Lindzen’s latest offering, first let me start off with a qualifier. As with any journal paper that is not narrowly focused in one’s own particular area of expertise, it will take some time to both digest the intricacies of its methods, findings and proposals, and to properly compare it to the other recent works in that field. That being said, my initial look through of the paper, as well as the published and unpublished responses and remarks of his peers, raise a handful of questions, which, unfortunately, only Richard himself (or his grad-student Choi), would be in position to adequately address and respond to. There are probably more questions that may arise upon a more in-depth review, but so far, everything I’ve noticed, predominantly traces back to the categories outlined by these initial question(s):

Why is the focus of this study, restricted to the narrow window of data in time [14 years (1985-1999)], range [apparently utilizing the edition 3 ERBE dataset (as per Wong et al., 2006) but ignoring the rev1 which is generally widely available and generally considered to be the most accurate dataset], and scope [why the focus on how his analysis of a narrow range and since revised and corrected ERBE dataset compare to a very select set of climate models (a few of the AMIP project models as opposed to the more broadly used and accepted, fully coupled AOGCM systems (like the HadCM3, GFDL CM2.1, or the CCSM3)].

If you want to discuss these issues or have some other aspect of this paper that you wish to discuss, I will be happy to enjoin such a discussion. I’m not really sure how this paperreally fits into what I was commenting on with regards to Stroller's offered link, but I do remember when this paper came out a few months ago and was intending to spend more time looking through it, so I thank you for reminding me of it and providing an excuse to devote some time to it.

Trakar

2009-Oct-28, 10:49 PM

http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/temp-hist-80.gif

Your overlap scales are about a decade off there.

Oh, and can you source the data that was used to plot these two graphs?

Torsten

2009-Oct-29, 03:51 AM

That the best fit between two almost straight lines produces a high r^2 is not exactly exciting.

The context of that graph is that you had written: "The rate of change in the increase of co2 varies by following ocean temperature more than it does following human emissions."

So, show me an analysis for year-on-year changes in CO2 as a function of temperature that is as strong as what I posted.

Regarding the almost straight lines: You don't seem to appreciate that the gradually increasing slope of both curves is more than an interesting coincidence. Given that one is the amount being dumped, and the other is a measure of the amount remaining in the dump, it makes sense to plot one as a function of the other. The linearity of the resulting plot is strong evidence that one is driving the other. Your silence on the issue of where these emissions are going if not the atmosphere is suggests you have no reasonable answer, while your flippant retort regarding your lack of excitement around it shows you didn't really give it any thought.

(Actually, I had already posted that chart back in January, when you correctly commented that it was essentially a subset of a chart created by Ferdinand Engelbeen. That was also when you seemed to think that his view on the rise of atmospheric CO2 was somehow at odds with mine.)

And you still haven't said what it you think is that Siddons did to make that graph. (BTW, his argument (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1742) for why emissions aren't driving the increase in atmospheric CO2 is quite stupid. So I don't trust him to understand what he did in making that graph.)

Also, please, a link to some data or a study re the algae. I'd prefer to think you weren't just making it up.

Earlier you wrote:
I've read a lot of conflicting stuff on how much of the atmospheric level rise is due to human activity and still have an open mind about that and about what if any effect the rise might have on temperature.

The stuff I've seen that disputes the anthropogenic source of the rise in atmospheric CO2 is laughable. Despite saying that you still have an open mind to the idea, all you have focussed your discussion on is tiny little effects and you totally ignore the huge, in-your-face numbers that are humanity's emissions. That part of the story is actually quite simple to understand, and it is baffling to me that you ignore it. I have seen nothing from you that suggests you've changed you mind about the rise in atmospheric CO2 being 10% anthropogenic and 90% temperature. You're wrong on that, and that's why I don't think there is any point in discussing any of the other evidence or concepts around this topic, and so I largely ignore those posts.

I made the statement before our moderator told us to leave political stuff out of the discussion.

Dodge noted. The issue has nothing to do with politics and you know it. You misrepresented a statement that is easily verified and you won't acknowledge that you had it wrong. That strikes me as pathetic.

TheHalcyonYear: I don't have time just now to address the second part of your post. I'll look at it when I have more time.

mugaliens

2009-Oct-29, 10:07 AM

Being snarky...

It wasn't being "snarky" at all. I was genuinely sorry you couldn't access Harvard's website, and genuinely asked if you could access any others. Stroller confirmed he could access it, and I was able to access it from the Library, so that narrows the access issue down a bit.

I do remember when this paper came out a few months ago and was intending to spend more time looking through it, so I thank you for reminding me of it and providing an excuse to devote some time to it.

Sure thing - I look forward to your thoughts on it.

Trakar

2009-Oct-29, 07:18 PM

Sure thing - I look forward to your thoughts on it.

So I take it you have nothing further to discuss with regards to the paper, or my initial considerations of it?

Stroller

2009-Oct-29, 08:46 PM

Your overlap scales are about a decade off there.

No they're not.

Trakar

2009-Oct-29, 10:32 PM

No they're not.

Ah, perhaps its just the difference in the two numbering fonts throwing things off, it looks like 1848 lined up with 1840, but I guess that could be a 0 with a bar through it, gets rather confusing when two seperate systems are applied and over-lapped in this manner.

So, can you provide a link to the data that was used in constructing the two charts so that it can be verified and independently assessed?

mugaliens

2009-Oct-30, 10:18 AM

So I take it you have nothing further to discuss with regards to the paper, or my initial considerations of it?

You just said you were going "to devote some time to it."

Change your mind? If I missed your response, please link to it.

William

2009-Oct-30, 02:15 PM

You can fool some of the people some of the time, you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

The question is not if the planet is cooling but how much and how quickly it will cool.

Is the Earth Cooling?

http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?video=41870064001&channel=VBLOG_*******I&title=Is%20the%20Earth%20Cooling,%20or%20Is%20the% 20Data%20Just%20Fooling

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/global_temperatures_09.pdf

Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?

Observations indicate that global temperature rise has slowed in the last decade (Fig. 2.8a). The least squares trend for Janu¬ary 1999 to December 2008 calculated from the HadCRUT3 dataset (Brohan et al. 2006) is +0.07±0.07°C/decade much less than the 0.18°C/decade recorded between 1979 and 2005 and the 0.2°C decade–1 expected in the next decade (IPCC; Solomon et al. 2007).

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3230

Loehle, Craig. 2009. Trend analysis of satellite global temperature data

Global satellite data is analyzed for temperature trends for the period January 1979 through June 2009. Beginning and ending segments show a cooling trend, while the middle segment evinces a warming trend. The past 12 to 13 years show cooling using both satellite data sets, with lower confidence limits that do not exclude a negative trend until 16 years. It is shown that several published studies have predicted cooling in this time frame. One of these models is extrapolated from its 2000 calibration end date and shows a good match to the satellite data, with a projection of continued cooling for several more decades.

Several papers have forecast a cooling episode for the coming decades, each using different methods. Keenlyside et al. (2008), for example, suggested that a decade of cooling could be in store. They based this on climate models forced with more detailed historical ocean data. Based on a dynamical analysis of coupling between regional modes of climate variability (Tsonis et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2009), it has been argued that the Earth’s climate system in 2001/02 underwent a dynamic shift to a new state that is predicted to show a flat to cooling trend for several decades (Swanson and Tsonis, 2009).

De Jager and Duhau (2009) argue that the solar dynamo is currently undergoing a transition, which began in 2000, from the recent Grand Maximum to a different regime that will be marked by lower solar activity. Based on analysis of solar cycles, Landscheidt (2003) shows that the peak in the geomagnetic aa index in 1990 would lead to a prediction, due to an eight year lag, of a peak temperature in 1998, which is clearly visible in Fig. 7. He further posits that this peak will be followed by a cooling period expected to last until the next Gleissberg minimum around 2030.

William

2009-Oct-30, 02:34 PM

Graph of satellite temperature data.

Figure 6. Linear plus period model from Klyashtorin and Lyubushin (2003) overlaid on satellite data after intercept shift. Dotted line is model extrapolation post-2000 calibration period end. a) UAH. b) RSS.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/loehle_fig6_uah.png

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/loehle_fig6_uah.png

dmr81

2009-Oct-30, 03:32 PM

You can fool some of the people some of the time, you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
You're unlikely to fool anyone given the laughable claims you've made repeatedly on this thread, starting with the first post in which you claimed that "the planet should cool to roughly 1880 temperatures by March 2009". :D

The question is not if the planet is cooling but how much and how quickly it will cool.
If the temperature record looked like this...

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/1205/williamwarming.gif

...would you say it was warming or cooling? Or would you just ignore the question like you did last time?

William

2009-Oct-30, 03:57 PM

You're unlikely to fool anyone given the laughable claims you've made repeatedly on this thread, starting with the first post in which you claimed that "the planet should cool to roughly 1880 temperatures by March 2009". :D

If the temperature record looked like this...

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/1205/williamwarming.gif

...would you say it was warming or cooling? Or would you just ignore the question like you did last time?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/global_temperatures_09.pdf

dmr81,

The satellite data does not agree with the "Global Warming Art" graph that you have posted above upside down (Does not matter what its orientation is as it is a fabrication.). The global warming art graph is apply named "Global Warming Art" as it has no basis in reality.

The satellite data shows how planetary temperature has changed. The planet is cooling.

Now because the planet is cooling there are these papers that are being written discussing the scientific implications.

One implication is global warming is a kin to the Y2K scam. i.e. Reality is different than the scary story.

Figure 6. Linear plus period model from Klyashtorin and Lyubushin (2003) overlaid on satellite data after intercept shift. Dotted line is model extrapolation post-2000 calibration period end. a) UAH. b) RSS

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/loehle_fig6_uah.png

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/loehle_fig6_uah.png

http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?video=41870064001&channel=VBLOG_*******I&title=Is%20the%20Earth%20Cooling,%20or%20Is%20the% 20Data%20Just%20Fooling

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/global_temperatures_09.pdf

Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?

Observations indicate that global temperature rise has slowed in the last decade (Fig. 2.8a). The least squares trend for Jannuary 1999 to December 2008 calculated from the HadCRUT3 dataset (Brohan et al. 2006) is +0.07±0.07°C/decade much less than the 0.18°C/decade recorded between 1979 and 2005 and the 0.2°C/decade expected in the next decade (IPCC; Solomon et al. 2007).

William

2009-Oct-30, 04:18 PM

Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?

Answer: Yes

For those who do not follow this issue. There has been a sudden increase in Antarctic and Arctic sea ice. There have been record cold temperatures in both hemispheres. There have been a series of back pedaling papers that state global cooling does not disprove the AWG hypothesis.

The planet is cooling. The questions are:

- Why?
- How much and how rapid will the cooling be?

Figure 6. Linear plus period model from Klyashtorin and Lyubushin (2003) overlaid on satellite data after intercept shift. Dotted line is model extrapolation post-2000 calibration period end. a) UAH. b) RSS

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/loehle_fig6_uah.png

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/loehle_fig6_uah.png

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3230

Given that satellite data are now available for more than 30 years and that recent years do not show a visible upward trend, it seems appropriate to re-examine temperature trends. The purpose here is not to obtain the 30 year trend, which has been done previously, but rather to parse the data to evaluate evidence for LTP and recent trends. In spite of the importance of the satellite data for assessing trends, no analysis of trends for the most recent decades has been published using these data.

Temperature trends provide critical evidence for evaluating claims regarding anthropogenic climate change. On the one hand, models project continued warming (e.g., Hansen et al., 2006).

Typical trend studies, however, have not evaluated the most recent decades per se. For example, periods evaluated include sea surface temperatures over 1960-1990 (Casey and Cornillon, 2001), lower troposphere RSS data over 1979-2001 (Fu et al., 2004), the global surface record for 1950-2004, 1979-2004, 1950-1980 (Vose et al., 2005), 1988-2005 (Hansen et al., 2006), and 1977-2001 (Jones and Moberg, 2003), the NCEP reanalysis Northern Hemisphere surface record for 1960-2000 (Lucarini and Russell, 2002), 1969-2000 for Southern Hemisphere data (Thompson and Solomon, 2002), and the satellite and balloon data for 1979-2004 (Christy et al., 2007). The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (IPCC, 2007) shows 100 and 140 year trends. In all cases, the period of rapid warming in the late 1970s through 1990s was included in these analyses. All of these studies looked only at long-term trends.

http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?video=41870064001&channel=VBLOG_*******I&title=Is%20the%20Earth%20Cooling,%20or%20Is%20the% 20Data%20Just%20Fooling

Gillianren

2009-Oct-30, 04:38 PM

That question about the graph was a yes-or-no question, William. Yes or no. Would you say it was cooling or not?

William

2009-Oct-30, 06:52 PM

Yes. Planetary temperature data indicates the planet is cooling.

This winter will be significantly colder than last. Record early snowfall in North America and Europe. Record late snowfall in the Southern Hemisphere. There will be an oscillation of local temperatures as the trend moves down.

The current El Nina has been abruptly interrupted. The ocean surface temperature is starting to cool.

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2009/anomnight.10.29.2009.gif

http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?video=41870064001&channel=VBLOG_*******I&title=Is%20the%20Earth%20Cooling,%20or%20Is%20the% 20Data%20Just%20Fooling

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/global_temperatures_09.pdf

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/loehle_fig6_uah.png

Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?

Observations indicate that global temperature rise has slowed in the last decade (Fig. 2.8a). The least squares trend for January 1999 to December 2008 calculated from the HadCRUT3 dataset (Brohan et al. 2006) is +0.07±0.07°C/decade much less than the 0.18°C/decade recorded between 1979 and 2005 and the 0.2°C/decade expected in the next decade (IPCC; Solomon et al. 2007).
This is despite a steady increase in radiative forcing as a result of human activities and has led some to question climate predic¬tions of substantial twenty-first century warming (Lawson 2008; Carter 2008).

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/loehle_fig6_uah.png

As North America does not have a West-East Mountain range, the cold arctic air mixes with the warm moist Gulf air to create hurricane force blizzards when the planet cools. The blizzard winds are strong enough to break windows. Snow flakes due to the high wind breakdown creating ice hard snow drifts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxndRIsQJHw&feature=related

While there are several contenders for the worst blizzard ever to hit the Great Lakes in relatively modern times (since 1870 when records began in Detroit), the immense and intense Blizzard of January 26-27th 1978 must rank at or near the top along with the Great White Hurricane of 1913 with its similar track and powerfulness.

The incredible Blizzard of January 26-27th, 1978 evolved out of a winter that was infamous for cold and storms. The Winter of 1977-78 thus far had been one the coldest, since records began, in many areas from the Rockies eastward to the Appalachians. Mammoth blizzards occurred late in January and early February from the Midwest to the East Coast as strong Arctic plunges dove south into the country and met up with the warmer winds from the deep south. The winter of 1977-78 was similar to its predecessor (1976-77) in terms of cold. The main difference between the two winters, however, came in February. In 1977, temperatures moderated rapidly during February, while in 1978, the cold actually worsened - with several locations reporting their coldest recorded February to date. The Winter of 1977-78 is written down in the record books as Detroit's seventh coldest winter, Flint's fifth coldest and Saginaw's sixth.