Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Dancing David]

the time.
Except that we are seeing cooling now. When CO2 level are the highest ever.

.

Data, citation and evidence on a global scale?

 

[Trakar]

Trak

What I suggest is he grabbed the graph you have without any attribution and laid some weird hindcasting over it and presented as if it were something out of a conference he was actually at.

I call it horsepucky.

Possibly, it might even be less creative and inventive than that, I see no signs of such qualities in this one.

What I was talking about specifically, was the "observed precipitation" structure in his graph. It apparently has an arc shape with specific patterns. Every graph I find representing precip. over the last century demonstrates a clear positive slope (gradually increasing precip closely linked to rising temps.), but that is likely a result that he doesn't like. At first, I suspected that he took an existing line and tweaked it, but even the specific patterns seem off from all the existing and official precept graphs I've seen, so it is starting to look a lot more like whole-cloth, rather than mere "adjustments" to fit an argument.

 

[CoolSceptic]

naive baseline? what do you mean?

If you don't know what a naive baseline is in modelling then you are not really in a position to discuss modelling results at all.

 

[CoolSceptic]

provide a link from the EGU as from what I see you claim is utter nonsense. Show us the source of the graph and who authored it.

What it looks like to me is something you concocted from whole cloth from
http://www.climatedata.info/index.html

This on the other hand is what a simulation against data for precipitation actually looks like.

[qimg]http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/junk%20album/prc-01-IPCC---Fig-918a_zpsff17bce1.gif[/qimg]
http://www.climatedata.info/resources/Precipitation/prc-01-IPCC---Fig-9.18a.gif

So what the reader should conclude is that the factual and or science content of your posts are as odiferous as the ejecta from a bull with a serious case of the trots.....and to be equally ardently avoided.

Oh, funny.

I point out the mean and standard deviations of precipitation do not match between observations and models.

You show me.... ANOMALIES. So straight away you've removed the mean of both and cannot use such a graph to show my first point is wrong.

*golf clap*

Oh dear. Simple analysis 101: you cannot show that means are different if you show a graph of ANOMALIES.

Then you conveniently forget that the IPCC acknowledges the variance of modelled precipitation does not match observations.

So your graph does not speak to my first point, and the IPCC explicitly agrees with my second point.

And you didn't even attempt to address my third point (autocorrelation function)

Score for macdoc so far : zero out of three.

Try again. This time try not to show spaghetti graphs containing anomalies if you want to claim I was wrong about the discrepancy in the mean. And try not to use a graph from a reference that explicitly agrees with me when trying to debunk my points.

Oh dear.

(macdoc, for your benefit: "variance" and "standard deviation" have explicit technical meaning in data analysis, the former being the square of the latter; the IPCC acknowledges my point on this, even if they use ridiculous graphs to hide the disagreement to people who don't understand maths)

 

[CapelDodger]

If you don't know what a naive baseline is in modelling then you are not really in a position to discuss modelling results at all.

The null hypothesis is that you don't know, and it may, in fact, mean nothing at all.

 

[CoolSceptic]

I can't find any graph covering the time period of the contentious graph that looks anything like what was presented here. Here is a set precip graphs that cover the period of the graph presented here.

"Global precipitation trends in 1900–2005 from a reconstruction and coupled model simulations"
http://shen.sdsu.edu/pdf/renl_jgrat_2013.pdf

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=839&pictureid=8839[/qimg]

Why would you use a reconstruction known to rely on difficult calibration problems and bias when you can directly use land-only data and get a reliable observation?

Oh, actually, I think I already know the answer to that question. Using the reliable data gives an answer you don't like. OK.

 

[CoolSceptic]

of precipitation, not temperature. Useless for the discussion at hand.

ROFLMAO. Of course, in your world the hydrological cycle has no impact on temperatures. Unfortunately, in my world (i.e. the real one, not ones that run on supercomputers) the hydrological cycle is the single biggest influence on temperature. Or are you a GHG denier? lol.

Don't be ridiculous. Calculating top of atmosphere energy balance if a FAR simpler problem than calculating every detail of how that is felt in a complex system.

Yeah, cause clouds and water vapour have no impact on energy balance. /sarc

 

[Trakar]

Pressed to reply without doing any search or calculation, I would say 10 to 13 ppmv CO2 down at Mauna Loa for the first decade, depending on the global temperatures. Very old models (old like a 486 or a Pentium I) had a fixed ratio of ocean absorption and neutral land vegetation so they showed much less. Of course, we knew less then and CO2 levels were around 350.

10-13 ppm/decade?

 

[aleCcowaN]

If you don't know what a naive baseline is in modelling then you are not really in a position to discuss modelling results at all.

(macdoc, for your benefit: "variance" and "standard deviation" have explicit technical meaning in data analysis, the former being the square of the latter; the IPCC acknowledges my point on this, even if they use ridiculous graphs to hide the disagreement to people who don't understand maths)

Were those intentions for an audition to play a scientist? you would have to make changes.

Why don't you go back to K-9 arithmetic and reply my question on that graphic from climatedata of yours. Did you forget?

Originally Posted by CoolSceptic
Attachment 31129

Sorry, I didn't read the text, but there's a problem with the image. What is it the black line? Can you point to the database of that line? Don't you have some 1000mm global average land precipitations by 1990? Take a look to this source. Why don't you calculate the value? Take the twenty biggest countries if you are in a rush. Don't forget Antarctica.

I have many more about that graph involving arithmetic, publicly available data, models, statistics. Maybe replying that may help you to write better intentions.

 

[aleCcowaN]

10-13 ppm/decade?

Yup, only first decade, then less. If you want I can look into it more precisely -give me a few days to contact some person-. If we depart from 600 ppmv in, say, 40 years and 1°C more, and stop cold turkey, some 12-15 per decade, and then less.

 

[Trakar]

Why would you use a reconstruction known to rely on difficult calibration problems and bias when you can directly use land-only data and get a reliable observation?

Oh, actually, I think I already know the answer to that question. Using the reliable data gives an answer you don't like. OK.

Which difficult calibration problems and biases are you referring to? Also, what is the source of the land-only, calibration problem-free and bias-free data that you used to construct your graph?

 

[macdoc]

How plants are responding to extreme rainfall trends and climate change
4 hours ago by Amy Macintyre

Australian scientists are studying how plants worldwide will respond to more extreme rainfall in a future affected by climate change. They report that impacts will vary greatly across regions, meaning potentially dramatic disruptions to plant growth. This changed timing of rainfall may impact grasses and crops, with different rooting depths to trees, in different ways.

Because extreme precipitation, or changed timing of precipitation changes soil water content, this is likely to affect plant growth. This means food production, forestry industry, biodiversity and carbon and water cycles may also be affected, depending upon the region, and soil types. Interactions with pests and pathogens, and invasive species may also be influenced by extreme precipitation changing soil water content.

...

Edited by LashL: 

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please, do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-extreme-rainfall-trends-climate.html#jCp

Extreme rain events and more intense rain events seem to be an early emerging feature of AGW in many regions.

Britain almost seems to be moving to a Mediterranean pattern with winter rains and hot summers.
Step daughter from Aus got her self thoroughly sun burned in London yesterday.....not something she would normally think to consider despite being from tropical Australia...where...unusually for this time of year...it's been drizzle for a week while the monsoon trough stalls. ( that may have changed )
Hope so...very rough on India .

••

Speaking of intense rain events...that was one very wet World Cup game. Mexico wins despite two disallowed goals.

 

[lomiller]

the hydrological cycle is the single biggest influence on temperature.

Evidence for this claim?

Yeah, cause clouds and water vapour have no impact on energy balance.

They do, but you made claims about precipitation, not clouds or water vapor.

If you have evidence that climate models struggle with predicting water vapor then by all means present it, but this isn’t what you gave us.

You didn’t give us evidence for climate models getting cloud formation wrong either and in fact there is none. While there is uncertainly in modeling clouds agreement between predictions and observations are well within this range even as the uncertainly itself is reduced. This is no surprise, because other lines of evidence other than physical modeling have already constrained climate sensitivity to values that preclude model results being far off the mark.

 

[aleCcowaN]

No graph attribution ....

It was from climatedata dot info precipitation (twice) global, and cloned all over the web. That kind of opportunistic graphics or opportunistic exploits we have discussed here so many times.

The poster boy of these kind of graphics was this one

that was made and published for one of the many USA's governmental websites devoted to climate, space and science (now swept under the rug) and continue to be exploited by swarms of denialocusts up to this day.

I explained the exploit here, austral spring day 2012.

Maybe CoolSkeptic will finally contribute to help me explain the errors and exploits in his/her figure too but, isn't he/her dodging so far?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Yahoo!!!

Page corrected!!!!

(The exploited graphic in my previous post was also originally from that page )

 

[lomiller]

naive baseline? what do you mean?

If you don't know what a naive baseline is in modelling then you are not really in a position to discuss modelling results at all.

I suspect his question is specific to the term “naive baseline” rather than naive models in general. While I see no reason you couldn’t use a naive model as a baseline for something, Googleing the term “naive baseline” yields an inordinate number of hits to Roger Pielke writing on a variety of topics. It seems the phrase “naive baseline” isn’t nearly as commonly used as you have been lead to believe in the denier literature you seem to rely on. Having seen it before doesn’t tell us anything about whether someone knows what a naive model is.

As for the suitability of assuming a naive model should reprints the baseline for forecasting in this particular case, clearly it is not. Climate is a physical system with a stimulus and a response to that stimulus. On any scale where a naive model doesn’t fit the stimulus (CO2 emission) expecting one to fit the response is clearly nonsense.

 

[DC]

If you don't know what a naive baseline is in modelling then you are not really in a position to discuss modelling results at all.

i don't know what you mean, just explain it. If you know your stuff, you should have no problem explaining it to a laymen like me.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by macdoc View Post
No graph attribution ....
It was from climatedata dot info precipitation

Yes it was from climatedata - I said that in the first place.
But NOT with the additional line he posted. Do pay attention Alec - no need to repeat work already done.
Anyways YOUR attribution is not his.

 

[DC]

"The climate was warming from the end of the little ice age and is know starting to cool, get use to it. "

 

[macdoc]

Comsequences - altered patterns...

speaking of a soggy world cup.

As The Games Begin, Deadly Floods Threaten World Cup Host City
BY JOANNA M. FOSTER JUNE 12, 2014 AT 9:45 AM UPDATED: JUNE 12, 2014 AT 10:06 AM

As Brazil and Croatia prepare to battle it out in Sao Paulo in the opening match of the World Cup this afternoon, thousands of Brazilians in the south of the country are picking up the pieces after torrential rains left a trail of destruction.
State officials have declared an emergency in 130 cities in the southern state of Parana as relentless rains, which started on Saturday have damaged nearly half a million homes and claimed at least 11 lives.

Curitiba, one of Brazil’s 12 host cities for the World Cup is one of the cities in the flood zone.
Nearly 500 people were evacuated from the city as the Spanish team arrived on Sunday. Iran is scheduled to play Nigeria in Curitiba’s Baixada Arena on Monday, followed by Spain versus Australia on June 23. Across the state of Parana more than 33,000 people were forced from their homes.

While deadly floods are not uncommon in Brazil, the timing of the latest deluge is bizarre.Flooding mostly occurs in Brazil during the summer rainy season. Brazil’s winter months, May to August, are usually mostly dry.

This is just the latest in a series of climate-related events that have plagued Brazil over the last few months as final preparations for the World Cup have been underway. January and February, which usually bring the year’s heaviest rains to the country, were extremely dry and hot, and sparked fears of water rationing and power shortages as hydroelectric reservoirs dwindled. Brazil depends on hydropower for two-thirds of its energy.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/12/3448096/world-cup-flash-floods/

This kind of weather events out of season etc is a very real challenge for everyone to deal with.
Intensity events be it dry or wet and out of season......hard to plan for especially for agriculture.