Global warming

[mhaze]

Singer is making claims based on data that is stated to be questionable, and when you read how it is derived, needs to be verified before it can be used.

Yes. He is trying to understand that riddle. Others may have other interpretations of it.

In the middle of the USA, we have a strong jet stream in the upper tropopshere and stratosphere six to nine months a year. It has distinctive winds, often 150 knots in the center core. This thing is basically, huge, and of course has temperature gradients.

It seems like nonsense to talk about inferring temperatures from satellite data through the jet stream.

So the equatorial regions, which do not have the jet stream currents, would be important for this phenomena.

 

[mhaze]

Something ice-cores can't tell us is what happens when we do what we're doing and have done for a while now. Burning fossil-fuel on an industrial scale and raising atmospheric CO2-load to 380ppm - an increase of about a third on pre-industrial levels - while acidifying the oceans at the same time.

What about those thousands of gigatons of water we are pulling out of wells and then using? Probably half of it goes into the air. That is also a greenhouse gas. It is called water vapor. We are increasing it's concentration also are we not?

 

[a_unique_person]

Actually, this "more evaporation so more clouds and so a negative feeback" hypothesis/hope has been modelled in the big bad analogue one and has yet to kick in. It remains as much a "might" as it was twenty years ago; "hasn't" seems more appropriate given the ocean warming that's taken place.

The physics of the hypothesis is bad to start with. More evaporation doesn't lead to more cloud because the condensed droplets in cloud are as subject to evaporation as any other body of water. And all over. Not just at the top. Condensation nuclei are way above saturation point, so there won't be any more cloud. There might be a more rapid cycling, though, leading to heavier downpours.

Such arguments, like Singer, are rooted in the past, old Before Warming arguments. Back in the "it won't happen" days. We're well into the During Warming days now, of course.

At least Lindzen seems to have dropped his ludicrous Iris Theory. He's been rowing back for years now. Singer, on the other hand, has definitely lost the plot.

Shame really, it was so well reasoned.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes. He is trying to understand that riddle. Others may have other interpretations of it.

In the middle of the USA, we have a strong jet stream in the upper tropopshere and stratosphere six to nine months a year. It has distinctive winds, often 150 knots in the center core. This thing is basically, huge, and of course has temperature gradients.

It seems like nonsense to talk about inferring temperatures from satellite data through the jet stream.

So the equatorial regions, which do not have the jet stream currents, would be important for this phenomena.

Except that there are reasons why they are highly suspect. There is no direct measurement available for from the satellites for the data, it has to be interpolated. To date, there has been no satisfaction that this has been done correctly by Christie and UHA.

Which is completely at odds with what we are told on TGGWS and other 'scecptical' sources. According to them, the Satellite data is 100% rock solid, it is the ground date that is all suspect.

 

[CapelDodger]

You missed this "Since the stalagmite temperature cannot affect the sun, it is the sun that affects climate." and the will to examinate the evidence instead of simply tossing this example as irrelevant.

Stalagmite data is notoriously imprecise as a climate indicator because it is so influenced by local precipitation patterns. For obvious reasons.

 

[a_unique_person]

Losers links to RC's discussion of Singer.

That is for people who want quick anti-Singer talking points but who do not care to actually read the science or cannot comprehend it.

We are not discussing the Hockey Stick here.

Singer is not practicing *science*, he is publishing books, giving speeches, but he is not following the scientific method. When he wants to sit down and do actual research, using standard scientific procedures, or refer to scientific papers that prove his points, let me know.

He does make very clever logical errors, that seem to slip past a few people, as I have already stated.

His reference to correlation is not causation, then he does exactly that.

He deliberately misprepresents the findings of a paper into the discrepancies of the troposphere temperature readings.

He does a classic bait and switch. He acknowledges CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but does nothing to look at the research that validates it's role in warming.

 

[CapelDodger]

What about those thousands of gigatons of water we are pulling out of wells and then using? Probably half of it goes into the air. That is also a greenhouse gas. It is called water vapor. We are increasing it's concentration also are we not?

Only very locally. The atmosphere was hardly starved of water before HomSap flicked it some artesian droplets. Two-thirds of the world is covered in ocean. Get over yourself. Artesian water isn't significant just because we liberated it.

The world hasn't become warmer because the atmosphere is wetter, the atmosphere has become wetter because the world has become warmer. H2O is a feedback, not a forcing. In the current situation, CO2-increase is the dominant forcing. And it's positive.

 

[mhaze]

Only very locally. The atmosphere was hardly starved of water before HomSap flicked it some artesian droplets. Two-thirds of the world is covered in ocean. Get over yourself. Artesian water isn't significant just because we liberated it.

The world hasn't become warmer because the atmosphere is wetter, the atmosphere has become wetter because the world has become warmer.

Not in your area...no increased rain

No AGW hypothesis confirmation on that basis, sorry.

 

[a_unique_person]

Not in your area...no increased rain

No AGW hypothesis confirmation on that basis, sorry.

The amount of water the atmosphere can hold is set on the basis of it's temperature, IIRC.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes. He is trying to understand that riddle.

There's no evidence that Singer has ever tried to understand anything, but plenty of evidence that he'll make anything appear a riddle to the uninformed. Singer is a corporate whore and no better than a lawyer.

Others may have other interpretations of it.

That would include all the honest, seeking-truth interpretations. Singer is nobody's go-to guy for that.

In the middle of the USA, we have a strong jet stream in the upper tropopshere and stratosphere six to nine months a year. It has distinctive winds, often 150 knots in the center core. This thing is basically, huge, and of course has temperature gradients.

Big and complicated. Challenging stuff. It's rather too turbulent to have meaningful temperature gradients, but it is driven by temperature gradients.

It seems like nonsense to talk about inferring temperatures from satellite data through the jet stream.

Why? When you see an oncoming vehicle on a narrow road, do you adjust for side-wind velocity? I think not. Wind is transparent.

 

[CapelDodger]

Not in your area...no increased rain

No AGW hypothesis confirmation on that basis, sorry.

Do what now?

I don't need telling that it's been a wet summer over here. Really wet. In bursts. A graph of the smoothed-out average British year over the last 230 years - terminating in 2000 -contributes nothing to what's currently going on. UK rainfall is shiftiing from steady and depressing to sudden and alarming.

 

[bobdroege7]

can you provide evidence to support the 1500 year cycle that covers more than one cylce of 1000 years that being the time between the Medieval warm period and now?

Given that he proposes a 1500 +/- 500 year cycle, does he have any evidence to support this?

 

[mhaze]

can you provide evidence to support the 1500 year cycle that covers more than one cylce of 1000 years that being the time between the Medieval warm period and now?

Given that he proposes a 1500 +/- 500 year cycle, does he have any evidence to support this?

Yes, that is my intention.

Obviously his theory is radical, but he bases it on isotope readings, ice cores, historical data. So it should be easy to grasp, as opposed to some things that get very technical very fast.

But first we had to get all the anti Singer personal attacks out of the way.

Now we can get into the science. By the way, outside of skimming his article, I know little about his theory and could not care less if it stands or falls.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger
Actually, this "more evaporation so more clouds and so a negative feeback" hypothesis/hope has been modelled in the big bad analogue one and has yet to kick in. It remains as much a "might" as it was twenty years ago; "hasn't" seems more appropriate given the ocean warming that's taken place.

The physics of the hypothesis is bad to start with. More evaporation doesn't lead to more cloud because the condensed droplets in cloud are as subject to evaporation as any other body of water. And all over. Not just at the top. Condensation nuclei are way above saturation point, so there won't be any more cloud. There might be a more rapid cycling, though, leading to heavier downpours.

Such arguments, like Singer, are rooted in the past, old Before Warming arguments. Back in the "it won't happen" days. We're well into the During Warming days now, of course.

At least Lindzen seems to have dropped his ludicrous Iris Theory. He's been rowing back for years now. Singer, on the other hand, has definitely lost the plot.
​

Shame really, it was so well reasoned.

You guys just got all wet. Caught out in the rain?

In an intriguing Climate Change report in Science, Wentz et al. (2007) note that the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, as well as various climate modeling analyses, predict an increase in precipitation on the order of 1 to 3% per 癈 of surface global warming. Hence, they decided to see what has happened in the real world in this regard over the last 19 years (1987-2006) of supposedly unprecedented global warming, when data from the Global Historical Climatology Network and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere have indicated a global temperature rise on the order of 0.20C per decade.

They derived a real-world increase in precipitation on the order of 7% per 癈 of surface global warming, which is somewhere between 2.3 and 7 times larger than what is predicted by state-of-the-art climate models.

Based on theoretical considerations, Wentz et al. concluded that the only way to bring the two results into harmony with each other was for there to have been a 19-year decline in global wind speeds. But when looking at the past 19 years of SSM/I wind retrievals, they found just the opposite, i.e., an increase in global wind speeds. In quantitative terms, in fact, the two results were about as opposite as they could possibly be, as they report that "when averaged over the tropics from 30癝 to 30癗, the winds increased by 0.04 m s-1 (0.6%) decade-1, and over all oceans the increase was 0.08 m s-1 (1.0%) decade-1," while global coupled ocean-atmosphere models or GCMs, in their words, "predict that the 1987-to-2006 warming should have been accompanied by a decrease in winds on the order of 0.8% decade-1."

Wentz et al. tate that "the reason for the discrepancy between the observational data and the GCMs is not clear." They also rightly state that this dramatic difference between the real world of nature and the virtual world of climate modeling "has enormous impact," concluding that the questions raised by the discrepancy "are far from being settled."

Wentz, F.J., Ricciardulli, L., Hilburn, K. and Mears, C. 2007. How much more rain will global warming bring? Science 317: 233-235.

 

[mhaze]

Yes, that is my intention.

Obviously his theory is radical, but he bases it on isotope readings, ice cores, historical data. So it should be easy to grasp, as opposed to some things that get very technical very fast.

But first we had to get all the anti Singer personal attacks out of the way.

Originally Posted by mhaze


How to sound dumb and debate skeptics from Gristmill Or Losers at Realclimate leads to stuff like what has just been posted...

• Singer is a corporate whore and no better than a lawyer.
• Singer is nobody's go-to guy for that.
• He does make very clever logical errors, that seem to slip past a few people
• He deliberately misprepresents the findings of a paper into the discrepancies of the troposphere temperature readings.
• He does a classic bait and switch.
• Singer, on the other hand, has definitely lost the plot.
• Singer is nobody's go-to guy for all the honest, seeking-truth interpretations.
• Singer, are rooted in the past, old Before Warming arguments.
• you are clearly attempting a derail by citing vague and volumes references from questionable sources

Did I miss anything? So far Singer's theory of the 1500 year cycle stands irrefuted and Un-debunked. And if it stands as valid, AGW does not exist.

I repeat my challenge -

Why not just read the actual science? It ain't gonna bite ya.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279.pdf

This is a link to a summary of Singer's theory of the 1,500 year climate cycle, excerpted from his book.

If you want to debunk something, here is something that you may click on with your one remaining arm - and read with your two eyes - as long as your head remains attached.

Debunk Singer's core theory,
the 1,500 year climate cycle.
​

 

[mhaze]

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279.pdf

This is a link to a summary of Singer's theory

Executive Summary (from the paper)

The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it. Instead, the warming seems to be part of a 1,500-year cycle (plus or minus 500 years) of moderate temperature swings. It has long been accepted that the Earth has experienced climate cycles, most notably the 90,000year Ice Age cycles. But in the past 20 years or so, modern science has discovered evidence that within those broad Ice Age cycles, the Earth also experiences 1,500-year warming-cooling cycles. The Earth has been in the Modern Warming portion of the current cycle since about 1850, following a Little Ice Age from about 1300 to 1850. It appears likely that warming will continue for some time into the future, perhaps 200 years or more, regardless of human activity.

Evidence of the global nature of the 1,500-year climate cycles includes very long-term proxies for temperature change — ice cores, seabed and lake sediments, and fossils of pollen grains and tiny sea creatures. There are also shorter-term proxies — cave stalagmites, tree rings from trees both living and buried, boreholes and a wide variety of other temperature proxies.

Scientists got the first unequivocal evidence of a continuing moderate natural climate cycle in the 1980s, when Willi Dansgaard of Denmark and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland first saw two mile-long ice cores from Greenland representing 250,000 years of Earth’s frozen, layered climate history. From their initial examination, Dansgaard and Oeschger estimated the smaller temperature cycles at 2,550 years.

Subsequent research shortened the estimated length of the cycles to 1,500 years (plus or minus 500 years). Other substantiating findings followed:
● An ice core from the Antarctic’s Vostok Glacier — at the other end of the world from Greenland
— showed the same 1,500-year cycle through its 400,000-year length.
● The ice-core findings correlated with known glacier advances and retreats in northern Europe.
● Independent data in a seabed sediment core from the Atlantic Ocean west of Ireland, reported in 1997, showed nine of the 1,500-year cycles in the last 12,000 years. Other seabed sediment cores of varying ages near Iceland, in the Norwegian and Baltic seas, off Alaska, in the eastern Mediterranean, in the Arabian Sea, near the Philippines and off the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula all also showed evidence of the 1,500-year cycles. So did lake sediment cores from Switzerland, Alaska, various parts of Africa and Argentina, as did cave stalagmites in Europe, Asia and Africa, and fossilized pollen, boreholes, tree rings and mountain tree lines.

None of these pieces of evidence would be convincing in and of themselves. However, to dismiss the evidence of the 1,500-year climate cycle, it is necessary to dismiss not only the known human histories from the past 2,000 years but also an enormous range and variety of physical evidence found by a huge body of serious researchers.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes, that is my intention.

Obviously his theory is radical, but he bases it on isotope readings, ice cores, historical data. So it should be easy to grasp, as opposed to some things that get very technical very fast.

But first we had to get all the anti Singer personal attacks out of the way.

Now we can get into the science. By the way, outside of skimming his article, I know little about his theory and could not care less if it stands or falls.

So he is saying once again that he is basing his idea on a correlation? I thought he already said, correlation is not causation.

 

[lomiller]

Run for that ice!

Here is a repeat -

I've invited you to debunk or otherwise refute Singer's main hypthesis.

Ad hominem attacks cede victory to the opposite side.

LOL apparently losing half the ice in the arctic is a laughably insignificant indicator.

If you are going to hold Singer up as an expert then challenging his credentials and past work is fair game. In any case I’m not going to run out reading novels trying to guess what you think are the significant points. If you want to bring up those points by all means do so but don’t complain that other people won’t run out and do the research for you.

 

[CapelDodger]

OK, a 1500 year cycle, MWP posited for 1000-1200CE, ergo next peak around 2500-2700CE. Current date around 2100CE. How frickin' warm is it going to get by 2500CE? A lot warmer than in 1000CE, that's for certain.

But of course it's a 1500 year cycle plus or minus 500 - mhaze, you're normally a stickler for certainty, doesn't this get-out concern you at all? I mean, talk about data-mining.

"None of these pieces of evidence would be convincing in and of themselves. However, to dismiss the evidence of the 1,500-year climate cycle, it is necessary to dismiss not only the known human histories from the past 2,000 years but also an enormous range and variety of physical evidence found by a huge body of serious researchers."

The past 2000 years is hardly all the human history available to us, and would encompass one - count them - and a bit "cycles". Of between 1000 and 2000 years. OK, maybe just one, or perhaps two. To me that just sounds like stuff happening.

The use of "enormous" is entirely subjective. A 1500 year cycle during the last glaciation is only tentatively extracted even by its proposers. After all, it could just be a stastical artefact. Has it been properly audited by McIntyre?

In summary : it's a broken reed.

Greenhouse theory, on the other hand, predicted the current warming and is supported by an enormous range of living physical scientists, let alone the historical ones. And, of course, by the big bad analogue model.

Singer's hand-waving just gets wilder by the decade.

 

[CapelDodger]

So far Singer's theory of the 1500 year cycle stands irrefuted and Un-debunked.

So far my theory of my own immortality stand unrefuted.

And if it stands as valid, AGW does not exist.

Even if Singer's one to two thousand year cycles are real - that is, have some underlying physical cause - AGW could still exist. It's not one or the other. Singer's clutched straw doesn't define the amplitude any more accurately than it does the frequency. There's plenty of room for both an unrecognised mechanism of small amplitude and AGW over the last century. Even more over the last few decades.

I repeat my challenge -

Yet I still don't feel challenged.

Why not just read the actual science? It ain't gonna bite ya.

Why not buy SciAm to get the actual science of AGW?
Singer's piece is not actual science. It's speculation on what may be a cycle of varying and indeterminate frequency and amplitude with no firmly postulated mechanism behind it. Singer's favoured hypothesis could as easily be a statistical artefact, since it depends very heavily on statistics. If not entirely - I can't see any part of it that isn't statistics, but I may be missing something.