Global warming

[mhaze]

Funny, I like that.

But you know I was discussing the 1500 year cycle (Minoan, Roma, Medieval) with a few degrees C difference.

Back out the AGW theories' presumptions (disregarding for a moment the high inaccuracies in the models' predictions) and what you have left is a flat line.

There is only one way to have a flat line and that is if there are no thermal inputs or outputs. For humans, we call that Death.

That's ridiculous as either a "standard or stabilized state" or as a goal for climate engineering.

Obviously, we have natural cycles over various terms - daily, seasonal, monthly. I've noted the approximate 60 year and 1500 year cycles and provided references. But how does all this interact?

Understanding the mechanisms driving such climate variability is difficult because unraveling causal connections that lead to chaotic climate behavior is complicated.

To simplify this, Tsonis et al. investigate the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation.

By studying the last 100 years of these cycles' patterns, they find that the systems synchronized several times.

Further, in cases where the synchronous state was followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state was destroyed. Then. a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability.
The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century.

Here is a link to Tsonis's "A New Dynamical Method for Major Climate Shifts" theory which explains the last 100 years of climate history using a network approach in complex systems analysis.

http://downloads.heartland.org/tsonis_GRL07.pdf

full text draft of the pdf here

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/08/mechanism-for-major-climate-shifts.html

In case you are wondering why the Warmers and Alarmists are not doing too well, it is simply because the state of understanding of the science in these areas is progressing.

 

[mhaze]

In case you are wondering why the Warmers and Alarmists are not doing too well, it is simply because the state of understanding of the science in these areas is progressing.

As a joke, somebody said that if the sea ice all melted and the polar bears died off, we could just take some of our American and Canadian bears and paint them white.

But with the surge of insightful research in this area, there is new reason to think the opposite. Polar bears, now are known to have multiplied five fold from several decades ago and are soon to be reaching a population crisis.

With the UK having the sad experience of having killed off the last native black bear centuries back, I suggest airlift these hungry polar bears to the UK and paint them black.

 

[Megalodon]

Which is more or less what Shutle 2007 did; there is no consensus, get over it.

So the work is not verifiable, but someone verified it? Your line of argument is very... peculiar.

 

[Megalodon]

In case you are wondering why the Warmers and Alarmists are not doing too well, it is simply because the state of understanding of the science in these areas is progressing.

So, your refutation for the models is another model?

However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.

Do you even read what you post?

 

[mhaze]

So, your refutation for the models is another model? Do you even read what you post?

I've previously said there might be a slight CO2 warming effect, perhaps 0.5 C for a doubling of the concentration). A huge number of "deniers" do not dispute some slight effect of CO2. They dispute the huge and central effect that it those of the AGW belief set think it has as stated in the IPCC 4th edition and selected sources therein.
To put it really simply, numerous calculations by what you would call "deniers" do not show that large of an effect.

According to the IPCC AGW model, most of the warming is due to man's CO2 forcing and feedbacks thereof. Back that out, and you have a flat line. That's their concept of our climate without "our bad effects".

Go to Tsonis now. See the difference? The trend line is not zero slope but is somewhat predicted from their theory. Of course you can superimpose some level of AGW on top of it. But how much? The amount of AGW that is possible is limited by the natural factors that they attempt to understand and model.

Further. What feedbacks, and forcings are possible? They are completely different than what is concluded if one tried to make CO2 the primary driver of climate in the several decades past and coming.

Is that clear?

If not, let me quote the full paragraph from which you produced the AGW phrase.

It is interesting to speculate on the climate shift after the 1970s event. The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols. However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.
​

So is there anything here to support Alarmists? Not that I see offhand. Is there anything to support AGW? Much less than with the IPCC current belief set.

The point of actual useful science like this is not to prove or disprove AGW, but to actually understand phenomena. Let the chips fall where they may, right?

 

[a_unique_person]

As a joke, somebody said that if the sea ice all melted and the polar bears died off, we could just take some of our American and Canadian bears and paint them white.

But with the surge of insightful research in this area, there is new reason to think the opposite. Polar bears, now are known to have multiplied five fold from several decades ago and are soon to be reaching a population crisis.

Once again, things just *happen*. We are naive innocents, and things just happen for no reason? No, the polar bear population has just recovered from overhunting. That's why the population has been growing. Now another event is about to threaten them.

 

[mhaze]

So the work is not verifiable, but someone verified it? Your line of argument is very... peculiar.

Not meaning to beat a dead horse unduly here, but we can now officially stop Going at it about Oeskes and Schulte.

They are at each other directly now with the insults and charges flying.

 

[a_unique_person]

Not meaning to beat a dead horse unduly here, but we can now officially stop Going at it about Oeskes and Schulte.

They are at each other directly now with the insults and charges flying.

3) The piece misrepresents the results we obtained. In the original AAAS talk on which the paper was based, and in various interviews and conversations after, I repeated pointed out that very few papers analyzed said anything explicit at all about the consensus position.This was actually a very important result, for the following reason. Biologists today never write papers in which they explicitly say "we endorse evolution". Earth scientists never say "we explicitly endorse plate tectonics." This is because these things are now taken for granted. So when we read these papers and observed this pattern, we took this to be very significant.We realized that the basic issue was settled, and we observed that scientists had moved on to discussing details of the problem, mostly tempo and mode issues: how fast, how soon, in what manner, with what impacts, etc. (See Oreskes, 2007 for further discussion).

I thought as much. People have been beating up on Oreskes for something that she never claimed. The blogosphere don't give a damn, it's always party time out there for any inane reason that happens to pass by.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/

 

[Megalodon]

I've previously said there might be a slight CO2 warming effect, perhaps 0.5 C for a doubling of the concentration). A huge number of "deniers" do not dispute some slight effect of CO2. They dispute the huge and central effect that it those of the AGW belief set think it has as stated in the IPCC 4th edition and selected sources therein.

Every hypothesis is always under discussion. However, there's a difference between the arguments based on decades of science and the ones based on a gut-feeling. But I am not expecting you to get it anymore...

To put it really simply, numerous calculations by what you would call "deniers" do not show that large of an effect.

To put it really simple, you disregard the calculations of the majority of scientists in favour of the calculations of whomever that might support your ideology, even if only apparently.

And obviously, you have no idea about whom I would or wouldn't call a "denier".

According to the IPCC AGW model, most of the warming is due to man's CO2 forcing and feedbacks thereof. Back that out, and you have a flat line. That's their concept of our climate without "our bad effects".

Does this IPCC of yours hide in your closet at night? Or is it hanging in the cornfield?

Go to Tsonis now. See the difference? The trend line is not zero slope but is somewhat predicted from their theory. Of course you can superimpose some level of AGW on top of it. But how much? The amount of AGW that is possible is limited by the natural factors that they attempt to understand and model.

So, your problem with the other models is that they don't tell you what you want to hear.

What feedbacks, and forcings are possible? They are completely different than what is concluded if one tried to make CO2 the primary driver of climate in the several decades past and coming.

Exactly... and do they conflict with what our previous knowledge tells us? Do they explain why the current models worked so well?

So is there anything here to support Alarmists? Not that I see offhand. Is there anything to support AGW? Much less than with the IPCC current belief set.

The crux of the matter is the measurments. We know that aerosols were in the atmosphere (ask the swedes) and we know the effects on temperature. If this new hypothesis is to explain the observations, they have to explain why the aerosols had no effect whatsoever.

If they can't they should revisit their work, as they quite probably will. The work seems interesting, but as any first attempt at moddeling, it's the follow-up papers I'm interested on.

The point of actual useful science like this is not to prove or disprove AGW, but to actually understand phenomena. Let the chips fall where they may, right?

So, if the result of the model superficially seems to agree with you, you say "let the chips fall...". If not, models are worthless or scientists want to rule the world under a marxist ideology... got it.

 

[mhaze]

But I am not expecting you to get it anymore...

you disregard the calculations of the majority of scientists in favour of the calculations of whomever that might support your ideology, even if only apparently.

And obviously, you have no idea about whom I would or wouldn't call a "denier".

Does this IPCC of yours hide in your closet at night?

Or is it hanging in the cornfield?

So, your problem with the other models is that they don't tell you what you want to hear.

if the result of the model superficially seems to agree with you, you say "let the chips fall...".

If not, models are worthless or scientists want to rule the world under a marxist ideology... got it.

You do seem to have a bit of a problem with people not agreeing with you.

The current models work so well? That's really news to me. Got any facts on that, or is that just a gut feeling? I thought one of the fundamental issues was why did they work so poorly.

The crux of the matter is the measurments. We know that aerosols were in the atmosphere (ask the swedes) and we know the effects on temperature. If this new hypothesis is to explain the observations, they have to explain why the aerosols had no effect whatsoever.

If they can't they should revisit their work, as they quite probably will. The work seems interesting, but as any first attempt at moddeling, it's the follow-up papers I'm interested on.

​

Agree in part. Effects of aerosols are very poorly understood.

If the facts change, I'm going to change my opinion. As for you???

 

[mhaze]

Every hypothesis is always under discussion.

The crux of the matter is the measurments. We know that aerosols were in the atmosphere (ask the swedes) and we know the effects on temperature. If this new hypothesis is to explain the observations, they have to explain why the aerosols had no effect whatsoever.

If they can't they should revisit their work, as they quite probably will. The work seems interesting, but as any first attempt at moddeling, it's the follow-up papers I'm interested on.
​

So, if the result of the model superficially seems to agree with you, you say "let the chips fall...".

Part of the chips falling as they may is the ability to verify the correctness of the raw data, the modeling, including the algorithms and actual computer program, thence the ability to replicate the results independantly. That's why the work of Steve McIntyre is so important.

You have a group of people trying to get trillions of dollars in taxes, fees and fines due to the alleged effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, and in many critical cases, they won't let us see their data or methods.

Sorry, I have no sympathy for that point of view. No more that I care to see basketball rigged. The following article about corruption in basketball, does apply to this area which is both scientific and political, and shows clearly why work such as www.climateaudit.org is important.

(Schneier's 50th essay for wired.com)
Basketball Referees and Single Points of Failure

Sports referees are supposed to be fair and impartial. They're not supposed to favor one team over another. And they're most certainly not supposed to have a financial interest in the outcome of a game.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/09/basketball_refe.html

The best way to catch corrupt trusted insiders is through audit. The particular components of a system that have the greatest influence on the performance of that system need to be monitored and audited, even if the probability of compromise is low. It's after the fact, but if the likelihood of detection is high and the penalties (fines, jail time, public disgrace) are severe, it's a pretty strong deterrent. Of course, the counterattack is to target the auditing system. Hackers routinely try to erase audit logs that contain evidence of their intrusions.


Even so, audit is the reason we want open-source code reviews and verifiable paper trails in voting machines; otherwise, a single crooked programmer could single-handedly change an election. It's also why the Securities and Exchange Commission closely monitors trades by brokers: They are in an ideal position to get away with insider trading. The NBA claims it monitors referees for patterns that might indicate abuse; there's still no answer to why it didn't detect Donaghy.

​

So indeed, as you have noted

it's the follow-up papers I'm interested on.
​

There are some follow on papers to key pieces of work in the AGW hypothesis which are obfuscated or prevented by the active withholding of data and methods.

Do you dispute that?

 

[Rob Lister]

Part of the chips falling as they may is the ability to verify the correctness of the raw data, the modeling, including the algorithms and actual computer program, thence the ability to replicate the results independantly. That's why the work of Steve McIntyre is so important.

...

You have a group of people trying to get trillions of dollars in taxes, fees and fines due to the alleged effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, and in many critical cases, they won't let us see their data or methods.

...

Do you dispute that?

Indeed. And the main culprit is Hanson. For inexpiable reason, this area of science gets an almost utter reprieve on providing the very data and methods required to replicate their findings.

I frankly do not understand it.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2022#more-2022

 

[mhaze]

Indeed. And the main culprit is Hanson. For inexpiable reason, this area of science gets an almost utter reprieve on providing the very data and methods required to replicate their findings.

I frankly do not understand it.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2022#more-2022

Neither did McIntyre. But he saw the Hockey Stick being used the same way data was pumped in stock frauds....

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

McIntyre became interested in these issues after advocates of the Kyoto Protocol used the Hockey Stick graph from MBH98 in ways that he found similar to Bre-X and other stock frauds, leading him to try to audit the MBH98 data and analysis. He launched the blog on October 26, 2004 [1]Geophysical Research Letters published a paper by McIntyre and Ross McKitrick critiquing MBH98. The blog is largely concerned with McIntyre's efforts to audit current climate publications.

​

Some people are easier to fool than others.

 

[rockoon]

Indeed. And the main culprit is Hanson.
For inexpiable reason, this area of science gets an almost utter reprieve on providing the very data and methods required to replicate their findings.

I suggest economic reasons.

The journals which publish climate research papers do not seem to enforce their own data archival policies and I presume that this is because of a rush to publish papers on the subject.

This doesnt shed a good light on the peer review process because if the journals are already showing a bias in regards to enforcing their own policies which are meant to aid and enable the peer review process, then one has to wonder how far their bias actualy goes.

Who in this process can be counted upon to be critical if the journal itself is pushing for the paper to be published? The journal, rememeber, selects the "peers" who do the "review." Often selected from an entirely inappropriet field of science (The MBH review wasnt done by statisticians, for instance, but it should have been)

I frankly do not understand it.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2022#more-2022

I frankly do not understand why this is at all suprising when so much money is involved.

The scientists want to publish so that they can catch some of the BILLIONS that governments and universities dish out in research grants. The journals want to publish so that they can sell subscriptions.

A paper being published is win-win for those directly involved.
Rejecting a paper during the review process isnt a win for anybody directly involved

 

[a_unique_person]

You do seem to have a bit of a problem with people not agreeing with you.

The current models work so well? That's really news to me. Got any facts on that, or is that just a gut feeling? I thought one of the fundamental issues was why did they work so poorly.

The crux of the matter is the measurments. We know that aerosols were in the atmosphere (ask the swedes) and we know the effects on temperature. If this new hypothesis is to explain the observations, they have to explain why the aerosols had no effect whatsoever.

If they can't they should revisit their work, as they quite probably will. The work seems interesting, but as any first attempt at moddeling, it's the follow-up papers I'm interested on.

​

Agree in part. Effects of aerosols are very poorly understood.

If the facts change, I'm going to change my opinion. As for you???

The models have been validated on past records using standard statistical methods. The projections aren't going to be perfect, and the model owners will tell you that up front. They are our best insight into what is coming. To just say they aren't perfect, therefore we should stick our collective head in the ground, is stupid. The model projections for Australia are holding up quite well, the South East is still in the grip of unprecedented drought, despite hopes that an El Nina would bring some relief this year. If only it weren't for the drought, Australia's farmers would be making a mint.

 

[mhaze]

The models have been validated on past records using standard statistical methods. The projections aren't going to be perfect, and the model owners will tell you that up front.

I'm sure you can see the possible improvements in predictive capability with the new research previously mentioned in this thread by Tsonis, Wentz, Singer, Spencer, and Schultz.

The revisions seem to show a future more optimistic, instead of more pessimistic. More negative feedbacks, less climate sensitivity, some integration of natural climate cycles.

The work we are discussing seems to invalidate the IPCC 2007 modeling results and the Summary for Policymakers (although this latter is political, not scientific), along with Stein's economic analysis of the summary.

Such is scientific progress.

2007 may be the year AGW jumped the shark.

 

[Elentar]

Okay, quick answer. Carbon dioxide, the main contributor to the greenhouse effect, constitutes 0.0360% of the earth's atmosphere. That's nothing. That's small enough for us to change drastically. When I first heard this at the tender age of 15, way back in the early 70's, I thought "Hey, we're burning billions of years worth of stored hydrocarbons. Won't that have an effect?" Uh huh. Even a 15 year old could figure that one out. The math is actually pretty simple.

Exhibit 2: The arctic circle is now the object of heavy competition between multiple countries--well, between the oil companies of multiple countries. Why is that? Nobody gave a damn about it ten years ago. But now, the arctic is melting. It's all opening up, it's all becoming navigable. Do you remember the Northwest Passage, an expedition of an oil tanker called the Manhattan and a small Canadian icebreaker? They gave up on it--the Manhattan got ripped to shreds by the ice. Had it not been for the icebreaker, they would have lost the whole ship. If it had been carrying oil, all the oil would have ended up in the ice. Thirty years later, that's not the case. But hey, aren't these oil companies the same people claiming that the temperature is not warming? Or that the sun is doing it (disproven.) Or that volcanoes are doing it (also disproven.)

The very people telling you it isn't happening are positioning themselves for the very outcome they say will not happen. They know it's happening. By now, so should you.

 

[a_unique_person]

Indeed. And the main culprit is Hanson. For inexpiable reason, this area of science gets an almost utter reprieve on providing the very data and methods required to replicate their findings.

I frankly do not understand it.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2022#more-2022

Rubbish, it's just that climate science is telling people something they would rather not know, and demand a far higher level of scrutiny that is otherwise normal in the scientific world. Try the same trick on any other area of science, and you will find the same response, or worse.

 

[rockoon]

Okay, quick answer. Carbon dioxide, the main contributor to the greenhouse effect, constitutes 0.0360% of the earth's atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide isnt the main contributor of the greenhouse effect. The main contributor is H2O.

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf

When I first heard this at the tender age of 15, way back in the early 70's, I thought "Hey, we're burning billions of years worth of stored hydrocarbons. Won't that have an effect?" Uh huh. Even a 15 year old could figure that one out. The math is actually pretty simple.

Pretty simple to apply math. Pretty hard to apply it correctly. Your error is proof of that.

The very people telling you it isn't happening are positioning themselves for the very outcome they say will not happen. They know it's happening. By now, so should you.

The obvious error in the rest of your post is that you somehow believe that the climate is supposed to be static and have jumped to the conclusion that since it isnt behaving statically then it must be because of CO2.

You should try science instead of dogma.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Could've sworn I put a reply in here.

Carbon dioxide isnt the main contributor of the greenhouse effect. The main contributor is H2O.

Yes. But the H2O emitted into the atmosphere goes back out again - we have this funny natural phenomena called rain, so the vapor never stays in the atmosphere for long enough to cause warming. Co2, on the other hand, when released in too big numbers, stays up there for hundreds of years.

The obvious error in the rest of your post is that you somehow believe that the climate is supposed to be static and have jumped to the conclusion that since it isnt behaving statically then it must be because of CO2.

I don't think anyone here has said anything like that.