Global warming

[David Rodale]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/#more-471

Schwartz comes up with a low value for climate sensitivity. Hooray goes the blogosphere, the IPCC is wrong, he is right.

How did he come up with the low value for climate sensitivity? He used a simple mathematical model of course. But I thought models were out? We can't use models, they can't tell us anything about climate. Why the cheers, why no attacks on Schwartz for being a climate sceptic who uses models?

Who said models are out? Not being a climate scientist doesn't mean one must be totally clueless, please learn about models, their limitations and why climate models cannot be validated.

We can expect RealClimate to publish a peer reviewed response any day now

I'll let you look up 2001 & 2007.

 

[a_unique_person]

Who said models are out? Not being a climate scientist doesn't mean one must be totally clueless, please learn about models, their limitations and why climate models cannot be validated.

We can expect RealClimate to publish a peer reviewed response any day now

I'll let you look up 2001 & 2007.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032346ef33c5707f0.jpg

Realclimate has already stated why his simplified model is wrong in several respects. Peer reviewed response? Does it even warrent one. If scientists had to respond to every paper an amateur in the field puts up, they would never get any real work done.

 

[a_unique_person]

I'll let you look up 2001 & 2007.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032346ef33c5707f0.jpg

No, I'll let you, you're the one making the claim.

 

[David Rodale]

That's truly special.

First ClimateAudit and then the reference to second-hand information. It's beyond self-parody.



Essentially what is happening there is MciIntyre sending an email and the going "Look at my email! What about that, eh?".



Nobody's saying that. Some people, such as yourself, would rather take refuge in detail of no real significance than face the real world. The one that is so obviously getting warmer, and has been for a while now.




I bet you a thousand euros the world will be warmer in 2012 than it is now.

What's your bet?

Depending on what SC24 does, it may very well be as warm as today, maybe even slightly warmer. However, if SC24 is weak as some predict, it will be cooler and continue downward from there. By all accounts SC25 will be much weaker. SC24 is the grey area. There is a 4-15 year lag response.

Your Met O is counting on SC24 going off the charts, so at least they acknowledge the sun actually is responsible for temperature. Regardless, there won't be any more warming between now and then; Met O admits that much


Unique will tell you what the bet is; just a simple gentleman's wager.
McIntyre is 3-0. Please explain the below "adjustments" by NASA. The data is available, unless Hansen deleted it of course.
From ClimateAudit:





Satellite records. As I recall, Sept. 2007 data has not yet been calibrated.
Source: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

Since Hansen's prophetic utterance 1988


Since Nov. 1978


Since 1997. Trend can be ignored as 1998 was Super El Nino...wouldn't want to be accused of padding the numbers!


Since Feb 2001, coming out of 1998 El Nino. Not much warmin' goin on


Remove the El Nino's and the trend is DOWN

 

[mhaze]

As a chemical engineer with advanced degrees and 6 patents on CO2 behavior I simply cannot compete with you guys. I was trying to agree that human activity is probably not the source or the warming, but I just don't know, and neither does anyone else.

I promise to stay out of your universe.

Were you referring to Schwartz 2007 or Weintz 2007? First being "heat capacity" and deriving 1.1 C for climate sensitivity, second showing precipitation 3x for given temperature increase over what the models show.

 

[a_unique_person]

Depending on what SC24 does, it may very well be as warm as today, maybe even slightly warmer. However, if SC24 is weak as some predict, it will be cooler and continue downward from there. By all accounts SC25 will be much weaker. SC24 is the grey area. There is a 4-15 year lag response.

Your Met O is counting on SC24 going off the charts, so at least they acknowledge the sun actually is responsible for temperature. Regardless, there won't be any more warming between now and then; Met O admits that much

Nobody ever said it wasn't, nobody is that stupid. If I ever meet anyone who thinks otherwise, I'll be sure to pass the message on.

If you want to debate the reasons for the current climate change, that's something else.

 

[mhaze]

That's truly special.

First ClimateAudit and then the reference to second-hand information. It's beyond self-parody.



Essentially what is happening there is MciIntyre sending an email and the going "Look at my email! What about that, eh?".



Nobody's saying that. Some people, such as yourself, would rather take refuge in detail of no real significance than face the real world. The one that is so obviously getting warmer, and has been for a while now.




I bet you a thousand euros the world will be warmer in 2012 than it is now.

What's your bet?

Here's a bet. The Arctic ice grows back and does not shrink to zero as alarmists are claiming may happen pretty shortly.

How about that one? No gentlemen's wagers, money escrowed at the start.

 

[a_unique_person]

McIntyre is 3-0. Please explain the below "adjustments" by NASA. The data is available, unless Hansen deleted it of course.
From ClimateAudit:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8377http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032346ef463355856.jpg

Hansen revises and checks the figures, it's patent fraud, McIntyre does it for him, he's a hero.

Satellite records. As I recall, Sept. 2007 data has not yet been calibrated.

Since Hansen's prophetic utterance 1988
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8379http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032346ef514b444bd.jpg

Yes, it's an upward trend.

 

[mhaze]

Hansen revises and checks the figures, it's patent fraud, McIntyre does it for him, he's a hero.
Yes, it's an upward trend.

By the way, AUP, you never answered me on this.

I said I was willing to go 0.025 C/decade for AGW superimposed on the natural cycle, with 0.005 C/decade for CO2 "greenhouse effects".

Do you want to agree with that? If not, please look at the chart here and tell me how much for AGW in the last decade, how much for CO2, and how much was from the natural cycle.

Here are some things to mull over. I'll be pointing out some details in them which are quite relevant to the current discussion. Not that I've got all the answers, mind you....just trying to make an effort to ask the right questions.

 

[David Rodale]

Hansen revises and checks the figures, it's patent fraud, McIntyre does it for him, he's a hero.



Yes, it's an upward trend.

Only a gullible warmer could believe "adjusting" temperature data upward continually without justification or explanation is not to be questioned.

The trend is less than the climate models predicted, and it is going down. It won't be long until you folks will be back here trying to convince us that's a result of "global warming" as well. Irrefutable hypotheses are great aren't they?

 

[mhaze]

Hansen revises and checks the figures, it's patent fraud, McIntyre does it for him, he's a hero.

Not sure what patent fraud means in oz-talk, but it is accounting fraud according to the GAAP standards here. That's the national standards for accounting that are followed by all public companies.

McIntyre thinks scientists should be accountable for the accuracy of their data according to the GAAP standards. I concur.

 

[a_unique_person]

Not sure what patent fraud means in oz-talk, but it is accounting fraud according to the GAAP standards here. That's the national standards for accounting that are followed by all public companies.

McIntyre thinks scientists should be accountable for the accuracy of their data according to the GAAP standards. I concur.

I think you misunderstand what McIntyre was saying. He was saying Hansen can't change the measurement system he is using. As far as I can tell, hansen moved from a less accurate system to one that is more accurate. McIntyre was wrong in either case.

 

[a_unique_person]

Only a gullible warmer could believe "adjusting" temperature data upward continually without justification or explanation is not to be questioned.

The trend is less than the climate models predicted, and it is going down. It won't be long until you folks will be back here trying to convince us that's a result of "global warming" as well. Irrefutable hypotheses are great aren't they?

Let's see. McIntyre continually trawls through Hansen's data, looking for errors. He's a hero. Hansens moves to a more accurate data set, he's a fraud. He can't win, because if he stayed with the old one, he'd be criticised for that too.

Meanwhile, you ignore the validation of Hansen's code by McIntyre. As did McIntyre. It was supposed to reveal all kinds of incompetence, but it didn't. I can't imagine the pressure Hansen is put under by this remorseless and merciless circling of the sharks, who only have the intention of eating him alive.

The troposphere is warming. At that rate, it's on track for the IPCC predictions. The first part is the warming of the troposphere, then the feedback mechanisms, which aren't to do with troposphere warming, take over.

 

[a_unique_person]

By the way, AUP, you never answered me on this.

I said I was willing to go 0.025 C/decade for AGW superimposed on the natural cycle, with 0.005 C/decade for CO2 "greenhouse effects".

Do you want to agree with that? If not, please look at the chart here and tell me how much for AGW in the last decade, how much for CO2, and how much was from the natural cycle.

Here are some things to mull over. I'll be pointing out some details in them which are quite relevant to the current discussion. Not that I've got all the answers, mind you....just trying to make an effort to ask the right questions.

You don't have to ask me, the IPCC has already worked it out. Read the report.

 

[a_unique_person]

Nearly all your posts are anecdotal and emotive consisting of scripted responses, news headlines, blogs, opinions, unsubstantiated claims, generalized statements, appeal to Authority etc.

I asked you to read the IPCC report, apparently that's not good enough.

 

[mhaze]

I think you misunderstand what McIntyre was saying. He was saying Hansen can't change the measurement system he is using. As far as I can tell, hansen moved from a less accurate system to one that is more accurate. McIntyre was wrong in either case.

ad wrongado argument.

Wrong and backwards. Hansen was wrong in either case. From the current main page....

http://www.climateaudit.org/

Should NASA climate accountants adhere to GAAP?

There are undoubtedly more Climate Audit readers familiar with GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) than at other climate websites, but it’s worth re-stating one of the fundamental GAAP principles:

Principle of the permanence of methods: This principle aims at allowing the coherence and comparison of the financial information published by the company.
​

Now you may say that this is “science” and accounting principles don’t apply. And my response would be that I’d expect GAAP principles to be a minimum standard for the type of climate statistics being carried out by NASA. Even if NASA climate statisticians are unaware of GAAP per se, they should be adhering to the principles. Sharp practice is sharp practice, however it is gussied up.

 

[a_unique_person]

Which just goes to show why McIntyre is a danger to himself and others. Science is always changing.

The scientific method is what stays the same.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
By the way, AUP, you never answered me on this.

I said I was willing to go 0.025 C/decade for AGW superimposed on the natural cycle, with 0.005 C/decade for CO2 "greenhouse effects".

Do you want to agree with that? If not, please look at the chart here and tell me how much for AGW in the last decade, how much for CO2, and how much was from the natural cycle.
​

You don't have to ask me, the IPCC has already worked it out. Read the report.

Yes it is an unpleasant question.



This curve fit has a pretty good correlation to

• the general temperature rise due to coming out of the Little Ice Age
• the known hot period in the 1930s
• polar ice cycles of 60-80 years
• the cool period from 1940-1970
• the "alarming accelerating trend" since 1980

Climate cycles accounts for all these major events and swings in the data.

The CO2 AGW cycle doesn't.

The CO2 AGW theory only explains the "alarming accelerating trend" since 1980. But I've asked here repeatedly if someone could just show a relationship between the CO2 level and the temperature, first with 1850, then 1950, then with the last 30 years. No takers. Why?

Because CO2 does not have a significant relation to temperature as measured. And that's the core premise of the IPCC. They are wrong.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes it is an unpleasant question.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8387http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1422446efc4e08067f.png

This curve fit has a pretty good correlation to

• the general temperature rise due to coming out of the Little Ice Age
• the known hot period in the 1930s
• polar ice cycles of 60-80 years
• the cool period from 1940-1970
• the "alarming accelerating trend" since 1980

Climate cycles accounts for all these major events and swings in the data.

The CO2 AGW cycle doesn't.

The CO2 AGW theory only explains the "alarming accelerating trend" since 1980. But I've asked here repeatedly if someone could just show a relationship between the CO2 level and the temperature, first with 1850, then 1950, then with the last 30 years. No takers. Why?

Because CO2 does not have a significant relation to temperature as measured. And that's the core premise of the IPCC. They are wrong.

I keep on thinking if I ignore anything Singer says, you'll forget about him.

The cooling after the 40's was due to pollution. It's already been researched. If you want to confirm it yourself, go to Bangkok. The pollution is so bad the sun is a red orb all day. It cools the city. The pollution drifts down to the some resorts, one of which I spent a few days at. Occasionally the haze would lift, and the temperature would shoot up.

It's got nothing to do with Singer, his cycles, or his support of big tobacco and big oil. Now it's warming again. Hadley is following the climate much more closely than other climate models have been able to, and it's going to start rising again very soon. You tip a drop in the next few years, I'm backing them and it's going to rise.

 

[mhaze]

I keep on thinking if I ignore anything Singer says, you'll forget about him.

The cooling after the 40's was due to pollution. It's already been researched. If you want to confirm it yourself, go to Bangkok. The pollution is so bad the sun is a red orb all day. It cools the city. The pollution drifts down to the some resorts, one of which I spent a few days at. Occasionally the haze would lift, and the temperature would shoot up.

I gave you your opportunity to pick three annoying references. You declined, so now you get annoyed. Get over it. AGW Believers must be scripted that the cooling period after 1940 was due to pollution for two reasons. otherwise the theory of AGW caused by CO2 has a very inconvenient truth.

Here are the reasons the Mann-Hansen-Gore team scripted response on the 1940-1970 cool period is that it is caused by pollution

• we fixed that pollution, fixed that cooling. Look! We can fix stuff.
• obviously now we can fix CO2, fix that dangerous accelerated temperature rise

Your citing the presence of major pollution today doesn't help a theory that we fixed major global cooling for a thirty year period by eliminating pollution.