Simple Question About AGW

[David Rodale]

A gift for treemometer huggers:

Arctic warming unprecedented?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/8j71453650116753/?p=2aebfff0ca6540fab5f10146ad4e84b7&pi=5

This paper presents updated tree-ring width (TRW) and maximum density (MXD) from Torneträsk in northern Sweden, now covering the period ad 500–2004. By including data from relatively young trees for the most recent period, a previously noted decline in recent MXD is eliminated. Non-climatological growth trends in the data are removed using Regional Curve Standardization (RCS), thus producing TRW and MXD chronologies with preserved low-frequency variability. The chronologies are calibrated using local and regional instrumental climate records. A bootstrapped response function analysis using regional climate data shows that tree growth is forced by April–August temperatures and that the regression weights for MXD are much stronger than for TRW. The robustness of the reconstruction equation is verified by independent temperature data and shows that 63–64% of the instrumental inter-annual variation is captured by the tree-ring data. This is a significant improvement compared to previously published reconstructions based on tree-ring data from Torneträsk. A divergence phenomenon around ad 1800, expressed as an increase in TRW that is not paralleled by temperature and MXD, is most likely an effect of major changes in the density of the pine population at this northern tree-line site. The bias introduced by this TRW phenomenon is assessed by producing a summer temperature reconstruction based on MXD exclusively. The new data show generally higher temperature estimates than previous reconstructions based on Torneträsk tree-ring data. The late-twentieth century, however, is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around ad 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The 200-year long warm period centered on ad 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century (p < 0.05) and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data. The new tree-ring evidence from Torneträsk suggests that this “Medieval Warm Period” in northern Fennoscandia was much warmer than previously recognized.

 

[a_unique_person]

tree-ring width

I thought Mr Climate Audit had said trees were no good.

 

[David Rodale]

AUP wrote:

the oceans are going through a la nina. That's a natural cycle of cooling.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Natural cycles? Didn't they go out the window with the sun? We can dig up the failed predictions of 2007 again if you'd like. Or maybe you'd like to? Only until late summer when it was quite apparent there would not be "record" temperatures did the AGW prophets give utterance.

How can there be cooling at all when CO2 is supposed to be trapping all that heat in the lower troposphere, which then supposedly re-emits IR (a fallacy) into the ocean? Let's ask some solar physicists why this isn't possible shall we? Can you provide experimental examples of IR in the 10-20 micron range that can heat water? I didn't think so. Of course you will find unsubstantiated (and unphysical) claims of ocean waves carrying the heat below the surface.

We now know the LT is not warming as AGW "science" says it should. We also know UAH data is the more accurate data set. AUP, why isn't the LT warming as AGW hypothesis says it should?[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]2002:
Met Office "new" weather prediction model.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/nwp/numerical/unified_model/new_dynamics.html

Science Daily May 2003:
"New" climate model.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030521092312.htm

January 4, 2007
2007 - forecast to be the warmest year yet
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070104.html

News release
11 April 2007
Met Office forecast for Summer 2007
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070411.html [/FONT]

The Met Office forecast of global mean temperature for 2007, issued on 4 January 2007 in conjunction with the University of East Anglia, stated that 2007 is likely to be the warmest ever year on record going back to 1850, beating the current record set in 1998.

August 2007:
We really mean it this time!
Another ‘new and improved’ climate model, but now it's accurate!
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...el&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Previous climate model projections of climate change accounted for external forcing from natural and anthropogenic sources but did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability. We present a new modeling system that predicts both internal variability and externally forced changes and hence forecasts surface temperature with substantially improved skill throughout a decade, both globally and in many regions. Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.

 

[David Rodale]

I understand your reluctance to participate. Hope springs eternal in an open-ended trial.

Remember Dr Dick and the 60-80 Arctic sea-ice cycle you found so appealing? Well, Dr Dick said (in effect) that if the sea-ice doesn't come back in the next two-to-seven years (actually five-to-ten, but that was in 2005) something serious is definitely going on. Seven years is 2015, which is about when Tamino's challenge is likely to be determined. Do you want to drop Dr Dick yet? You seemed so keen on him only last summer.



What hypothesis do you imagine it has favoured? What hypothesis do you think events have favoured?



Tamino does time series analysis, previously in astrophysics and now in the private sector. Whether he has any published papers I don't know. He does understand time series analysis, though.



And handing him his ass (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/exclamation-points/). Tamino apparently knows more about time series analysis than D'Aleo. D'Aleo's reactions to having his work picked apart have fallen a little short of professional.



You missed Singer and Gray. Are there many others? The Fortune 400 list wasn't exactly stuffed with published scientists in a relevant field, and some that were in there took exception.



He's a professional time-series analyst (at least in part). He understands statistics. Better than D'Aleo does - unless D'Aleo was playing fast-and-loose in the hope that no-one would notice, which is a far-fetched notion.



That'll come back to haunt you.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nameless, faceless anonymities appear to by your go-to sources now I see. How do you know anything at all about him? Who is Tamino? By his own definition he is illegitimate :
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16612221&postID=6202254865857420070&isPopup=true

The real litmus test for whether or not a scientist should be considered a legitimate member of the "climate" variety is whether or not they've published research in the peer-reviewed literature on climate science. If you look at the list of Hansen's or Mann's peer-reviewed publications then there's no doubt they fall into this category.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]You fail to mention how many times Tamino has had his handed to him at CA. Then there's Eli Rabbet who leaves his stinky droppings around the web and routinely gets his ears pinned back.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]So that's it Capeldodger? Anonymous bloggers, news articles and hopes of a future return to warming is your “refuge” (to coin your phrase)? [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Ever since I've been in this forum the mantra has been: it's going to continue to warm, the ice is melting, it's unprecedented, AGW has overcome natural variability, and on and on and on. Now that it's not working out, all you have left is hope, but after all AGW is a faith based religious exercise. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]It's pretty clear observations are not following AGW dogma wouldn't you agree? You still haven't given a reason why the lower troposphere is not warming. Well, why is it not warming? It should be. So should the oceans. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Why aren't the oceans warming? If CO2 is trapping all this heat, where is it going, in the missing sink with the CO2? [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]It's hard to admit the AGW house of cards are falling all around you isn't it? [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]What global climate model(s) predicted the current events? [/FONT]

 

[a_unique_person]

AUP wrote:


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Natural cycles? Didn't they go out the window with the sun? We can dig up the failed predictions of 2007 again if you'd like. Or maybe you'd like to? Only until late summer when it was quite apparent there would not be "record" temperatures did the AGW prophets give utterance. [/FONT]

Natural cycles are a feature of climate. "Failed predictions"? The predictions are always given with a qualification, IIRC we still can't predict the El Nino and La Nina cycles. The La Nina this year was a cooling event.

 

[CapelDodger]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nameless, faceless anonymities appear to by your go-to sources now I see. How do you know anything at all about him? Who is Tamino? By his own definition he is illegitimate : [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16612221&postID=6202254865857420070&isPopup=true[/FONT]

I've lined up behind Taminos's challenge, and I don't do that lightly. Do you want to line up behind the "warming has stopped" option that you seem so convinced of? You've got charts and stuff, presented with more than a hint of fury. But have you got the cojones?

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

You fail to mention how many times Tamino has had his handed to him at CA. Then there's Eli Rabbet who leaves his stinky droppings around the web and routinely gets his ears pinned back.

[/FONT]

Nobody gives a toss about CA. And what's with the weird font? I expect it from Rocifale, but it's new for you.

 

[CapelDodger]

Natural cycles are a feature of climate. "Failed predictions"? The predictions are always given with a qualification, IIRC we still can't predict the El Nino and La Nina cycles. The La Nina this year was a cooling event.

Not so much because any heat is lost, more because the heat is accumulated in the Western Pacific, to be released in the next El Nino. And there will be a next El Nino, almost certainly by 2015.

 

[varwoche]

The Met Office forecast of global mean temperature for 2007, issued on 4 January 2007 in conjunction with the University of East Anglia, stated that 2007 is likely to be the warmest ever year on record going back to 1850, beating the current record set in 1998.

It turns out that 2007 was the second hottest.

Which means the prediction was pretty darn accurate.

This goes to show how reasonable you are, sharing with readers how accurate the Met Office was despite that you've been critical of them. Right?

 

[fsol]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Megaladon,[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]You seem to have a mental block. Below is what I was demonstrating in very simple terms, that being the trend was changing and is now flat. It is quite obvious that even with the data staring you straight in the face you can't see it. Spencer's graph is essentially saying the same thing! The only thing you've done thus far is show you have no affinity to analyze data. By your logic, temperatures could drop for the next 20 years and you could technically claim it's still warming because the “trend” would still show a positive sign. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

No. Go read Tamino's "bet." You, on the other hand seem to find solace in the weather.

No offense, but your long hours spent creating impressive looking graphs and charts do not change the fact there is no warming. You are wasting your time.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I believe this was my original graphs posted showing the change in trends based on Sep to Sep years.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]It was nothing spectacular, but you acquired OCD some reason and cannot seem to let it go.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Lyman et al have already shown in their corrected paper the oceans did not warm between 2003 and early 2006. At that time you criticized me for that at which time I stated while you were busy learning how to create graphs, I was patiently waiting for Lyman's correction. The oceans are not accumulating heat, got it? No additional heating of oceans, no global warming.You lose.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]My three charts:[/FONT]
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_103234716be0c414dd.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_103234716bfaacc782.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_103234716bfd375ab8.jpg

Yup, each of those graphs still shows a rising trend.

I'd say Spencer is somewhat qualified to comment on temperatures wouldn't you agree?
Here it is again, flat:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032347a7b863b1f34.jpg

What is the justification for those plotting those trends, other than it agrees with what he wishes were true?

I'm not a micro-manager, tend to be a bit lazy and prefer to delegate work to others, so will use the following to further illustrate your apparent lack of attention to detail. If you still can't see what's going on, maybe a linear regression bar chart would help, but like I said, I'm lazy:
It's warming?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032347a931383a5aa.jpg

That says nothing about climate. Weather is a different thing.

Would you care to pull up the latest SST data from HadCRU please? Oh, and get me a cup of coffee too. And while you're at it, dig up the ice extent data as well. Ok, you may as well locate the snow extent too. See, I am lazy.

 

[Megalodon]

Dear mhaze:

All my graphs where made using the database provided by David. It's been like this since September. All the graphs I present are my own, unless I state otherwise. Of course, you knew this already, since it was stated a number of times, but you decided to accuse me of what you and David do in a routine basis. That's called projection.


Dear David Rodale:

You seem to have a problem with reality. The simple fact that you imagine that my graphs would take hours to make tells me that you have a problem with data analysis also.
The graphs speak for themselves... The temperature baseline in the 21st century is over 0.2ºC above the climatology. To try to spin that into "it's not warming since 2001" is ridiculous. I don't care who is the new guy saying that the sky isn't blue, the fact is that it is. Likewise, I don't care who's saying that is not warming this season, because it's obvious that it is, for anyone that's looking at the data.

Now, the question is, will it cool down in the near future? If I remember correctly, you were betting that 2007 would be much cooler that 2006 and would start a cooling trend. You were wrong on the first one, I don't see you getting it right in the second. After all, you got every one of your claims wrong in our latest discussion, with the data. So forgive me, Nostradamus, but I'll take a rain check on your predictions.

 

[Pipirr]

Megalodon, that is a beautiful graph. Tufte-esque.
Made with Surfer?

 

[Megalodon]

Megalodon, that is a beautiful graph.

Oh, thank you

Made with Surfer?

Yes, labored hours upon hours on it... or minutes, one of the two Surfer is a hell of a program... brilliant, really.

Actually it took longer to turn the graph into an acceptable sized jpg than to make the graph itself.

 

[mhaze]

I've lined up behind Taminos's challenge, and I don't do that lightly. Do you want to line up behind the "warming has stopped" option that you seem so convinced of? You've got charts and stuff, presented with more than a hint of fury. But have you got the cojones?

Nobody gives a toss about CA. And what's with the weird font? I expect it from Rocifale, but it's new for you.

By all means line up and march behind the anonymous internet blogger you have found who agrees with you, CD. That is, behind someone who as far as we can tell, has published no peer reviewed papers and whom is not a climatologist. My, my. Even "oil company businessmen" (smear phrase, of course, referring to McIntyre) are published.

Regarding Tamino's criticism of D'Aleo there are a couple of points worth making.

• Tamino does not seem to like the 11 year smoothing of data. I didn't see him complaining (or you) when Lockwood and Frolich used 11 year smoothing of solar data (Lockwood and Frolich, 2007). Hmm....
• Tamino runs a moderated blog and is quite open about snipping "denier" comments. Where is D'Aleo's reply to Tamino's criticsm of his work? It can't exist. You don't have a conversation there. You have a bunch of cuts and snips (by Tamino) to make Tamino look good.

But I'm glad you've found a new leader, in any case. RC and Gristmill were getting rather old. Skeptics were easily beating down all the various arguments over there.

Exploring the merits of "you bet", it is quite interesting. Warmologists can ascribe to "you bet" and thus continue to believe in warming for an indeterminate number of years. That allows disregarding all the contrary scientific articles published during the next few years, doesn't it?

Well, is there any need for you to discuss the science anymore?

 

[Megalodon]

You are wasting your time.

Only in the sense that you won't learn. But others might.

It was nothing spectacular, but you acquired OCD some reason and cannot seem to let it go.

Actually, you are selling yourself short. It was the most spectacular collection of easily disprovable claims I've seen in a long time.

Lyman et al have already shown in their corrected paper the oceans did not warm between 2003 and early 2006. At that time you criticized me for that at which time I stated while you were busy learning how to create graphs, I was patiently waiting for Lyman's correction. The oceans are not accumulating heat, got it? No additional heating of oceans, no global warming.You lose.

You failed to understand the paper then, and persist in doing so. I would only lose if I wasted my time trying to educate you again.

I'd say Spencer is somewhat qualified to comment on temperatures wouldn't you agree?

You're mistaking me for someone who cares.

Here it is again, flat:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032347a7b863b1f34.jpg[/qimg]

Yes, flat... 0.5ºC above climatology!

BTW, your qualified friend can't label the axis of a graph. The yy is not a warming, but a temperature anomaly. The data behaves exactly like the database you linked to, but the range is different. Not impressive, at least in a positive sense

...but like I said, I'm lazy:

[Python] You're a loony! [/Python]

 

[fsol]

By all means line up and march behind the anonymous internet blogger you have found who agrees with you, CD. That is, behind someone who as far as we can tell, has published no peer reviewed papers and whom is not a climatologist. My, my. Even "oil company businessmen" (smear phrase, of course, referring to McIntyre) are published.

Regarding Tamino's criticism of D'Aleo there are a couple of points worth making.

• Tamino does not seem to like the 11 year smoothing of data. I didn't see him complaining (or you) when Lockwood and Frolich used 11 year smoothing of solar data (Lockwood and Frolich, 2007). Hmm....
• Tamino runs a moderated blog and is quite open about snipping "denier" comments. Where is D'Aleo's reply to Tamino's criticsm of his work? It can't exist. You don't have a conversation there. You have a bunch of cuts and snips (by Tamino) to make Tamino look good.

That'd be here then

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/exclamation-points/#comment-12705

Compare the tone of the two of them. Who is being more reasonable?

But I'm glad you've found a new leader, in any case. RC and Gristmill were getting rather old. Skeptics were easily beating down all the various arguments over there.

You actually believe that? Wow.

Exploring the merits of "you bet", it is quite interesting. Warmologists can ascribe to "you bet" and thus continue to believe in warming for an indeterminate number of years. That allows disregarding all the contrary scientific articles published during the next few years, doesn't it?

Well, is there any need for you to discuss the science anymore?

Read the post, an indeterminate number of years doesn't really tally with what the bet actually suggests.

By the end of 2015, it is in fact likely but by no means certain that one or the other side will have won. Eventually, the two regions get far enough apart that it’s certain to happen. In fact, by 2028 we’re sure to have two years outside the limits of one or the other side, so the bet can’t take longer than 2028 to be decided. But this test isn’t based on a particular future year; it’s possible (but highly unlikely) that either side could win if 2008 and 2009 both fall into its winning region.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/

Of course having read the post and understood it you must already have known that, right? Perhaps this is another of your 'slight exaggerations?' But what could possibly be the reason behind such exaggerations if you are trying to have an honest discussion?

 

[mhaze]

That'd be here then

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/exclamation-points/#comment-12705

Compare the tone of the two of them. Who is being more reasonable?

Good question. Here is an excerpt.

And finally Joseph D’Aleo is my real name. Why do you and Eli hide behind pseudonyms? [edit] [Response: I was hoping you’d respond. I was also hoping your response wouldn’t be quite so pathetic.]

In another place Tamino says -

Try to be polite, try to be relevant, try to be logical, try to be honest. Reprehensible posts will be deleted, and that includes personal attacks on Jim Hansen, Mike Mann, etc. Criticize the work, not the man, and that goes for advocates too — if you want to discuss S. Fred Singer or Patrick Michaels or Bob Carter, talk about the work not the man.


Yet elsewheres he shows a lot of anger, even at one point accusing D'Aleo of being a liar.

So who is being more reasonable? Or is it just plain inconsistency?

 

[Pipirr]

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/exclamation-points/#comment-12705

Compare the tone of the two of them. Who is being more reasonable?

That whole conversation might have been avoided in the first place if D'Aleo had put his 'paper' through peer review. Like a real scientist would.

Its jolly nice, really, for Tamino to to take the time to review it for him.

 

[David Rodale]

I've lined up behind Taminos's challenge, and I don't do that lightly. Do you want to line up behind the "warming has stopped" option that you seem so convinced of? You've got charts and stuff, presented with more than a hint of fury. But have you got the cojones?



Nobody gives a toss about CA. And what's with the weird font? I expect it from Rocifale, but it's new for you.

I guess we'll just have to continue monitoring the coming months to see what happens won't we?


Nobody cares about CA, yet that's where actual real scientists go, both friend and foe. Compare that to the barstools that hang out at RC.

Hmm, nobody cares about CA:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2697

I’m going to Georgia Tech for a couple of days at the kind invitation of JEG (Julien Emile-Geay), Judith Curry and Kim Cobb. I’ll be presenting at their Friday afternoon EAS seminar series (www.eas.gatech.edu/school/seminars/) (3:30 to 4:30), which is geared towards a broad scientific audience. JEG says - “think grad students who don’t necessarily major in the nitty gritty details of statistical climatology”. In addition, I’ll be spending time with each of the protagonists, plus the students of the Hockey Stick class, plus two dinners out. So it should be fun.
I’ve given invited presentations to a National Academy of Sciences panel, a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, an AGU Union session, but I’ve never given a presentation to a university seminar before. So this will be my first university seminar presentation.

Maybe Tamino and Eli Rabbet should attend and straighten him out. I'd imagine attire is important, but they could still go incognito:

Edited by Darat: 

Rule 4 breach removed.

 

[fsol]

Good question. Here is an excerpt.

And finally Joseph D’Aleo is my real name. Why do you and Eli hide behind pseudonyms? [edit] [Response: I was hoping you’d respond. I was also hoping your response wouldn’t be quite so pathetic.]

In another place Tamino says -

Try to be polite, try to be relevant, try to be logical, try to be honest. Reprehensible posts will be deleted, and that includes personal attacks on Jim Hansen, Mike Mann, etc. Criticize the work, not the man, and that goes for advocates too — if you want to discuss S. Fred Singer or Patrick Michaels or Bob Carter, talk about the work not the man.


Yet elsewheres he shows a lot of anger, even at one point accusing D'Aleo of being a liar.

So who is being more reasonable? Or is it just plain inconsistency?

Tamino criticised the work and then D'aleo comes back with "Maybe you never had a real job and had to work with real data to make real forecasts that had to satisfy real clients to make real money...."


So just who was attacking who?

It is nice to see that you apparently have no answer to the rest of my post though. I wonder what to make of that...

 

[CapelDodger]

By all means line up and march behind the anonymous internet blogger you have found who agrees with you, CD. That is, behind someone who as far as we can tell, has published no peer reviewed papers and whom is not a climatologist. My, my. Even "oil company businessmen" (smear phrase, of course, referring to McIntyre) are published.

Are you refusing to read Tamino's blog posts because you don't regard him as an authority? That would explain some things - such as your evidence ignorance of what Tamino's challenge is.

Regarding Tamino's criticism of D'Aleo there are a couple of points worth making.

• Tamino does not seem to like the 11 year smoothing of data. I didn't see him complaining (or you) when Lockwood and Frolich used 11 year smoothing of solar data (Lockwood and Frolich, 2007). Hmm....
• Tamino runs a moderated blog and is quite open about snipping "denier" comments. Where is D'Aleo's reply to Tamino's criticsm of his work? It can't exist. You don't have a conversation there. You have a bunch of cuts and snips (by Tamino) to make Tamino look good.

And it would also explain those things. Tamino explains why 11-year smoothing in correlation analysis is problematic because it introduces large-scale auto-correlation.

D'Aleo's responses can be seen on the thread, linked to by fsol. Your characterisation of Tamino is clearly invalid, but unsurprising. After all, he say sthings you don't want to hear and supports them with sound statistical analysis. That's harsh.

But I'm glad you've found a new leader, in any case. RC and Gristmill were getting rather old. Skeptics were easily beating down all the various arguments over there.

At least you're admitting that sceptical posts can be made at RC, which seems to be a shift in your belief system.

Exploring the merits of "you bet", it is quite interesting. Warmologists can ascribe to "you bet" and thus continue to believe in warming for an indeterminate number of years. That allows disregarding all the contrary scientific articles published during the next few years, doesn't it?

It's entirely separate from what Pielke and Baliunas publish in the next few years. The challenge is really to those who believe global warming has stopped, we've reached the peak of a natural cycle, and there's been no warming in the 21stCE. I take it that's not part of your belief system, since you don't want to commit yourself.

Well, is there any need for you to discuss the science anymore?

I have to do something while I'm waiting for annual temperatures to get above 2005's. The next two-to-seven years should see that. Apart from anything else, I'm interested in what new mantra will replace "global warming has stopped". I'm thinking it'll be something arcane about Solar Cycles, but I'm not going to bet on it. Nor on the long-shot that AGW will become acceptable when it can be blamed on China.