Simple Question About AGW

[mhaze]

Publication in a peer reviewed journal.

Well, then we would have to cut and chop Pipirr's suggestion, the IPCC reference. It isn't from a peer reviewed journal.

Shall we?

 

[a_unique_person]

Oh yes Varoche, you must always choose that which best supports your view rather than the most accurate. It is also interesting that Hansen is now the outlier

Shall we dig up all the studies showing the warm bias in the surface station network?

So Varoche, please explain how the surface, based on AGW hypothesis, can warm more and faster than the lower troposphere. That is diametrically opposed to AGW, I'm sure you know that. You do understand what the hypotheses say?

Megalodon, please link to the post where I said 2007 would be much cooler than 2006. Thank you.

The errors in the ground stations are taken into account already.

 

[mhaze]

The errors in the ground stations are taken into account already.

Except for the errors not accounted for, of course.

We wouldn't want to forget about those.

(Pielke and Matsui 2005 and Lin et al. 2007), a conservative estimate of the warm bias resulting from measuring the temperature near the ground is around 0.21 C per decade (with the nightime T(min) contributing a large part of this bias). Since land covers about 29% of the Earth’s surface, the warm bias due to this influence explains about 30% of the IPCC estimate of global warming. In other words, consideration of the bias in temperature would reduce the IPCC trend to about 0.14 degrees C per decade, still a warming, but not as large as indicated by the IPCC.
​

Some discussion at www.icecap.us ”Difficulties With the Use of Observed Nocturnal Warming Trends as a Measure of Climate Trends.

Also Piekle.

A Serious Problem With The Use Of A Global Average Surface Temperature Anomaly To Diagnose Global Warming - Part I

“The definition of the global average surface temperature used by the IPCC and others can be expressed as

dH/dt = f -T’/λ​

where H is the heat content of the land-ocean-atmosphere system, f is the radiative forcing (i.e. the radiative imbalance), T’ is the change global average surface temperature in response to the change in H, and λ is called the “climate feedback” parameter which defines the rate at which the climate system returns forcing to space as infrared radiation and/or as changes in reflected solar radiation (such as from changes in clouds, sea ice, snow, vegetation, etc).”​

One of our conclusions is​

“In constructing a global average of T’, its spatial distribution matters since T’ in regions with a baseline colder temperature have a significantly smaller effect on the return of heat energy to space (through infrared emission) than regions with a warmer baseline temperature.”​

​

 

[varwoche]

Oh yes Varoche, you must always choose that which best supports your view rather than the most accurate. It is also interesting that Hansen is now the outlier

Outlier? Not that I'm aware of. Here, according to NOAA 2007 was the 5th hottest year on record.

Shall we dig up all the studies showing the warm bias in the surface station network?

So Varoche, please explain how the surface, based on AGW hypothesis, can warm more and faster than the lower troposphere. That is diametrically opposed to AGW, I'm sure you know that. You do understand what the hypotheses say?

You can wave your arms until you achieve flight but it won't change the fact that you were wrong about 2007.

 

[mhaze]

So Varoche, please explain how the surface, based on AGW hypothesis, can warm more and faster than the lower troposphere. That is diametrically opposed to AGW, I'm sure you know that. You do understand what the hypotheses say?
​

You can wave your arms until you achieve flight but it won't change the fact that you were wrong about 2007.

So that part of the AGW hypothesis cannot be correct, and Varoche does not want to talk about it?

 

[David Rodale]

Outlier? Not that I'm aware of. Here, according to NOAA 2007 was the 5th hottest year on record.

You can wave your arms until you achieve flight but it won't change the fact that you were wrong about 2007.

Higher temperatures are always the accurate data isn't it Varoche?

What did I say about 2007 again? Please quote me, it would be interesting knowing what I said. Did I say it was going to be cooler than any previous year? I do recall making comments last Fall based on the information at the time that temperatures were likely going down. Have they gone down?

Just so this is on the record, are you saying GISS (Hansen) has the more accurate temperature data set? Are you saying GISS is not diverging from other products?

And also for the record, are you saying there are no significant issues with the surface station network?

Are satellite measurements of the lower troposphere accurate and precise? Is UAH or RSS the more reliable product? Why are surface temperatures rising at a higher trend trend than LT?

Varoche, there are many articles pertaining to issues with the surface station network. Would you please answer the above questions so we have an understanding of what your position is?

Thanks.

 

[zooterkin]

So that part of the AGW hypothesis cannot be correct, and Varoche does not want to talk about it?

Higher temperatures are always the accurate data isn't it Varoche?

It's varwoche, guys.

 

[fsol]

Except for the errors not accounted for, of course.

We wouldn't want to forget about those.

(Pielke and Matsui 2005 and Lin et al. 2007), a conservative estimate of the warm bias resulting from measuring the temperature near the ground is around 0.21 C per decade (with the nightime T(min) contributing a large part of this bias). Since land covers about 29% of the Earth’s surface, the warm bias due to this influence explains about 30% of the IPCC estimate of global warming. In other words, consideration of the bias in temperature would reduce the IPCC trend to about 0.14 degrees C per decade, still a warming, but not as large as indicated by the IPCC.
​

Some discussion at www.icecap.us ”Difficulties With the Use of Observed Nocturnal Warming Trends as a Measure of Climate Trends.

Also Piekle.

A Serious Problem With The Use Of A Global Average Surface Temperature Anomaly To Diagnose Global Warming - Part I

“The definition of the global average surface temperature used by the IPCC and others can be expressed as

dH/dt = f -T’/λ​

where H is the heat content of the land-ocean-atmosphere system, f is the radiative forcing (i.e. the radiative imbalance), T’ is the change global average surface temperature in response to the change in H, and λ is called the “climate feedback” parameter which defines the rate at which the climate system returns forcing to space as infrared radiation and/or as changes in reflected solar radiation (such as from changes in clouds, sea ice, snow, vegetation, etc).”​

One of our conclusions is​

“In constructing a global average of T’, its spatial distribution matters since T’ in regions with a baseline colder temperature have a significantly smaller effect on the return of heat energy to space (through infrared emission) than regions with a warmer baseline temperature.”​

​

You should go read Rabett on this second one.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-functions-belong-to-firm-of-mclaren.html

raypierre and lucia's comments might also be worth looking at.

 

[varwoche]

Higher temperatures are always the accurate data isn't it Varoche?

Higher than what? I've cited data from NASA and NOAA that indicates that 2007 was the 2nd or 5th hottest year (respectively). If there is another source you'd like me to consider, by all means cite it.

What did I say about 2007 again? Please quote me, it would be interesting knowing what I said.

Do you recall which thread it was?

And also for the record, are you saying there are no significant issues with the surface station network? Are satellite measurements of the lower troposphere accurate and precise? Is UAH or RSS the more reliable product? Why are surface temperatures rising at a higher trend trend than LT? Varoche, there are many articles pertaining to issues with the surface station network. Would you please answer the above questions so we have an understanding of what your position is?

News flash: Even if you are a circus master (of Cirque De Bacon?), I'm not a trained bear. So how about sticking to the topic of our discussion, namely the temperature in 2007.

So again, if there is another source you'd like me to consider, by all means cite it. (Or not. I don't think one year is all that significant. You're the one who was going on about 2007.) Thanks.

 

[mhaze]

You should go read Rabett on this second one.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-functions-belong-to-firm-of-mclaren.html

raypierre and lucia's comments might also be worth looking at.

I most certainly will read these non peer reviewed discussions of the above mentioned peer reviewed article. Thanks for the reference!

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by fsol
You should go read Rabett on this second one.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/a...f-mclaren.html
raypierre and lucia's comments might also be worth looking at.
​

I most certainly will read these non peer reviewed discussions of the above mentioned peer reviewed article. Thanks for the reference!

Okay, I've now ploughed through a couple of pages of that, and I'm quitting at this comment -

raypierre said... It's good that somebody corrected the algebra error in Eli's exposition
​

No offense, but it looks like...well, how shall I put it....amateurs. It'd be nice if people really, really checked their math before posting it. These guys are batting back and forth basic algebra and can't get it right.

How about some peer reviewed criticisms?

Maybe Piekle's hypothesis is correct and surface temperatures are overstated. Let's see....instead of jumping to criticize "the denier, Piekle" let's just see where his line of inquiry may lead. Back to the interchange between Varwoche and Davide Rodale -

David Rodale: So Varoche, please explain how the surface, based on AGW hypothesis, can warm more and faster than the lower troposphere. That is diametrically opposed to AGW, I'm sure you know that. You do understand what the hypotheses say?
​

Varwoche: You can wave your arms until you achieve flight but it won't change the fact that you were wrong about 2007.
​

Mhaze: So that part of the AGW hypothesis cannot be correct, and Varoche does not want to talk about it?

Is Piekle's hypothesis a possible answer to the riddle posted by David Rodale?

Easy enough to check that, as it only requires lining up the surface temperatures after the proposed corrections with the MSU lower troposphere temperatures. Of course this line of thought has other implications.... <double click to enlarge any graphic>

 

[a_unique_person]

It seems to me to be 99% curve fitting by the deniers these days. No physical basis for their claims, but an incredible industry is being applied to finding a correlation to anything, anywhere, even the CIA fact book.

If Pielke is correct about his land use affecting climate, (and land use does affect climate and is already incorporated into the science), why did it cool between the '50s and '70s?

 

[CapelDodger]

It seems to me to be 99% curve fitting by the deniers these days. No physical basis for their claims, but an incredible industry is being applied to finding a correlation to anything, anywhere, even the CIA fact book.

It's almost a mirror-image of the scientific approach. Science predicted, and denialists denied. To the extent that denial was a prediction it was a prediction that what has happened wasn't likely. yet there it is. Do they go hands up? Do they heck as like, they start data-mining for correlations.

(I'll lump the CIA fact book in with the Bible Code. Seek, and ye shall find. Predict, and you may be found out.)

If Pielke is correct about his land use affecting climate, (and land use does affect climate and is already incorporated into the science), why did it cool between the '50s and '70s?

Stalinists. It's obvious. Power slipped from their grasp into the hands of the next-generation nomenklatura during the 70's. Operation "General Winter" (General Winter saved Stalin's ass in 1941/42, after all) was closed down and climate got back onto its natural track. Stands to reason.

 

[CapelDodger]

Do you recall which thread it was?

That's a challenge. They do spring up like poppies on an Afghan field, don't they?

 

[DanishDynamite]

I recently read this article. It recounts how there seems to be an alternative explanation for GW, published in peer reviewed articles no less.

Anyone here have any view on these results?

 

[CapelDodger]

I recently read this article. It recounts how there seems to be an alternative explanation for GW, published in peer reviewed articles no less.

Anyone here have any view on these results?

"Humans are having an effect on climate change, but by not including the cosmic ray effect in models it means the results are inaccurate.The size of man's impact may be much smaller and so the man-made change is happening slower than predicted.""

(my empahsis)

Notice the "may be" and the following "is"?

May be followed by might I could live with. Not "is".

And where's the evidence that AGW is happening slower than predicted?

There's no evidence that the atmosphere isn't already saturated with nucleation particles, nor of any cloud effect kicking-in, nor of any trend in cosmic rays (positive or negative, a non-AGW hypothesis hs been dreamt up for each) during the current warming period.

Move along, folks. Nothing to be seen here. The cosmic ray thing is a broken reed.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's varwoche, guys.

They're trying to reduce varwoche's Google rating. It's a conspiracy, so it is .

 

[DanishDynamite]

(my empahsis)

Notice the "may be" and the following "is"?

May be followed by might I could live with. Not "is".

And where's the evidence that AGW is happening slower than predicted?

There's no evidence that the atmosphere isn't already saturated with nucleation particles, nor of any cloud effect kicking-in, nor of any trend in cosmic rays (positive or negative, a non-AGW hypothesis hs been dreamt up for each) during the current warming period.

Move along, folks. Nothing to be seen here. The cosmic ray thing is a broken reed.

In short, you have no refutation to offer.

Anyone else?

 

[fsol]

Okay, I've now ploughed through a couple of pages of that, and I'm quitting at this comment -

raypierre said... It's good that somebody corrected the algebra error in Eli's exposition
​

No offense, but it looks like...well, how shall I put it....amateurs. It'd be nice if people really, really checked their math before posting it. These guys are batting back and forth basic algebra and can't get it right.

A bit like Mcintyre then really isn't it. He can't even seem to read the paper he is supposedly auditing. The difference being of course that Eli leaves an edit trail so people can see what's going on.

How about some peer reviewed criticisms?

How about you actually take on board the large amount of peer reviewed science that doesn't gel with your worldview, instead of cherrypicking your way through the orchard and then exaggerating the conclusions of even that.

Maybe Piekle's hypothesis is correct and surface temperatures are overstated. Let's see....instead of jumping to criticize "the denier, Piekle" let's just see where his line of inquiry may lead. Back to the interchange between Varwoche and Davide Rodale -

David Rodale: So Varoche, please explain how the surface, based on AGW hypothesis, can warm more and faster than the lower troposphere. That is diametrically opposed to AGW, I'm sure you know that. You do understand what the hypotheses say?
​

Varwoche: You can wave your arms until you achieve flight but it won't change the fact that you were wrong about 2007.
​

Mhaze: So that part of the AGW hypothesis cannot be correct, and Varoche does not want to talk about it?

Is Piekle's hypothesis a possible answer to the riddle posted by David Rodale?

Easy enough to check that, as it only requires lining up the surface temperatures after the proposed corrections with the MSU lower troposphere temperatures. Of course this line of thought has other implications.... <double click to enlarge any graphic>

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_14224476190301dd1a.png

There was me thinking that the troposphere was warming as predicted. Every so often someone comes round and says it isn''t and then when people go and look, hey presto it is. I'm pretty sure that's how this particular story goes anyway. It has been a while since the last time afterall.

 

[jsfisher]

I recently read this article. It recounts how there seems to be an alternative explanation for GW, published in peer reviewed articles no less.

Anyone here have any view on these results?

This part fascinates me:

A team of more than 60 scientists from around the world are preparing to conduct a large-scale experiment using a particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, to replicate the effect of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

They hope this will prove whether this deep space radiation is responsible for changing cloud cover. If so, it could force climate scientists to re-evaluate their ideas about how global warming occurs.

It should be interesting to hear more on the results of the such experiments and what consequences the results suggest. (The "will prove" I assume is a journalist's interpretation.)