Simple Question About AGW

[mhaze]

You love calling me names, don't you CD.

AUP made a specific point that solar influences have not contributed to the recently recorded phenomenon. Again, for completeness, this is what he said...... which is a bit like trying to have your cake and eat it too. And, worse, it's unsubstantiated.

Want a source? Here ya go:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif

If this construct is accurate, you can't conclude what AUP has. Period. All name-calling aside. Or, do you want to now call NOAA a bunch of liars/deniers/asses?-Dr. Imago

Warmers have argued that solar cannot account for global temperature rise since 1950, and your graph does show flat from then forward. Warmers look for solar to produce an immediate and dramatic effect, not any effect delayed by years or decades.

For CO2 they have all kinds of nuanced delayed effects, and can blame or attribute most anything on CO2.

For the last decade and the current solar minima, It is hard to not attribute some part of the current level temperatures to solar. How much is open to question.

 

[Dr. Imago]

For the last decade and the current solar minima, It is hard to not attribute some part of the current level temperatures to solar. How much is open to question.

However, the graph may possibly support the hypothesis that CO2 increases follow warming, not the other way around. And, if the oceans are indeed acting as one large "solar capacitor", this may account (in part) for the observations at Mauna Loa that higher fractions of CO2 are being recorded at that station.

More questions than answers...

-Dr. Imago

 

[David Rodale]

Capeldodger said:

Siberia is warm

 

[David Rodale]

However, the graph may possibly support the hypothesis that CO2 increases follow warming, not the other way around. And, if the oceans are indeed acting as one large "solar capacitor", this may account (in part) for the observations at Mauna Loa that higher fractions of CO2 are being recorded at that station.

More questions than answers...

-Dr. Imago

Better still, wouldn't it be nice if someone would answer as to why the lower troposphere isn't warming as "the" climate models dictate? How can it ever cool if CO2 has such powerful heat retaining abilities?

CO2 AGW promoter's axiom:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]1) the models are always wrong but they keep correcting them every couple of years to fit what really happens.
2) you can't disprove a scientific theory.[/FONT]
3) the science is settled

 

[mhaze]

Better still, wouldn't it be nice if someone would answer as to why the lower troposphere isn't warming as "the" climate models dictate? How can it ever cool if CO2 has such powerful heat retaining abilities?

The total heat in the troposphere shows the actual amount of the greenhouse effect. If it isn't that much heat, it ain't that big a greenhouse effect. That's what we have, it seems.

No way to argue from authority - the authority is the actual middle troposphere temperature, not some UN agency.

Since this agrees with Schwartz's concepts on ocean heat capacity, where do we go from here? Looks like the case is getting pretty solid. Multiple lines of evidence with mutual, interlocking conclusions that agree nicely.

Douglass, Schwartz, Singer, Christy, Tsonis.

Did I miss any?

 

[bobdroege7]

You love calling me names, don't you CD.

AUP made a specific point that solar influences have not contributed to the recently recorded phenomenon. Again, for completeness, this is what he said...



... which is a bit like trying to have your cake and eat it too. And, worse, it's unsubstantiated.

Want a source? Here ya go:

[qimg]http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif[/qimg]

If this construct is accurate, you can't conclude what AUP has. Period. All name-calling aside. Or, do you want to now call NOAA a bunch of liars/deniers/asses?

-Dr. Imago

Any reason why this graph ends in 2001, when in this very thread other posters have shown more recent data?

 

[zeusbheld]

What Capeldodger does not tell you is that these charts have been discussed on this forum before including various references and supporting studies.

i asked *you*. don't pass the buck. you are the one making a claim. i'm new here, and wondering why you and Rodale consistently fail to contextualize the graphs you provide. if, EVERY time you post a graph, you can provide a link to its original context, i'm sure i'm not the only one who would be grateful. seems like common sense to me. apparently not.

Also, if you both can provide links to these threads you reference i'd be grateful.

at present i'm neither AGW skeptic nor believer, more like AGW agnostic. i expect to stay that way for some time as the math for modeling climate is.... complicated.

*your* tactics look dodgy, but perhaps you are just sincerely assuming a greater familiarity with the material in question? nonetheless it sure looks like a lack of full disclosure.

what i have noticed the considerable shortage of AGW skeptic papers in relevant peer review journals. so in short, i'm inclined to believe, based on skimming peer-reviewed journals, that a majority of relevant scientists are inclined toward AGW, but that doesn't prove it's happening, does it. as far as i can it certainly hasn't been proven yet, but it certainly hasn't been disproven either.

in short, my position is, "i don't know." if i were a policymaker i'd feel more inclined to investigate until i have a position. but i'm not. as an individual, i expect my 'carbon footprint' is less than most who are adamant about AGW--but for reasons having nothing to do with AGW (i don't own a car as i live in a city and dont' need or want one, among other things).

As for requesting a reference to Rodale's graph, sheesh. That's just the old CO2 trend and two major temperature series. Which everyone should already accept.

ALL charts and graphs should be referenced, as it is incredibly easy to doctor data when plotting it to support any claim made. i know next to nothing about the science involved, but i DO know how to massage data when plotting it. i worked in the graphics department of an investment bank for a while; my JOB was to show whatever trend was desired by the banker.

all the graphs you guys are posting look specious, at best. that may be only because plotted trends without supporting justification set off my alarm bells.

So this is a chart of basic raw data, rather than a chart which forms a correlation or a conclusion from that data.

the first graph you present is most definitely NOT 'basic raw data' there is a trend curve clearly marked on it. was that a deliberate attempt to con me, or don't you know what "basic raw data" is?

where is it from? it says AFTER Kyatshorin and Lyubushin, does this mean if i find the paper by these people (the one you still refuse to link to; i did NOT see it in the K + L paper you linked to) i'll get the contextual info for this graph, or did you take the graph from some OTHER article which relies on K +L?

The chart I presented does form a conclusion, by noting a high correlation of the sinusoidal curve with the raw temperature data. The source is given below -

again, the source is NOT given bellow, and b) after they rather efficiently (i didnt do the math, but it looked purty good) establish the correlation of the sinusoidal curve with raw temperature data they say

The concept of generating forecasts of anthropogenic climate change and consequent changes in fish production is beyond the scope of this study.

call me naive, but i tend to interpret 'beyond the scope' as 'no comment.' Is that why you never show things in their original context? if you're trying to convince me that your'e trying to con me, you're doing a GREAT job.

I took this graph and marked it up to indicate some of the alleged trends and what I thought were more realistic. The issues that it shows are not that "there is or is not global warming" but...

1. Charts are often made starting in 1900 and ending in the current, these exaggerate warming by starting at a low and ending at a high. (Red line wrong, blue line right).
2. Charts for recent decades often have shown a linear continuation of warming which is not happening. (Purple line wrong, current climate is following the black line)
3. Tsonis 2007 and several other scientists, including the arthors of the study from which the 60-80 year chart was made, indicate that temperatures should go down in the next decades, not up.
4. Hansen, Gore and other climate alarmists started agitating largely in 1988 and have been riding a known, predictable upward trend of temperature due to natural causes while promoting it as due to man's CO2 emissions. That upward trend is now over and the temperatures are stable and or declining.
5. The chart acknowledges a trend toward a increase in temperature over the last century.

Does that answer your question?

no; for one thing, the paper *you* link to (no i didn't go through it and to the math) claims the climate oscillates, but explicitly makes no claims regarding an overall long-term trend.
Secondly, you make a lot of trend claims with NO links to supporting evidence and did you at least skim through the K+L paper and notice all that math supporting their claims? apparently not, as you've taken the liberty of drawing trendlines with a crayola (or the photoshop version thereof).

Again, from the paper *you* linked to, in case you missed it the first time:

The concept of generating forecasts of anthropogenic climate change and consequent changes in fish production is beyond the scope of this study.

yet you dare to tread where the authors don't, without the need for dozens of pages of tedious math, apparently? you lost me there.

I draw your attention to two sets of summary graphs and note that R = 0.80 to 0.90 for all series studied by these scientists.

and this is enough for *you* to draw a conclusion the authors of the paper don't? wow i'm impressed.

In conclusion: please play fair. if you're gonna toss charts and graphs around, please link to the original context.[/i] i'm not saying you're a snake oil salesman, necessrarily.. but right now, you *are* wearin' the uniform. note that my mistrust of your posts is partially based on your response in the simpler question about AGW" thread.

 

[a_unique_person]

You love calling me names, don't you CD.

AUP made a specific point that solar influences have not contributed to the recently recorded phenomenon. Again, for completeness, this is what he said...



... which is a bit like trying to have your cake and eat it too. And, worse, it's unsubstantiated.

Want a source? Here ya go:


If this construct is accurate, you can't conclude what AUP has. Period. All name-calling aside. Or, do you want to now call NOAA a bunch of liars/deniers/asses?

-Dr. Imago

Splitting the CO2 driver on the climate from other drivers.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

Section 9.4.1.2.

You really should read the whole chapter, in fact. It's very interesting.

 

[TrueSceptic]

In conclusion: please play fair. if you're gonna toss charts and graphs around, please link to the original context.[/i] i'm not saying you're a snake oil salesman, necessrarily.. but right now, you *are* wearin' the uniform. note that my mistrust of your posts is partially based on your response in the simpler question about AGW" thread.

zeusbheld, you might like to have a look at HTBAGWS. I'll leave it to you to judge how fair or unfair I was in the OP.

 

[varwoche]

"Prove" is too strong a word of course. That said...

Sun Not the Cause of Recent Warming

Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming

No indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming

This is the evidence that Dr. Imago requested and as yet has ignored.

I'd ignore it too, if I posted delusional nonsense such as...

It's quite clear to everyone who's paying attention that they've hung their hat on carbon dioxide. What is not clear - or proven - is that this is the correct place to do so. But, everything from this point forward is geared at bolstering that assertion and making any observations fit that premise, instead of considering alternate possibilities. I've talked about this extensively already. No need to rehash now.

 

[zeusbheld]

zeusbheld, you might like to have a look at HTBAGWS. I'll leave it to you to judge how fair or unfair I was in the OP.

yah saw it, and have actually seen those or similar claims a number of times.

saw it posted somewhere in one of these threads can't remember who said it "even if AGW is wrong, it doesn't mean they're right." have to agree with that, if this lot are typical of "climate skeptics."

incidentally i know a vulcanologist whom i'd class as a credible AGW skeptic. what *he* says, is that we just don't know either way, yet. quite a bit different from the smoke and mirrors i see being posted by these so-called skeptics in this forum.

 

[TrueSceptic]

yah saw it, and have actually seen those or similar claims a number of times.

saw it posted somewhere in one of these threads can't remember who said it "even if AGW is wrong, it doesn't mean they're right." have to agree with that, if this lot are typical of "climate skeptics."

incidentally i know a vulcanologist whom i'd class as a credible AGW skeptic. what *he* says, is that we just don't know either way, yet. quite a bit different from the smoke and mirrors i see being posted by these so-called skeptics in this forum.

Indeed. A true sceptic doubts until convinced by the evidence, but doubt is last thing you will see in GWS. Instead, you see unshakeable certainty that GW is not happening, or of it is, it can't be due to us.

 

[jsfisher]

incidentally i know a vulcanologist whom i'd class as a credible AGW skeptic. what *he* says, is that we just don't know either way, yet. quite a bit different from the smoke and mirrors i see being posted by these so-called skeptics in this forum.

It is quite a bit different than what we see from either extreme of the debate.

 

[mhaze]

In conclusion: please play fair.

Okay, well, I'd ask first, assuming you want to understand stuff. How to not get bogged down in details?

for one thing, the paper *you* link to (no i didn't go through it and to the math) claims the climate oscillates, but explicitly makes no claims regarding an overall long-term trend.

Spectrum analysis of a thousand years shows the climate cycle in question. What more do you want?

A quick check of one randomly picked thread shows for pages 10-14 25 citations by "skeptics", 13 by "believers" (3 cartoons therein, nice ones). I'm not really sure what you are exactly looking to be convinced of, if anything. JREF discussions range widely in how technical they can get, usually warmers bring in newspaper or media references, skeptics more often the scientific articles.

Is it that MSU temperatures or HADCRT temps are as described on the graph DR showed? Go here, scroll down the middle of the page to the study that did this chart.

Is it that there is or is not a 60-80 year climate cycle that is influential in climate?

Is it that there is or is not "global warming?"

Seemingly the material issue in your discussion is 60-80 year cycles, here are a few random looks at this reality. This 60-80 year cycle isn't really in dispute, what is I think might generally be described is whether the influence of man's emissions and so forth overwhelm this and other natural cycles, including solar and others. These are just a few, this is a big subject and please note that it is only one of several dozen that are relevant to the so called "climatology' field. If the link is to a review, the full pdf technical article is available.

go down to april 8, 2005 article (there is also a peer review published article by these guys, cycle 60-80 years)
http://www.nunatsiaq.com/archives/50408/news/arctic/briefs.html

note cycle, well known today, major shift around 1970s (cycle, 60-80 years)
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

greenland warm in 1920-1930s just like today (cycle, 60-80 years)
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html

study based on applied theory of chaos (cycle....)
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/08/17/climate-change-chaos/

other notes. "chart was after" means it is from these Russians. I picked a html version of the PDF, the PDF is quite large, something like a hundred pages. The html version may be later in date. "raw data " referred as I recall to David Rodale's graph, which is just three lines of raw data. Sinusoidal chart does of course have the sinusoidal curve fit superimposed on the raw data. 2nd sinusoidal chart which you note looks like it is marked up with markers, those were done by me purposely to illustrate certain points.

 

[Slimething]

incidentally i know a vulcanologist whom i'd class as a credible AGW skeptic. what *he* says, is that we just don't know either way, yet.

I would second that. The problem of establishing whether or not AGW is occuring is more complex than it seems. Two or more different warming drivers (natural vs anthropogenic) need to be resolved from one another. At present, the pro-AGW side can only point to the construct of their hypothesis. The anti-AGW side can only rebut with pointing out AGW predictions that have not come to fruition.

You may want to compare this debate vs the Malthusian scares that arise from time to time. I'm not saying that AGW is a scare although some politicians are certainly using it for that purpose. However, history speaks volumes here. Don't give away all your belongings just yet.

 

[mhaze]

I would second that. The problem of establishing whether or not AGW is occuring is more complex than it seems. Two or more different warming drivers (natural vs anthropogenic) need to be resolved from one another. At present, the pro-AGW side can only point to the construct of their hypothesis.....

Likely that AGW man made forcing are a weak not a strong effect. Otherwise resolving would be quite easy.

 

[Slimething]

Likely that AGW man made forcing are a weak not a strong effect. Otherwise resolving would be quite easy.

I would tend to agree from the weight of the evidence. The scientific foundation of the AGW hypothesis appears sound but way overhyped. The people who tend to believe it at its worst don't seem to be too well grounded in scientific theory.

I've seen too many greenie carnival shows to trust that bunch at anything. A fair amount of my work is to debunk bad modeling by searching out and demonstrating actual measured field data. Field data ALWAYS trumps modeling, no matter how much we agree with the model's construction. Constantly updating your predictions on the basis of reality is called research, not verification. Add to that the fact that many complex models can only be debunked in fact and not by logic, and this AGW thing seems less and less ominous every passing year. (That's why I bring up the Malthusian scares as they were falsified by history, not theory.)

 

[zeusbheld]

Okay, well, I'd ask first, assuming you want to understand stuff. How to not get bogged down in details?

for one thing, the paper *you* link to (no i didn't go through it and to the math) claims the climate oscillates, but explicitly makes no claims regarding an overall long-term trend.

Spectrum analysis of a thousand years shows the climate cycle in question. What more do you want?

the paper you cited didn't support your conclusion. have you got papers that do? apologies if you've posted them a thousand times, but if you know the papers, it ought to be easy to post the links again.

A quick check of one randomly picked thread shows for pages 10-14 25 citations by "skeptics", 13 by "believers" (3 cartoons therein, nice ones). I'm not really sure what you are exactly looking to be convinced of, if anything. JREF discussions range widely in how technical they can get, usually warmers bring in newspaper or media references, skeptics more often the scientific articles.

i don't care about the stats on who posts what. i'm reacting to the first dodgy post i saw on either side where the poster seemed to have some potential to make a case. yours. so the rest of that is utterly irrelevant.

Is it that MSU temperatures or HADCRT temps are as described on the graph DR showed? Go here, scroll down the middle of the page to the study that did this chart.

again, i'm focussing on your post. aside from that, why does DR NEVER source the papers he gets his graphs from? that's either lazy or manipulative. until he does so he's not worth bothering with.

Is it that there is or is not a 60-80 year climate cycle that is influential in climate?

correct me if i'm wrong but that was the subject of the paper you linked to? they went through an awful lot of (what looked like) pretty good math (i was too lazy to work through it) to get that sinusoidal trendline.

Is it that there is or is not "global warming?"

well i've seen enough evidence that there is some global warming lately, not enough to convince me as to whether (or not) it is a) a long term trend or b) anthropogenic.

however, if you've got evidence that it is (or is not) warming i'd be interested in that, but i only look at science papers the rest is just 'net fun and games.

Seemingly the material issue in your discussion is 60-80 year cycles, here are a few random looks at this reality. This 60-80 year cycle isn't really in dispute, what is I think might generally be described is whether the influence of man's emissions and so forth overwhelm this and other natural cycles, including solar and others. These are just a few, this is a big subject and please note that it is only one of several dozen that are relevant to the so called "climatology' field. If the link is to a review, the full pdf technical article is available.

no. the issue is not the 60 - 80 year cycle, the issue is that you cited a paper which clearly establishes said cycle, but you *seem* to be insinuating that it is evidence against anthropogenic global warming. the authors themselves say, in their conclusion:

The concept of generating forecasts of anthropogenic climate change and consequent changes in fish production is beyond the scope of this study.

what i saw in *your* post is you drew heavily from their study, didnt' link to it until pressed, and concluded by drawing trend lines on the graph in photoshop.

what i want from you,

a) is science papers that explicitly support your conclusion.

failing that, if you're amibtious,

b) i want trend lines that you arrive at by taking sourced data, actually smoothing the data, and transparently demonstrating how you reach your conclusions (even if i end up being too lazy to recreate the full conclusion).

go down to april 8, 2005 article (there is also a peer review published article by these guys, cycle 60-80 years)
http://www.nunatsiaq.com/archives/50408/news/arctic/briefs.html

not sure what i'm supposed to glean from this; the link took me to a news article "circumpolar world mourns Pope John Paul II".

at any rate nunatsiaq.com is a news outlet NOT a peer-reviewed journal.

note cycle, well known today, major shift around 1970s (cycle, 60-80 years)
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

interesting but again, the actual author doesn't reach *your* conclusion. or at least find for me where he does; most of the links on the page appear to be broken.

greenland warm in 1920-1930s just like today (cycle, 60-80 years)
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html

this is more interesting, and their conclusion seems more relevant, but Greenland's a separate conversation from what *you* posted, is it not? and all i can get is the abstract, without paying nine bucks. also, it's worth noting that "AGU" host many papers which tacitly assume AGW, like this one.

incidentally, here's AGU's "position statement" on Human Impacts on Climate.

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

given AGU's position, i'd really like to see the full content of that paper (without having to pay nine bucks).

study based on applied theory of chaos (cycle....)
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/08/17/climate-change-chaos/

that looks interesting, but it's a blog. got the original paper by Tsonis, Swanson, and Krakov?

other notes. "chart was after" means it is from these Russians. I picked a html version of the PDF, the PDF is quite large, something like a hundred pages. The html version may be later in date.

is this the paper on the 60-80 year cycle by Klyatshorin et al? or another paper? i've got the Klyatshorin paper now, thanks.

"raw data " referred as I recall to David Rodale's graph, which is just three lines of raw data. Sinusoidal chart does of course have the sinusoidal curve fit superimposed on the raw data. 2nd sinusoidal chart which you note looks like it is marked up with markers, those were done by me purposely to illustrate certain points.

those certain points are what i want you to establish transparently, otherwise i have to assume that it is *your* conclusion based on conjecture.

 

[zeusbheld]

I would second that. The problem of establishing whether or not AGW is occuring is more complex than it seems. Two or more different warming drivers (natural vs anthropogenic) need to be resolved from one another. At present, the pro-AGW side can only point to the construct of their hypothesis. The anti-AGW side can only rebut with pointing out AGW predictions that have not come to fruition.

You may want to compare this debate vs the Malthusian scares that arise from time to time. I'm not saying that AGW is a scare although some politicians are certainly using it for that purpose. However, history speaks volumes here. Don't give away all your belongings just yet.

do link to these "Malthusian scares" if you can.

what i find interesting about these AGW threads is that we have a thread full of (apparent) non-scientists and so many have a strong opinion on something very complex.

so far the anti-AGW people have been rather sloppy IMO. but again, i'd rather base *my* opinion on science papers than on keyboard warriors. that said, the better keyboard warriors can often cough up links to science papers to support their convictions. i find these papers interesting, if difficult, reading.

 

[zeusbheld]

I would tend to agree from the weight of the evidence. The scientific foundation of the AGW hypothesis appears sound but way overhyped. The people who tend to believe it at its worst don't seem to be too well grounded in scientific theory.

well, at its worst you have "The Day After Tomorrow." but Hollywood is a bit of a straw man innit.

I've seen too many greenie carnival shows to trust that bunch at anything. A fair amount of my work is to debunk bad modeling by searching out and demonstrating actual measured field data. Field data ALWAYS trumps modeling, no matter how much we agree with the model's construction. Constantly updating your predictions on the basis of reality is called research, not verification.

is this what you do for a living? are you a climate scientist? if not, what got you into this strange hobby?

Add to that the fact that many complex models can only be debunked in fact and not by logic, and this AGW thing seems less and less ominous every passing year. (That's why I bring up the Malthusian scares as they were falsified by history, not theory.)

in principle i'd agree that transparency around data collection and data collection methodology is vital. science advances through failing to disprove things in spite of intense effort, not through proving things.