Global Temperature Change, baseline in History

[mhaze]

Mhaze, i have spent some time looking but will have to continue, most dendrochronology is not used as a gauge of ambient temperature and tree growth, so I will have refine my search which will mean looking at the base data of the spaghetti graph and it's orgin.

Again i am not out to defend it, just to undersatnd what the evidence is involved.

It's a sizeable task. Because the graph is a graph multiproxy studies.

graph = [various multiproxy studies[studies in each multiproxy study]]

eg, say 15*15 but made more complicated because many of the same base studies are used in diverse multiproxy studies.

Sorry, I know this has been hashed in other places, but here in Ander et al. 2005,
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MobergEtAl2005.pdf
on pg 616 in the chart of the very bottom left where is says low res with uncertainty: these are the data for the non tree ring very broad time sample correct?

"supplemental information" should answer definitively the question

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7026/suppinfo/nature03265.html

discussion of aspects of moberg 2005 study

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=93

http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=43

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=423#more-423

http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?cat=6

 

[lomiller]

P
You said:

Clouds, like rain, are liquid-phase phaenomena (ignoring ice-clouds, which represent a very small proportion of the H2O up there) and so are not relevant.

The post in question:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3841211&postcount=489

That discussion was about water vapor; clouds are not water vapor and were not relevant to that discussion. How is it you get from that simple, yet correct statement to your claim he made a blanket statement that clouds don’t matter?

P


Again, the latest peer reviewed (by climate modelers and agreeing with) research disagrees with your assumptions on water vapor and cloud feedback.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175/2008JCLI2253.1
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Potential_Biases_In_Cloud_Feedback_Diagnosis.doc

Again with Spencer…
As I pointed out previously that paper is a non-starter for you. He is talking about the uncertainty in the effects of clouds. This uncertainty certainly does exist, so this isn’t a ground breaking paper by any means. There is also uncertainty in the fossil record, pointing to that will never prove the fossil record is wrong.

This type of appeal to uncertainty won’t go very far in a scientific debate, because the very uncertainty you are appealing to prevents you from ever making a testable prediction or hypothesis. While other scientists are pointing to known phenomenon unrelated to clouds Spenser is trying to counter by saying clouds could be doing something to counter those effects. He will never be able to prove the existence of such an effect because of the very uncertainty he is appealing to.

P


Upcoming submitted peer review research:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Climate-Sensitivity-Holy-Grail.htm

Spenser yet again, there is no indication this paper has been accepted for publication, he only says he submitted it. It does bring us back to an issue you have repeatedly refused to address.

If climate sensitivity is low then the Sun cannot have a meaningful effect on climate. You cannot therefore hold that climate sensitivity is low, yet the Sun is the driving factor. What is your justification for holding onto both in the fact of the fact it’s been proven they are mutually contradictory?

To the question of climate sensitivity, this paper suggests that most of the potential for error is on the high side. I.E. 3deg K is the mostly likely value for doubling of CO2, but with a low of 2 deg K and a significant tail extending all the way to a possible 11 deg K.

http://www.climateprediction.net/science/pubs/nature_first_results.pdf

Unlike your link this one has been published.

In addition to an inability to explain the earths response to solar variation, low climate sensitivity is at odds with the observed temperate and CO2 changes during ice ages, and is incompatible with the current best explanation for the cause of ice ages.

 

[mhaze]

This type of appeal to uncertainty won’t go very far in a scientific debate, because the very uncertainty you are appealing to prevents you from ever making a testable prediction or hypothesis. While other scientists are pointing to known phenomenon unrelated to clouds Spenser is trying to counter by saying clouds could be doing something to counter those effects. He will never be able to prove the existence of such an effect because of the very uncertainty he is appealing to.

SECTION A:
But what the article actually says, in the conclusion of the abstract is this ...

These results suggest that current observational diagnoses of cloud feedback – and possibly other feedbacks -- could be significantly biased in the positive direction.
​

Either you

• haven't read the article,
• have read it and misunderstood it
• have read the wrong article
• have read and misunderstood the wrong article

There is no obvious relation between your comments and the reality of the scientific understanding as expressed in Spencer's article.

SECTION B:
Regarding your other complaints about Spencer having certain religious views that you disagree with, I suggest you maintain a steadfastness and consistent approach on such a morally righteous stand. I encourage you to do this.

Insist on disregarding all scientific articles by authors who by examination appear to be Hindu, Muslim, or Christian. In fact....why not only "approve for discussion" only articles by modern urban atheists whose religion is radical environmentalism? No...be broadminded and inclusive of Wikkans and Gaians, as well as believers in Warmology.

I can't recall. Which was the devout Mormon, Dr. Michael Mann or Dr. James Hansen?

 

[CapelDodger]

You said:

Clouds, like rain, are liquid-phase phaenomena (ignoring ice-clouds, which represent a very small proportion of the H2O up there) and so are not relevant.

The post in question:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3841211&postcount=489

The post was directly related to a question from lomiller concerned only with the feedback effect of water-vapour; it's in that context that clouds are irrelevent. You introduced them in that context (in response to lomiller's question). I was pointing out your error. This was on another thread, and should surely be pursued there.

 

[a_unique_person]

give you total heat content of a system with gas, liquid and solid components...Perhaps this metafor makes more sense?

It's the air temperature that the biological systems exist in. When it's hot, they suffer.

 

[TrueSceptic]

It's the air temperature that the biological systems exist in. When it's hot, they suffer.

Actually, yes and no. The oceans contain a large part of the biosphere (I don't have the figures to hand, and in any case they would be an estimate at best).

Ocean temperatures are a vital part of the picture. The problem is that ocean temp variations are much smaller, requiring higher-res instruments, and our measurements are much more limited, especially in depth, than other measurements we have.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by David Rodale
You said:

Clouds, like rain, are liquid-phase phaenomena (ignoring ice-clouds, which represent a very small proportion of the H2O up there) and so are not relevant.

The post in question:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=489


The post was directly related to a question from lomiller concerned only with the feedback effect of water-vapour; it's in that context that clouds are irrelevent. You introduced them in that context (in response to lomiller's question). I was pointing out your error. This was on another thread, and should surely be pursued there.

The part (water vapor) cannot exist but in the whole (atmospheric water cycle). It isn't relevant if you or Lomiller would seek to discuss that small part which, as it well seems to be, you understand as poorly in isolation, as in it's relation to the whole.

 

[TrueSceptic]

The part (water vapor) cannot exist but in the whole (atmospheric water cycle). It isn't relevant if you or Lomiller would seek to discuss that small part which, as it well seems to be, you understand as poorly in isolation, as in it's relation to the whole.

you understand as poorly in isolation, as in it's relation to the whole.

So, you cannot discuss anything without being offensive?

 

[mhaze]

The relevant "proof" from Capeldodger.

Clouds, like rain, are liquid-phase phaenomena (ignoring ice-clouds, which represent a very small proportion of the H2O up there) and so are not relevant.

Water-vapour is transparent to visible (incoming) light, but is not transparent to outgoing infrared, therefore it is a greenhouse gas. Atmospheric water-vapour is very sensitive to temperature, in a direct (as opposed to inverse) sense. Thus water-vapour is a positive feedback to any temperature forcing. QED.
​

The rebuttal by David Rodale.

You are stuck in a paradigm of mistaken assumptions that atmospheric water vapor always results in a strong positive feedback. These assumptions, along with erroneous cloud feedback parameters, are built into climate models which are shown to be wrong.

Further, if the assumptions on the “enhanced greenhouse effect” resulting from increased levels of atmospheric CO2 were true, we should be seeing increased water vapor levels with altitude resulting in rising temperature trends with altitude as well. In fact, just the opposite is observed. Data available on request as always. For some odd reason, you refuse to acknowledge observational evidence and at the same time do not contribute any to support the CO2 AGW hypothesis.
​

What appears to be clear sky always contains microscopic water droplets; what appears to be clouds always contains water vapor (long as below freezing obviously). All that varies between cloud and clear sky is the respective rates of condensation and evaporation. If air masses cool, molecules are less energetic, and less capable of escaping the surface of the microdroplets, which then grow larger.

Capel's argument is that cloud is little, water vapor is big, thus it can't have any effect but positive feedback.

Care to comment?

 

[CapelDodger]

It's the air temperature that the biological systems exist in. When it's hot, they suffer.

Further to TrueSceptics post : while much of the biosphere is water-based, we and our agriculture are land- and air-based. That's where we live, and where most of us make our living. While we can.

eta : Why is this going on here instead of where it started?

 

[CapelDodger]

(Sigh). What appears to be clear sky always contains microscopic water droplets; what appears to be clouds always contains water vapor. All that varies between cloud and clear sky is the respective rates of condensation and evaporation. If air masses cool, molecules are less energetic, and less capable of escaping the surface of the microdroplets, which then grow larger.

You were saying?

Take that argument back to where it started. I dare you. I double-dare you.

 

[lomiller]

SECTION A:
But what the article actually says, in the conclusion of the abstract is this

These results suggest that current observational diagnoses of cloud feedback – and possibly other feedbacks -- could be significantly biased in the positive direction.​

Not the word could. They could also be significantly biased in the negative direction as per the paper I linked, that’s kind of what uncertainty means…

Insist on disregarding all scientific articles by authors who by examination appear to be Hindu, Muslim, or Christian. In fact....why not only "approve for discussion" only articles by modern urban atheists whose religion is radical environmentalism? No...be broadminded and inclusive of Wikkans and Gaians, as well as believers in Warmology.

I can't recall. Which was the devout Mormon, Dr. Michael Mann or Dr. James Hansen?

I’ve never said disregard Spenser’s published work, in fact I’ve said just the opposite sever times. Furthermore you have read and responded to those posts, so you know that I never said anything resembling these words you are attempting to put in my mouth.

What I have said is that he is a public proponent of Intelligent Design, we can’t trust his unpublished commentary. If he were like his colleague John Christy and kept his religious beliefs to himself I would have a lot more tolerance, but Spencer is willing to publicly support bad science in support of his religious beliefs, this leads me to think his public commentary on science cannot be trusted.

 

[mhaze]

Take that argument back to where it started. I dare you. I double-dare you.

Okay, did that. A dodge to this...

Originally Posted by mhaze
Correct your formula, method, and constants; restate your results for the two cases (normal variation over an average solar cycle, and variation as required for the Maunder minimum) and ask whatever (revised if any) questions remain.

​

Was for Lomiller to ask the (improperly framed) question about water vapor that is now being discussed.

And so...?

 

[mhaze]

Not the word could. They could also be significantly biased in the negative direction as per the paper I linked, that’s kind of what uncertainty means…

Okay, you have met an assertion as to the likelihood of a incorrect positive bias, with an article that asserts the opposite, and concluded the net of the two was an overall uncertainty.

Now, you understand that has implications, eg., the conclusion then of the group of studies is:

"No conclusion". And following that on out, you have "No conclusion" regarding positive fingerprints of AGW, etc. Is that a road you wish to go down?

What I have said is that he is a public proponent of Intelligent Design, we can’t trust his unpublished commentary. If he were like his colleague John Christy and kept his religious beliefs to himself I would have a lot more tolerance, but Spencer is willing to publicly support bad science in support of his religious beliefs, this leads me to think his public commentary on science cannot be trusted.

So what of my challenge for you to be logical consistent with your moral premises, and publicly disavow the merits of any scientific work written by any who can be found to be Muslim, Hindu, or Christian?

Certainly you would disavow the scientific merits of any work by a practicing Mormon, if you are sincere in your moral premises? In particular I'd like you to address which of the two, Hansen or Mann, is a practicing Mormon and how this affects how we should view the scientific merits of his work.

Alternately (my preference) I'm quite willing to abandon the specious arguments (notably always brought up by Warmers) having to do with what scientists should be listened to based on their personal mythologic structures.

 

[a_unique_person]

Further to TrueSceptics post : while much of the biosphere is water-based, we and our agriculture are land- and air-based. That's where we live, and where most of us make our living. While we can.


eta : Why is this going on here instead of where it started?

IIRC, MHAZE is disputing that temperature is even relevant, which is what the topic is about.

 

[Dancing David]

The assumption that O18 isotope in tree rings is a proxy for temperature appears falsified. As Dancing David and I point out, this may extend to all tree ring datasets as proxy for temperature, but the scientists have not said that at this point.

Please don't include me in your putting tree rings in the dust bin, I stated that the O18 measurement might be suspect.

 

[Dancing David]

What the scenario is intended to do is to show that you cannot mathematically calculate the total heat content of the system (air + liquid + container) from a measurement of the air above the liquid.

Okay.

...
The historical temperature measurements and the attempt to figure the planetary temperature from them, are like the thermocouple in the oven that reads the air temperature. The first number you want is the internal temperature of the oceans (steak) in past eras. Then from that, you can calculate the changes in heat content of the planet.

that is one of the numbers to consider yes, but not the only number no.

If this is difficult to understand just take the reverse and think it out:

1. You work for a chef as a cook.
2. You are given steaks to cook, and are told to pull them out when the internal temperature is 180F.
3. You decide to use as a sensor one or many thermocouples in the air above the steak.
4. You devise a scheme by which you believe that you can figure that internal temperature of the steaks and when it is 180F. And proceed to cook your steaks and pull them out when the thermocouples read according to your theory.
5. The steaks vary from raw to burnt and the customers are all angry.
6. The chef is no fool and fires you.

Air temperature measurements can't give you total heat content of a system with gas, liquid and solid components...Perhaps this metafor makes more sense?

No the first metaphor makes more sense now that you have explained it without the rudeness.

You next metaphor is stated more rudely.

I understand what you are saying now.

however i would think that the measures of approximate land temperatures are somewhat useful as well.

So you are making the point that temperature from a set of discrete points does not give you the energy state of the system?

 

[Dancing David]

It's the air temperature that the biological systems exist in. When it's hot, they suffer.

or die.

 

[Dancing David]

Gentlemen and gentleladies, no fighting in the War Room!

.

.

?

.

.

?

....

]

While entertaing and interesting this has been a derail, please to relate it back to the baseline idea, how do we model the past climate?

Or discuss this as it relates to the issue of sensitive dependance or forcing.

Thank you.

Very entertaining!

 

[mhaze]

...So you are making the point that temperature from a set of discrete points does not give you the energy state of the system?

Yes, in particular if you measure air or proxies for air while heat content of coexistant liquid phase is 2000 times greater.