Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Not really, you are confusing GW with AGW, and I'm pretty sure that you won't accept a drop of 0.4C in the following 2 years as proof of AGW being falsified. I have read countless times the phrase "Weather is not climate".

 

[CapelDodger]

I can't copy /paste her results table with formatting, so please look at http://rankexploits.com/musings/200...-tests-very-low-confidence-2ccentury-correct/ for the correctly formatted chart.

HadCrut3 2.49% -1.03 C/Century Inconsistent: 2 C/century Falsified GISS 4.18% -0.24 C/Century Very Low Confidence. NOAA 3.45% -0.12 C/Century Very Low Confidence Average of 3 2.55% -0.59 C/Century Very Low Confidence

How can "per century" forecasts have been inconsistent or falsified in less than a century?

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

How can "per century" forecasts have been inconsistent or falsified in less than a century?

Ask Lucia, she's far more polite than me.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

You are confusing “isn’t falsifiable” with “hasn’t been falsified”.

AGW would have been falsified if temperatures had dropped by 0.4 deg since 1990 instead of increased by 0.4 deg. AWG would have been falsified if CO2 levels dropped to pre-industrial levels in 1990 but temperatures continued to rise. AGW would have been falsified if someone came up with a laboratory experiment that proved CO2 doesn’t act as a greenhouse gas.

None of these things happened, so AGW wasn’t falsified. It seems that the only way you would accept AGW as falsifiable is if it were actually falsified. Anything to avoid a little work right.

Here you have an example of an hypothesis consistent with observations so far:
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/recovery_little_ice_age.pdf

Revised September 25, 2008
The Recovery from the Little Ice Age
(A Possible Cause of Global Warming)
and
The Recent Halting of the Warming
(The Multi-decadal Oscillation)
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
International Arctic Research Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
Abstract
Two natural components of the presently progressing climate change are identified.
The first one is an almost linear global temperature increase of about 0.5°C/100 years (~1°F/100
years), which seems to have started at least one hundred years before 1946 when manmade CO2
in the atmosphere began to increase rapidly. This value of 0.5°C/100 years may be compared
with what the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists consider to be the
manmade greenhouse effect of 0.6°C/100 years. This 100-year long linear warming trend is
likely to be a natural change. One possible cause of this linear increase may be Earth’s
continuing recovery from the Little Ice Age (1400-1800). This trend (0.5°C/100 years) should be
subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years when estimating the manmade
contribution to the present global warming trend. As a result, there is a possibility that only a
small fraction of the present warming trend is attributable to the greenhouse effect resulting from
human activities. Note that both glaciers in many places in the world and sea ice in the Arctic
Ocean that had developed during the Little Ice Age began to recede after 1800 and are still
receding; their recession is thus not a recent phenomenon.
The second one is the multi-decadal oscillation, which is superposed on the linear change. One
of them is the “multi-decadal oscillation,” which is a natural change. This particular change has
a positive rate of change of about 0.15°C/10 years from about 1975, and is thought to be a sure
sign of the greenhouse effect by the IPCC. But, this positive trend stopped after 2000 and now
has a negative slope. As a result, the global warming trend stopped in about 2000-2001.
Therefore, it appears that the two natural changes have a greater effect on temperature changes
than the greenhouse effects of CO2. These facts are contrary to the IPCC Report (2007, p.10),
which states that “most” of the present warming is due “very likely” to be the manmade
greenhouse effect. They predict that the warming trend continues after 2000. Contrary to their
prediction, the warming halted after 2000.
There is an urgent need to correctly identify natural changes and remove them from the present
global warming/cooling trend, in order to accurately identify the contribution of the manmade
greenhouse effect. Only then can the contribution of CO2 be studied quantitatively.

 

[CapelDodger]

Thanks for accept the fact that the AGW hypothesis isn't falsiable right now and that it won't be falsiable in about 90 more years. That's all I wanted you to accept,so we can abandon the concept that AGW is being confirmed for any weather event.

Nobody ever got on board that boat, so "abandoning" it is Mad Hatter talk. You have previously held to the view that AGW is not falsifiable, a position which you've abandoned. And why not, since it's always been untenable.

Now, for a or b please provide what I asked for, not rethoric FUD.

AGW certainly hasn't been falsified yet, and won't be by 2010. You might have a chance for 2020, though. AGW would be falsified if global temperatures have fallen by then. No need to wait until you'll almost certainly be dead.

A question for you : if global temperatures have risen by >0.2C in 2020, will you accept AGW as being confirmed? More generally, in what circumstances would you give up hope that AGW might yet be falsified?

 

[CapelDodger]

Here you have an example of an hypothesis consistent with observations so far:
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/recovery_little_ice_age.pdf

An exercise in line-fitting, which will most certainly be falsified by 2020. That's the problem with line-fitting, it can't accomodate new data.

(The Little Ice Age ending in 1800? Has this guy never heard of the Dalton Minimum?)

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

CD:
My position has been always that AGW is not falsiable now and in the near future. It changed and now I think that it has been falsified, threads ago.

GW is different from AGW so I think that any rise of temperature won't confirm AGW. If next year we experiment a temperature rise of 3 C would you say that it's anthropogenic?

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

An exercise in line-fitting, which will most certainly be falsified by 2020. That's the problem with line-fitting, it can't accomodate new data.

(The Little Ice Age ending in 1800? Has this guy never heard of the Dalton Minimum?)

I think he has:

DATE/PLACE OF BIRTH:
December 4, 1930, Nagano-ken, Japan (US Citizen)
EDUCATION:
B.S. Geophysics, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan, 1953
M.S. Geophysics, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan, 1957
Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK, 1961
EDUCATION:EXPERIENCE:
Director, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska-Fairbanks, 1998-present
Director, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska-Fairbanks, 1986-1999
Head, Department of Physics, University of Alaska-Fairbanks, 1984-86
Distinguished Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 1983-present
Professor of Geophysics, Geophysical Institute, 1964-1986
Associate Professor of Geophysics, Geophysical Institute, 1962-64
Assistant Professor of Geophysics, Geophysical Institute, 1961-62
Research Assistant in Geophysics, Geophysical Institute, 1958-61
Senior Research Assistant, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan, 1953-55
Associate Editor, Journal of Geophysical Research, 1972-74
Associate Editor, Journal of Geomagnetism & Geoelectricity, 1972-present
Editorial Advisory Board, Planetary Space Science, 1969-present
Editorial Advisory Board, Space Science Reviews, 1967-77
Member, Editorial Committee, Space Science Reviews, 1977-present
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS:

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Geophysical Union
• Inter-Union Commission on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
• International Union of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy
• Phi Kappa Phi Society
• Sigma Xi Society
• Society of Terrestrial Magnetism and Electricity in Japan

AWARDS AND HONORS:

• The Chapman Medal from the Royal Astronomical Society in England, 1976
• The Japan Academy Award, 1977
• Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, 1977
• John Adam Fleming Medal, American Geophysical Union, 1979
• Distinguished Alumnus, University of Alaska, 1980
• The 1,000 Most-Cited Contemporary Scientists (Current Contents), 1981
• Special Lecture for the Emperor of Japan on the aurora, October 3, 1985
• First recipient of the Sydney Chapman Chair professorship, University of Alaska, 1985
• Member of the International Academy of Aeronautics, Paris, 1986
• Fellow of the Arctic Institute of North America, 1987
• "Centennial Alumni", National Assoc. of State Universities & Land Grant Colleges, 1987
• Japan Foreign Minister's Award for Promoting International Relations and Cultural Exchange between Japan and Alaska, 1993
• Japan Posts and Telecommunications Minister Award for Contributions to the US-Japan Joint Project on Environmental Science in Alaska, 1996
• Edith R. Bullock Prize for Excellence, 1997
• Alaskan of the Year-Denali Award, 1999
• Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001
• Named One of the World?s Most Cited Authors in Space Physics by Current Contents ISI, 2002
• Aurora Award, Fairbanks Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2003
• The Order of the Sacred Treasure--Gold and Silver Stars, by The Emperor of Japan, 2003

PUBLICATIONS:
Books

• Akasofu, S.-I., Polar and Magnetospheric Substorms, D. Reidel Pub. Co., Dordrecht, Holland, 1968, (also a Russian edition).
• Akasofu, S.-I., B. Fogle, and B. Haurwitz, Sydney Chapman, Eighty, published by the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the Publishing Service of the University of Colorado, 1968.
• Akasofu, S.-I. and S. Chapman, Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Clarendon Press, Oxford, England, 1972, (also a Russian and Chinese edition).
• Akasofu, S.-I., The Aurora: A Discharge Phenomenon Surrounding the Earth, (in Japanese), Chuo-koran- sha, Tokyo, Japan.
• Akasofu, S.-I., Physics of Magnetospheric Substorms, D. Reidel, Pub. Co., Dordrecht, Holland, 1977.
• Akasofu, S.-I., Aurora Borealis: The Amazing Northern Lights, Alaska Geographic Society, Alaska Northwest Pub. Co., 6, 2, 1979, (also a Japanese edition).
• Akasofu, S.-I. (ed.), Dynamics of the Magnetosphere, D. Reidel Pub. Co., Dordrecht, Holland, 1979.
• Akasofu, S.-I. and J.R. Kan (eds.), Physics of Auroral Arc Formation, Am. Geophys. Union, Washington, D.C., 1981.
• Akasofu, S.-I. and Y. Kamide (eds.), The Solar Wind and the Earth, Geophys. Astrophys. Monographs, Terra Scientific Pub. Co., Tokyo, Japan, and D. Reidel Pub. Co., Dordrecht, Holland, 1987.
• Akasofu, S.-I., Secrets of the Aurora Borealis, Alaska Geographic Society, Banta Publications Group/Hart Press, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2002.
• Akasofu, S.-I. Exploring the Secrets of the Aurora, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 2002.

Over 550 Published Articles

 

[CapelDodger]

c) No, not only in 2100, although yes, because the test that you proposed specified 2100.

By which he conceded the principle. Now we get down to the bargaining.

(Rich old Duke finds himself seated at dinner next to attractive young deb. Rich Duke to said hottie : "My dear, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?". Attractive young deb (eagerly) : "Yes!". Rich Duke : "Having established the principle, let's get down to the bargaining.")

2020 sounds good to me as a settlement date. I've a pretty good chance of seeing it (despite my dissolute past) and I'm absolutely confident I'll come out on the right side of the trade. Of course, whether the other guy (the counter-party) will pay up is subject to doubt.

 

[lomiller]

You have to love it when these people hold up "experts" who have not puiblished anything of note in more then 20 years, none of which deal with climate.
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=author:S+author:Akasofu&hl=en&lr=&start=30&sa=N

 

[CapelDodger]

My source says ice extent was greater by 77,000 square kilometers. I used this site.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Argue with them if you wish.

I generally stick with ice-extent because that's the least contentious measure. Ice-area and ice-volume are of more fundamental importance, but ice-extent reflects them well enough these days.

And that's exactly what I didn't do. Capels post above is correct. This system is noisy and we may be looking at noise. If it goes up next year it will still probably be noise. Three years in a row is less likely and five would probably be significant.

Check out the last five years. Very significant. And they've already happened.

What we can say is that this is a single data point trending upwards.

A single point does not trend.

It could be the start of a long persistant upward trend in ice extent.

That would be a radical reversal of the trend over the last five years. The 2006 minimum was greater than the 2005 minimum, and look what happened in 2007. 2008 was still well below 2005.

You don't know that it isn't. That's what science is about. We follow the data.

And we interpret it.

If you ask me do I think the ice extent will fall again I'd have to say yes, it seems extremely likely but it's not certain. But that doesn't matter, that's conjecture, not data.

It isn't simply conjecture, it's a rational projection at the level of certainty. 2008 is no more the start of a radical reversal than 2006 was. Physical processes are at work, and those processes are removing ice from the Arctic, year after year. Soon there'll come a day when there isn't any (by 2015 is my prediction).

 

[CapelDodger]

You have to love it when these people hold up "experts" who have not puiblished anything of note in more then 20 years, none of which deal with climate.
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=author:S+author:Akasofu&hl=en&lr=&start=30&sa=N

They have such a small pool of surviving has-beens to draw on that we know them all by now, and their threadbare arguments.

Meanwhile the Arctic melts, glaciers and icecaps retreat across the globe, and the movers and shakers of the world take AGW more and more seriously, despite the best efforts of Akasofu, McIntyre, Viscount Munchkin, Singer, Lindzen, some already dead people, and the actuarially challenged.

The denialist camp has a serious problem with quality recruitment. Hardly surprising in the circumstances, since nobody with decades of career ahead of them is going to get on board a sinking ship. The post-career guys got on board decades ago.

 

[CapelDodger]

CD:
My position has been always that AGW is not falsiable now and in the near future.

You neglected to stipulate those caveats when you claimed, straight-up and repeatedly, that AGW is not falsifiable. At least you're clear on that now. To clarify further : would you regard 2020 as near future?

It changed and now I think that it has been falsified, threads ago.

Nothing you think can surprise me. AGW hasn't been falsified, of course, but neither have the limits of what you're capable of thinking.

GW is different from AGW so I think that any rise of temperature won't confirm AGW. If next year we experiment a temperature rise of 3 C would you say that it's anthropogenic?

I'd be at a complete loss to explain it. Flabbergasted.

It isn't going to happen, though. >0.2C might well happen by 2020. Would you regard that as confirmation of AGW? (My personal opinion is that you'd still be holding onto hope that AGW might yet be falsified, but we'll have to wait until 2020 to find out if I'm right.)

 

[CapelDodger]

The current rate of warming is a seemingly measly increase of 1 degree F over the last 100 years.

It's about 1C over the last hundred years.

If this continues for another hundred years, I fail to see how dangerous this is and for everyone to get so apopletic over it. What am I missing about the danger of a two degree increase over 200 years?

What do you know about the physical impact of 2C warming down here where we live? 1C has already happened, and it's melting the Arctic as we speak. And it's melting glaciers and snowpack across the world.

What is it that makes you so sanguine about a 2C rise? Do you think you can translate that accurately to impact on the ground?

 

[CapelDodger]

Ask Lucia, she's far more polite than me.

I'm asking you to explain : how can a "per century" projection be falsified in less than a century? You presumably came away from Lucia with the impression that she'd done it, unless you were deliberately lying, which heaven forfend. So how did she persuade you?

 

[DogB]

I generally stick with ice-extent because that's the least contentious measure. Ice-area and ice-volume are of more fundamental importance, but ice-extent reflects them well enough these days.

Agreed. It's the only parameter with reliable data. If someone comes up with a sensible way of measuring total mass that would be extremely useful however.

Check out the last five years. Very significant. And they've already happened.

Of course. If 08 had been at or below 07 levels it would be more significant however. That was my point.

A single point does not trend.

Semantics - you know what I mean.

That would be a radical reversal of the trend over the last five years. The 2006 minimum was greater than the 2005 minimum, and look what happened in 2007. 2008 was still well below 2005.

No argument. I very deliberately made no comment about the likelihood.

And we interpret it.

You did. I choose not to.

It isn't simply conjecture, it's a rational projection at the level of certainty. 2008 is no more the start of a radical reversal than 2006 was. Physical processes are at work, and those processes are removing ice from the Arctic, year after year. Soon there'll come a day when there isn't any (by 2015 is my prediction).

I'm aware of your prediction. It's brave. The ENSO, NAO and PDO seem to be ganging up to help hide the GW signature. I think there’s a chance we might plateau for a little while.

But I wouldn’t bet on it.

 

[Pipirr]

More ice news from NSIDC:

2 October 2008

Arctic Sea Ice Down to Second-Lowest Extent; Likely Record-Low Volume

Despite cooler temperatures and ice-favoring conditions, long-term decline continues


Through the 2008 melt season, a race developed between melting of the thin ice and gradually waning sunlight. Summer ice losses allowed a great deal of solar energy to enter the ocean and heat up the water, melting even more ice from the bottom and sides. Warm oceans store heat longer than the atmosphere does, contributing to melt long after sunlight has begun to wane. In August 2008, the Arctic Ocean lost more ice than any previous August in the satellite record.

NSIDC Research Scientist Walt Meier said, “Warm ocean waters helped contribute to ice losses this year, pushing the already thin ice pack over the edge. In fact, preliminary data indicates that 2008 probably represents the lowest volume of Arctic sea ice on record, partly because less multiyear ice is surviving now, and the remaining ice is so thin.” (See Figure 4.)

In the end, however, summer conditions worked together to save some first-year ice from melting and to cushion the thin pack from the effects of sunlight and warm ocean waters. This summer’s weather did not provide the “perfect storm” for ice loss seen in 2007: temperatures were lower than 2007, although still higher than average (Figure 5); cloudier skies protected the ice from some melt; a different wind pattern spread the ice pack out, leading to higher extent numbers. Simply put, the natural variability of short-term weather patterns provided enough of a brake to prevent a new record-low ice extent from occurring.

NSIDC Research Scientist Julienne Stroeve said, “I find it incredible that we came so close to beating the 2007 record—without the especially warm and clear conditions we saw last summer. I hate to think what 2008 might have looked like if weather patterns had set up in a more extreme way. ”

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html

We do live in interesting times.

 

[CapelDodger]

Agreed. It's the only parameter with reliable data. If someone comes up with a sensible way of measuring total mass that would be extremely useful however.

We can depend on the Arctic Ocean to do that for us. What we have to do is interpret the signal. When Arctic sea-ice hits zero we will have an exact calibration.

Of course. If 08 had been at or below 07 levels it would be more significant however. That was my point.

You didn't make that clear What you said might as easily be applied to 2006 as to 2008 (and look how that worked out).

Semantics - you know what I mean.

Say what you mean, unequivocally. Don't misuse words such as "trend". What you mean is that the 2008 minimum ice-extent is greater than the 2007 minimum. Which doesn't mean much, does it?

No argument. I very deliberately made no comment about the likelihood.

You held out hope for the could, though, without reference to how unlikely it is.

You did. I choose not to.

That's your choice. You choose to watch stuff happen and record it, without any serious consideration of what it might mean. I'm too driven to take such comforts.

I'm aware of your prediction. It's brave. The ENSO, NAO and PDO seem to be ganging up to help hide the GW signature. I think there’s a chance we might plateau for a little while.

Have you considered the possibility that we've already plateaued for a little while?

But I wouldn’t bet on it.

Neither would I in your place, new to a game. Watch and learn .

 

[CapelDodger]

We do live in interesting times.

In so many ways. The End of History my arse .

 

[DogB]

We can depend on the Arctic Ocean to do that for us. What we have to do is interpret the signal. When Arctic sea-ice hits zero we will have an exact calibration.

Yes, at which point it will be effectively useless.

You didn't make that clear What you said might as easily be applied to 2006 as to 2008 (and look how that worked out).

I’ve already apologised for being unclear.

Say what you mean, unequivocally. Don't misuse words such as "trend". What you mean is that the 2008 minimum ice-extent is greater than the 2007 minimum. Which doesn't mean much, does it?

I’m not going to get into this other than to say there was no intent to deceive and I strongly doubt anybody was.

You held out hope for the could, though, without reference to how unlikely it is.

Of course I did, that’s how I was trained. It’s called science. Without fear or favour.

That's your choice. You choose to watch stuff happen and record it, without any serious consideration of what it might mean. I'm too driven to take such comforts.

I have to. I don’t know enough to do otherwise. You’re not a scientist and I understand and commend your passion. Science by its very nature is passionless.

Have you considered the possibility that we've already plateaued for a little while?

Very much so. IMHO 07 was an outlier. If it weren’t for the unusual event I think 06, 07 and 08 would have been extremely close indeed. I also think 09 will not change much either (purely based on ENSO).

Neither would I in your place, new to a game. Watch and learn .

Am doing that, thank you.