Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[David Rodale]

Sure, just keep on building those straw men and knocking them down. Build an army of them. It isn't going to change reality one little bit.

Nice retort. Worthless, but in typical fashion. The Tamino link is precisely why he is not to be trusted as the example exposes how he plays the game. All propaganda has an element of truth though doesn't it.

No comment on the research updates? You know, the peer reviewed reality checks based on actual experimental data rather than assumptions, speculation and untested climate modeling?

Waiting for ad hominem attacks against Spencer......

 

[Pipirr]

Nice retort. Worthless, but in typical fashion. The Tamino link is precisely why he is not to be trusted as the example exposes how he plays the game. All propaganda has an element of truth though doesn't it.

I don't think people here care as much about the "he said, she said" shenanigans of the blogging world as you seem to do.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

The only thing missing from Spencer's paper is an explanation of how the atmosphere knows that warming is due to GHG, in which case it will create a negative feedback, rather than to one or more natural forcing mechanisms, in which case the atmosphere will let nature take its course.

 

[Megalodon]

For some reason, some people behave like the blogosphere is where science is reported and advanced...

I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that they are too lazy to present their "research" to the scientific journals?

Like truthers: all that evidence and yet can't be bothered to get out of mom's basement...

 

[Spud1k]

No comment on the research updates? You know, the peer reviewed reality checks based on actual experimental data rather than assumptions, speculation and untested climate modeling?

Waiting for ad hominem attacks against Spencer......

What's the point of using ad homs when we can attack the work itself?

I've never seen Spencer's point myself; a negative feedback would lessen the effect of GHG increases, not eliminate it. And it's not like this stuff explains the current warming - if anything, identifying an extra negative feedback would say that the current models would have to be underestimating the warming effect of GHGs. As for the satellite data argument, that's very old news. And then of course he's still rabbiting on about getting short-term forecasts right before he'll believe the long term predictions. As I keep tirelessly pointing out, this is just plain daft.

But like all of his stuff, the things he writes in his blogs and press releases are much more sensational than what actually makes it to publication. I hate to point out the obvious, but his sentiment puts him in a minority when it comes to authors of other articles published in the Journal of Climate and JGR and stuff, so please spare yourself the embarrassment of pretending that his work is indicative of some tidal wave of anti-IPCC material.

 

[TrueSceptic]

From Tamino the clown:


October 8, 2008 Research Update #1:
Our Feedback Diagnosis paper to appear in J. Climate, Nov. 1 issue.

October 8, 2008 Research Update #2:
Recent satellite data invalidates IPCC climate models.

You said "From Tamino the clown" yet the link is clearly to Roy Spencer responding to a blog post by Tamino. You seem to be somewhat confused.

Wait, I see You were so preocuupied with getting a Tamino insult in there that you forgot who you were actually quoting. An easy mistake to make, I agree.

 

[CapelDodger]

Nope, hang on, you were right the first time – this is where we differ. I see 07 as a typical seasonal variation revealing an inherently stressed system. A seasonal variation that will inevitably return to a more normal state – admittedly one still receiving long persistent loss. You see it as the edge of the precipice. I still fail to see how 08 fits into that scenario.

Ice-extent is acually a rather poor proxy for ice-volume, which is the critical factor. Ice-volume didn't decrease in 2007 nearly as much as ice-extent did (ice-extent fell by a little over 20% from the previous record, which was only two years earlier). So we have a fairly smooth decline in ice-volume (2008 is thought to fit into that) but a step-change in how it reflects on the ground (so to speak).

Loss of volume means the ice gets thinner, but it can't get thinner than zero, obviously. This, IMO, is the reason for the step-change. Lots of ice has thinned to zero in the last few years.

At the point that ice is replaced by open water there's an abrupt change in albedo, and positive feedback kicks in. And it's much easier to lose a lot of ice suddenly than it is to accumulate it suddenly. It takes a minimum of years to accumulate multi-year ice .

Perhaps I’m just a bit thick.

Surely not; you just have a different take on things. I doubt you've witnessed as many catastrophic endings to long, steady changes as I have. And I'll say again that the "long persistent loss" is in ice-volume; ice-extent is only a manifestation of that.

Very brave. Long term patterns would seem to make your hypothesis unlikely. But I guess the ‘I told you so’ will be all the sweeter.

"Told you so" only counts when it's edgy, and I only gamble when I think I have an edge.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Waiting for ad hominem attacks against Spencer......

Would you care to tell us what attacks you are expecting? Would you agree that we should discuss what Spencer has actually written about climate science and disregard other matters?

 

[TrueSceptic]

For some reason, some people behave like the blogosphere is where science is reported and advanced...

I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that they are too lazy to present their "research" to the scientific journals?

That is unfair. They are not lazy. They put a lot of effort into this stuff. The problem is that it is too poor to get published in real journals and ends up in E&E.

Like truthers: all that evidence and yet can't be bothered to get out of mom's basement...

Or the deniosphere.

 

[CapelDodger]

For some reason, some people behave like the blogosphere is where science is reported and advanced...

I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that they are too lazy to present their "research" to the scientific journals?

Like truthers: all that evidence and yet can't be bothered to get out of mom's basement...

My sense of irony is tickled by the fact that rising sea-levels will affect basements first. I can picture people hunched over their keyboards with the ice-caps lapping around their ankles, arguing that global warming can't be happening because their feet are cold.

Who'd know from Watts, McIntyre, the Pielkes, Lord Munchkin, yadda-yadda, if they weren't stars in their little self-referential world? They're not going to give that status up easily, nor are their acolytes going to easily admit that their idols have feet of (increasingly wet) clay.

 

[CapelDodger]

That is unfair. They are not lazy. They put a lot of effort into this stuff. The problem is that it is too poor to get published in real journals and ends up in E&E.

Their commitment is beyond question. Denying AGW has become the core of their late-life identity. And they will die with their boots on.

 

[CapelDodger]

Would you care to tell us what attacks you are expecting? Would you agree that we should discuss what Spencer has actually written about climate science and disregard other matters?

Spencer is particularly egregious. He gets a peer-reviewed paper published on water being wet or whatever, and then hits the blogosphere claiming that his peer-reviewed paper is yet another deathknell for AGW. Which is good enough for his target audience.

 

[a_unique_person]

DR Said

Weather: when conditions are not favorable to AGW it is weather. Ten years without warming is noise. Seven years of downward trend is too short to mean anything. Nobody ever said temperatures would be a continuous upward process (except IPCC).

If you look at the existing temperature record, there have been several years when it followed a similar pattern to what it is now. And it hasn't been cooling for seven years.

 

[CapelDodger]

What's the point of using ad homs when we can attack the work itself?

Exactly.

In rugby terminology, David Rodale is "getting his retaliation in first". Not waiting for ad hominems to occur before he whines about them.

But like all of his stuff, the things he writes in his blogs and press releases are much more sensational than what actually makes it to publication.

By working up the thread I've inadvertently repeated a point you've already made . I really must catch up.

 

[CapelDodger]

Capel Dodger….

Couldn’t work out the Aussie meant Australian… you being a pom and all, you haven’t even got the excuse of ignorance…… maybe you are having more trouble working things out than you think !

I'm fully aware of what "Aussie" means. I'm also aware of what "Thinker" means". Given that you're so evidently not a thinker, why should I believe you're an Aussie just on your say-so?

 

[CapelDodger]

Next years minimum of what? SC23? NASA blew that for the last two years. Now they've extended it out to July 2009. It is a good thing for NASA they don't rely on funding based on making bets. Why do you think Hathaway is so bent on a very strong SC24, just for kicks? Every month that ticks by makes SC24 less likely to be strong. Met O says warming will return in ernest beginning in 2009; no connection to expectations of a very strong SC24?

Indeed, no connection.

You are, in effect, claiming that the Met Office predictions will be wrong if there's a weak SC24. You haven't come out and said it, but it's strongly enough implied for me to hold you to it.

I'll assume you refer to 2009 ice extent.

It's obvious, in context, that that is exactly the subject.

What can be done is research why the ice melted as it did the last several years, then the 2007 anomaly. From that we can study the data to see if it or other factors have changed since then. BenBurch thought he had all sewn up for 2008, but nature has a way of mucking things up doesn't it?

I've no doubt you're very aware of that. The big bad analogue model does keep pissing on your parade, doesn't it?

So, have you studied the data or is this a willy nilly roll of the dice? I've never been much for making bets without being pretty sure of the outcome beforehand. 2008 was supposed to surpass 2007.

By people that you've made up.

Why didn't it? I'm not positive, but it appears to be a result of changing conditions in the Arctic to a return of a cooling period.

The cooling period goes away with an old lover for an entire year out of seven or eight, and you're still willing to take it back without delving into what went on. That's commitment.

Understandably, CO2 worshipers ...

We worship CO₂ now. Al' Gore told us to. Irony.

... automatically assume warming or melting of ice is a result of rising CO2 levels. The problem is you haven't presented any direct evidence to support it.

The problem you've got is that the world's ice is quitting the scene, at an increasing rate during this century (the 21st). You're reduced to hoping it's a coincidence and might stop.

Amongst howls and ridicule (Schneibster RIP) last year I suggested 2007 was beginning a decline into a strong cooling. Several posts ago I said Sept was likely going to spike, but the following months will bring more cooling again. Well, what happened in September? Do you think those conclusions came by counting CO2 molecules?

Tell us what happened in September, and what's happened since. It's warming in the Antipodes.

So, to answer your question, no, I don't care to bet ...

Colour me unsurprised; anyone that scatters question-marks around as you do is not a natural-born betting man.

... but if I were a bettin' man, things aren't looking so good for you. A hint of a few metrics to research. Look up ENSO 3.4 and PDO, AMO, AAM, OLR etc. What is the current ENSO 3.4?
[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032348ead44a52c31.gif[/URL]

Another is GLAAM. The rest you'll have to figure out. We all know the sun can't possibly affect weather/climate right? Warmology disciples have been programmed to think that way. We'll just have to see what awaits us in 6 months

In six months time you'll still be blabbering, posting pictures, and unwilling to commit to anything concrete.

"The fundamentals of our climate are sound". It has a familiar ring.

 

[DogB]

Ice-extent is acually a rather poor proxy for ice-volume, which is the critical factor. Ice-volume didn't decrease in 2007 nearly as much as ice-extent did (ice-extent fell by a little over 20% from the previous record, which was only two years earlier). So we have a fairly smooth decline in ice-volume (2008 is thought to fit into that) but a step-change in how it reflects on the ground (so to speak).

Loss of volume means the ice gets thinner, but it can't get thinner than zero, obviously. This, IMO, is the reason for the step-change. Lots of ice has thinned to zero in the last few years.

Ok, that’s a elegant explanation and I like it.

I’m trying to follow it up but I’m finding it a little hard to find hard data (papers not just second hand news reports) – you wouldn’t have handy link would you?

At the point that ice is replaced by open water there's an abrupt change in albedo, and positive feedback kicks in. And it's much easier to lose a lot of ice suddenly than it is to accumulate it suddenly. It takes a minimum of years to accumulate multi-year ice .

And again, this is where I struggle with the whole tipping point argument. IMHO a system this unstable wouldn’t persist. There must be a negative feedback mechanism or the first long hot summer we had would doom the entire Artic to perpetual ice free status.

In 08 we had a very cold winter followed by a mild summer. The result was an unusually large amount of first year ice managed to survive the summer. The obvious inference from this is that the decrease in albedo was overwhelmed by a local weather event. This tells me the system isn’t quite a simple as you have inferred. For instance, in the early part of winter as the nights become longer, does dark water radiate heat more effectively than white snow?

If you can answer this I’d really like to know. My own attempts to research it have only proved to me that an inexplicably large percentage of the work in this area is published in Norwegian.

 

[CapelDodger]

I’m trying to follow it up but I’m finding it a little hard to find hard data (papers not just second hand news reports) – you wouldn’t have handy link would you?

I'm afraid not, the chain starts and ends with me.

And again, this is where I struggle with the whole tipping point argument. IMHO a system this unstable wouldn’t persist. There must be a negative feedback mechanism or the first long hot summer we had would doom the entire Artic to perpetual ice free status.

"Perpetual" is way outside the timescale. My point is that a summer (such as 2007) had such an impact. I wouldn't read so much into 2007 if summer 2005 hadn't itself been described as "remarkable" in its day.

In 08 we had a very cold winter followed by a mild summer. The result was an unusually large amount of first year ice managed to survive the summer. The obvious inference from this is that the decrease in albedo was overwhelmed by a local weather event.

No doubt, but one-year ice can only form on open water and 2007 left us with a lot of that. What one year brings another can take away.

This tells me the system isn’t quite a simple as you have inferred. For instance, in the early part of winter as the nights become longer, does dark water radiate heat more effectively than white snow?

It does, and that's a negative feedback, but a negative feedback can only diminish an influence, it can't reverse it.

If you can answer this I’d really like to know. My own attempts to research it have only proved to me that an inexplicably large percentage of the work in this area is published in Norwegian.

The Norwegian interest in ice is, when you think about it, easily explicable. Frost Giants are fundamental to Norse mythology for a good reason.

 

[David Rodale]

Indeed, no connection.

You are, in effect, claiming that the Met Office predictions will be wrong if there's a weak SC24. You haven't come out and said it, but it's strongly enough implied for me to hold you to it.



It's obvious, in context, that that is exactly the subject.



I've no doubt you're very aware of that. The big bad analogue model does keep pissing on your parade, doesn't it?



By people that you've made up.



The cooling period goes away with an old lover for an entire year out of seven or eight, and you're still willing to take it back without delving into what went on. That's commitment.



We worship CO₂ now. Al' Gore told us to. Irony.



The problem you've got is that the world's ice is quitting the scene, at an increasing rate during this century (the 21st). You're reduced to hoping it's a coincidence and might stop.




Tell us what happened in September, and what's happened since. It's warming in the Antipodes.



Colour me unsurprised; anyone that scatters question-marks around as you do is not a natural-born betting man.



In six months time you'll still be blabbering, posting pictures, and unwilling to commit to anything concrete.

"The fundamentals of our climate are sound". It has a familiar ring.

Yes, yes, its warming here, cooling there just as it always has. However, as you have hung your hat on the Arctic, lets concentrate there. Despite all the news hype and "scientists" warning of an ice free arctic even this year, what is happening there now? As you like to say, stop clinging to the past.


I don't recall what evidence you've given that rising CO2 levels as being the cause of Arctic ice melt, particularly 2007. You wouldn't happen to have it?

You are, in effect, claiming that the Met Office predictions will be wrong if there's a weak SC24. You haven't come out and said it, but it's strongly enough implied for me to hold you to it.

Met O has it down; when they blow a forecast, update the models to match reality, claim they are now correct and create new predictions so policy makers can make decisions based on them.
I've already stated several times Met O is relying on a strong SC24. Read their statements.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070810.html

The new model incorporates the effects of sea surface temperatures as well as other factors such as man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, projected changes in the sun's output and the effects of previous volcanic eruptions — the first time internal and external variability have both been predicted.

That sure sounds like they are assuming something about the sun. Now, if SC24 does not meet the projected changes, which if you'd bother checking was it would be off the charts, then that means they have an out if it fails to warm as predicted. Well, it is off charts, but in the wrong direction. You say there is no solar connection, I say there is a strong connection. Correlation is not causation, however causation must have correlation.

You discount ENSO, yet it is very easy to see PDO shifts are dominated by ENSO events. During warm cycles, El Nino dominates. During cold cycles, La Nina does. Now that NASA has announced the PDO has switched to the negative phase, one should expect fewer El Nino events. Maybe you missed it:



I'm not too concerned about the 'big bad analogue' model. I don't drive a model T Ford or use punch cards for an 9600 baud IBM teletype either.

 

[Spud1k]

I don't recall what evidence you've given that rising CO2 levels as being the cause of Arctic ice melt, particularly 2007. You wouldn't happen to have it?

CO2 retains heat in the earth system. Heat causes ice to melt. More CO2, more heat, less ice.

Met O has it down; when they blow a forecast, update the models to match reality, claim they are now correct and create new predictions so policy makers can make decisions based on them.
I've already stated several times Met O is relying on a strong SC24. Read their statements.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070810.html
That sure sounds like they are assuming something about the sun. Now, if SC24 does not meet the projected changes, which if you'd bother checking was it would be off the charts, then that means they have an out if it fails to warm as predicted. Well, it is off charts, but in the wrong direction. You say there is no solar connection, I say there is a strong connection.

Uh? There is a solar connection and no-one is pretending otherwise. The MO would be daft not to consider it with the best assessment science has to offer. However, it doesn't alter the fact that its effects are weak compared to those of CO2. Got anything that says otherwise beyond speculation about cosmic rays?

Correlation is not causation, however causation must have correlation.

You see what you made me do? I managed to go 520 posts on this forum without using that smilie.

Seriously, if only science was that simple. Ever hear about time lags? What about non-linearities? They routinely throw correlations completely off kilter and the earth system has plenty of both.

You discount ENSO, yet it is very easy to see PDO shifts are dominated by ENSO events. During warm cycles, El Nino dominates. During cold cycles, La Nina does. Now that NASA has announced the PDO has switched to the negative phase, one should expect fewer El Nino events. Maybe you missed it:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032348ead44a52c31.gif[/qimg]

ENSO causes oscillations in the earth's climate (the clue is in the 'O'), not systematic warming or cooling. Claim to explain why the earth has warmed up over the time period covered by your graph?

I'm not too concerned about the 'big bad analogue' model. I don't drive a model T Ford or use punch cards for an 9600 baud IBM teletype either.

You should be concerned about it. You're part of it, after all.