Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[aleCcowaN]

They lied to the publisher and committed academic “malpractice” in their choice editors and referees.
http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/

Of course the fact that the publication had an inherent position at all should have told you all you needed to know, but the fact that the “journal” was really just the same 4 people writing, editing and reviewing each others “papers” so they could pass them off as science tells you just how little integrity these deniers have.

I'll wait for r-j and Malcolm's review before agreeing with that comment.

 

[Mikemcc]

Considering that even Anthony Watts is appalled at the poor editorial standards of the defunct journal, I would say there's not much meat on that bone for deniers.

The Journal was terminated because there was an understanding that the editorial board was not going to use it as an Anti-AGW soapbox, but to do what the name of the Journal implied. They failed to do so, and let very bad articles through, that in no reputable journal would have gone through without severe editorial remarks (at the least). Additionally, and according to the publisher, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis. That is a big no-no.

Copernicus, trying to maintain the good name that is so difficult to achieve and maintain among open access publishers, closed them down.

Importantly, the offending issues were not removed or edited, so anyone can read them, cite them or laugh at them for as long as the publisher exists.

So, once again I get to say that you're wrong.

The worst part is that they suckered in a few legitimate papers as well. I bet the authors of those are absolutely livid.

 

[Mikemcc]

the models simulate physics, its not that the models are told to simply form less clouds when the surface temps rise. this is a consequence of the simulation of the physics and chemistry. that is how they even got the idea that increased surface temps reduce cloud cover.

well water vapor inderectly forms clouds. clouds are not made of water vapor, but of liquid or frozen water in combination with aerosols.

and clouds do not only reflect sun light, the also reflect IR radiation and preventing it from escaping to space, thus leading to warming. it all depends on the hight of the cloud wich effect is stronger.

and plant growth increase is nowhere enough to set off our increased CO2 levels. and why do you think negative feedbacks dominate?
i don't know if one can even say negative or positive feedbacks dominate, the feedbacks cause the changes to amplify. when it cools down, the feedbacks amplify that cooling. for example do to the formation of more ice and snow areas, more sunlight gets reflected and thus increases the cooling. and when it warms up, and ice and snow areas become less, more sunlight is absorbed, increasing the warming.

so especially when you talk about stable climate its not dominated by any feedbacks.

There's a new paper out - Sherwood et al 2014 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html). Looked at 43 models and found those with low ECS didn't correctly simulate high altitude clouds correctly. Apparently more water rains out at lower altitudes and isn't available to form high altitude clouds. Tends to confirm the evidence that the ECS is in the 3 deg C / doubling ballpark.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Haig View Post

However Australian heatwaves are nothing new

Except it's not a "heatwave" when it's the hottest year on record for a continent.
That's an anomaly.
Then you add up the anomalous years like 10 of the last 12 it has the elements of a trend.

WHen you add up the anomalous annuals over 3 decades or 10 decades it becomes a climate trend for a continent.

Temperature
Since 1950, average temperatures have risen by 0.9ºC though there have been significant regional variations. Figure 3 shows the average temperature change per decade since 1950, with darker red for the areas of most increase, and blue for those areas where the temperature has fallen. The greatest warming has occurred in central-eastern Australia while north-west Australia has had the least warming or even slight cooling. Warming has occurred in all seasons, however the strongest warming has occurred in spring and the weakest in summer. Despite significant year to year variation, every decade since 1950 has been significantly warmer than the previous decade – this includes the 2000’s being significantly warmer than the 1990’s.

http://www.dairyaustralia.com.au/An...sics/Climate-change-projections/Evidence.aspx

Then you overlay that with the daily heat records and heatwaves to assess risk for someone like the dairy farmers....that IS a risk they are facing and have.

Are you calling them fools?? Victims of a "conspiracy"?

Figure 1 shows the variations in mean annual temperature in Australia for the last 100 years – bars are blue or red depending on whether the year was colder or hotter than the 1961-1990 average. Indications of global warming include:

Air and ocean temperatures increased 0.7oC from 1906-2005

Only 5 of the ‘hotter than average years for Australia’ occurred before 1950, with a clearly rising temperature trend for the last 100 years

They keep good nation wide records....and it's in their face.

 

[macdoc]

pattern journal.....sniff sniff...something rotten and not in Denmark..

Specifically, there are some problems with Copernicus Publications’ journal Pattern Recognition in Physics. The problems are these:

The journal’s editor-in-chief, Sid-Ali Ouadfeul, who works for the Algerian Petroleum Institute, started publishing his research in journal articles around 2010, but he’s only been cited a couple times, not counting his many self-citations.

Co-editor-in-chief Nils-Axel Morner is a noted climate “skeptic” who believes in dowsing (water divining) and believes he has found the “Hong Kong of the [ancient] Greeks” in Sweden, among other things. These beliefs are documented in Wikipedia and The Guardian. Morner has over 125 publications, but pattern recognition does not appear to be among his specialties.

Moreover, speaking of “pattern recognition,” my analysis revealed some self-plagiarism by editor Ouadfeul in the very first paper the journal published, an article he himself co-authored.

http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/07/16/r...f-problems-in-pattern-recognition-in-physics/

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

MK ...
Purposeful blinkers again - don't see what you don't want to acknowledge
...you were educated on who is appropriately informed to be a skeptic on a facet of climate science....models. Gavin Schmidt is. ...

Two points:
1) You concede that there was no discussion of climate, but only of people.
2) Schmidt (and Connerley) are mathematicians (model builders). Dyson, Motl, and Giaever are physicists. How do Schmidt and Connerley qualify as "climate scientists (and therefore "appropriately informed") and physicists not?

Back to climate: temperature warming typically comes before increases in atmospheric CO₂, consistent with the view that natural CO₂ variations constitute a feedback in the glacial-interglacial cycle rather than a primary cause.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

the models simulate physics, its not that the models are told to simply form less clouds when the surface temps rise. this is a consequence of the simulation of the physics and chemistry. that is how they even got the idea that increased surface temps reduce cloud cover.

well water vapor inderectly forms clouds. clouds are not made of water vapor, but of liquid or frozen water in combination with aerosols.

and clouds do not only reflect sun light, the also reflect IR radiation and preventing it from escaping to space, thus leading to warming. it all depends on the hight of the cloud wich effect is stronger.

and plant growth increase is nowhere enough to set off our increased CO2 levels. and why do you think negative feedbacks dominate?
i don't know if one can even say negative or positive feedbacks dominate, the feedbacks cause the changes to amplify. when it cools down, the feedbacks amplify that cooling. for example do to the formation of more ice and snow areas, more sunlight gets reflected and thus increases the cooling. and when it warms up, and ice and snow areas become less, more sunlight is absorbed, increasing the warming.

so especially when you talk about stable climate its not dominated by any feedbacks.

I agree with most of this. That last paragraph: "I don't know ... increasing the warming" describes negative feedback (damping, the opposite of a runaway warming OR cooling effect).

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Evidence please.

Specifically, provide us evidence that there is dispute in the scientific literature over the existence of forcing and feedback.

The disputes involve the strength of forcing and the direction of feedbacks, not existence.

 

[Trakar]

One huge area that fossil fuels are needed, is fixing nitrogen from the air, to make fertilizer. And cement making is also a large source of CO2. I've not seen alternatives to those issues yet. And unless you don't use anything with concrete, or you eat only 100% organic foods, you are a carbon polluter.

That's the irony.

There alternatives to tradition concrete production and the feedstocks for fertilizer (and organic chemical) industries. Due primarily to the government subsidizations of the fossil fuel industry those feedstocks are currently cheaper to use, they are not the only, nor even "best" feedstocks for those purposes.

Mods, if the following is inappropriate for this thread, please make it into a thread in the correct forum, (which I have no idea what that would be)

It seems the failed Antarctic voyage was an avoidable disaster. And that the lead researcher lied about what happened.

I'd hear rumors of this, now it seems it is true.

http://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2014/stuck-in-the-ice/

I would suggest that "current events" is probably a better fit. Here it serves no purpose and is topically irrelevant. All it seems to demonstrate is the colored judgment regarding their personal safety by researchers attempting to salvage some of their mission's goals despite circumstances threatening to keep them from retrieving any of the data they had already invested heavily to obtain.

And how much is the yearly cost of ditching all the CO2 generated by all the cement manufacturers in the whole world? 30 G$? 50 G$? That's just about 5% of what the US spend on "defense", and certainly a 0.5% of the total value of the construction industry, or even less than that. Besides, who said we have to ditch it all?

Really, where's the problem besides denialists not willing to pay for it and making a tantrum?

...and plant growth increase is nowhere enough to set off our increased CO2 levels. and why do you think negative feedbacks dominate?...

Not only is plant growth insufficient to significantly offset our annual (yet alone that accumulated over the last 10-20 decades) CO2 emissions, a "sequestration" that only lasts for a few of months and then releases back into the environment, is not sequestration. This is merely part of the "inhalation" of the planet's active carbon cycle, not a sequestration of carbon from the planet's active carbon cycle. Which is the climate relevant definition of the term "carbon sequestration."

 

[aleCcowaN]

You are being hypocritical when you mention current heatwaves in Australia with hints to it's AGW cause in previous posts.

However Australian heatwaves are nothing new

Did you imagine they were? If we haven't experienced one, how would we spot one?

No doubt we will hear how the current heatwaves in Australia are “unprecedented” and evidence of dangerous man-made global warming.

They are neither “global” nor “unprecedented”.

In the great heatwave of 1896, with nearly 200 deaths, the temperature at Bourke did not fall below 45.6 degC for six weeks, and the maximum was 53.3 degC. Bushfires raged throughout NSW and 66 people perished in the heat.


In 1897, Perth had an 18 day heatwave with a record of 43.3 degC. Other heatwaves were reported at Winton, 1891, Melbourne 1892, Boulia 1901, Sydney 1903, Perth 1906 and so on.

Why don’t we hear of these severe heatwaves from the past? Simple – the government Bureau of Meteorology conveniently ignores all temperature records before 1910.

Here is where manipulation fails: In an effort to provide false evidence of general heat waves, the manipulator puts together a lot of locations and dates that certainly prove the current events are unprecedented.

If someone among the public didn't get it yet, suppose the information is true, then not only the text covers 16 years, but it says:

In 1891 Winton had a heatwave, Melbourne didn't, Bourke didn't, Perth didn't, Boulia didn't, Sydney didn't.

In 1892 Melbourne had a heatwave, Winton didn't, Bourke didn't, Perth didn't, Boulia didn't, Sydney didn't.

In 1896 Bourke had a heatwave, Melbourne didn't, Winton didn't, Perth didn't, Boulia didn't, Sydney didn't.

In 1897 Perth had a heatwave, Melbourne didn't, Bourke didn't, Winton didn't, Boulia didn't, Sydney didn't.

In 1901 Boulia had a heatwave, Melbourne didn't, Bourke didn't, Perth didn't, Winton didn't, Sydney didn't.

In 1903 Sydney had a heatwave, Melbourne didn't, Bourke didn't, Perth didn't, Boulia didn't, Winton didn't.

In 1906 Perth had a heatwave again, Melbourne didn't, Bourke didn't, Winton didn't, Boulia didn't, Sydney didn't.

This last bit is interesting. The "recurrent" aspect is not exploited I think because the common reader would spot that the effects are mainly local, because anyone accept that a heatwave affecting Perth and Sydney at the same time is hell of a heatwave, but a heatwave affecting Winton and Boulia? A heatwave affecting Sidney and Melbourne? Did no heatwave affect Brisbane or Adelaide during that period? Where Winton and Bourke important then but Brisbane and Adelaide not? C'mon guys, this is a site about scepticism, didn't you notice?

This is not a thread about global warming and how some distrust it. This is a thread about how propaganda works, and how some obsessive chaps with little education insist they are right by using propaganda and refusing to reason or learn. It's that simple.

 

[macdoc]

I agree with most of this. That last paragraph: "I don't know ... increasing the warming" describes negative feedback (damping, the opposite of a runaway warming OR cooling effect).

Is that the kind of precise language you use to communicate? No wonder you are not earning the respect here you seem to crave.

 

[macdoc]

Haig

In the great heatwave of 1896, with nearly 200 deaths, the temperature at Bourke did not fall below 45.6 degC for six weeks, and the maximum was 53.3 degC. Bushfires raged throughout NSW and 66 people perished in the heat.


In 1897, Perth had an 18 day heatwave with a record of 43.3 degC. Other heatwaves were reported at Winton, 1891, Melbourne 1892, Boulia 1901, Sydney 1903, Perth 1906 and so on.

You concentrate on heatwaves which are weather not climate and you pick out two that were hundred years back.

Those are anomalous and interesting, but not climate unless you string a bunch of anomalies together...as we are seeing now and will see more of as it warms..

Get Used to Heat Waves: Extreme El Nino Events to Double

Jan. 19, 2014 — Extreme weather events fueled by unusually strong El Ninos, such as the 1983 heatwave that led to the Ash Wednesday bushfires in Australia, are likely to double in number as our planet warms.

An international team of scientists from organizations including the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (CoECSS), the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and CSIRO, published their findings in the journal Nature Climate Change.

"We currently experience an unusually strong El Niño event every 20 years. Our research shows this will double to one event every 10 years," said co-author, Dr Agus Santoso of CoECSS.

"El Nino events are a multi-dimensional problem, and only now are we starting to understand better how they respond to global warming," said Dr Santoso. Extreme El Niño events develop differently from standard El Ninos, which first appear in the western Pacific. Extreme El Nino's occur when sea surface temperatures exceeding 28°C develop in the normally cold and dry eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. This different location for the origin of the temperature increase causes massive changes in global rainfall patterns.

"The question of how global warming will change the frequency of extreme El Niño events has challenged scientists for more than 20 years," said co-author Dr Mike McPhaden of US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "This research is the first comprehensive examination of the issue to produce robust and convincing results," said Dr McPhaden.

El Nino's in Australia have around since the continent busted up a good while back.
They do lead to extended heat saves.

More of them will lead to increased frequency of heat waves.
That is one aspect of climate change in a warming world.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...sciencedaily/top_news+(ScienceDaily:+Top+News)

 

[Pixel42]

Back to climate: temperature warming typically comes before increases in atmospheric CO₂, consistent with the view that natural CO₂ variations constitute a feedback in the glacial-interglacial cycle rather than a primary cause.

Nobody disputes this. Climatologists certainly don't: they discovered it.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Is that the kind of precise language you use to communicate? No wonder you are not earning the respect here you seem to crave.

The hilite is imprecise. It includes my words and quoted words. I'll address an amended version.

 

[aleCcowaN]

There's a new paper out - Sherwood et al 2014 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html). Tends to confirm the evidence that the ECS is in the 3 deg C / doubling ballpark.

Which seems right in the very long term. For instance, double today's atmospheric CO2 concentration up to 800 ppm and we will have a world 3 degrees warmer in, say, 500 years.

The problem is trying to model and making corrections when you have the instant radiative force of greenhouse gases -and the dimming from aerosols- together with tiny variations in solar output but the ocean surface -from which most of the clouds worldwide comes- does it in slow motion because of the tremendous thermal capacity of the oceans.

 

[macdoc]

MK prevaricated again instead of answering the question posed.

Originally Posted by macdoc View Post

Is that the kind of precise language you use to communicate? No wonder you are not earning the respect here you seem to crave.

The hilite is imprecise. It includes my words and quoted words. I'll address an amended version.

I'll settle for you answering the oft repeated to your, never answered question.

Does atmospheric Co2 absorb IR ?

 

[macdoc]

Which seems right in the very long term. For instance, double today's atmospheric CO2 concentration up to 800 ppm and we will have a world 3 degrees warmer in, say, 500 years.

The problem is trying to model and making corrections when you have the instant radiative force of greenhouse gases -and the dimming from aerosols- together with tiny variations in solar output but the ocean surface -from which most of the clouds worldwide comes- does it in slow motion because of the tremendous thermal capacity of the oceans.

Today's PPM
Thought 3 degrees was from the 280 base line....ie 3 degrees up from the 20th century average for a 580 ppm.

I do agree the aerosols make it difficult. If China cleans up at the pace it seems to be we would have that 1980s bounce all over again.

 

[lomiller]

1) You concede that there was no discussion of climate, but only of people.

Who is/isn’t a legitimate authority on climate science is certainly an issue directly related to climate science. Why would you think otherwise?

2) Schmidt (and Connerley) are mathematicians (model builders). Dyson, Motl, and Giaever are physicists. How do Schmidt and Connerley qualify as "climate scientists (and therefore "appropriately informed") and physicists not?

The former publish on the subject regularly, in high profile journals and their work is frequently cited in the literature. This is not the case with the others you mention. This is one of the most basic mechanisms for distinguishing scientists from cranks.

Back to climate: temperature warming typically comes before increases in atmospheric CO₂,

Presumably you mean in warming at the end of a glaciation. This is not so clearly cut and dried as you have been mislead to believe.

consistent with the view that natural CO₂ variations constitute a feedback in the glacial-interglacial cycle rather than a primary cause.

It’s very difficult to even figure out what you are trying to say.

What is “natural variation of CO2”? The key distinction is whether variation is forced or unforced. Changes in CO2 are forced variations and it wouldn’t matter in the slightest if the source of the forcing is “natural” or not.

What you mean by “cause” is also unclear. In a feedback loop the feedback is every bit as much “cause” as the original disturbance. In the case of de-glaciation the forcing is orbital in nature, CO2 is part of the feedback loop. The warming in this case is caused by a change in energy a small part of which comes from the orbital wobble, a larger part comes from changes in the albedo as ice sheets melt and the largest part of which comes from the outgoing IR trapped by greenhouse gasses

 

[lomiller]

The disputes involve the strength of forcing and the direction of feedbacks, not existence.

Then provide us evidence for such “disputes” in the scientific literature.

Keep in mind that a dispute between someone arguing for 3 deg C per doubling CO2 and someone arguing for 4.5 degrees doesn’t support your argument because both agree on the existence of significant net positive feedback.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
Back to climate: temperature warming typically comes before increases in atmospheric CO2,

which is why you need to understand more climate science so you can understand why for orbital driven climate change this is so.
C02 is a feedback. Ocean uptake of C02 on a cooling planet is a feedback.
Ocean release of C02 on an orbitally warming planet is a feedback.

Answer the question.

Is does atmospheric C02 trap IR?
The fact that you do not means you either are intentionally avoiding answering a question that would undermine your denial of C02 as a driver position.
Or you cannot as you choose not to know what it means.

So - self incrimination as a denier of mainstream climate science or ignorance......which is it?