Global warming discussion III

[macdoc]

Good - irked me to no end to see a known climate troll authorong the previous thread....even if it was luck of the draw

••

This was from 1981 and undershot the actual gain..

Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection
Filed under: Climate modelling Climate Science Greenhouse gases Instrumental Record — group @ 2 April 2012

Guest commentary from Geert Jan van Oldenborgh and Rein Haarsma, KNMI

Sometimes it helps to take a step back from the everyday pressures of research (falling ill helps). It was in this way we stumbled across Hansen et al (1981) (pdf). In 1981 the first author of this post was in his first year at university and the other just entered the KNMI after finishing his masters. Global warming was not yet an issue at the KNMI where the focus was much more on climate variability, which explains why the article of Hansen et al. was unnoticed at that time by the second author. It turns out to be a very interesting read.

They got 10 pages in Science, which is a lot, but in it they cover radiation balance, 1D and 3D modelling, climate sensitivity, the main feedbacks (water vapour, lapse rate, clouds, ice- and vegetation albedo); solar and volcanic forcing; the uncertainties of aerosol forcings; and ocean heat uptake. Obviously climate science was a mature field even then: the concepts and conclusions have not changed all that much. Hansen et al clearly indicate what was well known (all of which still stands today) and what was uncertain.

- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-temperature-projection/#sthash.pyd1ya4U.dpuf

 

[aleCcowaN]

A large part of the problem is that he seems stuck only reading abstracts, which can give mistaken impressions about what research was actually done and what the conclusions of that research actually report.

I would say that is more a problem of tiny data buffers typical of people without education beyond K-12: the user can't retain 4 chunks of information at the same time and reflect on them. Add to that epistemological hedonism and you have a two-part chunk of information that seems to fit his rhetorical wishes ("Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century**") adorned with a praise about what he found -said in a peculiar language mimicking scientific jargon- ("When Nature publishes a scientific paper by working climate scientist, you can usually be certain it's peer reviewed actual science" -yes, many paper with peer reviewed mathematics-) and the usual attack to whom he considers to be the weak in the flock ("It's why I ignore internet pundits and non scientist who keep trying to tell everyone that the warming has continued. Which is of course a complete lie." sheep quotation "Meanwhile, actual working scientist are busy figuring out why, rather than denying it has happened.")

But obviously he catastrophically fails with his original phrase, because of the ** part and the real meaning, unknown to him. The ** part is two papers in support of the phrase. Here are both abstracts (bolding added):

We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.

Numerous websites, blogs and articles in the media have claimed that the climate is no longer warming, and is now cooling. Here we show that periods of no trend or even cooling of the globally averaged surface air temperature are found in the last 34 years of the observed record, and in climate model simulations of the 20th and 21st century forced with increasing greenhouse gases. We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer-term warming.

The real meaning of "Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century" that r-j can't grasp is that the red part refers to temperature variations in a sub-period being not strong enough to rule out natural variability.

So they ran some modified climate models and found that if they tweaked them just so, and carefully filtered the data they input they could replicate conditions that fit their understanding of the so-called hiatus.

Take a look and you'll find they tweak coupled models, not earth system models. If I could have a system with 140 Tby of memory to keep state and a proportional RAM memory to make it run smoothly -and time to spare-, I would run one of a few earth system myself -the code is freely available-. Sometimes it's interesting just analysing one of hundreds of modules in it, like the permafrost's which corresponds to a discussion between us about the declining of atmospheric CO2 in a no-emissions scenario that we have to continue.

 

[Trakar]

So they ran some modified climate models and found that if they tweaked them just so, and carefully filtered the data they input they could replicate conditions that fit their understanding of the so-called hiatus.

Take a look and you'll find they tweak coupled models, not earth system models. If I could have a system with 140 Tby of memory to keep state and a proportional RAM memory to make it run smoothly -and time to spare-, I would run one of a few earth system myself -the code is freely available-. Sometimes it's interesting just analysing one of hundreds of modules in it, like the permafrost's which corresponds to a discussion between us about the declining of atmospheric CO2 in a no-emissions scenario that we have to continue.

Yeah that did come out a lot more condensed and flippant than I intended,...and thank-you for the reminder, there were some follow-on questions that I wanted to ask you in our little side discussion. I'll look back over my notes and try to get something up today or tomorrow, now that we're in a new thread it'd be good to get that discussion continued here. Being an election year (midterms) here in the states I do tend to get side-tracked a lot between summer and November.

 

[Trakar]

duplicate post deleted

 

[Trakar]

Oorah

Good - irked me to no end to see a known climate troll authorong the previous thread....even if it was luck of the draw

LOL, and Batvette is known for his activities and behavior on multiple sites,...yeah, it kind of bothered me as well.

LOMILLER will represent!
Three cheers for the new thread!
Oorah!
Oorah!
Oorah!

 

[Trakar]

Idiocracy Trying to Dictate Science

Three Major Mistakes the House Science Committee Chairman Made in the Wall Street Journal - http://blog.ucsusa.org/three-major-...-chairman-made-in-the-wall-street-journal-567

• Transparency is a good thing overall, and efforts to be clearer about the analysis relied upon by the government (including Congress!) in making policy must be vigorously pursued. But the “Secret Science Reform Act” is all about attacking and stymieing the EPA and other regulatory agencies, not transparency...
• Mr. Smith states flatly that the data EPA uses on the benefits of the recent EPA proposed rule on CO2 emissions from power plants are “secret”. That just isn’t so. The National Climate Assessment, which the EPA relied heavily upon, and which the Chairman has dismissed out of hand apparently without a reading, synthesizes what we know about the impacts in the US of ongoing global warming, including public health impacts...
• Mr. Smith asserts that most of the research the EPA relies on is funded by the EPA and then reviewed by scientists also funded by the EPA. But again, that is simply untrue. There is a huge amount of research going on concerning climate change and relatively little is funded by the EPA, as the Chairman should know since it is reported to Congress. And the major reviews such as the National Climate Assessment were not EPA funded, nor were the National Academy of Sciences studies. Reviewers come from all across the country and indeed the world, and most are not primarily funded by EPA.

Makes about as much sense as asking a bartender why your wife doesn't love you any more.

 

[Haig]

Actual climate science deniers who believe that "the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change" despite the simple fact that it has warmed in the past 35 years while the Sun has been constant in output.

That's not correct RC, actually the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has been trending down since around when the Pause/Hiatus started. Just a coincidence?

Looks like we are heading to the TSI levels of the LIA as the Sun descends into a Grand Solar Minimum

Other recent studies support this ...

David Evans devises solar model to tame climate chaos

BIG NEWS VIII: New solar theory predicts imminent global cooling. There are three big drops in solar radiation in the 400 years of records. The first, in the 1600s, led to the Maunder Minimum, the coldest time in the last 400 years. The second in Napoleon’s time, led to the Dalton Minimum, the second coldest time in the last 400 years. The third started in 2004, but hasn’t led to cooling...yet. The notch-delay theory says that the fall in TSI signals a fall in force X which acts after a delay, which seems to be 11 years. So the fall will occur in 2004 + 11 = 2015. But the delay is tied to the solar cycle length, currently 13 years, so the cooling is more likely to start in 2004 + 13 = 2017. The cooling will be at least 0.2°C, maybe 0.5°C, enough to undo global warming back to the 1950s. The carbon dioxide and ND solar theories have been in agreement over the least century due to generally rising carbon dioxide and solar radiation, but now they sharply diverge. Only one of them can be correct, and soon we’ll know which one. Here's the criterion: A fall of at least 0.1°C (on a 1-year smoothed basis) in global average surface air temperature over the next decade. If the criterion does not occur then the ND solar theory is rubbish and should be thrown away. If it does occur then the carbon dioxide theory is rubbish, and should be thrown away.

So RC what do you say to the notch filler? suggesting "This means there must be a delay — probably around 11 years. This not only fitted with the length of the solar dynamo cycle, but also with previous independent work suggesting a lag of ten years or a correlation with the solar activity of the previous cycle. The synopsis then is that solar irradiance (TSI) is a leading indicator of some other effect coming from the Sun after a delay of 11 years or so."

 

[DC]

That's not correct RC, actually the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has been trending down since around when the Pause/Hiatus started. Just a coincidence?

Looks like we are heading to the TSI levels of the LIA as the Sun descends into a Grand Solar Minimum

Other recent studies support this ...

David Evans devises solar model to tame climate chaos




So RC what do you say to the notch filler? suggesting "This means there must be a delay — probably around 11 years. This not only fitted with the length of the solar dynamo cycle, but also with previous independent work suggesting a lag of ten years or a correlation with the solar activity of the previous cycle. The synopsis then is that solar irradiance (TSI) is a leading indicator of some other effect coming from the Sun after a delay of 11 years or so."

TSI is going down since the 1960 according to your graph. didn0t prevent the planet from warming.

and a grand solar minimum has little impact

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50361/abstract

 

[a_unique_person]

Mr. Smith states flatly that the data EPA uses on the benefits of the recent EPA proposed rule on CO2 emissions from power plants are “secret”. That just isn’t so. The National Climate Assessment, which the EPA relied heavily upon, and which the Chairman has dismissed out of hand apparently without a reading, synthesizes what we know about the impacts in the US of ongoing global warming, including public health impacts..

If the facts don't accord with your fantasy, then just ignore the facts.

 

[a_unique_person]

That's not correct RC, actually the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has been trending down since around when the Pause/Hiatus started. Just a coincidence?

Looks like we are heading to the TSI levels of the LIA as the Sun descends into a Grand Solar Minimum

Other recent studies support this ...

David Evans devises solar model to tame climate chaos




So RC what do you say to the notch filler? suggesting "This means there must be a delay — probably around 11 years. This not only fitted with the length of the solar dynamo cycle, but also with previous independent work suggesting a lag of ten years or a correlation with the solar activity of the previous cycle. The synopsis then is that solar irradiance (TSI) is a leading indicator of some other effect coming from the Sun after a delay of 11 years or so."

 

[aleCcowaN]

That's not correct RC, actually the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has been trending down since around when the Pause/Hiatus started. Just a coincidence?

Before showing that piece of crap, Haig, were you aware that today's Total Solar Irradiance is about 1317 W/m2 when it happens that last January 1st it was about 1408 W/m2? Were you also aware that despite that fact the planet warmed more than 7°F during the same period?

It looks you're coming back for your daily hard landing, what is common when an epistemological hedonism on steroids makes you stray from reality.

By the way, are you going to apologize with the forums.randi.org community for throwing Mörner's crap here? So far you haven't commented on that.

 

[aleCcowaN]

David Evans devises solar model to tame climate chaos

What is this? Stand-up comedy day?

 

[Haig]

The TSI variability of 0.1% isn't the full picture ... solar magnetics AND extreme ultraviolet (EUV) vary much much more than that !!!

Terrestrial ground temperature variations in relation to solar magnetic variability, including the present Schwabe cycle

The effect of the present solar low activity cycle (#24), in addition to the recent Phase Transition results in a reduced value of ΔTsun during the past decade. That component may be responsible for the slower rise of the temperature that occurred after about 2000.

.

Also consider this from NASA ...

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.

 

[aleCcowaN]

.

Also consider this from NASA ...

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

Yes, of course. And? What did you think? that that wasn't known or considered?

I'd like to know what crazy idea did you have about "strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere".

 

[Haig]

the planet warmed more than 7°F during the same period?

Got a source for that "fact"

By the way, are you going to apologize with the forums.randi.org community for throwing Mörner's crap here? So far you haven't commented on that.

Nothing to apologize for my man.

Since when have the warmest crowd been perfect in the material they push out? and apologized for their now routine ad homs never mind their mistakes? What's that I hear you say ... never? ... when Hell freezes over ... well funny you should say that because it's going to be getting quite a bit colder soon Little Ice Age type of thing and that is a much more worrying prospect than global warming was ... like during the Medieval Warm Period

The Sun defines the climate and it will soon become obvious to even the most stubborn AGW believer very very soon.

 

[Haig]

Yes, of course. And? What did you think? that that wasn't known or considered?

I'd like to know what crazy idea did you have about "strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere".

.
Well the science actually if you look at recent papers ..

S0 News July 9, 2014 | Solar Flare, External Forcing

TODAY'S FEATURED LINKS:
India Climate:
West Pacific Warming and Solar:
Cosmic Rays & CLimate:
Censorship:
Cosmic Ray Volcano:

see the links to these papers below the video just click on "show more"

 

[aleCcowaN]

Got a source for that "fact"

Of course, it's public and obvious and redundant and everywhere. The problem is why don't you know it. Already explained in the previous thread(s)

Nothing to apologize for my man.

Since when have the warmest crowd been perfect in the material they push out? and apologized for their now routine ad homs never mind their mistakes? What's that I hear you say ... never? ... when Hell freezes over ... well funny you should say that because it's going to be getting quite a bit colder soon Little Ice Age type of thing and that is a much more worrying prospect than global warming was ... like during the Medieval Warm Period

The Sun defines the climate and it will soon become obvious to even the most stubborn AGW believer very very soon.

What a load of tosh! You are like any other chap making prophecies for the near future. You can't explain the most ridiculous assertions in them and you keep silent every time you're caught in your constant blunders.

Tell me, yes or no and why?

• Today's Total Solar Irradiance is about 1317 W/m2
• Last January 1st, it was about 1408 W/m2
• However, in the same period the planet has become much warmer
• More than 7°F is the value of that
• The planet is going to become much cooler very soon.
• Yet Total Solar Irradiance is going up madly while that happens.

And the most important: Why do you ignore these basic data?

Stop abusing of a twisted and corrupted definition of "ad hom". Nobody says your arguments are wrong because you are an ***** -that indeed is an "ad hom"-. Everybody is saying that every argument you drop here is **** and explaining why, and independently of that you qualify as an ***** because of your pattern of doing the same once and again and doing it worse even when you are warned about your errors. That is not an "ad hom", that is at most an ungentlemanly way to point your errors and flaws.

What you basically do is googling and discovering chunks of text that seem to align with your wished notions, like «... the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.» and instead of researching a bit more and discover, for instance, the old good Chapman cycle, or FinROSE-ctm, or HAMMONIA, you start buying that as a secret backdoor -only known by a bunch of initiated- that contains elements that govern fundamental states of the climate and are harbinger of little ice ages and other similar crap.

By doing that repeatedly and tainting the debate, be certain you are going to be treated here as you deserve. Always. Deservingly, you're way beyond the kid gloves handling stage here.

 

[aleCcowaN]

.
Well the science actually if you look at recent papers ..

S0 News July 9, 2014 | Solar Flare, External Forcing

TODAY'S FEATURED LINKS:
India Climate:
West Pacific Warming and Solar:
Cosmic Rays & CLimate:
Censorship:
Cosmic Ray Volcano:

see the links to these papers below the video just click on "show more"

That doesn't relate in the very least with the text of mine you quoted. Again: I'd like to know what crazy idea did you have about "strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere".

Now, concentrate and reply. Take into account that you fail to link an adequate web source that is related to the topic you think you're replying to. And there's still the fact that your linking doesn't mean you have understood what you link. That's why you go here like a hummingbird buzzing around while you move fast from here to there without even staying in the very subjects you propose.

 

[BenBurch]

http://darksnowproject.org/

Greenland's albedo is near record low.


ETA: And you will recall in 2008 or so when I predicted this would be the flaw in those models...

 

[r-j]

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.

Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03