Global warming

[mhaze]

Thank you...

you are a liar
Another lie.
your appaling record with the data you have access to.
your only purpose is to look like a fool, which you manage quite nicely.

Second, there is a very large pool of ancient cold water surfacing every day - you might want to check thermohaline circulation - that, coupled with a period of low solar activity, could possibly have stalled the warming. ... I will take the scientists opinion on the matter.

you might want to check thermohaline circulation - that, coupled with a period of low solar activity, could possibly have stalled the warming. ...

Separating out the personal innuendo from the rational comments, I see that buried in a paragraph you admit that the warming has "stalled". I am really not sure what the big deal is about this.

I have mentioned this paper numerous times previously, but it seems that it may have been a bit too radical for anyone to have an interest in. Here is a brief discussion of the 2007 publication by Tsonis, "A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts".

A recent paper published in the Geophysical Research Letters deserves some attention, not only for the work done, but the implications of the paper as well. The paper, “A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts”, by A.A. Tsonis, K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov is remarkable because it brings back some common sense in the climate change debate.

This paper discusses the collective behavior of four major climate “cycles” or variations and how they may interact with each other to impact the overall direction of climate or climate change. Some of these cycles are well-known to the public, such as El Nino or the North Atlantic Oscillation, and others are less known such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

The authors can account for the warming and cooling periods of the 20th century by examining the dynamic behavior of these climate variations. In particular, they find that the climate regime can shift when these four cycles “synchronize”. Thus, they find that climate can shift, or change, due to internal (non-linear) climate dynamics, and they don’t even have to invoke an external climate change mechanism such as solar forcing.

It would seem that the old AGW theory of Aerosol cooling overwhelming the greenhouse gases in the 1970s, then the effect of greenhouse gases being the dominant factor in climate since then, is utter nonsense.
​

The full pdf of Tsonis is available online, if you have trouble finding it let us know.

Tsonis in his application of synchronised chaos theory to the non linear system of climate does not exclude the possibility of there being an AGW effect in the system. However, his work explains well the major trends in 20th century climate, which have been latched onto by Warmers as being firm evidence of AGW.

 

[mhaze]

Clarification - the following paragraph is my comment, not that of the reviewer of Tsonis, and should not have been indented.

It would seem that the old AGW theory of Aerosol cooling overwhelming the greenhouse gases in the 1970s, then the effect of greenhouse gases being the dominant factor in climate since then, is utter nonsense.
​

 

[Locri]

Any random data creates a hockey-stick?

If you want to get into technicalities, there are probably some random sets of data that wouldn't form hockey sticks, but that is a technicality only.

McIntyre used "red noise" which basically amounts to a data set that is built to have no trend at all. And it formed a hockey stick.

But we've actually observed the blade of the Hockey-Stick get longer over the last twenty years. Method has nothing to do with that.

But the hockey stick graph eliminates the medieval warm period and the little ice age which in effect makes the 'blade' look so much more worse than it actually is rather than a fairly normal reaction that is maybe slightly out of variance due to MM sources.

No it wouldn't, given the inertia of the world's oceans - thermal inertia and the dissolved-CO2 inertia. This is demonstrated by the 800 year lag in CO2 response to Milankovich warming.

I'm going to drop the whole ice core graph discussion because I'm obviously not getting through to you as to why it's important for whatever reason. I'll say one last time though, please read:

Skeptics Guide to Anthropogenic Globa Warming
(It's even a PDF.)

Are you referring to the error in calculating late-90's temperature across the contiguous-48 US states? That's a recognised error, and nobody's trying to conceal it. (Whether David Rodale includes the necessary corrections in his "no warming this decade" graphs - courtesy, I suspect, of McIntyre - is another matter.) In global terms it means squat.

Correction, it was both late 90's and early 2000 temperatures. It's a recognized error, but the recognition was a paltry small announcement several days after it came out. Compared to the fanfare that occurred when 1998 was wrongly declared the warmest year, you'd think they'd spend a little more effort on it. And you're missing the point that I was/am still talking about the way they are going about things (by saying that it means squat, which I don't think it does... even if it doesn't change the data much, the way it was handled makes it seem like they are reluctant to let the scientific method do it's work).

It was you who introduced the idea that scientists won't admit their defeats. So I used it to poke mhaze with. That doesn't make me a bad person. OK, maybe I'm not a nice person ...

Yes, but it doesn't matter how much one side is wrong if the other side is too. That's like two children in a playground who both punch some other kid there. Just because one did it doesn't justify the other doing it or make it right.

Anyway, I think I'll try a bit of a different tact. If I recall correctly, a lot of this stuff has already been discussed and it went absolutely nowhere before. The only reason I brought the topics up is because you asked me why I lean towards the Anti-AGW.

So now I have a question for you, CD:

In the past on this thread, you've stated that you don't believe that statistics are a science. How do you feel about the fact that a great deal of the IPCCs evidence relies on computer models that (like any model) relies quite heavily on statistics?

I'm also curious on thoughts about this article, which describes some potential problems with the structure of the IPCC:

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=154&Itemid=1

Wow, things are so much nicer now that I can post links. It'll be a few days before I'm able to reply again, but I'm interested in reading what you think.

 

[Locri]

It's been validated since then, using a different statistical method, with pretty much the same result, a line that looks like a 'hockey stick'.

Is this the way that is discussed in the IPCC report you linked to? The one that describes the methodology as being very close to Mann's methodology?

 

[mhaze]

If you want to get into technicalities, there are probably some random sets of data that wouldn't form hockey sticks, but that is a technicality only.

McIntyre used "red noise" which basically amounts to a data set that is built to have no trend at all. And it formed a hockey stick.

But the hockey stick graph eliminates the medieval warm period and the little ice age which in effect makes the 'blade' look so much more worse than it actually is rather than a fairly normal reaction that is maybe slightly out of variance due to MM sources.

Originally Posted by CapelDodger
But we've actually observed the blade of the Hockey-Stick get longer over the last twenty years. Method has nothing to do with that.
​

But the hockey stick graph eliminates the medieval warm period and the little ice age which in effect makes the 'blade' look so much more worse than it actually is rather than a fairly normal reaction that is maybe slightly out of variance due to MM sources.

CapelDodger has it half right.

What's been observed are the NOSES of Warmers getting longer and longer, a la Pinnochio, as they continue to defend the Hockey Stick.

 

[Locri]

The data is always imperfect. If it was never updated or revised, I would be worried.

Then why is it that, considering how much the data has been revised, the AGWs are so absolutely (almost religiously) certain? One place I visited seemed to have it right that it's almost now considered immoral to be even skeptical of the AGW position. I've read comments (from whackjobs admittedly) in reply to skeptics that are along the lines of "I wish you and everyone like you would die."

 

[Megalodon]

you might want to check thermohaline circulation - that, coupled with a period of low solar activity, could possibly have stalled the warming. ...

Separating out the personal innuendo from the rational comments, I see that buried in a paragraph you admit that the warming has "stalled". I am really not sure what the big deal is about this.

First of all, if you think that was innuendo, I would hate to see what you classify as an open insult

Of course that there is only a very small, insignificant positive trend to be seen since around 2001, when the solar activity started to decrease. But that was not one of the several claims your buddy made, was it? You can see a strong positive trend all the way up to then, and none of his claims about the trends panned out, once the graphs were produced.

Now, does that mean that a cycle has peaked and is going to start reversing? I surely hope so, but hope has no place in science. The data suggests that we are going to experience another warming in the next few years.

 

[Megalodon]

CapelDodger has it half right.

What's been observed are the NOSES of Warmers getting longer and longer, a la Pinnochio, as they continue to defend the Hockey Stick.

Now, this could be seen as an innuendo.

And a dumb one, since you've been shown wrong several times in this matter.

 

[mhaze]

First of all, if you think that was innuendo, I would hate to see what you classify as an open insult

Of course that there is only a very small, insignificant positive trend to be seen since around 2001, when the solar activity started to decrease. But that was not one of the several claims your buddy made, was it? You can see a strong positive trend all the way up to then, and none of his claims about the trends panned out, once the graphs were produced.

Now, does that mean that a cycle has peaked and is going to start reversing? I surely hope so, but hope has no place in science. The data suggests that we are going to experience another warming in the next few years.

Thank you for your reply.

I am certain that of various theories floating around, many people are waiting for the next few years to see some confirmation of them. No question of that.

When you have the time, review Tsonis 2007. In my opinion it does represent new work of a fresh sort, different than the old paradimn of "if it can't be proven to be solar it must be AGW".

 

[mhaze]

Now, this could be seen as an innuendo.

And a dumb one, since you've been shown wrong several times in this matter.

I've certainly said some dumb things, yes...we all have. But if I was at the Hockey Stick game, I'd be on the offense or just watching.

That Defend the Hockey Stick game is not a winning game. There are better pro AGW arguments than that, way better. Surely?

 

[David Rodale]

That's because you don't know how to make scatter charts. Look at Megalodon's. That's how you make a scatter chart.

Again, since you didn't read it the first time:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3063394&postcount=1917
Look in the middle of the post. There are two links to the arrival of the minimum in July and the start of the next cycle in August.

I don't know why I bother; you obviously can't read.

I know how to make scatter diagrams and use them frequently. It was fully explained in a previous post. Did you read it? It’s really quite elementary.
\
So schneibster, what you’re saying is SC24 began before SC23 ended?
The one article you linked to is August 2006
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Onset_of_Next_Solar_Activity_Cycle_Observed_999.html

Minimum activity is predicted to occur around February 2007

Oops.

The other article dated July 2007 is saying SC23 has bottomed.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/S...toms_With_A_Cold_Wet_Southern_Winter_999.html
Determining solar minimum is not a straight forward process from what I can tell, but nonetheless:

NOAA's Space Environment Center, Boulder CO, forecasts that the next solar cycle should begin in March 2008 and should peak in late 2011 or mid 2012.

Oops.

When spots begin to appear on the sun once again, scientists know that the sun is heading into a new season of extreme solar activity.

At certain locations. I don’t recall the exact log/lat.

Just so you know, SC23 doesn’t end until SC24 begins.

You’d better inform NOAA as they were predicting after Feb 2007 for SC24 to begin in March 2008 (+/- 6 months I believe is the standard error).
April 2007
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/PressRelease.html


“I was for Solar Cycle 24 before I was against it”

Predictions of SC24 made after it already began? May 2007:
http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/May_24_2007_table.pdf

I don’t Google-fu around looking for information that supports a pre-conceived position about SC24. I have openly and honestly stated there are several predictions concerning both the amplitude and length of SC24. The fact is SC23 is past due. The longer it lags, the less likely SC24 will be stronger. That much I do know. Schatten accurately predicted SC21(?), 22 and 23 if that’s something to go by, and predicts SC24 will be very weak. Until then, we can expect temperatures to drop regardless; that is what I said. If you’re willing to refute that, no problem, but it would have to fly in the face of logic. Right now the temperature trend is flat in the current decade. The AGW gang here can ignore that all you want, but only for so long.

Not that I wish to stoop to your level, and I have no problem admitting an error, but quite frankly Schneibster, your tactics are approaching the level of megalomaniac proportions.

BTW, your collar needs straightening.

 

[mhaze]

I have not read the links noted on solar cycle prediction as to when it starts, but would like to make one very obvious comment.

Anyone here that thinks they can predict accurately when the next solar cycle will start can make millions of dollars on that one. So don't sit around babbling on JREF about your opinion, just go place your money in commodity futures, then sit back and laugh at us.

 

[Schneibster]

I know how to make scatter diagrams and use them frequently.

Obviously not, since you're having trouble understanding trend lines that go from lower left to upper right.

It was fully explained in a previous post. Did you read it? It’s really quite elementary.

Elementary it might or might not have been; what it was for certain was wrong.

So schneibster, what you’re saying is SC24 began before SC23 ended?
The one article you linked to is August 2006
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Onset_of_Next_Solar_Activity_Cycle_Observed_999.html

Oops.

Sorry about that, I misread. On the other hand,

The other article dated July 2007 is saying SC23 has bottomed.

Which was my point. Glad you understood it.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/S...toms_With_A_Cold_Wet_Southern_Winter_999.html
Determining solar minimum is not a straight forward process from what I can tell, but nonetheless:

Oops.

The point was not when the next one starts; it's that we're at minimum now. So it appears you missed the point after all, or else you're being disingenuous; given the rest of what you've written on this thread, I lean toward the latter, since you seem to lie at the drop of a hat.

At certain locations. I don’t recall the exact log/lat.

Just so you know, SC23 doesn’t end until SC24 begins.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's not at minimum; the article proves it is, which was (if you are capable of recalling) my point.

I don’t Google-fu around looking for information that supports a pre-conceived position about SC24. I have openly and honestly stated there are several predictions concerning both the amplitude and length of SC24. The fact is SC23 is past due. The longer it lags, the less likely SC24 will be stronger. That much I do know. Schatten accurately predicted SC21(?), 22 and 23 if that’s something to go by, and predicts SC24 will be very weak. Until then, we can expect temperatures to drop regardless; that is what I said. If you’re willing to refute that, no problem, but it would have to fly in the face of logic. Right now the temperature trend is flat in the current decade. The AGW gang here can ignore that all you want, but only for so long.

We're not ignoring anything; we're well aware that the Sun's output is going down but temperatures are remaining flat for the short term, and rising for the long term, which is what those scatter plots you're having so much trouble with show.

Not that I wish to stoop to your level, and I have no problem admitting an error, but quite frankly Schneibster, your tactics are approaching the level of megalomaniac proportions.

BTW, your collar needs straightening.

Considering this mish-mash of attempted straw-man arguments, complete misunderstanding of the meaning of charts, and presentation of points that do not support your position, I have no idea what you think you're talking about, but whatever it is, you're wrong.

 

[mhaze]

Gosh, I think I'll help out the Warmers on the subject of the Sun's Coffin Being Nailed Shut. Here are the Warmer Scripts that Warmers just cut and pasts from. I've provided both PseudoRealCLimate and Gristmill.

Oops....Warmers just read this stuff out of pre written Scripts?

Oops Oops....Oops....


'It's the sun, stupid'
Posted by Coby Beck at 9:23 AM on 29 Dec 2006 |
(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: The sun is the source of warmth on earth. Any increase in temperature is likely due to changes in solar radiation.
Answer: It's true that the earth is warmed, for all practical purposes, entirely by solar radiation, so if the temperature is going up or down, the sun is a reasonable place to seek the cause.


Turns out it's more complicated than one might think to detect and measure changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth. Detectors on the ground are susceptible to all kinds of interference from the atmosphere -- after all, one cloud passing overhead can cause a shiver on an otherwise warm day, but not because the sun itself changed. The best way to detect changes in the output of the sun -- versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth's surface through clouds, smoke, dust, or pollution -- is by taking readings from space.
This is a job for satellites. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.


There has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century, before satellites were available. According to the Max Planck Institute, where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century, which coincides with the warming from around 1900 until the 1940s. It's not enough to explain all the warming from those years, but it is responsible for a large portion. See this chart of observed temperature, modeled temperature, and variations in the major forcings that contributed to 20th century climate.
RealClimate has a couple of detailed discussions on what we can conclude about solar forcing and how science reached those conclusions. Read them here and here.



And here is your script on Lockwood and its rebuttals from PseudoRealClimate.

Cosmic rays don’t die so easily
Last week, a Norwegian official-looking - and in my view - climatesceptic website praised Eigil Friis-Christensen from the Danish space center (featuring in the Great Global Warming Swindle) and hailed him for having given the best speech ever in the annual Birkeland seminar organized by Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters (NASL). There were rumours of controversy behind the scene before the seminar, as the NASL is regarded as a prestigious body in Norway.

Furthermore, Svensmark and Friis-Christensen have written a response (title 'Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing'; DNSC Scientific Report Series 3/2007) to a recent paper by Lockwood and Frohlich (LF2007). In this response, they state ’… [LF2007] argue that this historical link between the Sun and climate came to an end about 20 years ago'. Another quote from their response is ‘Here we rebut their argument comprehensively’. So the cosmic ray theory isn’t quite dead after all?
(more…)

Share This Comments (pop-up) (221) View blog reactions


It's the sun! (not)
As regular readers here will know, the big problem for blaming the sun for the recent global warming is that there hasn't been a trend in any index of solar activity since about 1960, and that includes direct measurements of solar output by satellites since 1979. Well, another paper, has come out saying exactly the same thing. This is notable because the lead author Mike Lockwood has worked extensively on solar physics and effects on climate and certainly can't be credibly accused of wanting to minimise the role of solar forcing for nefarious pro-CO2 reasons!
Stefan was quoted in Nature as saying this is the 'last nail in the coffin' for solar enthusiasts, but a better rejoinder is a statement from Ray P: "That's a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one."

 

[mhaze]

Gosh, I think I'll help out the Warmers on the subject of the Sun's Coffin Being Nailed Shut. Here are the Warmer Scripts that Warmers just cut and pasts from. I've provided both PseudoRealCLimate and Gristmill.

Oops....Warmers just read this stuff out of pre written Scripts?

Oops Oops....Oops....

"That's a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one."

Nail the coffin shut?

 

[David Rodale]

Obviously not, since you're having trouble understanding trend lines that go from lower left to upper right.

Elementary it might or might not have been; what it was for certain was wrong.

Sorry about that, I misread. On the other hand,

Which was my point. Glad you understood it.

The point was not when the next one starts; it's that we're at minimum now. So it appears you missed the point after all, or else you're being disingenuous; given the rest of what you've written on this thread, I lean toward the latter, since you seem to lie at the drop of a hat.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's not at minimum; the article proves it is, which was (if you are capable of recalling) my point.

We're not ignoring anything; we're well aware that the Sun's output is going down but temperatures are remaining flat for the short term, and rising for the long term, which is what those scatter plots you're having so much trouble with show.

Considering this mish-mash of attempted straw-man arguments, complete misunderstanding of the meaning of charts, and presentation of points that do not support your position, I have no idea what you think you're talking about, but whatever it is, you're wrong.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3069632&postcount=1977

As far as background data, I'll go with Megalodon's scatter plots, and the fact that we're at the bottom of the solar cycle (technically headed back up, just past it).

That is totally 100% wrong. Once NASA/NOAA announces SC24 has begun, I'll be the first to let you know. Just admit you pooped your pants because you thought you had something big, completely screwed up, and move on.

What am I wrong about? A line chart is the correct method for this discussion. If Megalodon's aquarium aerator bubble chart (aka a cloud) were presented as a tool to interpret the data, it would be laughed out of the room. There is absolutely no advantage to using it here. If you're trying to show temps have some sort of relationship (that's why it's called XY) to time it would, but the results would be nonsensical.

What information can you glean from the following scatter diagrams? Is there correlation between time and temp? What are you looking for?

 

[rcronk]

I have preliminary results for the AGW poll: 21 for AGW, 18 against AGW. Closer than I thought it would be.

I have gathered all of the arguments into two lists and am requesting that people now begin to add citations to these lists for and against any items they want to: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3073111

Please help me to flesh out these lists with citations for and against each item. My goal is to end up with a truly objective list of arguments for and against AGW with citations and counter arguments for each item. It could end up being a good (the only) objective starting point for people to take a look at AGW. Thanks in advance for any help you can give me on this. Thanks.

 

[Schneibster]

That is totally 100% wrong. Once NASA/NOAA announces SC24 has begun, I'll be the first to let you know.

So, you're saying we're not at or near minimum in the solar cycle?

Just admit you pooped your pants because you thought you had something big, completely screwed up, and move on.

So, you're saying we're not at or near minimum in the solar cycle?

Let's be clear about the fact that you've either shifted the goalposts, i.e. it's now about when the next cycle begins, not whether we're at minimum, or you're using a straw-man argument, i.e., that my point was that the next cycle has begun, not that we're at minimum. Your choice; but either way, a logical fallacy that you're now trying to draw attention away from by capping it with another fallacy, ad hominem; which would be two fallacies in a row. Amazing. What do you do for an encore, gargle peanut butter?

What am I wrong about?

You mean aside from stacking logical fallacies on top of each other like the leaning tower of Rodale? Well, let's start with the fallacy that every chart represents the data in a way that's equally easy to see. Then there'd be the fact that you've been asked twice to demonstrate your understanding of graphs and charts by describing their smoothness mathematically, and failed to do so, which makes it clear that you have no idea what they mean or how to read them. Shall I continue? I think not- the point appears made. And the remainder of your post is rendered irrelevant by it.

Let us know when you have a good description of graph smoothness, and when you intend to stop lying.

 

[mhaze]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3069632&postcount=1977
If Megalodon's aquarium aerator bubble chart (aka a cloud) were presented as a tool to interpret the data, it would be laughed out of the room.

There is an exception to that, and it is when each of the data points has an uncertainty in X, which in turn engenders an uncertainty in Y. Thus each point does become a little balloon which may be elongated in one axis depending on the nature of the uncertainties.

This would always be the case with so called "proxy temperature measurements", but it is rarely seen or discussed. Instead, we are expected to believe all proxies are more precise than current temperature measurements. And those seem notably imprecise.

In the case at hand, since the X axis values are exact, the use of large circles for the data would appear to have just been a choice in the plotting program and not an intentional presentation of error bounds.

 

[mhaze]

I have preliminary results for the AGW poll: 21 for AGW, 18 against AGW. Closer than I thought it would be.

I have gathered all of the arguments into two lists and am requesting that people now begin to add citations to these lists for and against any items they want to: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3073111

Please help me to flesh out these lists with citations for and against each item. My goal is to end up with a truly objective list of arguments for and against AGW with citations and counter arguments for each item. It could end up being a good (the only) objective starting point for people to take a look at AGW. Thanks in advance for any help you can give me on this. Thanks.

Excellent analsyis of viewpoints; I do have one suggestion. As you seek references for supporting viewpoints, require exact citations with page and chapter numbers, no vague citing of 2000 page documents with the assertion that "it's in there somewhere".

In other words, a cite should be something that one can click on, and immediately see that it is directly an answer to the assertion, and then in short order, find the primary arguments.