Simple Question About AGW

[Alric]

This is priceless! I found the Svalgaard discussion on climateaudit.org

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2470

And Leif Svalgaard joins and schools everyone on how they have misinterpreted his work:

"I’m not in the debate over how GW is forced or if we should [or even could] do anything. All I want to point out is that any argument based on the notion that solar activity has increased steadily since the 1700s should be re-examined with the possibility in mind that the variation might have been a lot less than preciously assumed or not happened at all. This applies in particular to the Scafetta paper that started this thread."

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2470#comment-167956

 

[mhaze]

This is priceless! I found the Svalgaard discussion on climateaudit.org

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2470

And Leif Svalgaard joins and schools everyone on how they have misinterpreted his work:

"I’m not in the debate over how GW is forced or if we should [or even could] do anything. All I want to point out is that any argument based on the notion that solar activity has increased steadily since the 1700s should be re-examined with the possibility in mind that the variation might have been a lot less than preciously assumed or not happened at all. This applies in particular to the Scafetta paper that started this thread."

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2470#comment-167956

Yep, there are some real gems in those threads....3 or or threads so far a couple thousand posts - real climate scientists, too, some fair fraction of the content.

 

[David Rodale]

Yep, there are some real gems in those threads....3 or or threads so far a couple thousand posts - real climate scientists, too, some fair fraction of the content.

Note Alric fails to mention Svalgaard's lack of faith in man made CO2 as the cause of climate changes.

 

[Alric]

Note Alric fails to mention Svalgaard's lack of faith in man made CO2 as the cause of climate changes.

Can you point where he states this? He also lacks faith is the sun obviously.

Also take another sentence of his:

"Jack, the issue here is that it is almost dogma that the sun is the cause of the climate swings the last few thousand years [LIA, MWP, etc]. This is so because we don’t know what else could do it [certainly not man-made CO2, if we except that last 100 years]."

Note the "except the last 100 years". Meaning that in the last 100 years it CAN be explained by CO2.

As I've said since the beginning of the "other" thread. Every time a contrarian posts something if you actually read where it comes from it will be lots more temperate or actually the opposite of what they are arguing. My feeling is that the source has a message that can be distorted.

 

[David Rodale]

Can you point where he states this? He also lacks faith is the sun obviously.

No he doesn't lack "faith" in the sun. He plainly states we don't know enough about the complexities to claim we fully understand it's implications on climate. Carefully read through all his posts and keep in mind the question of solar influence (all of it) is far from "settled". Isn't it interesting that Steve McIntyre encourages differing views on his blog? Compare that to RealClimate.

I suppose every scientist (they are humans too) all have their own standard of perfection and don't like to be told they are wrong. This is human nature. Svalgaard does not encompass all knowledge and is man enough to admit it. He has also indicated SC24 will be a good test for both sides.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2679#comment-205697

I would like that too

Jack, the issue here is that it is almost dogma that the sun is the cause of the climate swings the last few thousand years [LIA, MWP, etc]. This is so because we don’t know what else could do it [certainly not man-made CO2, if we except that last 100 years]. The problem is that the latest solar data seem to indicate [and this is still controversial] that the sun varies less than what we thought just a few years ago, so if we will maintain that the sun is still the culprit, then we have to crank up significantly the sensitivity of the climate to solar forcing. Most people [like Steve M] think that that is ‘impossible’. I don’t know if it is and actually came originally to this blog to find out, but it seems that few want to discuss this. I think we cannot maintain that we know what is going on if we just gloss over this problem…

I do find it interesting the graph that Anthony Watts posted recently on the magnetic strength of the sun here. Is this yet another coincidence? I don't know enough about this area.

Alric, aside from my somewhat acidic posts, seriously, at some point if it continues to fail to warm you guys are going to have to start asking questions. To glibly state "it's only temporary until GW kicks in again" is a tautology. As it is now IPCC predictions (or is it still a "projection") are being dismantled.

Not to be too harsh, but when you post those charts which are scaled to scare the bejeebus out everyone, to someone who must read charts and graphs every day as their job views them as parlor games. The CO2 levels are done the same way.

To go on and on about consensus and appealing to Authority is meaningless. Consensus is for politicians. Do you also trust the government so much as to not question what they do and say? Why should any institution be given special precedence over reality? Did they take a vote? Are their conclusions based on IPCC? What gives you such confidence in their statements? I find this herd mentality very troubling.

Another issue is this witch hunt for scientists having any association, even 3rd generation in line. Why isn't it an issue when leaders of these "consensus" institutions being closely linked to environmentalist groups? Why shouldn't they be put under the same scrutiny?

A few on this forum (warmers specifically) are fully critical of scientists who aren't "climate scientists" that comment on climate issues. When it's pointed out there are actually very few bonafied "climate scientists" in existence and why that matters anyway, it is obvious this type of argument is simply more logical fallacy.

Dr. Roy Spencer is a "climate scientist". He has recently written an essay asking valid questions concerning IPCC conclusions. What do you think?
Hey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me This Or is he somehow not qualified to comment either?

 

[David Rodale]

Can you point where he states this? He also lacks faith is the sun obviously.

Also take another sentence of his:

"Jack, the issue here is that it is almost dogma that the sun is the cause of the climate swings the last few thousand years [LIA, MWP, etc]. This is so because we don’t know what else could do it [certainly not man-made CO2, if we except that last 100 years]."

Note the "except the last 100 years". Meaning that in the last 100 years it CAN be explained by CO2.

As I've said since the beginning of the "other" thread. Every time a contrarian posts something if you actually read where it comes from it will be lots more temperate or actually the opposite of what they are arguing. My feeling is that the source has a message that can be distorted.

No Alric, stop reading into it what is not there. You are so drunk with CO2 you can't see straight.

 

[Alric]

Its clear. What Svalgaard is saying is that in previous earth history the sun drives temperature "except in the last 100 years when man-made CO2 takes over". Read it again.

In other news: this just out in Science magazine:

Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections
We present recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global-mean air temperature and sea level, and we compare these trends to previous model projections as summarised in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol in which almost all industrialised nations have committed to binding reductions of their greenhouse gas emissions. The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1136843v1

 

[Alric]

Alric, aside from my somewhat acidic posts, seriously, at some point if it continues to fail to warm you guys are going to have to start asking questions. To glibly state "it's only temporary until GW kicks in again" is a tautology. As it is now IPCC predictions (or is it still a "projection") are being dismantled.

Not to be too harsh, but when you post those charts which are scaled to scare the bejeebus out everyone, to someone who must read charts and graphs every day as their job views them as parlor games. The CO2 levels are done the same way.

The graphs are the data. That is the only way this issue can be discussed intelligently. See the recent Science publication for your second point:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1136843v1

 

[David Rodale]

Its clear. What Svalgaard is saying is that in previous earth history the sun drives temperature "except in the last 100 years when man-made CO2 takes over". Read it again.

In other news: this just out in Science magazine:

Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections
We present recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global-mean air temperature and sea level, and we compare these trends to previous model projections as summarised in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol in which almost all industrialised nations have committed to binding reductions of their greenhouse gas emissions. The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1136843v1

Alric, CO2 concentrations account for the 1920-1940's temperature rise and the subsequent cooling until the late 70's? That's pretty slick....how did it do that?

Here's another quote from Leif Svalgaard:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2679#comment-224358

That solar activity is declining is something that I won’t disagree with. That CO2 generally is good for us [and the plants] is something I won’t disagree with. That we are not staring disaster from global warming in the face is something I won’t disagree with. Where I have a problem is the poor way the ‘evidence’ is brought to bear.

Alric,
There are zero details in that "abstract". A few excerpts would help because it does not say much. You are aware that IPCC AR4 was due for release and maybe, just maybe those authors were attempting to influence it? Well, they failed. Maybe it's not worth much. Reading the last sentence one gets the impression they don't have much faith in their models, and rightly so.

Hadley has recently conceded their models didn't work so well.

That said Alric, what is the reality one year later?

 

[mhaze]

Note Alric fails to mention Svalgaard's lack of faith in man made CO2 as the cause of climate changes.

lack of faith....

I didn't miss that at all, but just thought anyone who read those threads would learn a lot. Yes they can be misinterpreted and or misunderstood but look at the context-

Anyone that wants to can ask Svalgaard a question, and he answers as best he can. And this is the real stuff, not that weird circular RC logic.

Pretty nice.

Postscript: I've read through DR and Alric's interchange. Well, as I noted, Alric, you can ask Svalgaard questions directly - you don't have to take my word or DR's for what he says (You could even grab the handle "secret warmer", that'd be funny).

But what he is going to say about the sun (he repeats this over and over) is that either it isn't the big driver, or else climate senstivity to solar is very high. Which to me seems really obvious, for example, at the minimum solar has got to be 2x any greenhouse effect (including water vapor).

 

[TrueSceptic]

But what he is going to say about the sun (he repeats this over and over) is that either it isn't the big driver, or else climate senstivity to solar is very high. Which to me seems really obvious, for example, at the minimum solar has got to be 2x any greenhouse effect (including water vapor).

Well, he's not the sole authority on the matter, but all the same, why don't you ask him the above, verbatim?

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
But what he is going to say about the sun (he repeats this over and over) is that either it isn't the big driver, or else climate senstivity to solar is very high. Which to me seems really obvious, for example, at the minimum solar has got to be 2x any greenhouse effect (including water vapor).
​

Well, he's not the sole authority on the matter, but all the same, why don't you ask him the above, verbatim?

No need at all, see bolded part.

 

[TrueSceptic]

No need at all, see bolded part.

This is you claiming he does, and we know how reliable you are.

If you won't do it, I will.

 

[fsol]

I do find it interesting the graph that Anthony Watts posted recently on the magnetic strength of the sun here. Is this yet another coincidence? I don't know enough about this area.

Has he figured out what temperature anomalies are yet?

 

[a_unique_person]

Alric, aside from my somewhat acidic posts, seriously, at some point if it continues to fail to warm you guys are going to have to start asking questions. To glibly state "it's only temporary until GW kicks in again" is a tautology. As it is now IPCC predictions (or is it still a "projection") are being dismantled.

Natural variation is always present, the underlying signal is the issue. That's up, as Pat Michaels agrees. His only bone of contention is how much it is going up.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes, I've noticed that... It's like playing whack-a-mole, but against a dumber adversary.

At least you brought a gun to the game .

Actually it's only a refuge if you don't have access to databases of scientific literature. As the abstract above shows, the effect was predicted in 89...

Loud-mouthed schmucks... the lot of them.

I think the GWSceptic argument is that such cooling was predicted but isn't happening. (It's hard to be sure; their contributions do tend towards the Delphic). What attracts them to the stratosphere is that they can question the observations and the attributions. And, of course, it's not the surface, where things really aren't going their way. Or the troposphere, where they've had to retreat to the tropics and are hard-pressed even there. So they go higher.

 

[CapelDodger]

Has he figured out what temperature anomalies are yet?

The man can't be trusted to interpret a graph. He can knock together a bar-chart, though, which is one stage up from having opposable thumbs.

 

[CapelDodger]

Natural variation is always present, the underlying signal is the issue. That's up, as Pat Michaels agrees. His only bone of contention is how much it is going up.

The sensitivity issue. When forced to concede the principle Michaels starts trying to minimise its relevance. I'm seeing a pattern.

When Michaels lied to Congress back in '98 he did it to exaggerate the climate sensitivity predicted by models. Was he already doing the groundwork for his latest erection? "We report, you decide" .

 

[mhaze]

Another priceless CA thread - "The Sayings of Rasmus!"

 

[CapelDodger]

We're talking science here. Try to keep up.

Anthropology is a science.

Nope. If you can dismiss Einstein's relativity theories just because you don't use them in everyday life, you don't understand science.

Misrepresentation is easy to understand. Do you really think anybody's going to believe I've ever done that?

Thanks for being honest finally about your true interests. Money and plants. Yeah, if I want to know about thermodynamics, I'll be sure to give you a call.

You're clearly the go-to guy regarding relativity's relevance to climate science.

You haven't been able to place all the physiccs you bandy about re AGW in any type of context. To you, these models are absolute and primal, exempt from any limits.

The only model I care about is the big bad analogue model, and that's the context I apply my scientific understanding to. Thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, radiative physics, stuff like that. Nothing extreme or mystical. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but postulate Dark Climate to go with Dark Energy and Dark Matter, and for no discernable reason.

That's what the guy at RealClimate seems to believe. Write him. You don't believe me when I say the same thing, although I don't limit myself to the tropics with that statement. Go ahead. Write him. What are you worried about? He might help you with context.

Do you expect these "other physical processes" to lie outside the realm of thermodynamics, fluids, yadda yadda? If you do you're rowing alone. There may well be some behaviour specific to the equatorial region of a rotating globe with a thin surface skim of fluid. If there is, it'll be explicable by the usual science. And you can be sure there are qualified people looking at the problem right now.

Just to put this in context, the tropical troposphere thing is a restricted re-hash of a global troposphere thing from a decade ago. That turned out to be a measurement problem; the tropical anomaly is all that's left to explain. It might tell us something very interesting, but it's restriction to that slice of the world severely limits its relevance.

It's worth noting at this point that the predicted inverse relationship between surface temperature and the surface-to-troposphere temperature gradient is independent of the forcing involved. It's a GW effect, not a distinctive AGW one. Which makes it something of a distraction from the more relevant issue of warming down here where we all live. That's not to say the physics involved isn't interesting in itself, of course.