Simple Question About AGW

[a_unique_person]

Thanks for clarifying, mhaze. I wonder what will come first, a popular abandonment of AGW or an admission by adherents that environmental modeling is not as straightforward as looking up physics equations in a book. Of the various environmental models I work with (erosion, convecton in large water bodies, leaching, etc), none of them predict nature. We use their predictions as indices, not predictions. They are all well founded in all known relevant physics.

Still, though, this does not mean that AGW doesn't exist. It just mean that it's not following what's been set down on paper.

Did you read my previous post?

They have tried this on previously, that globally the predictions were wrong, in comparison to the satellite measurements. After being proven wrong on that claim, they came back with a much reduced scope, it was only one layer of the atmosphere, and only over the tropics. Even that is not correct, given the error bounds of the satellite record.

The IPCC has always made clear about the limits of modelling, and have never made out is 'simple'.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/

 

[mhaze]

Thanks for clarifying, mhaze. I wonder what will come first, a popular abandonment of AGW or an admission by adherents that environmental modeling is not as straightforward as looking up physics equations in a book. Of the various environmental models I work with (erosion, convecton in large water bodies, leaching, etc), none of them predict nature. We use their predictions as indices, not predictions. They are all well founded in all known relevant physics.

Still, though, this does not mean that AGW doesn't exist. It just mean that it's not following what's been set down on paper.

By all means I favor the careful revision of hypotheses in accordance with confirmed real world data. The obvious direction here is towards a weak or insignificant net greenhouse CO2 contribution. Are there other conclusions?

This is a meaningful question, but warmers would instead scoff at and deny the science.

Don't forget, there is no need for an AGW hypothesis. There is only a need to adequately and sufficiently explain real world phenomena which present.

 

[David Rodale]

Did you read my previous post?

They have tried this on previously, that globally the predictions were wrong, in comparison to the satellite measurements. After being proven wrong on that claim, they came back with a much reduced scope, it was only one layer of the atmosphere, and only over the tropics. Even that is not correct, given the error bounds of the satellite record.

The IPCC has always made clear about the limits of modelling, and have never made out is 'simple'.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/

This is amazing. When I first joined JREF it was claimed only a handful of scientists disagreed with the "consensus" and there was very little peer reviewed literature as well. In fact, it is just the opposite.

Now you post RC on satellite data, of course with the expected attacks on S&C which I've read before. Naturally RSS according to RC, must be more accurate as it "fits neatly within the range of model results, indicating that this is probably physically more consistent than the original UAH data." Oh yes, the data doesn't match the models, so the data must be corrupt.....typical.
I've already posted a recent peer reviewed article that concluded UAH is the more accurate of the two, In addition, note that RSS is in more agreement with UAH nowadays

RC is becoming a joke amongst serious scientists as even Judith Currie admits ClimateAudit is a more appropriate venue for discussion whereas RC is more of a tabloid rag that censors opposing views. Don't bother arguing this, they do it.

Also, I read the articles you posted a few days back. First, they are wrong on water vapor feedback, and the mention of the 2003 European heat wave as somehow being evidence for CO2 AGW has been debunked not once, but twice. Even Connelly agrees.

If you're going to post articles, first make sure you actually read and understand them, then research to see if there may be subsequent updated science. Relying on AGW scripted blogs that only present articles (mostly outdated) they think support their POV doesn't seem to be very objective on your part.

Until climate models can demonstrate reliable predictions, they are nothing more than fudge factories for programmers who would otherwise be out of a job if they were evaluated based on the quality of their work. Now that Hadley as conceded previous models were not reliable, we must wait several more years for their latest and greatest to accurately predict, but that policy makers should act now because they guarantee the newest models are right this time.....they promise.

AUP, you are aware that IPCC TAR was based on faulty data from HITRAN aren't you? And they knew it......

 

[mhaze]

Did you read my previous post?

They have tried this on previously, that globally the predictions were wrong, in comparison to the satellite measurements. After being proven wrong on that claim, they came back with a much reduced scope, it was only one layer of the atmosphere, and only over the tropics. Even that is not correct, given the error bounds of the satellite record.

I've stated what section of the atmosphere the work applies to, so there is no need to bring in the vain confusions of RC.

 

[a_unique_person]

I've stated what section of the atmosphere the work applies to, so there is no need to bring in the vain confusions of RC.

And RC rebuts it, using peer reviewed research.

 

[mhaze]

This is amazing. When I first joined JREF it was claimed only a handful of scientists disagreed with the "consensus" and there was very little peer reviewed literature as well. In fact, it is just the opposite.

RC is becoming a joke amongst serious scientists as even Judith Currie admits ClimateAudit is a more appropriate venue for discussion whereas RC is more of a tabloid rag that censors opposing views.

Well, there is the new Climateaudit message board.

That would put RC away for good.

Anthony Watts on Glenn Beck isn't helping RC any either -

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc-1SNZepoU&feature=related

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, there is the new Climateaudit message board.

That would put RC away for good.

Anthony Watts on Glenn Beck isn't helping RC any either -

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc-1SNZepoU&feature=related

Al Gore's Fascist Liberal Global Warming Corrupt Data

 

[a_unique_person]

This is amazing. When I first joined JREF it was claimed only a handful of scientists disagreed with the "consensus" and there was very little peer reviewed literature as well. In fact, it is just the opposite.

It depends on what you call a "scientist". Here is one of the presentations from the recent "NIPCC", by one of their scientists. It's good for a laugh.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

Look at page 4. Look at how he picks out the "5 year lag" between solar activity and temperature. If I ever wanted a fruit picker, David would be my man.

Now you post RC on satellite data, of course with the expected attacks on S&C which I've read before. Naturally RSS according to RC, must be more accurate as it "fits neatly within the range of model results, indicating that this is probably physically more consistent than the original UAH data." Oh yes, the data doesn't match the models, so the data must be corrupt.....typical.
I've already posted a recent peer reviewed article that concluded UAH is the more accurate of the two, In addition, note that RSS is in more agreement with UAH nowadays

It's the other way around. UAH has had several iterations of it's data set. The word "original" is a give away.

RC is becoming a joke amongst serious scientists as even Judith Currie admits ClimateAudit is a more appropriate venue for discussion whereas RC is more of a tabloid rag that censors opposing views. Don't bother arguing this, they do it.

I think she means, a place where inane converstations of no consequence can meander on. http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=380 Thirty pages of earnest attempts to beat basic thermodynamics into the head of someone. RC doesn't have time for that.

AUP, you are aware that IPCC TAR was based on faulty data from HITRAN aren't you? And they knew it......

Faulty data on HITRAN? HITRAN is undergoing contstant review and refinement. The basic figures will be correct.

"They knew it" Evidence?

 

[Alric]

Anthony Watts on Glenn Beck

I thought that once you mention Glenn Beck you are barred from intelligent conversation for a couple of weeks.

What's next? A link to O'Reilly?

 

[mhaze]

I thought that once you mention Glenn Beck you are barred from intelligent conversation for a couple of weeks.

What's next? A link to O'Reilly?

Radical far left fringe environmentalists such as yourself would like such things to be true. Especially when you cannot argue effectively or apparently at all, against the content of the Glenn Beck/Anthony Watts video.

Noted: You didn't even try, instead went on into ad hominems. As usual.

 

[Alric]

You didn't even try, instead went on into ad hominems.

With Glenn Beck I make an exception. Besides, you already provided the best reference for understanding the true extent of the urban island effect. Minimal, at best.

 

[mhaze]

It depends on what you call a "scientist". Here is one of the presentations from the recent "NIPCC", by one of their scientists. It's good for a laugh....http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

Look at page 4. Look at how he picks out the "5 year lag" between solar activity and temperature. If I ever wanted a fruit picker, David would be my man....It's the other way around. UAH has had several iterations of it's data set. The word "original" is a give away.

The scientific, peer reviewed study I presented has withstood a couple of bumbling attempts by RC to criticize it. It certainly can withstand the attempts by AUP cheerleadering.

Scientists are welcome to submit their crticisms to the peer review process if they think they have valid issues. So may AUP.

So quite obviously, we are left with a prediction of greenhouse warming 2-4 times higher than actual measurements, at the locations that are most relevent in the atmosphere.

That's something to deal with, isn't it?

 

[Slimething]

Did you read my previous post?

Yes.

They have tried this on previously, that globally the predictions were wrong, in comparison to the satellite measurements. After being proven wrong on that claim, they came back with a much reduced scope, it was only one layer of the atmosphere, and only over the tropics. Even that is not correct, given the error bounds of the satellite record.

I followed your links and the author's method of negating the tropical anomaly is by claiming that the rate of warming is very small indeed and that such trends can be measured in the tropical troposphere when considering decade-long trends in the measurements. The abstract of one paper linked to even refered to "other physical processes" controlling the temperature in the tropics. (A reasonable person would consider the tropics to be the region of the planet most susceptible to AGW.)

Frankly, how is that different from what I wrote? I have often stated that I regard AGW as "probable but not proven", that I don't perceive a warming rate of concern and that the underpinning physics are compelling but over-simplified. I use different language than the bloggers at RC but I don't see a basic contradiction there. Do you?

The IPCC has always made clear about the limits of modelling, and have never made out is 'simple'.

Correct and I respect them for that. I would thereby caution those who think that my attempts at warning about unsupported conclusions as reliance on voodoo physics or mystic science.

I believe that all of us with cooler heads (no pun intended) can agree that we are witnessing the birth of a new science in climatology. There is much to learn and we need to take the time to do so responsibly. There is not cause for alarm but there is ample call for thought and reason. None of us should be taken in by scaremongers who capitalize on p<0.00001 dire prognoses before testable claims are presented.

Fair enough?

 

[Alric]

There is much to learn and we need to take the time to do so responsibly. There is not cause for alarm but there is ample call for thought and reason. None of us should be taken in by scaremongers who capitalize on p<0.00001 dire prognoses before testable claims are presented.

Fair enough?

Would you say that to the physician that tells you you have cancer and should begin chemotherapy immediately? Maybe climatologists know enough to tell you you should worry.

No one would want you to do something crazy like getting a hybrid or require corporations to pollute less. Personally, all I need are these two graphs to know there is an unprecedented trend that should be addressed. Also that I am not willing to risk it for the sake of oil companies who do not have our best interest at heart.

 

[mhaze]

Yes.

I believe that all of us with cooler heads (no pun intended) can agree that we are witnessing the birth of a new science in climatology. There is much to learn and we need to take the time to do so responsibly. There is not cause for alarm but there is ample call for thought and reason. None of us should be taken in by scaremongers who capitalize on p<0.00001 dire prognoses before testable claims are presented.

Fair enough?

You (and others) may have an interest in the March 2008 recent solar influences by Scafetti.

We contend that the changes in Earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to two distinctly different aspects of the Sun’s dynamics: the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles.

We showed that the stochastic properties of the average global temperature are linked to the statistics of TSI.2 It is the linking of the complexity of Earth to the complexity of the Sun that forces Earth’s temperature anomalies to adopt the TSI statistics. Consequently, both the fluctuations in TSI, using the solar flare time series as a surrogate, and Earth’s average temperature time series are observed to have inverse power-law statistical distributions.

We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature, depending on the TSI reconstruction used.
​

Analysis: Given 20th century warming of 0.57C, and presuming 69% due to solar, the max that could have been due to greenhouse heating would have been 0.18C. Does this support Douglass & Singer's finding of "no tropospheric hot spot?" Obviously, yes, and it accounts for the major part of the 0.57C temperature increase, without the need for said greenhouse heating a la the hot spot.

Taking 0.57C for 20th century warming, LN(365/295)/(31%*0.57) = 1.2.
Plugging that in to the doubling of CO2 formula, LN(2)/1.2 = 0.58C for a doubling of CO2.

 

[Slimething]

Would you say that to the physician that tells you you have cancer and should begin chemotherapy immediately? Maybe climatologists know enough to tell you you should worry.

Climatology is a new science. The only people who have told me to worry are politicians. Climatology is so new that I don't personally know any climatologists.

BTW, a physician would be able to prove to me that I have cancer so your analogy fails factually, if not thematically.

No one would want you to do something crazy like getting a hybrid or require corporations to pollute less. Personally, all I need are these two graphs to know there is an unprecedented trend that should be addressed. Also that I am not willing to risk it for the sake of oil companies who do not have our best interest at heart.

From what you've written, you want to use AGW toward political purposes. Maybe I agree with you but I think you have a very simplistic view of the world. I don't mind getting a hybrid. I don't mind using a bicycle. I don't mind conserving. I do mind idiots wanting to make daily operation more expensive for corporations because we all pay with an added fee.

In the meantime, I'm only addressing the science. If you don't want to do that, don't reply to my posts.

 

[a_unique_person]

You (and others) may have an interest in the March 2008 recent solar influences by Scafetti.

We contend that the changes in Earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to two distinctly different aspects of the Sun’s dynamics: the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles.

We showed that the stochastic properties of the average global temperature are linked to the statistics of TSI.2 It is the linking of the complexity of Earth to the complexity of the Sun that forces Earth’s temperature anomalies to adopt the TSI statistics. Consequently, both the fluctuations in TSI, using the solar flare time series as a surrogate, and Earth’s average temperature time series are observed to have inverse power-law statistical distributions.

We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature, depending on the TSI reconstruction used.
​

Analysis: Given 20th century warming of 0.57C, and presuming 69% due to solar, the max that could have been due to greenhouse heating would have been 0.18C. Does this support Douglass & Singer's finding of "no tropospheric hot spot?" Obviously, yes, and it accounts for the major part of the 0.57C temperature increase, without the need for said greenhouse heating a la the hot spot.

Taking 0.57C for 20th century warming, LN(365/295)/(31%*0.57) = 1.2.
Plugging that in to the doubling of CO2 formula, LN(2)/1.2 = 0.58C for a doubling of CO2.

More 'curve fitting'. There are a hundred and one people out there looking for correlations of the earths climate to the record. None of them have come up with an actual physical basis for their claims to be true. AGW theory has a physical basis.

 

[Alric]

But that's the problem. You are not addressing the science. The observations that CO2 is rising along with temperature and that many empirical observations are consistent with a warming earth is the data. Do not fall for the contrarian arguments that because they don't understand it or someone dusagreees an observation is not true.

With regards to climate change there is a consensus and the empirical observations are in. If you chose to ignore this you do so at our own peril.

 

[mhaze]

Ok, we all ignore the warnings of an anonymous Internet poster, Alric, at our own peril.

 

[a_unique_person]

Ok, we all ignore the warnings of an anonymous Internet poster, Alric, at our own peril.

I believe Alric is referring to such authoritave sources as the IPCC reports.