|
Post by magellan on Sept 5, 2011 21:03:11 GMT
Well, your use of "Team" would seem to agree with exactly what my argument has been, the fact that I have come to it without the correct inoculation of right wing rhetoric might make both our arguments stronger. I would use the term "true believer" to describe some of these nonscientists: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-believer_syndromeOh please, not another Wikipedia referrer. There can only be one truth. Either Spencer is right, or Trenberth (the Team) is right. It can't be both. Do you have any idea of the amount of personal/professional attacks, bigotry and downright lies against Roy Spencer? And I'm not referring to those on blogs, but by his peers. The problem with trying to walk down the middle of the road is sooner or later you get run over. Since you've got it all figured out, tell us what the "true science" is.
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 5, 2011 21:07:48 GMT
Magellan-
Can you read? Do you read the posts you respond to? You may have been here from the beginning but your attitude and trolling, attack-dog style are truly bad for the board and I hope Kevin at least looks at banning your ilk. You are not interested in discourse.
You clearly do not take the time to read posts, you just start typing.
Roy Spencer was doing an OK job in my mind of trying to stay above the fray and do some science here, his problem for me came when he clearly went all politics with his childishly silly econ book. WTF was that? How can I give you scientific cred if your analysis is at the level of a third grader in other areas? Finally, Spencer has made it abundantly clear that he has a bias, and I all know it. Science is hard enough to do without bias.
I brought up the Gavin Schmidt argument directly and just did not site him by name. Can you read?
I did not dance around the Real Climate question - there are two points you are conflating, are you simple? The first is that we all have the right to have a blog and speak freely, this is America. The issue happens when your posts on that blog show you to be biased and should remove you as a unbiased arbiter of the science and remove you as an Editor, reviewer, and in some cases even an author, on papers in the area. The fact that Spencer or Hansen or Trenberth or Mann are even of these is appalling after their clearly biased statements. You seem to be a "true-believer" in that you cannot apply the same standard to both sides.
As for Judith Curry, I do think she attempts to walk the line between the sides but as your type makes clear, that is nearly impossbile when the world of divisive politics seems to infiltrate even our scientific discourse.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 5, 2011 21:09:11 GMT
magellan: I will agree that the ad homin attacks against Dr. Spencer have been on going for a long time.
There is something in this recent paper of S&B that has really hit a cord with the AGW promoters. It is kinda like the Lindzen and Choi paper. It applied to a specific area, and they did NOT try to make it a world wide thing. They were looking at specific responses at a specific time frame. That got the AGW promoters really worked up as well.
And then we have Dessler, who tries to make his paper a world wide thing....kinda like the last paper promoted and co-authored by Dr. Mann.....a piece of garbage, yet accepted and hailed as a breakthrough in sea levels. Yet.....they completely ignored the temp record from mmmmmmm.....thinking.....the Sarosoto Sea...sp?.....and the paleo record of salt mining near Rome....just a few things.
Oh well.......garbage in.....garbage out.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 5, 2011 21:10:03 GMT
Sargasso Sea.....not Sarasota......
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 5, 2011 21:15:04 GMT
Magellan, this shows how dead wrong you are:
"There can only be one truth. Either Spencer is right, or Trenberth (the Team) is right. It can't be both."
The truth likely does lie somewhere in the middle, as it almost always does. Betting against the sun having a significant role as the Team has done is folly, but to act like greenhouses gasses are completely irrelevant is also folly.
As for Spencer, who cares. If the man attacked first and went for data later he will get railroaded, that is the power of science works as discussed in the Brian Martin article I linked earlier. How do you win? Data...data...data...
The nail in the coffin of your "Team" may be the sun and it going into a funk at exactly the wrong time for them...which is pretty freakin' hilarious twist of fate if it happens and the planet cools significantly.
I do not have it all figured out, but you sure as hell don't. Screaming without data, and analyzing data in vaccuum without looking at it from all sides will get you killed, ask Roy Spencer.
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 5, 2011 21:16:43 GMT
Sigurdur-
Agree, the latest paper from the Mann group on sea level rise makes Spencer's paper look like a work of scientific genius in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 5, 2011 22:08:31 GMT
Sigurdur- Agree, the latest paper from the Mann group on sea level rise makes Spencer's paper look like a work of scientific genius in comparison. You still haven't said what is right or wrong about Spencer's paper, so that doesn't seem like a very well thought out reply.
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 5, 2011 22:37:33 GMT
The nail in the coffin of your "Team" may be the sun and it going into a funk at exactly the wrong time for them...which is pretty freakin' hilarious twist of fate if it happens and the planet cools significantly. I disagree, as do "the Team". This is from Real Climate: "According to these results, a 21st-century Maunder Minimum would only slightly diminish future warming. Moreover, it would be only a temporary effect since all known grand solar minima have only lasted for a few decades. Critics of this result might argue that the solar forcing in these experiments is only based on the estimated change in total irradiance, which might be an underestimate, or that does not include potential indirect amplifying effects (via an ozone response to UV changes, or galactic cosmic rays affecting clouds). However, our model reproduces the historic Maunder minimum with these estimates of solar irradiance. Furthermore, even if one multiplied the solar effects by a huge factor of 5 (which is unrealistic), no absolute cooling would take place (the temperatures would be temporarily cooler than the base scenario, but the trends would still be warming). It is clear that if a grand minimum were to happen it would be a tremendously exciting opportunity for solar physicists, however it is unlikely to be very exciting for anyone else." Mainstream scientists (aka "the Team") welcome a grand minimum as it would give us more data.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 5, 2011 22:43:34 GMT
The nail in the coffin of your "Team" may be the sun and it going into a funk at exactly the wrong time for them...which is pretty freakin' hilarious twist of fate if it happens and the planet cools significantly. I disagree, as do "the Team". This is from Real Climate: "According to these results, a 21st-century Maunder Minimum would only slightly diminish future warming. Moreover, it would be only a temporary effect since all known grand solar minima have only lasted for a few decades. Critics of this result might argue that the solar forcing in these experiments is only based on the estimated change in total irradiance, which might be an underestimate, or that does not include potential indirect amplifying effects (via an ozone response to UV changes, or galactic cosmic rays affecting clouds). However, our model reproduces the historic Maunder minimum with these estimates of solar irradiance. Furthermore, even if one multiplied the solar effects by a huge factor of 5 (which is unrealistic), no absolute cooling would take place (the temperatures would be temporarily cooler than the base scenario, but the trends would still be warming). It is clear that if a grand minimum were to happen it would be a tremendously exciting opportunity for solar physicists, however it is unlikely to be very exciting for anyone else." Mainstream scientists (aka "the Team") welcome a grand minimum as it would give us more data. It isn't warming. Honestly, would you stop referencing already invalidated climate model junk? And if you are going to reference something, it is customary to link to it. Sheesh, why it is so difficult to comprehend that climate modelers can "force" their models to do anything they wish, especially when predicting something that has already happened! They can't model clouds worth a crap for the last 30 years, but somehow they just happen to get it right for the last 1000 years.
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 5, 2011 23:09:42 GMT
I disagree, as do "the Team". This is from Real Climate: "According to these results, a 21st-century Maunder Minimum would only slightly diminish future warming. Moreover, it would be only a temporary effect since all known grand solar minima have only lasted for a few decades. Critics of this result might argue that the solar forcing in these experiments is only based on the estimated change in total irradiance, which might be an underestimate, or that does not include potential indirect amplifying effects (via an ozone response to UV changes, or galactic cosmic rays affecting clouds). However, our model reproduces the historic Maunder minimum with these estimates of solar irradiance. Furthermore, even if one multiplied the solar effects by a huge factor of 5 (which is unrealistic), no absolute cooling would take place (the temperatures would be temporarily cooler than the base scenario, but the trends would still be warming). It is clear that if a grand minimum were to happen it would be a tremendously exciting opportunity for solar physicists, however it is unlikely to be very exciting for anyone else." Mainstream scientists (aka "the Team") welcome a grand minimum as it would give us more data. It isn't warming. Honestly, would you stop referencing already invalidated climate model junk? That's quite a leap. From talking about the effects of a Grand Minimum to "It isn't warming"! Why not stay slightly on topic? But I'm game, and will answer you. For the last 110 years the climate has been warming. There have been pauses, especially the 40s-70s pause which most people attribute to aerosols (blaming the sun is illogical since solar output peaked tremendously in 1958). Currently, the 80s were warmer than the 70s, the 90s were warmer than the 80s, and the 00s were warmer than the 90s. I'll cite Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_(Fig.A).gifIf you're talking about the El Nino who's effects peaked in 1998 and the La Nina, who's effects peaked in 2010, then yes, you could misattribute that weather to be "we aren't warming", but it is scientific nonsense. When a huge La Nina year is as warm as a huge El Nino year twelve years prior, that says, quite strongly, that we're warming. As to the fact that the quotation I gave mentioned models, it seems you have the brains of a bull. You see code-words like "Wikipedia" and "model" and you see red and lose all rationality. That's unfortunate, as you miss out on a lot of stuff that way. The mention of the models was minor to irrelevant to my post, the point of which was that "the Team" would welcome a Grand Minimum as it would give us much-needed data.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 5, 2011 23:17:12 GMT
It isn't warming. Honestly, would you stop referencing already invalidated climate model junk? That's quite a leap. From talking about the effects of a Grand Minimum to "It isn't warming"! Why not stay slightly on topic? But I'm game, and will answer you. For the last 110 years the climate has been warming. There have been pauses, especially the 40s-70s pause which most people attribute to aerosols (blaming the sun is illogical since solar output peaked tremendously in 1958). Currently, the 80s were warmer than the 70s, the 90s were warmer than the 80s, and the 00s were warmer than the 90s. I'll cite Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_(Fig.A).gifIf you're talking about the El Nino who's effects peaked in 1998 and the La Nina, who's effects peaked in 2010, then yes, you could misattribute that weather to be "we aren't warming", but it is scientific nonsense. When a huge La Nina year is as warm as a huge El Nino year twelve years prior, that says, quite strongly, that we're warming. As to the fact that the quotation I gave mentioned models, it seems you have the brains of a bull. You see code-words like "Wikipedia" and "model" and you see red and lose all rationality. That's unfortunate, as you miss out on a lot of stuff that way. The mention of the models was minor to irrelevant to my post, the point of which was that "the Team" would welcome a Grand Minimum as it would give us much-needed data. Please read the rest of my post since I edited it. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a reliable source but for a few narrow subjects. You do understand who has been in control of Wikipedia on climate matters? No doubt it is someone you agree with, but it is not an objective source, period. Wikipedia on the 'Hockey Stick' matter is a perfect example. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years Complete and utter garbage. Now, start rolling out the "peer reviewed" research that validates climate models on any number of subjects. It is plain to see you don't understand that climate models are a hypotheses themselves, and that using a hypothesis to test another hypothesis is JUNK SCIENCE.
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 6, 2011 0:06:06 GMT
Please read the rest of my post since I edited it.OK. You added, "Anyway, Wikipedia is not a reliable source but for a few narrow subjects. You do understand who has been in control of Wikipedia on climate matters? No doubt it is someone you agree with, but it is not an objective source, period. Wikipedia on the 'Hockey Stick' matter is a perfect example. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years Complete and utter garbage." I referenced well-accepted data. Arrhenius did experiment on CO2. The modern temperature record since 1900 is well-accepted, with disagreement only over details. If you have a problem with that well-accepted data, simply say so, instead of whining that I used a convenient source to find it. I note that you did not in any way, shape, or form give any indication that what I posted was incorrect in any way. Instead you stomped your foot and went on a diatribe. Let's look at your Wiki 1000 year cite: "According to all major temperature reconstructions published in peer-reviewed journals (see graph), the increase in temperature in the 20th century and the temperature in the late 20th century is the highest in the record. Attention has tended to focus on the early work of Michael E. Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998), whose "hockey stick" graph was featured in the 2001 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. The methodology and data sets used in creating the Mann et al. (1998) version of the hockey stick graph are disputed by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, but the graph is overall acknowledged by the scientific community." Quite a reasonable analysis. It even refers the reader to McIntyre and McKitrick, and DOES NOT use M&M as the basis for its graph, instead giving curves representing all published work. Please explain your conclusion that it's "complete and utter garbage". Now, start rolling out the "peer reviewed" research that validates climate models on any number of subjects. It is plain to see you don't understand that climate models are a hypotheses themselves, and that using a hypothesis to test another hypothesis is JUNK SCIENCE. Not even close. Climate models are validated in many ways. First, they are run against the past, going for as long as possible to help minimize fitting. The runs against the future are by definition limited, as one has to use ten-year-old models to make a ten year run, for example. Obviously, there has been a lot of advancement over ten years. Please note that the opportunity for erroneous fitting of the models to the data declines as time goes on, and changes to a model to make it work with recent revelations must be defended. Your simplistic accusation, that models are simple piles of garbage curve-fitted to appear to show the climate system, doesn't hold water. That would require all scientists everywhere to collude in the deception.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 6, 2011 0:21:45 GMT
Please read the rest of my post since I edited it.OK. You added, "Anyway, Wikipedia is not a reliable source but for a few narrow subjects. You do understand who has been in control of Wikipedia on climate matters? No doubt it is someone you agree with, but it is not an objective source, period. Wikipedia on the 'Hockey Stick' matter is a perfect example. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years Complete and utter garbage." I referenced well-accepted data. Arrhenius did experiment on CO2. The modern temperature record since 1900 is well-accepted, with disagreement only over details. If you have a problem with that well-accepted data, simply say so, instead of whining that I used a convenient source to find it. I note that you did not in any way, shape, or form give any indication that what I posted was incorrect in any way. Instead you stomped your foot and went on a diatribe. Let's look at your Wiki 1000 year cite: "According to all major temperature reconstructions published in peer-reviewed journals (see graph), the increase in temperature in the 20th century and the temperature in the late 20th century is the highest in the record. Attention has tended to focus on the early work of Michael E. Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998), whose "hockey stick" graph was featured in the 2001 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. The methodology and data sets used in creating the Mann et al. (1998) version of the hockey stick graph are disputed by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, but the graph is overall acknowledged by the scientific community." Quite a reasonable analysis. It even refers the reader to McIntyre and McKitrick, and DOES NOT use M&M as the basis for its graph, instead giving curves representing all published work. Please explain your conclusion that it's "complete and utter garbage". Now, start rolling out the "peer reviewed" research that validates climate models on any number of subjects. It is plain to see you don't understand that climate models are a hypotheses themselves, and that using a hypothesis to test another hypothesis is JUNK SCIENCE. Not even close. Climate models are validated in many ways. First, they are run against the past, going for as long as possible to help minimize fitting. The runs against the future are by definition limited, as one has to use ten-year-old models to make a ten year run, for example. Obviously, there has been a lot of advancement over ten years. Please note that the opportunity for erroneous fitting of the models to the data declines as time goes on, and changes to a model to make it work with recent revelations must be defended. Your simplistic accusation, that models are simple piles of garbage curve-fitted to appear to show the climate system, doesn't hold water. That would require all scientists everywhere to collude in the deception. Please learn proper use of the forum when replying. Including your responses within quotes makes it very difficult to follow. I asked you for published research validating climate models. You came back again with a lecture. I have no less than 20 invalidating them. Others here know we've been through this countless times, and the AGW 'true believers' get slammed every time. If after this time you can't supply a legitimate source that validates climate models, we'll spoon feed you, but this looks to be a repeat of every other debate on the matter and you'll continue with quotes rather than data. First and foremost, find one that correctly models cloud dynamics.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 6, 2011 0:38:05 GMT
commonsense: Actually, the models do not do a good job of hindcast. They do if you tweak the TSI number, but the problem with that tweaking is that the tweaking is not based on the current TSI number at all. By current, I mean the current literature.
A lot of models are based on ........trying to remember the paper......the author is a female......mmmmm......it has been posted here, and she now says her paper was junk.
MMMM>..Lean......I believe.
Prof Trenbeth keeps telling us that his model is correct and that the heat is in the oceans, yet there is no evidence of this.
The other modelers have gotten very quiet because of the recent reconstructions blow their models out of the water.
What this shows is that there are numerous factors that affect climate that are not defined within the models. We know that the hydro cycle is one of them, the lapse rate is another that refuses to be modeled reliabily, yet is very important to climate.
When one looks at the data from Brightness, that pesky Colorado outfit that measures the clarity of our atmosphere, it is easy to see that we should have warmed at least as much as we have......and prob more than we have. Even as the Grand Maximum went into retreat, it was still more active than anything before the mid 50's. And yet, there is no logical explanation for the 1915-1948 warming. The bump in the 40's really has everyone perplexed, as it was a huge bump and it really warmed in the Arctic. Note Greenlands' historical temp records, which are on the greenland temp thread.
I also posted a link to a presentation that Dr. Lindzen and Dr. North presented at Rice in 2010. Dr. North is an ardent AGW supporter. Yet, the discussion and presentations were civil, and we find there is a lot of agreement, at least among those who are really interested in the science, of what we do NOT know.
You can NOT validate a model with another model. Science just does not work that way.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 6, 2011 1:19:15 GMT
commonsense: Actually, the models do not do a good job of hindcast. They do if you tweak the TSI number, but the problem with that tweaking is that the tweaking is not based on the current TSI number at all. By current, I mean the current literature. A lot of models are based on ........trying to remember the paper......the author is a female......mmmmm......it has been posted here, and she now says her paper was junk. MMMM>..Lean......I believe. Prof Trenbeth keeps telling us that his model is correct and that the heat is in the oceans, yet there is no evidence of this. The other modelers have gotten very quiet because of the recent reconstructions blow their models out of the water. What this shows is that there are numerous factors that affect climate that are not defined within the models. We know that the hydro cycle is one of them, the lapse rate is another that refuses to be modeled reliabily, yet is very important to climate. When one looks at the data from Brightness, that pesky Colorado outfit that measures the clarity of our atmosphere, it is easy to see that we should have warmed at least as much as we have......and prob more than we have. Even as the Grand Maximum went into retreat, it was still more active than anything before the mid 50's. And yet, there is no logical explanation for the 1915-1948 warming. The bump in the 40's really has everyone perplexed, as it was a huge bump and it really warmed in the Arctic. Note Greenlands' historical temp records, which are on the greenland temp thread. I also posted a link to a presentation that Dr. Lindzen and Dr. North presented at Rice in 2010. Dr. North is an ardent AGW supporter. Yet, the discussion and presentations were civil, and we find there is a lot of agreement, at least among those who are really interested in the science, of what we do NOT know. You can NOT validate a model with another model. Science just does not work that way. Sigurdur, another very simple concept of modeling is that is one part of the model fails, the entire model is failed, but not in climate "science". BTW, I watched the Lindzen/North video. Keep in mind North was neck deep in the Hockey Stick fiasco. Here's some background: climateaudit.org/?s=gerald+north
|
|