|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 19, 2011 18:39:45 GMT
There's nothing particularly wrong with Dessler's paper - he shows that cloud feedbacks are hard to measure on 10 years of data, and in any case their influence is small compared with variability due to SST changes. His analysis could be repeated with different choices of dataset and appear to show the same thing. Spencer has proven he can cherry-pick models and create a splash in the internetosphere. Steve: A hint here. Add a year in the beginning of Dessler's data and then see what happens. It will not resemble what he had in his paper. There are numerous flaws in Dessler. Stattistical analysis is one of them, both Spencer AND Dessler need to have an analytical statistician look over their work before they publish it. I will stand with what I wrote initially. Neither Spencer NOR Dessler has proved anything, but at least they are looking. As far as OHC.....the xbt data. Look at the error bars if you would please. REmember.....the actual number could be "higher" or "lower" as long as it is WITHIN the error bars. After the step change when ARGO was deployed.....and since deployment remaining virtually flat....that would suggest that the XBT data should have been at the UPPER area of the error bars for a longgggg time. The error bars in the ARGO data have shrunk to a very small temp metric.
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 20, 2011 0:36:19 GMT
You are just arguing the controls are in place and a rare cross wind just happened to come up and foul up the flights of otherwise worthy designs. A very good analogy. The conclusion is clear - models are worthy (useful), but not perfect. The analogy breaks down in that while extreme events are fatal in aircraft, in modelling they are opportunities. Large unusual natural events, such as Mt Pinatubo and this natural cooling cycle we've entered (which has been entirely counteracted by AGW), are almost guaranteed to "break" a model precisely because they are so unusual. Modellers welcome such events because they help modellers improve their models.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 20, 2011 0:59:04 GMT
You are just arguing the controls are in place and a rare cross wind just happened to come up and foul up the flights of otherwise worthy designs. A very good analogy. The conclusion is clear - models are worthy (useful), but not perfect. The analogy breaks down in that while extreme events are fatal in aircraft, in modelling they are opportunities. Large unusual natural events, such as Mt Pinatubo and this natural cooling cycle we've entered (which has been entirely counteracted by AGW), are almost guaranteed to "break" a model precisely because they are so unusual. Modellers welcome such events because they help modellers improve their models. The conclusion is clear - models are worthy (useful), but not perfect as predictive tools. There, fixed it.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 20, 2011 19:23:56 GMT
sigurdur, what bit of "he [Dessler] shows that cloud feedbacks are hard to measure on 10 years of data" is difficult to understand. A year of data slightly one way or another is not going to change the large error bars he already has by very much. You haven't identified any statistical flaws in Dessler yet.
That's an unbalanced view of the statistics that also continues to ignore the other evidence which is the sea level measurement.
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 20, 2011 19:41:20 GMT
A very good analogy. The conclusion is clear - models are worthy (useful), but not perfect. The analogy breaks down in that while extreme events are fatal in aircraft, in modelling they are opportunities. Large unusual natural events, such as Mt Pinatubo and this natural cooling cycle we've entered (which has been entirely counteracted by AGW), are almost guaranteed to "break" a model precisely because they are so unusual. Modellers welcome such events because they help modellers improve their models. The conclusion is clear - models are worthy (useful), but not perfect as predictive tools. There, fixed it. Your definition of "fixed" leads me to believe you are a veterinary assistant.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 20, 2011 20:05:12 GMT
sigurdur, what bit of "he [Dessler] shows that cloud feedbacks are hard to measure on 10 years of data" is difficult to understand. A year of data slightly one way or another is not going to change the large error bars he already has by very much. You haven't identified any statistical flaws in Dessler yet. That's an unbalanced view of the statistics that also continues to ignore the other evidence which is the sea level measurement. Steve: I will dig to the web site that did a statistical analysis of Dessler. It wasn't pretty. With that said, I think we both agree that neither Dessler NOR Spencer proved much, but they did open up a very important area that needs to be studied vigorously. AS far as OHC, the steric sea level has been flat. The XBT data seems to have had a cold bias, when compared to the ARGO data. My point is, the step change when going from XBT to ARGO is not realistic at all. The upper error bars of XBT DO overlap with the lower error bars of ARGO, so with that in mind, one can say with confidence that OHC has not risen in quit some time.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 21, 2011 1:54:18 GMT
Sea level rise is slowing steve. commonsense, when we have no more use of a stallion, it is common practice to snip their nuts off. It's quick.....THWIP!.......and it's done. No vet needed. They are then let out with the mares to "get their minds right", meaning the pain is forgotten for a time until they realize their tool doesn't work as good as it used to, plus it helps clots the blood to prevent bleeding to death. It looks to me the stallions of AGW are in need of "getting their minds right" since they are dancing around like they just had their nuts cut off. Now, if you have such faith in climate models, how about coming up with that list I've requested? No doubt you are aware of this: hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/09/multi-institutional-study-group-finds.html
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 21, 2011 3:12:08 GMT
I have no great faith in climate models and have no idea about some hypothetical list you crave. Anyway, I don't see why I should help you find what you seek so desperately. Find it yourself. As to the double-cherry-picked denialist site you linked to? Learn some physics and/or basic climate science, then we'll chat.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 21, 2011 4:07:10 GMT
I have no great faith in climate models and have no idea about some hypothetical list you crave. Anyway, I don't see why I should help you find what you seek so desperately. Find it yourself. As to the double-cherry-picked denialist site you linked to? Learn some physics and/or basic climate science, then we'll chat. You speak out of both sides of your mouth. You cannot argue that GCM's are not the center piece in AGW "science". It isn't arguable. On the one hand you say they have been validated, which is untrue, but then like to downplay to make it appear they aren't that important. Examples? solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=globalwarming&thread=1759&post=73825 Why would you ask me for something which is impossible? Models by definition are imperfect. Cloud dynamics are only now being incorporated into models. The fact that models do so well without it speaks volumes about the relative importance of cloud changes.
solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=globalwarming&thread=1759&post=73806 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.
The funniest line I've ever come across in this forum was: Why would you ask me for something which is impossible? Models by definition are imperfect. Cloud dynamics are only now being incorporated into models. The fact that models do so well without it speaks volumes about the relative importance of cloud changes. Why the hell do you think Trenberth and co. are going all out to prevent any publication on cloud dynamics in direct opposition to IPCC untested assumptions? BTW, that "denialist" website I posted? Well, since you are incapable of taking the blinders off, how about reading the direct source. I won't even torture you with multiple quotes; it's all in there. Now, since you don't place much faith in climate models except when you do, does this validate or invalidate climate models? www.usclivar.org/Newsletter/VariationsV4N1/BrethertonCPT.pdf The world’s first superparameterization climate sensitivity results show strong negative cloud feedbacks driven by enhancement of boundary layer clouds in a warmer climate.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 21, 2011 4:14:46 GMT
commonsense, I have reams of papers with similar results invalidating climate models. In your world, pulling a bunch of levers to predict the past (which is already known) is the same as validation. If modelers cannot correctly model key aspects of the climate system, they are FAILED. That is the rule of modeling, and yes I've used models in my line of work; FEA. If just ONE component is failed, the model fails, period. A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed dataAbstract We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe.We also spatially aggregate model output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic (30-year) scale. Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor. INTRODUCTION According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global circulation models (GCM) are able to “reproduce features of the past climates and climate changes” (Randall et al., 2007, p. 601). Here we test whether this is indeed the case.We examine how well several model outputs fit measured temperature and rainfall in many stations around the globe. We also integrate measurements and model outputs over a large part of a continent, the contiguous USA (the USA excluding islands and Alaska), and examine the extent to which models can reproduce the past climate there. We will be referring to this as “comparison at a large scale”. This paper is a continuation and expansion of Koutsoyiannis et al. (2008). The differences are that (a) Koutsoyiannis et al. (2008) had tested only eight points, whereas here we test 55 points for each variable; (b) we examine more variables in addition to mean temperature and precipitation; and (c) we compare at a large scale in addition to point scale.The comparison methodology is presented in the next section. While the study of Koutsoyiannis et al. (2008) was not challenged by any formal discussion papers, or any other peer-reviewed papers, criticism appeared in science blogs (e.g. Schmidt, 2008). Similar criticism has been received by two reviewers of the first draft of this paper, hereinafter referred to as critics. In both cases, it was only our methodology that was challenged and not our results. Therefore, after presenting the methodology below, we include a section “Justification of the methodology”, in which we discuss all the critical comments, and explain why we disagree and why we think that our methodology is appropriate. Following that, we present the results and offer some concluding remarks.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 21, 2011 12:56:11 GMT
sigurdur
There was no such step change from XBT to ARGO. As ARGO built up, the number of XBTs reduced. This has happened over a period of years. Numerous analyses have been done by different scientists - even J. Willis who was happy to publish (incorrectly as it turned out) that ARGO data showed significant cooling. So you cannot even claim that all the analyses have been bodged to show warming by AGW-alarmists.
magellan:
As I said, sea level has risen in line with the increase in OHC. If it is slowing in line with the slower change in OHC then all the better :-) (noting that there are other influences on average sea levels including the amount of land ice melt, ocean basin changes and moisture on land all of which confuse the picture but not to the extent that the relationship supports the OHC rise).
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 21, 2011 13:01:38 GMT
sigurdur There was no such step change from XBT to ARGO. As ARGO built up, the number of XBTs reduced. This has happened over a period of years. Numerous analyses have been done by different scientists - even J. Willis who was happy to publish (incorrectly as it turned out) that ARGO data showed significant cooling. So you cannot even claim that all the analyses have been bodged to show warming by AGW-alarmists. Steve: I haven't claimed that the analysis were bodged to show warming. I have to believe that the readers of the XBT data were doing the best they could with what they had as a source. There was a splicing problem which is well known when the ARGO bouy data set was incorporated in 2003. This isn't about warming, this is about data and splicing. I think you misunderstand what I am saying. We have better spatial coverage now, and the OHC has shown very little deviation since 2003 with this coverage.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 21, 2011 13:05:27 GMT
Steve: When you look at the error bars, once again, in the satillite data on sea level rise, and take into account the variables that you stated as best we can, the rise in sea level is nothing out of the ordinary for this period of the Holocene. The recent sharp drop in sea level is a bit troublesome as the amount of water it takes to do this by itself would cover the land masses with a couple of inches of water. That hasn't happened. Will have to wait and see if there is a rebound in the next 6 months. IF there isn't.....that opens up a lot of questions.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 21, 2011 13:12:52 GMT
Steve: When you look at the error bars, once again, in the satillite data on sea level rise, and take into account the variables that you stated as best we can, the rise in sea level is nothing out of the ordinary for this period of the Holocene. No, it is faster than average, and the extra speed is best explained by a thermosteric rise (in addition to the ongoing melting of land ice since the last ice age) in line with the OHC rises. The drop is about 6 mm. So we're talking a half inch on land, not two. At least 6 months I reckon for the rivers to get this back to the ocean. I'm patient
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 21, 2011 13:59:04 GMT
Has anyone noticed the once proof of AGW, the tropical tropospheric "hot spot" is being avoided like the plague? Anyone relatively new to "climate science" wouldn't even know it is a founding principle of AGW unless someone tells them or they read the literature. Warmologists wish it would just go away.
|
|