|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 21, 2011 14:13:40 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 Steve: I have read approx 2 inches in numerous places verses your 1/2 inch. The amount, however, is not really important. When you look at the rate of sea level rise, where do you get the idea that it is fast now compared to 40 or even 100 years ago? I would be interested in reading a valid paper etc that shows an acceleration. I know on the continental US, the river system is back to normal, if not slightly below normal now, so our spring melt/rain has returned. I don't know about the rest of the world. That is why I said 6 months more of data would be needed to equalize the NH spring/summer as that is where most of the land mass is.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 21, 2011 14:18:45 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. Magellan: The hot spot isn't there, that is known. What this disproves is the models that were showing it should be there. Also, what this shows is that the UV may be more important to that "hot spot" than anything else. We all know that the models are just that, models. The data being fed into the models is far from perfect, the assumptions within the models are a lot of best guesses. The main thing to get out of the models is what we do NOT know. As I have stated earlier, the models are good discussion fodder, but not good at forcasting. IPCC WG1 was very plain in this matter, and that should be recognized. AS for me, I hope they continue working on the models. I think they are at least 10 years away, and might even be 20 years away from having any valid value. We have what we have, which isn't very good, but at least the flaws can be recognized and corrected. I have to believe that scientists really want this to happen. Not every scientist is like Prof Trenbeth, Dessler, etc. They are just a vocal minority with an agenda.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 21, 2011 17:59:27 GMT
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).
Talking about inexact sciences!
Measuring sea level is an incredibly difficult job. Expectations of sea level rise has led to speculation of ocean bottom stretching and adjustments to sea level rise in sort of a "constant dollars" approach to match expectations. Of course the beaches are rising as fast as sea level in that situation. . . .LOL!
AGW science has been demonstrated to be horribly polluted by confirmation bias.
A good example of that at work was J. Willis changing his results. Indeed people had pointed out inconsistencies that might be explained by leaking buoys but that is best dealt with via recognizing the results are uncertain as opposed to guessing what the outcome was and matching it to other uncertain sciences.
After he did that he still had cooling so the AGW machine still had to generate another study that extended the guess as to how many buoys were leaking to get all the way to numbers compatible with global warming. And which one did the EPA latch onto?
I don't think its necessary to suggest fraud. Confirmation bias is plentiful enough to do it alone. Evidence of that comes from the criticism of our current monitoring systems. Critics tend to forget that their beliefs are fully, completely, and 100 percent built upon monitoring systems far and away inferior to our current system.
Santer statistics do not rely on physics but that inferior system. Knowing politics and science as I do I can state with almost complete certainty Santer's numbers will not be revisited simply because its beyond any doubt whatsoever that it will not help the case much less give any additional weight to better technology. They would only do this where it demonstrates it is worse than we thought. Demonstrating the most potent characteristic of confirmation bias at work.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 22, 2011 1:11:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 22, 2011 1:24:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 22, 2011 1:25:59 GMT
It would appear that as I have indicated earlier, Dr. Dessler did not provide sufficient evidence that cloud feed back is positive, nor can it be determined to be negative with the current data sets.
So.......that question is stillllll very much in the clouds.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 22, 2011 17:55:49 GMT
It would appear that as I have indicated earlier, Dr. Dessler did not provide sufficient evidence that cloud feed back is positive, nor can it be determined to be negative with the current data sets. So.......that question is stillllll very much in the clouds. Which is what I (and Dessler) have been saying from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 22, 2011 23:39:05 GMT
magellan, As usual you have no idea of what I think about Dessler 2010 because all you ever do is assume what I think rather than read what I think. If you actually read what I have pointed out, Dessler 2010 says that there is a very unconvincing positive feedback in the data. It's right in front of me now - I'll quote it again for you: so you can only get excited about "smackdowns" of Dessler 2010 if you ignore what Dessler 2010 makes very clear. It's not at all surprising to me that different choices of which data to analyse will give you different results because the data is poor and covers only a small period of time. Roy appears, on the other hand, to have so much faith in the observations that he neglects the error analysis, so emphasising the apparent disagreement between his cherry-picked choice of models and the data.
so you can only get excited about "smackdowns" of Dessler 2010 if you ignore what Dessler 2010 makes very clear. It's not at all surprising to me that different choices of which data to analyse will give you different results because the data is poor and covers only a small period of time.
Dessler then proceeds to attempt to show the models, all with positive cloud feedback, agree with observations supporting a positive cloud feedback. So steve, while you cherry pick one sentence, Dessler jumps all over the place like a Mexican jumping bean, but his intent despite the fog, is obvious. In reality, it is you that don't have a grip on Dessler 2010. Here it is, right in front of me: My analysis suggests that the short-term cloud feedback is likely positive and that climate models as a group are doing a reasonable job of simulating this feedback, providing some indication that models successfully simulate the response of clouds to climate variations. However, owing to the apparent time-scale dependence of the cloud feedback and the uncertainty in the observed short-term cloud feedback, we cannot use this analysis to reduce the present range of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.0 to 4.5 K. How can on one hand there be poor correlation (R2 = .010) and on the other climate models do a reasonable job of simulating cloud feedback you say is not possible to quantify, but Dessler says is likely positive. Dessler 2010 is a convoluted mess of gibberish. Make up your mind.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 22, 2011 23:48:55 GMT
Magellan: Just as I said, Dessler proved nothing, and he proved that models prove nothing. The take I always got out of his paper was that he invalidated the models as far as cloud feedback.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 22, 2011 23:57:43 GMT
Magellan: Just as I said, Dessler proved nothing, and he proved that models prove nothing. The take I always got out of his paper was that he invalidated the models as far as cloud feedback. An unintended consequence of his musings, but it was not his purpose to invalidate climate models; quite the opposite. Clearly, he was justifying their programming of an assumed positive cloud feedback. It just too ironic that steve picks out the one sentence (ala Nick Stokes) that trashes the entire paper, then Dessler proceeds to prove demonstrate by proclamatioin the models are right agree with observations. I'm sure Icefisher has a good analogy to fit. In that sense, anyone trying to defend Dessler 2010 look foolish. BTW, steve's repeated accusation of Spencer cherry picking models, which he didn't, just went down with the ship: www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/the-rest-of-the-cherries-140-decades-of-climate-models-vs-observations/#commentsThis is steve's version of cherry picking: This is also steve's version of cherry picking: Ah, but Spencer didn't choose the "right" model. He should have picked the one that best fits the satellite data. And when another comparison is made to say the "hot spot", pick a different model that best fits that. And for hydrological simulations, pick another. And for ENSO, another. It's a shell game. Really sigurdur, read this convoluted paragraph from Dessler 2010. The observations fall within the range of models, and taken as a group, there is substantial agreement between the observations and the models’ cloud feedback. However, given the large uncertainties, the observations are currently of no obvious help in determining which models most accurately simulate the cloud feedback. Sorry, I've been reading more of steve's stuff. Some of it is too much to pass over. For instance: I don't know if the Dessler paper is "delayed" or whether Spencer is playing games. Dessler's paper looked a bit of a "look how easy it is to rubbish Lindzen and Spencer" rush job. If he is getting Spencer's engagement in writing a more complete demolishment reaching a more consensus position then that's good. Excuse me, but Dessler came to Spencer after smearing him and making his silly video. I wasn't aware Spencer was one of the reviewers of Dessler 2011. What sort of "gameplaying" could Spencer be doing, maybe......pointing out some grammatical errors or writing a 'Dear John' letter to be included in the final draft apologizing for causing so much anguish amongst the "consensus"? Don't leave us hanging, tell us the real reason why Dessler's paper is not yet published. Surely Barry Bickmore has all the answers. Maybe Trenberth stepped in? Of course, a "more consensus position" would be agreeing with Dessler
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 23, 2011 0:32:56 GMT
magellan: That is because no model has been able to simulate cloud feedback as of yet. The models are NOT the gospel of climate science. IF someone believes that, then they have not read papers, nor understand how serious this all is.
I have no question that AGW is occuring. Where I differ is in HOW much AGW is natural verses co2 induced. Everything I have read from paelo data indicates the potential warming from present co2 is around .1 to .2C At MOST.
And that is just how it is, no matter how much Prof Trenbeth wants to knash his teeth and write papers based on models that are based on models.
OBSERVATION.......OBSERVATION.....validates. A model does NOT validate another model.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 23, 2011 1:09:46 GMT
magellan: That is because no model has been able to simulate cloud feedback as of yet. The models are NOT the gospel of climate science. IF someone believes that, then they have not read papers, nor understand how serious this all is. I have no question that AGW is occuring. Where I differ is in HOW much AGW is natural verses co2 induced. Everything I have read from paelo data indicates the potential warming from present co2 is around .1 to .2C At MOST. And that is just how it is, no matter how much Prof Trenbeth wants to knash his teeth and write papers based on models that are based on models. OBSERVATION.......OBSERVATION.....validates. A model does NOT validate another model. First, I'm not arguing with you to be clear. It is steve's obfuscation that is intriguing. In an earlier post, you said: It would appear that as I have indicated earlier, Dr. Dessler did not provide sufficient evidence that cloud feed back is positive, nor can it be determined to be negative with the current data sets.
So.......that question is stillllll very much in the clouds. for which steve replied: Which is what I (and Dessler) have been saying from the beginning. Does this sound like Dessler is agreeing with what steve has been saying from the beginning? Or should we be parsing what the meaning of is is? From Dessler 2010 opening paragraph: Estimates of Earth's climate sensitivity are uncertain, largely because of uncertainty in the long-term cloud feedback. I estimated the magnitude of the cloud feedback in response to short-term climate variations by analyzing the top-of-atmosphere radiation budget from March 2000 to February 2010. Over this period, the short-term cloud feedback had a magnitude of 0.54 T 0.74 (2s) watts per square meter per kelvin, meaning that it is likely positive. A small negative feedback is possible, but one large enough to cancel the climate’s positive feedbacks is not supported by these observations. Both long- and short-wave components of short-term cloud feedback are also likely positive. Calculations of short-term cloud feedback in climate models yield a similar feedback. I find no correlation in the models between the short- and long-term cloud feedbacks. Dessler then throws in some graphs supporting "positive cloud feedbacks". That is what CA smacked down, and decisively.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 23, 2011 1:59:43 GMT
Magellan: Just as I said, Dessler proved nothing, and he proved that models prove nothing. The take I always got out of his paper was that he invalidated the models as far as cloud feedback. An unintended consequence of his musings, but it was not his purpose to invalidate climate models; quite the opposite. Clearly, he was justifying their programming of an assumed positive cloud feedback. It just too ironic that steve picks out the one sentence (ala Nick Stokes) that trashes the entire paper, then Dessler proceeds to prove demonstrate by proclamatioin the models are right agree with observations. I'm sure Icefisher has a good analogy to fit. In that sense, anyone trying to defend Dessler 2010 look foolish. BTW, steve's repeated accusation of Spencer cherry picking models, which he didn't, just went down with the ship: www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/the-rest-of-the-cherries-140-decades-of-climate-models-vs-observations/#commentsThis is steve's version of cherry picking: This is also steve's version of cherry picking: Ah, but Spencer didn't choose the "right" model. He should have picked the one that best fits the satellite data. And when another comparison is made to say the "hot spot", pick a different model that best fits that. And for hydrological simulations, pick another. And for ENSO, another. It's a shell game. Really sigurdur, read this convoluted paragraph from Dessler 2010. The observations fall within the range of models, and taken as a group, there is substantial agreement between the observations and the models’ cloud feedback. However, given the large uncertainties, the observations are currently of no obvious help in determining which models most accurately simulate the cloud feedback. Sorry, I've been reading more of steve's stuff. Some of it is too much to pass over. For instance: I don't know if the Dessler paper is "delayed" or whether Spencer is playing games. Dessler's paper looked a bit of a "look how easy it is to rubbish Lindzen and Spencer" rush job. If he is getting Spencer's engagement in writing a more complete demolishment reaching a more consensus position then that's good. Excuse me, but Dessler came to Spencer after smearing him and making his silly video. I wasn't aware Spencer was one of the reviewers of Dessler 2011. What sort of "gameplaying" could Spencer be doing, maybe......pointing out some grammatical errors or writing a 'Dear John' letter to be included in the final draft apologizing for causing so much anguish amongst the "consensus"? Don't leave us hanging, tell us the real reason why Dessler's paper is not yet published. Surely Barry Bickmore has all the answers. Maybe Trenberth stepped in? Of course, a "more consensus position" would be agreeing with Dessler What is fascinating is watching people defend the spaghetti that is scattered all over the place. They talk glowingly about one strand then switch to another as convenience permits. But at the 2011 mark notice that reality is not AGW but cyclical cooling! No hockey stick!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 23, 2011 3:36:28 GMT
Awww yes, the no hockey stick. And this is what people who understand the models keep talking about. There is no "right" nor "wrong" model. They are models, observation is NOT supporting these models. Given a certain set of parameters, the models who what they are designed to show. The problem is...and has been, the current batch of models do NOT do well modeling climate as a whole. The model that comes close to showing ENSO, can't do temp. The model that can do temp, can't do ENSO....or Arctic Ice....nor Antarctic Temps......etc.....etc. Each model as designed shows what it is programmed to do. That is what models do, they can't think. Oh well, next? ?....
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 23, 2011 19:11:21 GMT
magellan,
You are determined to insist that Dessler 2010 is putting forward a strong argument for short term positive cloud feedbacks in models.
I think that with large error bars, low R2, words like "suggest" and phrases like "Obviously the correlation is weak" he is not being so dogmatic, and I've been pretty consistent in stating that.
The phrase about "suggesting" that models may be doing a good job of short term feedbacks is arguably fair enough in the very clear context of a very short set of observations, though I for one haven't chosen to argue that point.
In short you are arguing with a strawman, and up to now I'm roughly in agreement with Sigurdur.
What Dessler *has* done, though, is identify the easily identifiable arguments (so easy that even I spotted them) that destroy Lindzen and Spencer's analyses. Even that doesn't mean that Lindzen and Spencer aren't onto something. It means that if they are onto something they've made a pigs ear of proving it.
|
|