|
Post by steve on Oct 16, 2012 5:53:54 GMT
Radiant,
I don't have much of a problem with "random change". I have a problem with cycles invoked to fit the warming and to thereby prove that cooling is just around the corner.
I do not rule out apparently random change caused by undetectable or hard to detect "natural variation".
The similarities are over-stated because, in my opinion, they neglect to point out that the previous warming period was preceded by a cooling period and followed by a cooling period. So you have to carefully select your end-points to find the similarity. Also the period obviously had fewer observations of forcings - if we went back in time with our current observing systems we might find the cause of this warming is obvious.
You seem to like black and white scenarios. Either the similarities are highly compelling, or the similarity should be completely ignored. I take a more measured view - the similarity is less compelling because the longer term trend (60-70 years) is not out of line with expectations given reducing volcanoes, possibly increasing solar and increasing CO2. But the gyrations of the change - the sudden drop, then the rise, then another drop, are of interest and may be instructive when trying to understand the current hiatus in warming.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 16, 2012 7:43:20 GMT
Steve
You appear to be the person more inclined to black and white than me surely?
C02 is not a proven forcing of sufficient magnitude to cause significant warming of the kinds proposed by the massaged/conjured data descriptions of the last 100 years or so.
C02 is just a guess to fit the described data, where if the pause continues then the guessed magnitude of C02 has to be modified to fit the data.
As for 'cycles', all thru the little ice age we see periods of great warmth and great cold. What we both know is that the little ice age was inconvenient for some of the well known warmists who attempted to remove it from the record. Now however we see that the little ice is allowed even by the IPCC and is often described as global even though warm periods in that longer term cold period are not globally synchronised.
Hot periods followed by cold periods seems to be just entirely normal.
Interesting the Anglia Unit was formed by a man known as mr ice or something like that. And yet we get told nobody of any merit believed in global cooling in the 1970's.
Hot or cold the funding keeps on coming
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 16, 2012 11:56:38 GMT
Radiant, I should have said that you seem to like posing your opponent's views in a black and white way. Push them to the extreme so you can hold the middle ground.
Here are some black and white views: If you think that the forcing calculation for CO2 is seriously wrong then you are a dragon slayer* If you think that the increase in CO2 over the last 100 years or so is not mainly down to additional CO2 emitted by man's activities then you are a dragon slayer. If you think that CO2 is not a *plausible* explanation for much of the warming over the last 50 years then you are a dragon slayer.
If you think that CO2 is not sufficiently *proven* to have caused much of the last 50 years' warming, then you are perhaps an optimist or perhaps recognise that taking action now to protect your descendents is something you are seeking to avoid doing.
*dragon slayer - term used regularly on Judith Curry's blog and by Judith herself to define someone who discusses barking mad alternative physical realities in which it is impossible for increased CO2 to cause warming.
Who told you that? More "black and white" claims.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 16, 2012 15:35:44 GMT
Radiant, I should have said that you seem to like posing your opponent's views in a black and white way. Push them to the extreme so you can hold the middle ground. Here are some black and white views: If you think that the forcing calculation for CO2 is seriously wrong then you are a dragon slayer* If you think that the increase in CO2 over the last 100 years or so is not mainly down to additional CO2 emitted by man's activities then you are a dragon slayer. If you think that CO2 is not a *plausible* explanation for much of the warming over the last 50 years then you are a dragon slayer. If you think that CO2 is not sufficiently *proven* to have caused much of the last 50 years' warming, then you are perhaps an optimist or perhaps recognise that taking action now to protect your descendents is something you are seeking to avoid doing. *dragon slayer - term used regularly on Judith Curry's blog and by Judith herself to define someone who discusses barking mad alternative physical realities in which it is impossible for increased CO2 to cause warming. Who told you that? More "black and white" claims. Steve How the hell do you go from your quoted definition of dragon slayer involving barking bad alternatives against any possibility of C02 being able to cause any warming, to then arrive at the idea that a person who says 1.the forcing calculation for CO2 is seriously wrong or 2. that CO2 is not a *plausible* explanation for much of the warming over the last 50 years deserves to be called barking mad??? Is there no middle ground allowed here? What you are telling me is that anybody inside climate science who does not fall in line gets this kind of treatment Evidently in your world shades of grey are not allowed. You are either barking mad denialist or you are a true believer. According you, it is not even possible to question the massaged/conjured data without being described as barking mad. According to you the only allowable conclusion is that the heat content of the earth is higher and this is mainly due to man made C02
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Oct 16, 2012 16:47:52 GMT
The IPCC statement in AR4 was that most of the warming of the last 50 years was likely anthropogenic. That far from rules out "natural" climate change. Steve, let's be realistic here. I remember the AR4 report predicted a global temperature growth of 0.2C per decade in the early part of the 21st century. They also said temperatures would increase 2 to 4.5C for a doubling of CO2 which accounts the 0.2C per decade expected within the rounding. If you're worried about the rounding then add in some of the lesser man made warming expected from other GHG's, soot, etc. I don't remember anything which said cooling from Ocean Currents was expected to offset most or all of the CO2 warming over decadal time frames. It looks like the IPCC is finally beginning to face the reality that Ocean Currents have a significant multidecadal effect on temperatures. The excuse that they can't include Ocean Current effects because they don't know how to model them is totally bogus. Did that stop them from putting in a plug factor for aerosols when it met their interests?. Steve, do you believe Ocean Current cooling could be offsetting the CO2 warming?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 16, 2012 18:25:44 GMT
Let me restate, that if you think the above things *having done a reasonably thorough study of the subject* and taking into account the views of both consensus and non-consensus scientists, and if you then still believe that there is something wrong with the basic science such that you think the above statements are wrong or unreasonable then you are verging on a situation where you are undermining not just climate science but some very sound physics understanding. *Some* of the people who do this come up with barking mad theories.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 16, 2012 18:30:11 GMT
The IPCC statement in AR4 was that most of the warming of the last 50 years was likely anthropogenic. That far from rules out "natural" climate change. Steve, let's be realistic here. I remember the AR4 report predicted a global temperature growth of 0.2C per decade in the early part of the 21st century. They also said temperatures would increase 2 to 4.5C for a doubling of CO2 which accounts the 0.2C per decade expected within the rounding. If you're worried about the rounding then add in some of the lesser man made warming expected from other GHG's, soot, etc. I don't remember anything which said cooling from Ocean Currents was expected to offset most or all of the CO2 warming over decadal time frames. It looks like the IPCC is finally beginning to face the reality that Ocean Currents have a significant multidecadal effect on temperatures. The excuse that they can't include Ocean Current effects because they don't know how to model them is totally bogus. Did that stop them from putting in a plug factor for aerosols when it met their interests?. Steve, do you believe Ocean Current cooling could be offsetting the CO2 warming? Well I haven't read the AR5 drafts, so I don't know what the IPCC report are saying. Some are surmising that more rapid mixing of heat into the ocean may be contributing to reducing the rate of warming as compared with the projected long term trend. But I don't think people know whether these are temporary (a few years) or permanent.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 16, 2012 18:35:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 16, 2012 20:27:51 GMT
Let me restate, that if you think the above things *having done a reasonably thorough study of the subject* and taking into account the views of both consensus and non-consensus scientists, and if you then still believe that there is something wrong with the basic science such that you think the above statements are wrong or unreasonable then you are verging on a situation where you are undermining not just climate science but some very sound physics understanding. *Some* of the people who do this come up with barking mad theories. Steve Are you saying it is now acceptable science to say that humans are responsible for the ending of the little ice age?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 16, 2012 23:32:24 GMT
Steve: Here is a demonstration that global warming has not stopped in the last 16 years.
The trend from 1965 to 1998 (when global warming stopped) is *less* than the trend from 1965 to now.
That graph is totally misleading.
After observing the Greenland debackle of last year, the Iceland debackle of this year, it is very very important to include error bars in any temp trend.
Wood for trees doesn't include the error bars in its temp graphs. That is something that should be included.
When you plot a graph, using the error bars which can't be observed on your graph, the trend can be almost flat with a 95% confidence level.
You can also plot a graph 1998-2010 that shows a very pronounced downturn in temps. Once again, using the error bars to the 95% confidence level.
Ever since high school physics, where I had one heck of a demanding teacher, I learned the importance of error bars. College physics was actually easy compared to my high school task master.
I have come to the conclusion that, for all intents and purposes, one of the reasons that AGW is not accepted by a large majority of folks, is that scientists, and especially the loud ones, forget the error bars. This causes folks to observe what they actually observe, and then think the AGW folks are loony because that loud noise does not match at what with reality.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 16, 2012 23:36:26 GMT
I had a young farmer ask me last year why his yields weren't better. He planted the highest yielding variety exibited by the previous years trials. I asked him what the standard deviation was in those trials. He is not the brightest bulb, and he had no idea.
I like the young kid, so I printed out the yields, did an excel spread sheet, and showed him that while the variety he planted was a good variety, the standard deviation of the trials was 5.8 bushels per acre. And that was on either side of the mean. After a bit more pencil work, he at least understood how to interpret yield data from trials, knowing that just because it showed it was the top yielder.....on a commercial size farm.....it would be in the top 10%, but not always at the top.
We need to understand how this works concerning temperature records, trends etc as well. It is imperative.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 17, 2012 0:18:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 17, 2012 0:37:51 GMT
Here is a demonstration that global warming has not stopped in the last 16 years. The trend from 1965 to 1998 (when global warming stopped) is *less* than the trend from 1965 to now. Please stop playing games steve. We know you're smarter than that, but have apparently lost all traces of honesty and integrity. I read Judith Curry's 'Pause' thread. With this post and graph, you must feel right at home with some of the AGW nut jobs there explaining away the "pause". Whew, it gets deep. BTW, JC posted a link to this rabid denialist saying it was a good article. Good article by GWPFwww.thegwpf.org/the-mail-on-sunday-and-the-met-office/www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1120593115.txtROFL From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk> To: John Christy <john.christy@nsstc.uah.edu> Subject: This and that Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005
John, There has been some email traffic in the last few days to a week - quite a bit really, only a small part about MSU. The main part has been one of your House subcommittees wanting Mike Mann and others and IPCC to respond on how they produced their reconstructions and how IPCC produced their report. In case you want to look at this see later in the email !
Also this load of rubbish !
This is from an Australian at BMRC (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Oct 17, 2012 5:34:52 GMT
Steve: "I do not rule out apparently random change caused by undetectable or hard to detect 'natural variation'". It is not that hard to detect. First, the fish detected it. Then the fishermen detected that the fish had detected it and moved. So did the fishermen. Then scientists noticed that the fish and fishermen had detected a natural variation in temperature, indexed by the PDO. This expanded to studies of the ENSO "Oscillation" (actually, Cycle), then to other cycles such as AO, NAO, Indian Ocean. These appear to be teleconnected. Here is a start: wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/03/bob-tisdales-dirty-weather-control-video-rated-rr/
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 17, 2012 5:45:47 GMT
Let me restate, that if you think the above things *having done a reasonably thorough study of the subject* and taking into account the views of both consensus and non-consensus scientists, and if you then still believe that there is something wrong with the basic science such that you think the above statements are wrong or unreasonable then you are verging on a situation where you are undermining not just climate science but some very sound physics understanding. *Some* of the people who do this come up with barking mad theories. Steve Are you saying it is now acceptable science to say that humans are responsible for the ending of the little ice age? That's a bit of a "When did you stop beating your wife?" question because the concept of the LIA means different things to different people, and there is no consensus as to its cause or causes. I read quite a long time ago a study (possibly on realclimate or similar) that suggested that without man's CO2 emissions the (paraphrasing what they said) steady cooling that had occurred over the last millennium or so would have continued into the 20th Century.
|
|