|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Mar 21, 2009 0:38:18 GMT
Hi Steve. You write: "Look forward to you sticking to the point on the G+T discussion by providing me with an explanation of pages 80-90." While you pester people with obfuscating questions and refuse to answer the simple challenge posed by Magellan, perhaps you could take a minute to answer a couple of questions of mine? 1. Do you see evidence of negative forcing in the record snow and cold in Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, Norway, Brazil, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, etc. in the past 2 years, plus positive glacial-mass in Alaska last summer? Or do you put all of this down to internal variation? Solar minima driven, as demonstrated previously. Increased sea ice at NH summer minimum. Caused by deepening solar minimum. Most likely increased Artic sea ice in 2013. Caused by deepening solar minimum and expectation that SC 24 will continue to be far weaker than recent minima. It does an excellent job of explaining the present sea ice conditions. We are now well into a prolonged period of minimum solar activity. In past periods this has resulted in far larger freeze-ups than what we are seeing today. That the weather has changed in response to the Gore Minimum validates claims that "weather" and solar cycles are linked. That the weather has not regressed to the Maunder or Dalton levels validates claims that CO2 levels have warmed the climate, relative to past times with similar solar behavior.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 21, 2009 8:07:58 GMT
Hi Steve. It does an excellent job of explaining the present sea ice conditions. We are now well into a prolonged period of minimum solar activity. In past periods this has resulted in far larger freeze-ups than what we are seeing today. That the weather has changed in response to the Gore Minimum validates claims that "weather" and solar cycles are linked. That the weather has not regressed to the Maunder or Dalton levels validates claims that CO2 levels have warmed the climate, relative to past times with similar solar behavior. Except that we are not anywhere close to Dalton or Maunder Minimum levels yet. Those were much more prolonged periods of inactivity than we have seen yet. So far, all we have seen is a much longer and deeper minima between cycles. It remains to be seen if we see the extremely weak cycles as were seen in those periods.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 21, 2009 15:24:57 GMT
Well the problem with the creationists is that the amount of evidence is overwhelming and is in many cases direct. Creationists will successfully argue the evidence is not direct, but only because they use a specific definition of "direct" to mean they accept nothing but direct *observation* of the phenomenon. They would dismiss all of your examples as not being direct evidence because none of them show say a cat turning into a dog in a lab. Silly yes, but that's what they mean by "direct" evidence. It means you can't base anything on the fossil record or DNA (which have to be interpretted). It basically means any theoretical points, however strong, cannot be put forward as "direct evidence". It's simply a debate trick wherin they set the bar ridiculously high and goad people to prove the theory meets this bar. When that bar is inevitably not reached they announce that the theory evolution is a sham, a fraud, unscientific, having no basis. In this situation you have to point out the fact the bar has been set ridiculously high, not waste time trying to take on the "challenge". Hence why I am asking what "direct" means. It looks very much like a magic word that can be used to dismiss any assembly of inconvienient evidence.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 21, 2009 16:25:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 21, 2009 19:17:03 GMT
This lowering ocean heat content is extremely important as it shows that we are not looking at 'just weather'. As one of the replies to that blog states - ocean temperatures should be considerably more stable than atmospheric variances'. Claims by cat herder that the drop in temperatures was forecast by AGW are rather difficult to accept. To rehearse the argument again - if a short period of Sun quietness with very little change in the Sun's output leads to a reversal from the warming of the previous 20 years to the cooling of the last 5; then the previous 30 years of a grand maximum can explain the all the global warming. I realize that the AGW proponents want to - but you CANNOT have it both ways. Either the sun has an equivalent effect to AGW or it does not. The warming effect of 'green house gases' now at an atmospheric concentration that is far higher than estimates of AR4 - _should_ be showing increased warming. Instead warming has reversed in the last few years. Meaning that the change in the Sun from active to quiet changes the planet from warming to cooling that is sufficient to reverse not just stabilize the warming. So - if you support AGW you should be able to give reasoning for why the planet is cooling with figures. Use the equations you used to prove CO 2 caused warming - and plug in the new concentrations of CO 2 and other GHG - and the current TSI -- this should show the current temperatures and the reason for the continued loss of heat from the planet. If not then the algorithms and formulae and the models that were used to forecast AGW - are wrong. Something is missing from them or an assumption made was incorrect. Yet you would continue to use these flawed models as reasons for politicians to kill jobs and tax everyone. Go on someone reading this plug in the current known concentrations of GHG and the current TSI - and show the models are outputting the current cooler temperatures and show the ocean losing heat at the current rate. Look at it like a simple regression validation test. It should be extremely simple to do - and AGW will be proved.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 21, 2009 22:01:58 GMT
Well the problem with the creationists is that the amount of evidence is overwhelming and is in many cases direct. Creationists will successfully argue the evidence is not direct, but only because they use a specific definition of "direct" to mean they accept nothing but direct *observation* of the phenomenon. Its my view the Creationists while usually wrong (there remain some creationists that don't ascribe to a 6,000 year old earth) have a valid point about the vagaries of inductive logic. We still have a lot to learn about our creation. Now Darwin directly observed the existance of a utilitarian and unique finch's beak in an an isolated population of finches and developed his model which subsequently has been reinforced by many other thousands of unique observations. In this case though somebody noted that CO2 was going up in general and so was temperature. So they constructed a model and the results were subsequent observations did not follow the model. Now that should become rather convincing because the global warming model isn't trying to prove something that happened in the past (which btw also tends to invalidate the models as CO2 was once much higher and it got cooler). The only real risk here for the future is the original modelers continue to develop spaghetti graphs, continue to add appurtenants to their model to express new observations either in spaghetti graphs (like yours) or in some Rube Goldberg fashion (like the Ptolemy followers did for 1,500 years) rather than step back and take a fresh view. My view is they should suck the climate/environment modeling dollars out of academia like a million horsepower vacuum and start pouring it into useful research. . . .like mariculture, agriculture, and incentives for efficient housing and transportation. Instead of planning the murder of billions in the name of saving the planet start working to make the planet a good place to live.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 21, 2009 22:31:11 GMT
We are now well into a prolonged period of minimum solar activity. In past periods this has resulted in far larger freeze-ups than what we are seeing today. That the weather has changed in response to the Gore Minimum validates claims that "weather" and solar cycles are linked. That the weather has not regressed to the Maunder or Dalton levels validates claims that CO2 levels have warmed the climate, relative to past times with similar solar behavior. If you look at the various historical temperature reconstructions the shortest time from the MWP temp peak to the MM temp nadir was about 200 years. Some of the models show it taking up to 600 years. Ups and downs of the models seem to be on an average of 350 to 400 year cycles. But if we push the temp minimum into the 19th century as some reconstructions do we may have more natural warming coming. . . .still. . . . whatever causes it unusually long solar minimums or whatever. The temp reconstruction data appears inconsistent enough to not tell us a lot about what is coming in the next 2 centuries. But if it does continue to get warmer its really a scary prospect of 4 billion or more people running around with their heads cut off trying to reduce their neighbor's carbon footprint.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 25, 2009 3:12:51 GMT
Well, just as I expected:
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Mar 25, 2009 3:45:51 GMT
"The only real risk here for the future is the original modelers continue to develop spaghetti graphs, continue to add appurtenants to their model to express new observations either in spaghetti graphs (like yours) or in some Rube Goldberg fashion (like the Ptolemy followers did for 1,500 years) rather than step back and take a fresh view."
If I recall correctly from my astronomy days, the Copernican system had more epicycles than the Ptolemaic!
Astronomer's joke: Q. What is a Keplerian janitor?
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Mar 25, 2009 21:04:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Mar 26, 2009 0:05:40 GMT
"This has been done four times in the past 17 years, by thousands of "scientists" who have studied the issue extensively."
IPCC Meeting minutes:
It's Bad.
No That's not Baaaad enough.
This is Baaaad report four. No Baa's can now be less than Baaaa
It has to be really Baaaad. CO2 is really Baaaad
If we just say Bad people will stop listening!
Is anyone listening.. We need to issue report five soon.
That's going to be really baaaaad!
Everyone agree?
Baaaaah, Baaaaah, Baaaaah, Baaaaah, Baaaaah, Baaaaah, Baaaaah, Baaaaah, Baaaaah, Baaaaah, Baaaaah, Baaaaah, Baaaaah, Baaaaah, Baaaaah, Baaaaah, Baaaaah,
|
|
|
Post by mitchjas on Mar 26, 2009 22:57:19 GMT
As far as I'm concerned, AGW is still in hypothesis stage. Really its a political hypothesis. So this must make AGW the same as political science.
From Wikipedia: A hypothesis (from Greek ὑðüèåóéò /i´poèesis/) consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. The term derives from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A Hypothesis is never to be stated as a question, but always as a statement with an explanation following it. It is not to be a question because it states what he/she thinks or believes will occur.
In early usage, scholars often referred to a clever idea or to a convenient mathematical approach that simplified cumbersome calculations as a hypothesis; when used this way, the word did not necessarily have any specific meaning. Cardinal Bellarmine gave a famous example of the older sense of the word in the warning issued to Galileo in the early 17th century: that he must not treat the motion of the Earth as a reality, but merely as a hypothesis.
In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it. In due course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or occasionally may grow to become a theory itself. Normally, scientific hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model. Sometimes, but not always, one can also formulate them as existential statements, stating that some particular instance of the phenomenon under examination has some characteristic and causal explanations, which have the general form of universal statements, stating that every instance of the phenomenon has a particular characteristic.
|
|
|
Post by Col 'NDX on Mar 27, 2009 22:00:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 28, 2009 2:56:28 GMT
What does "somewhat unsettling" mean in this entry in AR4 ch 1? The strong effect of cloud processes on climate model sensitivities to greenhouse gases was emphasized further through a now-classic set of General Circulation Model (GCM) experiments, carried out by Senior and Mitchell (1993). They produced global average surface temperature changes (due to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration) ranging from 1.9�C to 5.4�C, simply by altering the way that cloud radiative properties were treated in the model. It is somewhat unsettling that the results of a complex climate model can be so drastically altered by substituting one reasonable cloud parameterization for another, thereby approximately replicating the overall intermodel range of sensitivities.
Just wondering......
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 28, 2009 11:32:56 GMT
It means what it says. Are you surprised that the IPCC report contains such an admission? Could it be that it is not quite so managed into the "party line" as you believed? As I've said before, no climate scientist says "the science is settled". The feedback issue is a difficult problem to solve, and approaches include looking at recent and prehistoric climate as well as more detailed analyses of changes in energy budget and observations of cloud changes etc. That said, it's very hard to get the clouds to change such that they significantly negate the impact of warming.
|
|