|
Post by norpag on Dec 23, 2008 17:01:06 GMT
I'm also amazed at AGW supporters like Americanrealist or rather americanfantasist who seem completely unable to deal with the facts of the case and regurgitate the Realclimate nonsense and are prone to quoting "authorities" and launch ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with them. For starters anthropogenic CO2 is 0.12% of greenhouse gas and right off the bat is therefore an unlikely candidate for the main climate driver. The IPCC peeple never attempted to understand climate - their mission was to measure the effect of human CO2 input on climate. They assumed they knew the full extent of the sun - climate interaction - which they certainly didn't and we still dont. They calculated their forcing and feedback factors for CO2 by simply assigning a minimum solar effect and attributing all the rest to CO2 They should have done it the other way around . The forcing and feedback factors they used are simply wrong - (see Spencers recent papers.) The Global Climate Model fearmongering predictions are useless on the garbage in - garbage out principle. Everyone agrees temperatures warmed from the little ice age through the 20th century . The Mann hockey stick curve is a joke,heavily weighted as it is with cherry picked Bristle Cone Pine data which is not a reliable temperature proxy. It is clear from many published papers that the Medieval warm period was warmer than now so current temperatures are well within normal limits. Warming peaked in 1998 . Everyone accepts that this was an unusually warm El Nino year . Global temperature measurement is more an art than a science and there is a lot of noise in the record particularly for NH land based temperatures. The HadCrut 3 SST data probably gives the most reasonable record of what is going on. (Google - Hadley Cru and scroll down to SST GL. ) SSTs have been falling since 2003. and through the first eleven months of this year earth is cooler than 1997. Since then CO2 is up 6% with no global warming - in absolute contradiction to the IPCC predictions. As you can see on this site the sun is entering a quiescent phase which could signal a Dalton or Maunder type minimum - such a global cooling would have a serious effect on crop and food production. CO2 is not a pollutant it is the essential plant food. Anthropogenic CO2 has little effect on temperature since it is overwhelmed by solar influence and the sensitivity equation is in any event logarithmic. About 25% of the 20th century increase in food crop yields was due to the beneficial increase in CO2. If the 20 - 30 year cooling spell indicated by the decrease in solar activity and the negative phase of the Pacirfic Decadal Oscillation actually develops we need more CO2 not less in order to help feed the extra 3 billion people expected by mid century. Anyone who thinks we know enough to forecast temperatures 50 - 100 years ahead is simply self deluded. Any politician who would introduce Carbon Cap policies based on such speculations is doing what Bush did to WMDs fitting the "facts " to the policy instead of the other way round.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Dec 23, 2008 18:04:18 GMT
aj, I'll have to get back on the rest later, but regarding the IPCC and stronger hurricanes due to AGW: Excerpt from Chris Landsea letter on his resignation from the IPCC sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html"After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns." ============ "Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today" Research Trenberth. I distinctly remember all the hullabaloo after Katrina and Rita. AGW was "Causing" stronger hurricanes with greater frequency. They have backstepped because their predictions since then have petered out.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Dec 23, 2008 18:08:14 GMT
norpag writes "The IPCC peeple never attempted to understand climate - their mission was to measure the effect of human CO2 input on climate." An excellent post, norpag. However, I have one little nit to pick. The IPCC mission was to prove that CO2 was causing the rise in temperature. They always were, still are, and probably always will be, an advocate group, with political overtones. They were never anything approaching what I understand "scientific" to mean. Once the IPCC "proved" that CO2 was a menace, then the IFCCC could take on the job of pressuring countries to reduce CO2 emissions. Luckily, Copenhagen 2009 has all the signs of being a complete disaster.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Dec 23, 2008 18:35:37 GMT
Although I enjoy reading all the foregoing together with related scientific materials, when it comes to prediction in relation to future climate, I rely more on past historical events to predict the future, particularly as such pertain to changing cultures and civilizations, and movement of peoples.
Currently, bias and educative propaganda appear to have prevented a proper dialectic. That is unfortunate. It would seem that the discussion would benefit from the inclusion of a broad range of knowledge and disciplines.
For myself, my studies and reading include the movements and fates of peoples: the Pacific Conveyor; the Greenland Vikings; Nordic tribes; Germanic tribes; Roman development and rapid decentralization (not collapse or fall), coastal movements of societies; etc.
My interpretations arrive in part at the conclusion that since approximately the Bronze Age, and after the formation of deltas, approximately 2000 years earlier, the global temperature has been cooling. The formation of deltas might mark the mid point of the Holocene.
This cooling period seems to have been marked by interim warming periods of ever decreasing length.
I could be completely wrong, and everything I say erroneous, but the studies are fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Dec 23, 2008 19:20:28 GMT
[trimmed] ...Coupling by definition means that the forcing works both ways... From Wikipedia, here are the definitions of "coupling": * Mating or the act of sexual intercourse * Coupling, a connection or joint between two things * Coupling (computer science), the degree to which each program module relies on each one of the other modules * Coupling (electronics), the transfer of energy from one medium to another * Coupling (genetics), a type of genetic linkage * Coupling (physics), a concept in physics; or the interdependence of rotational, vibrational, and electronic states of a molecule * Coupling (piping), a short length of pipe or tube to connect two pipes or tubes together * Coupling (probability), a proof technique in probability theory * Coupling (railway), a mechanism for connecting railway rolling stock * Coupling (UK TV series), a British sitcom written by Steven Moffat for the BBC * Coupling (US TV series), a short lived American sitcom based on the British series * Angular momentum coupling, the interaction between two nuclei in nuclear magnetic resonance * Coupling reaction, reactions between hydrocarbon fragments in organic chemistry * Hose coupling, a piece on the end of a hose to connect it to extra hoses or hose appliances en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_(disambiguation)None of these sound exactly like the definition you mention. Please provide a link giving your definition.
|
|
|
Post by fedoughty on Dec 23, 2008 20:26:05 GMT
aj1983,
It appears we are at loggerheads, and cannot even agree on the definition of the word "coupling" (your reply #77).
Ah, well, there never seems to be enough time or space to delve into the discussion as deeply as we would like, so I leave you to believe that your analyses (and those of your professors) are correct, while I am confident and satisfied that time will prove my own analyses correct. (Notice I didn't say "my beliefs"). I only hope that in the meantime, our scientifically-challenged global politicians don't screw up the world in a vain attempt to fight "climate change".
By the way, americanrealist, in his reply #87, seems to prove the last point in my original reply #67 post regarding the generally global problem of a deficiency of basic science education. Had americanrealist continued on, and read my second reply #74, perhaps he wouldn't have linked to the pathetic attempt at realclimate.org to invent a complex mechanism for the CO2 - temperature relationship that is observed in deep ice cores. A simple cause and effect system easily and fully explains the data, but violates the prejudices of the AGW crowd, so they deny it. Perhaps realclimate has never heard of the concept of Occam's Razor, or "KISS".
One last thing: If you're bored, try downloading the widely-accepted monthly global temperature anomaly data and sunspot number from a reputable website. Apply an 11-year running average to each time series, from 1856 to present. Cross-plot the two resulting series with one point per year. Notice we are not controlling for ENSO, volcanic eruptions, aerosols, albedo, variations in the length of the Schwabe cycle, or galactic cosmic ray effects, so the correlation is nowhere near perfect. Also, statistics from smoothed time series can be problematic for a number of reasons. Even so, the two smoothed series should be completely independent of one another. But you would eventually win big bucks if, in a game of chance, you were to consistently bet on a warmer global temperature anomaly when the smoothed sunspot number was higher, and vice versa. Go figure. (BTW, I'm in complete agreement with jimcripwell's reply #89. Maybe this exercise can help).
I leave you, aj1983, with the hope that you will have plenty of opportunities to go ice skating this winter, and that you (and, in fact, all those who visit Kevin's terrific website) have a blessed Christmas and a wonderful New Year (even americanrealist).
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Dec 24, 2008 0:10:48 GMT
Mm, I see nonlinearly coupled variables as variables which influence each other in a nonlinear fashion which works both ways. Maybe this definition is only used by climate scientists (meteorlogists) or I'm not explaining it well enough, maybe because English is not my native language. jimcripwell: Thank you for the references. I was also talking about the envelopes, because they might have forcing periods long enough to have an influence on the earth's climate. Such envelopes show that the activity has been decreasing since the 60's or 70's, so this only contributes to one of my earlier statements. Anyway, maybe I am currently thinking the AGW effect exists because they can show physical processes explaining their theories. I hoped that the non AGW "camp" could also do this for their view that AGW does not exist and that solar activity (in a mysterious way) determines the recent global temperature variations. It is had to believe for me that some mysterious solar effect may exist who might somehow be controlling the climate, if there are other theories which have been explained clearly to me, although details of it may not yet be completely certain. A weak correlation using some arbitrary starting year is not enough proof to show that is the main climate driver. (Although, in absence of anthropogenic CO2 forcing (which has only really be the dominating factor from about 1976 until now), it is likely you will find some correlation between the sun's activity and global temperatures. I have done that before. You can find many other correlations if you want. Still, like I've said before I do not think this correlation is completely coincidence, I do certainly think the sun has influence, but I doubt it is doing so at short time scales, because there is no (complete) theory which clearly shows how the sun might be causing the amount of forcing which is needed for the recent rise in global temperatures. Also all the conspiracy theories and personal attacks on some people doesn't make it more believable. I hope someday climate scientists and astrophysicists will work together and find a complete theory of how the sun influences the climate on earth, also compared to other factors. The coming minimum in solar activity might attract more scientists doing research in this area, because there is really a lack of good research that has been done in this field. If there will be any, I'd be happy to discuss it with you guys, also if the AGW theory has proven to be wrong. I wish you all a merry Christmas and a happy 2009 too! (Ensemble weather predictions show temperatures below zero C after christmas into the new year, so I might go skating after all, dreaming about global cooling. )
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Dec 24, 2008 1:11:06 GMT
aj, that is the kind of discussion that most here wish to engage in. vs. the rants and ravings and the "you're an idiot" remarks that make conversation not so pleasant.
I think the big difference between the AGW camp and the AGW skeptic camp is that the skeptics are saying "whoa, let's step back and consider all the influences and potential influences on climate. Before making sweeping policy changes that will affect millions of people. (If not the entire population). The push to stop the burning of fossil fuels will cause severe hardship on populations that are below the poverty level. Energy is what has made all of the technological and social advances that we enjoy possible. So before ending that industry, let's make sure we have it right.
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Dec 24, 2008 1:18:48 GMT
Mm, I see nonlinearly coupled variables as variables which influence each other in a nonlinear fashion which works both ways. Maybe this definition is only used by climate scientists (meteorlogists) or I'm not explaining it well enough, maybe because English is not my native language.... My primary point here, insofar as I have one, is that scientists have been busily inventing their own language these past decades, making their output less and less decipherable to the ordinary person. This Tower-of-Babel climatology (or other science) to some degree smacks more and more of simple snobbery. They might just as well all speak Latin and wear vestments and funny hats. Maybe that's coming. The problem may not be in your English or in your definition, but in the previous use of "coupled" in this thread by others. But I'll never look at climatology the same, now, envisioning from now on AGW climatological circles as "coupled" in non-linear fashion.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Dec 24, 2008 11:46:59 GMT
jimg writes "I think the big difference between the AGW camp and the AGW skeptic camp is that the skeptics are saying "whoa, let's step back and consider all the influences and potential influences on climate. Before making sweeping policy changes that will affect millions of people. (If not the entire population). The push to stop the burning of fossil fuels will cause severe hardship on populations that are below the poverty level. Energy is what has made all of the technological and social advances that we enjoy possible. So before ending that industry, let's make sure we have it right." Absolutely correct. However, we skeptics go farther than this. We claim that the "science" that purports to show that CO2 and other GHGs have caused the recent rise in world temperature (which has now ceased) is fatally and fundamentally flawed. And I, for one, claim that Dr Pachauri and the IPCC are absolutely wrong to claim that "the science is settled". The science is NEVER settled, until there is overwhelming experimental data. There is virtually no experimental data to support the hypothesis of AGW.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Dec 24, 2008 15:35:31 GMT
If you would define the global skeptics camp by people who consider other effects on climate than you could count me in. I have a less good experience with quite some climate skeptics though. Although it might seem like it, I'm not here to convince you that the AGW theory is absolutely right and the only explanation for climate variations. (I don't believe that myself, and trying to convince you guys would be hopeless. ) Personally, and with me many other climate researchers are also worried about the political influence on research and on this discussion. I agree calling the climate science a settled business is plain nonsense. I do not agree there is no experimental data, and that anybody has clearly shown that the AGW theory is incorrect, because everytime I study the articles that should show this I find serious and critical mathematic errors and or physical assumptions which are often so obvious that I believe that many times they have been made on purpose. I think we don't have to end the industry and technology to decrease CO2 emissions. It would be good for the environment (and thus for ourselves) to find a more sustainable source of energy, but, as I've said before not at all costs! Anyway, back to global cooling. I have recently read that (without giving any explanations why, it seems that nobody can answer that ) the next solar cycle will be 2.4 C cooler than solar cycle 24. If this is only the beginning of the Maunder/Dalton minimum, how much do you guys expect the temperature to drop, and by when?
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Dec 24, 2008 17:00:10 GMT
aj1983 May I make a suggestion. Find your way the the Yahoo group Climate skeptics, and read postings from William Kinninmonth, Jack Barrett, Chuck Weiss and many others. I dont pretend that I can understand them, but what they are trying to do is to set out, scientifically, precisely how the atmosphere works when GHGs produce a warmer world.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Dec 24, 2008 18:52:44 GMT
Thanks for the tip , I'll have a look there.
|
|
|
Post by eatongt on Dec 24, 2008 23:47:55 GMT
While I'm certainly not a climatologist or solar physicist, I have a decent scientific background, and I know BS when I see it. I am continually amused by 'scientists' who seem to lose all perspective when confronted with a novel system of explaining unusual present phenomena. The AGW community, in particular, seems to place a great emphasis on theories which make sense to them (that GHGs drive temperature), even when those theories contradict millennia of established data (showing wild long-term variations in temperature, completely unaffected by anthropogenic GHGs).
Who knows how big a factor solar activity really is? Of course, we all know there are multiple factors. But there seems to be a well-established historical correlation between solar activity and global climate. If the Dalton minimum could overcome local variations in CO2, and the Maunder minimum could do the same, why would we conclude that our present-day CO2 is a greater driver on climate than what looks to be another developing solar minimum?
I know, I know, just because the sun rose yesterday and and the day before that doesn't mean it will rise tomorrow. But it's a pretty safe bet...
Have really enjoyed the discussion here. Merry Christmas all!
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Dec 25, 2008 0:07:03 GMT
aj1983, you asked for a solar forcing mechanism. While it is still in development I guess, Svensmark's idea on Cosmic Ray (GCR) effects being modulated by solar activity seems to be achieving results. An experiment at CERN recently confirmed that GCR's produced cloud-forming nucleii.
The idea is that less solar activity means more GCR's reaching Earth's atmosphere, causing more lower level clouds to form, thus refelcting more radiation back into space, achieving cooling. The matching curves are persuasive & with evidence coming in to show GCR's can actually enhance cloud production the theory looks more solid.
|
|