|
Post by kiwistonewall on Oct 25, 2009 6:47:15 GMT
Dr Miklos Zagoni 2007 IPCC reviewer releases video showing Greenhouse effect is a constant, and runaway global warming is impossible: Video: landshape.org/enm/miskolczis-viral-video/"Prominent Hungarian Physicist Dr. Miklós Zágoni, who recently reversed his views about man-made climate fears and is now a skeptic, explained at the conference that he resigned from his post working with NASA because he was disgusted with the agency’s lack of scientific freedom." www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1981617/posts
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 25, 2009 8:22:16 GMT
As soon as people in 'science' start accepting political funding the camel's nose is into the tent and all results then have to meet the political realities which have no scientific basis. Political hard ball makes academic inter-departmental chair spats look like kindergarten squabbles.
I wonder if we will see a similar convention of editors for journals talking of the pressures they were under?
|
|
|
Post by toughluck on Oct 25, 2009 19:09:39 GMT
I am interested in this. Apparently, based on some assumptions, he has been able to derive closed form equations of the influence of greenhouse gases (both H2O and CO2) on global temp. If I understood it right, he claims that we are pretty much saturated, there can be no runaway greenhouse gas warming, the effect of doubling CO2 concentrations is about 0.54 C max, increased CO2 is compensated by decreased water vapor, temperature forcing functions must necessarily be other (solar, volcanic,etc) and that current models have a temperature discontinuty between surface and near surface air temperatures that his closed forms equations avoid.
What is most amazing to me is that the equations are closed form. Of course they need simplifying assumptions (which will, and have been attacked). But If the assumptions are assumed to be correct.. is the math correct?. I read both his papers and they were a little over my head.
What are your opinions on it?
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on Oct 26, 2009 15:20:43 GMT
I studied it a bit (but not much luck understanding all that stuff) but truth is, that upper tropospheric water vapor does go down since 1950 (radiosonde data).
Similar sensitivity you can get easily by other way - downwelling LW gives 324 W/m2 and it is said to increase T by 33K, so added 4W/m2 by doubling CO2 will add some 0,4 degC to global temperatures, without any feedbacks.
However, satellite data says only clouds have serious impact on outgoing LW radiation and CO2 "forcing" is indistinguishable from natural background controlled by magnitude stronger effects, so it is all just theory. LW outgoing radiation actually increases in last decades, so "GH" effect decreases.
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on Oct 28, 2009 8:44:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 29, 2009 9:38:01 GMT
I find these statements he takes from Hulme of the Tyndall center to be far more revealing: "Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs. ……. We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects. ……. These myths transcend the scientific categories of ‘true' and ‘false'"
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 29, 2009 12:58:52 GMT
Another quote from Lindzen's presentation about the IPCC: "IPCC ‘Consensus.’ ""It is likely that most of the warming over the past 50 years is due to man’s emissions.""
How was this arrived at? What was done, was to take a large number of models that could not reasonably simulate known patterns of natural behavior (such as ENSO, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), claim that such models nonetheless accurately depicted natural internal climate variability, and use the fact that these models could not replicate the warming episode from the mid seventies through the mid nineties, to argue that forcing was necessary and that the forcing must have been due to man.
The argument makes arguments in support of intelligent design sound rigorous by comparison. It constitutes a rejection of scientific logic, while widely put forward as being ‘demanded’ by science.The argument makes arguments in support of intelligent design sound rigorous by comparison. It constitutes a rejection of scientific logic, while widely put forward as being ‘demanded’ by science"
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 29, 2009 13:17:09 GMT
Lindzen undermines himself with comments like that, which *are* on a par with arguments for intelligent design, because both Lindzen's comment and arguments for ID are "god of the gaps"-type arguments.
He knows the science is not just based on models. He knows that there is no good evidence that PDO etc. could cause the observed warming (that's the god of the gaps bit). He knows that the statement is qualified to deal with the some of the scientific issues that he brings up ("likely" and "most"). He knows that the understanding of natural variability is good enough to suggest that what we see now is *not* natural variability.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 29, 2009 13:59:33 GMT
Lindzen undermines himself with comments like that, which *are* on a par with arguments for intelligent design, because both Lindzen's comment and arguments for ID are "god of the gaps"-type arguments. He knows the science is not just based on models. He knows that there is no good evidence that PDO etc. could cause the observed warming (that's the god of the gaps bit). He knows that the statement is qualified to deal with the some of the scientific issues that he brings up ("likely" and "most"). He knows that the understanding of natural variability is good enough to suggest that what we see now is *not* natural variability. You didn't address Lindzen's argument. Its essentially identical to the Akasofu graph. He is not arguing against AGW here, he is arguing against what the IPCC did, which was take "the warming episode from the mid seventies through the mid nineties, to argue that forcing was necessary and that the forcing must have been due to man." Part and parcel to that is the depiction of the Akasofu graph and the IPCC projection ramping off the warming between the 70's and 90's. . . .exactly as Lindzen claims. This does make arguments for Intelligent Design look absolutely rigorous in comparison because ID does not directly challenge evolotion. Evolution is allowed in the ID argument as a parallel process and nobody is taking what obviously belongs to evolution and attributing it to ID. In the current AGW case though we have a handful of scientists manufacturing hockey sticks in attempts to make those natural oscillations disapppear. Steve McIntyre has dissassembled those sticks one after the other to a point nobody will give him any data to examine the ones remaining playing every imaginable game to avoid the exposure of where these guys strayed from strict mathematics to build their cases against natural oscillation. Now we can't even scientifically test if the 30's and 40's were actually warmer than the recent warming period because the dog ate the data. Same group CRU, same nonsense almost guaranteed! And thats the basis of what? Hadley, NOAA, GISS, everything! Yamal's and discredited bristlecones. . . .nobody is going to believe this crap at this point in time even if they come up with something as its going to be believed it was tampered with. The jig is up!!!
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 29, 2009 16:17:20 GMT
No, the IPCC case does not rely on just that mid-70s to mid-90s period. And the Akasofu graph is a distortion because it exaggerates the lenght and height of the 1940s warmer period (try printing off HadCRUT3 and drawing the line yourself), it includes a fantasy that prior to 1880 it was cooler (it wasn't) and that post 2008 it will cool (2009 is warmer and 2010 will be warmer as well).
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 29, 2009 16:43:09 GMT
No, the IPCC case does not rely on just that mid-70s to mid-90s period. And the Akasofu graph is a distortion because it exaggerates the lenght and height of the 1940s warmer period (try printing off HadCRUT3 and drawing the line yourself), it includes a fantasy that prior to 1880 it was cooler (it wasn't) and that post 2008 it will cool (2009 is warmer and 2010 will be warmer as well). and that post 2008 it will cool (2009 is warmer and 2010 will be warmer as well Ignorance of weather processes shines through with that statement, and you still can't refute Lindzen's published paper using readily available observational data that stands AGW dogma on its head. One could only imagine what you would have said in 1998
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 29, 2009 17:00:56 GMT
....whereas ignorance of weather processes by Akasofu is excusable I expect. You know I'm not ignorant of weather processes. And yes I have pointed out the shortcomings in Lindzen's paper, and I seem to recall things went quiet when I did, so the discussion didn't get beyond someone (I can't recall who) claiming that the Lindzen paper meant the science was settled.
If 2010 happens to be a strong El Niño accompanied by strong warming (I have no expectation that it will be) then I will be looking forward to the days when people say "dontca know that global warming stopped in 2010".
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 29, 2009 18:14:16 GMT
No, the IPCC case does not rely on just that mid-70s to mid-90s period. And the Akasofu graph is a distortion because it exaggerates the lenght and height of the 1940s warmer period (try printing off HadCRUT3 and drawing the line yourself), it includes a fantasy that prior to 1880 it was cooler (it wasn't) and that post 2008 it will cool (2009 is warmer and 2010 will be warmer as well). I think you will find that Akasofu's trend lines from peak to peak very closely approximates the smoothed data provided by the Hadcrut website. Clearly its within a tenth of a degree and we have that much divergence between the various temperature records. So the argument that Akasofu's data is proven wrong by the Hadcrut dataset is essentially a non-starter within the observed data window. And you will need to provide some credible evidence that there was no LIA to support your contention that it was not colder prior to 1880 otherwise the extensions drawn by Akasofu fits Occams Razor rather nicely.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Oct 29, 2009 19:28:02 GMT
steve writes "If 2010 happens to be a strong El Niño accompanied by strong warming (I have no expectation that it will be) then I will be looking forward to the days when people say "dontca know that global warming stopped in 2010"."
Push is coming to shove. As I have noted before, future global temperature data hangs like a Sword of Damacles over the warmaholics. It is a long way from the heady days of 1998; and 2005 when there were all the hurricanes in the North Atlantic. Smith el al forecast that following this year, half the years will be warmer than 1998. It will be interesting to see whether the UK Met. Office still uses this model to predict what will happen in 2010. One can never validate a model by hindcasting data.
I have no ability to forecast future temperature data; all I have is hope that the signs really are pointing to a significant drop in world temperatures. It is still possible to find statistical techniques that show that world temperatures are not falling and may even be rising. I sincerely hope that this is going to be less and less credible in future months. If my wishes come true, we are going to see a wholesale defection from the Church of the Warmaholics. The signs are that fewer people in the general public are believing in AGW any more.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 29, 2009 20:14:55 GMT
It is still possible to find statistical techniques that show that world temperatures are not falling and may even be rising. I sincerely hope that this is going to be less and less credible in future months. If my wishes come true, we are going to see a wholesale defection from the Church of the Warmaholics. The signs are that fewer people in the general public are believing in AGW any more. Here is an AP piece. AP hired statisticians to put the kabosh on global cooling: www.newschief.com/article/20091026/APF/910261361Its all fine and good but their statement: "Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880." Since 1880? ? These of course are the natural variability ups and downs that nobody can plot to the IPCC predictions, nor has a single warmist in this forum touched it with a ten foot pole in this forum for years. Its like this gapping maw in their story that each of them have carefully arranged their dead brain cells over the top of so they don't have to recognize the impact of these facts, except GLC who has pulled way back from the IPCC and is just contending on Akasofu's underlying LIA recovery. Now we have the new Russian study that suggests there have been 19 LIAs in the past 7,500 years (shows up in that Vostok icecore data as well). Seems pretty reasonable, I guess the only question is whether they are off by a hundred years or not or whether the recovery has ended, ends in another one or two solar cycles; or if its still a hundred years or so away. If we had reliable temperature data going back to 1880, like we should have there might not even be a question about that. . . .except that somebody let the dog eat it. . . .rather than allow the work coming from it to be graded. These are the facts that fraudulent science has been employed to make disappear. Fraudulent obviously because they couldn't find anything else. Its hard to lend any credibility to anything coming out of CRU. . . .its become the Piltdown Climate Research Unit "PCRU". Heck how do you lend any credibility to Hadley, NOAA, or GISS temp records with that nonsense going on in data that underlies them all.
|
|