|
Post by steve on Nov 23, 2009 9:45:13 GMT
Icefisher,
Nonsense. They all have the same problem. Even the Bryant version as it happens.
You mean that providing rubbish data intended to present an unscientific idea is better than providing no data at all? I don't think so.
As you should know, it is quite easy to demonstrate that most of the observed temperature change *can be* simulated by a model forced with realistic levels of greenhouse gas, volcanic and industrial aerosols, and solar variations. It *cannot* be reasonably simulated if you exclude any one of these.
This is a carefully qualified statement which is consistent with what I have always said during the time I have contributed to this forum, including during interactions with you.
It does not mean that internal variability in the climate system can be, or is, ignored.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 23, 2009 10:53:44 GMT
Icefisher, However, I pointed out while Akasofu's hump is larger than the Hadcrut revised version, it is not larger than the Hadcrut earlier version, the Bryant Version, the NOAA version, the NASA version, and the JAMA version.Nonsense. They all have the same problem. Even the Bryant version as it happens. I agree but I would characterize it as the latter Hadcrut with the smaller 40's bump as being the one with the problem. Judy Curry with a guest post over on CA seems to be joining in with the same concerns. So why not criticize them too? So far you have not made a case of the Akasofu observation window being exaggerated. Worse you apparently cannot produce a version that fits your beliefs either.You mean that providing rubbish data intended to present an unscientific idea is better than providing no data at all? I don't think so. As you should know, it is quite easy to demonstrate that most of the observed temperature change *can be* simulated by a model forced with realistic levels of greenhouse gas, volcanic and industrial aerosols, and solar variations. It *cannot* be reasonably simulated if you exclude any one of these. This is a carefully qualified statement which is consistent with what I have always said during the time I have contributed to this forum, including during interactions with you. It does not mean that internal variability in the climate system can be, or is, ignored. With two free variables one can simulate any 2 dimensional global temperature pattern. The only reason more are required is because of limited observational data setting bounds on variability and that does not even speak to issues of actually accurately calculating forcings or sensitivity. Its especially notable that the folks doing this add an epicycle variable from time to time as if it just occurred to them they needed a new explanation. I think that is fine and maybe CO2 is affecting our climate but I see no reason to buy into the IPCC line of alarmism or predictions of future warming. So are you going to welch on your promise?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 23, 2009 15:25:45 GMT
I honestly cannot remember promising anything, and I cannot guess what I might have promised. Please can you point me to the post where I did.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 23, 2009 18:42:21 GMT
I honestly cannot remember promising anything, and I cannot guess what I might have promised. Please can you point me to the post where I did. So what you are saying is you spent almost 40 posts in this thread to hijack it from the original question being asked, to not respond to it directly, turn the challenge around, make specious claims of data manipulation (that was proven false), and basically leave your theory without any reasonable evidence or coordination with the real world? I guess it must be a question for which you have no answer Steve. The fact this is an extremely important question. It explains why the hockey team went off and risked their reputations to try to excise the cancer in the middle of their theory and they failed, in part because Mother Nature did not cooperate and in part because of Steve McIntyre. Now the proponents of AGW are reduced to a theory they are afraid to parade out in a graphic connected to historic temperatures. Even AGW advocate Judy Curry is now asking that Hadcrut produce the methodologies and raw temperature data to support the suppression of the 1940's and acceleration curve that results from that. Sounds like a very reasonable request in everyday science and especially in light of what has transpired. Not that this is important. After all the hockey stick has been Al Gore's and the IPCC's number one marketing point on AGW, no not important at all! Little black boxes and money trees are the only things that are important. . . .and socold will argue when there are 12 little black boxes that all agree. . . .it must be God speaking.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 24, 2009 2:00:14 GMT
Icefisher, Nonsense. They all have the same problem. Even the Bryant version as it happens. You mean that providing rubbish data intended to present an unscientific idea is better than providing no data at all? I don't think so. As you should know, it is quite easy to demonstrate that most of the observed temperature change *can be* simulated by a model forced with realistic levels of greenhouse gas, volcanic and industrial aerosols, and solar variations. It *cannot* be reasonably simulated if you exclude any one of these. This is a carefully qualified statement which is consistent with what I have always said during the time I have contributed to this forum, including during interactions with you. It does not mean that internal variability in the climate system can be, or is, ignored. Standard AGW talking points of course. Notably missing from your list is clouds and solar are Low LOSU even by IPCC admission, both of which if well understood could account for all warming and cooling. Neither you or socold give evidence, you simply parrot that of RC.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 24, 2009 13:07:39 GMT
Do you want to read that back maybe! If we "understood" solar variability it "could account for all the warming"! Since when has understanding something led to it having a stronger impact? Perhaps if we all really tried hard to "understand" that global warming is a lie, it will go away. Clicking your heels together might help.
Notably missing from my list is "clouds" because clouds in a model are not a forcing. Yes you could fiddle clouds in a model if you wanted to, but it wouldn't make any scientific sense.
So presumably you have been to Yamal then, armed with your tree corer and manual on PCA? Or are you "simply parroting CA"?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 24, 2009 13:35:52 GMT
I honestly cannot remember promising anything, and I cannot guess what I might have promised. Please can you point me to the post where I did. So what you are saying is you spent almost 40 posts in this thread to hijack it from the original question being asked, to not respond to it directly, turn the challenge around, make specious claims of data manipulation (that was proven false), and basically leave your theory without any reasonable evidence or coordination with the real world? You protest too much. Your first post was a ramble containing a calculation that I thought was inappropriate. You should know by now that I challenge calculations. I then gave you an answer that you decided you didn't like (at the end of page 1). Then when I started to discuss how to meet your challenge: You essentially went off on one about Yamal and foxtails, and demanded that Akasofu must be accepted till I provided some "beef". Well sorry. Accepting a graph that even you believe to be made up is not the basis for making an argument. I'm sorry I just don't believe you are dumb enough to think that Akasofu's graph is an accurate representation of the data. If you'd been prepared to say something like "Well the graph may or may not be nonsense, but that's not the point..." then we could have moved on. Again, I've started to give you an answer and you've gone off on one again. As I've stated quite clearly, the ability of a model to reproduce the temperature history is *not* evidence that the model is correct. Only that the model is plausible.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Nov 24, 2009 13:37:27 GMT
steve, At this point it is clearly better to be 'parroting CA', than it is to believe Briffa, et al. I am very impressed with how you dismiss clouds. Just like the AGW scammers who dismiss what they do not understand, and to condemn those who dare disagree.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 24, 2009 16:24:06 GMT
Hunter,
Why don't you ask questions and understand before you criticise those who disagree with the bloggers you subscribe to?
Briffa has nothing to do with the discussion, which is why I criticise Icefisher for bringing it up.
I didn't dismiss clouds. Your suggestion that I did indicates a misconception on your part.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 24, 2009 17:09:23 GMT
Do you want to read that back maybe! If we "understood" solar variability it "could account for all the warming"! Since when has understanding something led to it having a stronger impact? Perhaps if we all really tried hard to "understand" that global warming is a lie, it will go away. Clicking your heels together might help. Notably missing from my list is "clouds" because clouds in a model are not a forcing. Yes you could fiddle clouds in a model if you wanted to, but it wouldn't make any scientific sense. So presumably you have been to Yamal then, armed with your tree corer and manual on PCA? Or are you "simply parroting CA"? Apparently there are scientists who think understanding of cloud dynamics is very important, but please whatever you do, don't be confused by facts. Do climate models correctly account for clouds? Do they correctly simulate ocean dynamics? I didn't think so...... The 2007-2008 Global Cooling Event: Evidence for Clouds as the Causewww.drroyspencer.com/2009/09/the-2007-2008-global-cooling-event-evidence-for-clouds-as-the-cause/But what is really curious is that the 9-year change in radiative forcing (warming influence) of the system seen in the last two figures is at least TWICE that expected from the carbon dioxide component alone, and yet essentially no warming has occurred over that period (see first illustration above). How could this be, if the climate system is as sensitive as the IPCC claims it to be?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 24, 2009 17:19:37 GMT
I then gave you an answer that you decided you didn't like (at the end of page 1). Then when I started to discuss how to meet your challenge: You essentially went off on one about Yamal and foxtails, and demanded that Akasofu must be accepted till I provided some "beef". Well sorry. Accepting a graph that even you believe to be made up is not the basis for making an argument. I'm sorry I just don't believe you are dumb enough to think that Akasofu's graph is an accurate representation of the data. If you'd been prepared to say something like "Well the graph may or may not be nonsense, but that's not the point..." then we could have moved on. If you have to invent strawmen to make your argument. . . .thats proof your argument has no basis. I have never asked you to accept Akasofu's graph. What I asked you to do was produce an alternative to Akasofu's graph and bring whatever evidence you have your version is correct. Your inability to address that challenge only suggests to me that you have no problems remaining with Akasofu's graph. You started out by challenging Akasofu in the data window claiming he was manipulating the data. I demonstrated that Akasofu's representation is within the range of all the other popular global instrumental temperature series at one point in time before recently when manipulations were employed by various agencies to diminish the 1940's bump. For that even AGW advocates are now calling for a cessation on hiding support for those adjustments. So we are left with no criticisms unanswered from you. Does that mean you accept Akasofu? If not, why not? Again, I've started to give you an answer and you've gone off on one again. As I've stated quite clearly, the ability of a model to reproduce the temperature history is *not* evidence that the model is correct. Only that the model is plausible. I agree. But you have not presented a plausible alternative. That suggests that what you believe is not plausible.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 24, 2009 17:32:19 GMT
There are a few around. I really did assume you'd be familiar with them. This one is one of the more commonly cited:
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 24, 2009 17:44:44 GMT
Magellan,
Maybe you could reread my posts and work out what you have misunderstood...
Curiously, Spencer thinks the Lindzen paper you are in love with is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 24, 2009 17:50:41 GMT
There are a few around. I really did assume you'd be familiar with them. This one is one of the more commonly cited: I wouldn't be challenging you if I wasn't. BTW, there is not one mention of clouds or hydrological cycle in your Meehl reference What part of this don't you understand? But what is really curious is that the 9-year change in radiative forcing (warming influence) of the system seen in the last two figures is at least TWICE that expected from the carbon dioxide component alone, and yet essentially no warming has occurred over that period (see first illustration above). How could this be, if the climate system is as sensitive as the IPCC claims it to be? There actually aren't that many doing serious cloud research. Roy Spencer is probably doing more than anyone at the moment, particularly because there is much more data available these days that previous researchers did not have. Actually, the Stephens 2005 paper is likely the more commonly cited in recent years. Have no fear, Spencer is discovering many new heretofore unnoticed aspects, and finer details of cloud behavior. www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/Cloud Feedbacks in the Climate System: A Critical Reviewirina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS_spring2006/Stephens2005.pdfThis paper offers a critical review of the topic of cloud–climate feedbacks and exposes some of the underlying reasons for the inherent lack of understanding of these feedbacks and why progress might be expected on this important climate problem in the coming decade. Although many processes and related parameters come under the influence of clouds, it is argued that atmospheric processes fundamentally govern the cloud feedbacks via the relationship between the atmospheric circulations, cloudiness, and the radiative and latent heating of the atmosphere. It is also shown how perturbations to the atmospheric radiation budget that are induced by cloud changes in response to climate forcing dictate the eventual response of the global-mean hydrological cycle of the climate model to climate forcing. This suggests that cloud feedbacks are likely to control the bulk precipitation efficiency and associated responses of the planet’s hydrological cycle to climate radiative forcings.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 24, 2009 17:54:11 GMT
Magellan, Maybe you could reread my posts and work out what you have misunderstood... Curiously, Spencer thinks the Lindzen paper you are in love with is wrong. Unlike Warmology where the Team is always in agreement with their politically contrived "Consensus".
|
|