|
Post by icefisher on May 5, 2010 1:54:22 GMT
Do you have any proof of your allegations? GLC: If you read RC, that is about as much proof about Schmidt as you will need. It has not been any kind of open forum, but rather a one sided, even tho hugely wrong at times, mouthpiece for AGW. The e-mails implicate Jones etal. And guess who cohosts RC. . . .Michael Mann. More evidence on Mann. Coauthored "Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming" Mann and his coauthor have no credentials to weigh whether global warming is "Dire". Case closed.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on May 5, 2010 2:20:43 GMT
Proof.... Hmmm, That is a big can of worms right there. Why don't we start small. I think as far as Mr. Schmidt is concerned I can easily prove a point. As far out as you seem to be down the road of total blind acceptance I doubt there is any proof in the world up to and including a full blown confession by team members that you would accept as proof. Otherwise the total and abject failure of any of the predictions that are testable to date would have at least dented your faith.
Why don't we conduct an experiment? Say, you pick a blog of your choice, one that does not support the theory of AGW, and has a forum such as real climates, and post an attack upon the science behind the skepticism. I will compose an attack upon the science of AGW and you can post it on real climate, (That way you can't claim later that I never made the post when it never makes it by moderation.) let bake for 24 hours and see what happens.
Can you predict the results? And would the outcome of the experiment "prove" anything to you?
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 5, 2010 8:02:25 GMT
Proof.... Hmmm, That is a big can of worms right there. Why don't we start small. I think as far as Mr. Schmidt is concerned I can easily prove a point. As far out as you seem to be down the road of total blind acceptance I doubt there is any proof in the world up to and including a full blown confession by team members that you would accept as proof. Otherwise the total and abject failure of any of the predictions that are testable to date would have at least dented your faith.
Two of the 'testable' model predictions are arctic ice extent and global temperature. Currently arctic ice extent is running well BELOW long term model predictions and, while global temperature isn't currently as high as the models predict, it is well within the 95% error bars.
Remember that some of the original model predictions were made in the 1980s (e.g. Hansen) and a lot of people ridiculed the amount of warming predicted at the time. However they've turned out to be much closer than many sceptics (at that time) thought. They are certainly much more reliable than the various solar predictions that are floating around. More importantly the warming is now looking less like a cyclical 'blip'.
As far as your criticism of RC is concerned. I have posted many times on RC - each time critical of AGW. They certainly don't welcome these posts but they are no different to other blogs (both pro and anti) in this respect. I've argued with both Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt. A lot of the science-based posts on RC are actually very good. However, I don't always agree with the interpretation. That doesn't make them fraudulent, though.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 5, 2010 9:41:36 GMT
Proof.... Hmmm, That is a big can of worms right there. Why don't we start small. I think as far as Mr. Schmidt is concerned I can easily prove a point. As far out as you seem to be down the road of total blind acceptance I doubt there is any proof in the world up to and including a full blown confession by team members that you would accept as proof. Otherwise the total and abject failure of any of the predictions that are testable to date would have at least dented your faith.Two of the 'testable' model predictions are arctic ice extent and global temperature. Currently arctic ice extent is running well BELOW long term model predictions and, while global temperature isn't currently as high as the models predict, it is well within the 95% error bars. Remember that some of the original model predictions were made in the 1980s (e.g. Hansen) and a lot of people ridiculed the amount of warming predicted at the time. However they've turned out to be much closer than many sceptics (at that time) thought. They are certainly much more reliable than the various solar predictions that are floating around. More importantly the warming is now looking less like a cyclical 'blip'. As far as your criticism of RC is concerned. I have posted many times on RC - each time critical of AGW. They certainly don't welcome these posts but they are no different to other blogs (both pro and anti) in this respect. I've argued with both Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt. A lot of the science-based posts on RC are actually very good. However, I don't always agree with the interpretation. That doesn't make them fraudulent, though. "Remember that some of the original model predictions were made in the 1980s (e.g. Hansen) and a lot of people ridiculed the amount of warming predicted at the time. However they've turned out to be much closer than many sceptics (at that time) thought. They are certainly much more reliable than the various solar predictions that are floating around. More importantly the warming is now looking less like a cyclical 'blip'."So from this we can assume that you glc believe that 30 years is 'climate' and that climate cycles longer than 30 years do not exist?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 5, 2010 18:37:01 GMT
Remember that some of the original model predictions were made in the 1980s (e.g. Hansen) and a lot of people ridiculed the amount of warming predicted at the time. However they've turned out to be much closer than many sceptics (at that time) thought. They are certainly much more reliable than the various solar predictions that are floating around. More importantly the warming is now looking less like a cyclical 'blip'. Seems to me that the argument you are making, namely that the heating came first and matched the model prediction for a while is a pretty weak argument, especially considering that the solar grand maximum intervened at the same time. Then you progessively ignore 12 year excursions off the CO2 track and complain about a couple of years ("the cooling should be seen by now") excursions off the solar track. Your bias is showing.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 5, 2010 23:01:32 GMT
So from this we can assume that you glc believe that 30 years is 'climate' and that climate cycles longer than 30 years do not exist?
The PDO has supposedly flipped (some time ago). We are also told that we are entering a new Dalton minimum. When the PDO flipped to a cold phase in the 1940s the temperature decline followed almost immediately. I still haven't quite worked out the many and varied lags associated with solar activity, but I assume that temperatures should not be continuing to rise almost 20 years after solar activity peaked (or more than 50 years if you use the true peak in ~1958).
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 6, 2010 1:30:10 GMT
So from this we can assume that you glc believe that 30 years is 'climate' and that climate cycles longer than 30 years do not exist? The PDO has supposedly flipped (some time ago). We are also told that we are entering a new Dalton minimum. When the PDO flipped to a cold phase in the 1940s the temperature decline followed almost immediately. I still haven't quite worked out the many and varied lags associated with solar activity, but I assume that temperatures should not be continuing to rise almost 20 years after solar activity peaked (or more than 50 years if you use the true peak in ~1958). I know its repetitive but... from this we can assume that you glc believe that 30 years is 'climate' and that climate cycles longer than 30 years do not exist?
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 6, 2010 10:26:51 GMT
I know its repetitive but... from this we can assume that you glc believe that 30 years is 'climate' and that climate cycles longer than 30 years do not exist?
They probably do but we are dealing with multi-decadal (possiby centennial) timescales. Presumably you believe there are longer cycles which can over-ride the shorter ones (and vice versa). This suggests you believe we may be in a warm longer cycle which is negating the effects of the PDO, solar activity etc.
A couple of questions:
When did this longer cycle begin? Why did it not overcome the post-1940 cooling?
You appear to be introducing arbitrary cycles in order to explain the uncomfortable fact that temperatures are continuing to rise when, by every indicator, they should have been falling - and falling for several years.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 6, 2010 12:06:45 GMT
I know its repetitive but... from this we can assume that you glc believe that 30 years is 'climate' and that climate cycles longer than 30 years do not exist? They probably do but we are dealing with multi-decadal (possiby centennial) timescales. Presumably you believe there are longer cycles which can over-ride the shorter ones (and vice versa). This suggests you believe we may be in a warm longer cycle which is negating the effects of the PDO, solar activity etc. A couple of questions: When did this longer cycle begin? Why did it not overcome the post-1940 cooling? You appear to be introducing arbitrary cycles in order to explain the uncomfortable fact that temperatures are continuing to rise when, by every indicator, they should have been falling - and falling for several years. You have an interesting debating style of answering questions with questions based on strawmen. What I believe is unimportant I was asking what you think. So thank your your limited answer: Cycles longer than 30 years 'probably do' exist. So the second part of the question was: "Do you believe that 30 years of a measurement is 'climate'?"
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 6, 2010 13:13:50 GMT
So the second part of the question was: "Do you believe that 30 years of a measurement is 'climate'?"
In the context of AGW, PDO, solar activity, ENSO - I think 30 years is a significant period which provides enough meaningful observations. If we then look a those in the context of the past 100 years or so then it's possible to detect a clear picture.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 6, 2010 13:48:13 GMT
So the second part of the question was: "Do you believe that 30 years of a measurement is 'climate'?" In the context of AGW, PDO, solar activity, ENSO - I think 30 years is a significant period which provides enough meaningful observations. If we then look a those in the context of the past 100 years or so then it's possible to detect a clear picture. " the context of the past 100 years or so"So really its a period of 100 years _or_so_ that is climate; whereas 30 years is just an indication that something may be happening?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 6, 2010 13:49:20 GMT
When did this longer cycle begin? Why did it not overcome the post-1940 cooling? Cycle 19 did override the cooling. Cycle 18 which was 25% smaller did not. A better question is what caused the strong warming of 1911 to 1941 that produced .658C warming over 30 years, rivaling any 30 year period since. Was it simply better alignment of multiple cycles?
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 6, 2010 19:00:58 GMT
Today at 5:26am, glc wrote: When did this longer cycle begin? Why did it not overcome the post-1940 cooling? Cycle 19 did override the cooling. Cycle 18 which was 25% smaller did not.There are so many things wrong with your reply it's difficult to know where to start. For now, could you note that nautonnier was referring to LONGER cycles (i.e. >100 years). A better question is what caused the strong warming of 1911 to 1941 that produced .658C warming over 30 years, rivaling any 30 year period since. Was it simply better alignment of multiple cycles?That's not a better question because your statement is wrong. I suspect you have simply cherry-picked 2 years which give the largest difference. That's why we use Least Squares regression to calculate warming trends.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 6, 2010 19:19:01 GMT
Today at 5:26am, glc wrote: When did this longer cycle begin? Why did it not overcome the post-1940 cooling? Cycle 19 did override the cooling. Cycle 18 which was 25% smaller did not.There are so many things wrong with your reply it's difficult to know where to start. For now, could you note that nautonnier was referring to LONGER cycles (i.e. >100 years). A better question is what caused the strong warming of 1911 to 1941 that produced .658C warming over 30 years, rivaling any 30 year period since. Was it simply better alignment of multiple cycles?That's not a better question because your statement is wrong. I suspect you have simply cherry-picked 2 years which give the largest difference. That's why we use Least Squares regression to calculate warming trends.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 6, 2010 19:36:06 GMT
Today at 5:26am, glc wrote: When did this longer cycle begin? Why did it not overcome the post-1940 cooling? Cycle 19 did override the cooling. Cycle 18 which was 25% smaller did not.There are so many things wrong with your reply it's difficult to know where to start. For now, could you note that nautonnier was referring to LONGER cycles (i.e. >100 years). If you have no argument its OK to just say so. A better question is what caused the strong warming of 1911 to 1941 that produced .658C warming over 30 years, rivaling any 30 year period since. Was it simply better alignment of multiple cycles?That's not a better question because your statement is wrong. I suspect you have simply cherry-picked 2 years which give the largest difference. That's why we use Least Squares regression to calculate warming trends. Its not cherry picked because it is a comparison to any similar length period you want to choose. It is cherry picking however to pick any unique period and suggest it is representative of what is to come. However, it is an appropriate tool for establishing whether something is unprecedented or not and if you cannot establish any warming trend or level as unprecedented, then historical analysis gives you nothing. Therefore one could use the MWP to refute the current warming and if you want to complain about technology thermometers vs other means, then the 1911-1941 period establishes a valid question. So bottom line GLC is you are wrong on the cherry picking issue. Akasofu is absolutely correct that you need to understand natural variation to understand unnatural variation. That statement in it self seems absolutely self apparent much to the consternation to multitudes of both scientists and non-scientists. Your argument here is like that argument that hiding the decline was a sophisticated statistical technique. Frankly it doesn't wash.
|
|