|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Apr 19, 2010 17:02:11 GMT
I am coming in on this a bit late, and I am not sure I undersatnd it. As far as I can tell there is a difference between observed data, and model results. Observed data, I understand. If it is done properly, it has a well calculated +/- associated with each number. Model output is different.
I have searched the literature before, and crossed swords with glc on the subject, but I have never found a reference which proves that any of the models used by the warmaholics have been validated. eg, radiative transfer models estimating radiative forcing.
Where are the references that show that Trenberth's models have been properly validated? All the computer code, all the input data, and the answers that have been produced. And if these references dont exist, of how much value is the output of Trenberth's models? Or is it just warmaholic GIGO; Garbage In, Gospel Out?
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 19, 2010 17:04:14 GMT
Most of Lindzen's stuff is very questionable. His most recent paper gave you different answers if you made quite small changes to his assumptions (ie. changed the end points of his chosen periods by 1 month one way or another). Roy Spencer (who disagreed with Lindzen's recent paper) makes his analysis based on only 5 years of data.
In the past I've listed multiple potential causes of short term cooling (or short term more rapid warming) and noted two examples in my post above. The evidence has always been that the climate is very sensitive to perturbations. If it is not sensitive now, then now is the exception. Five or ten years of apparent lack of warming is not long enough to say this is the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 19, 2010 18:08:02 GMT
Five or ten years of apparent lack of warming is not long enough to say this is the case. I would venture to say that because we had 30 years of warming of a similar extent that started a century ago when CO2 emissions were a tenth of what they are now, it might be more than convenient that this 10 years of a lack of warming started about 30 years after the current warming started. One could equally conclude for all intents and purposes that 30 years of warming is not enough to say thats the case either. In the grander scheme of things the difference between 5 and 30 years is peanuts. Six times a penny still won't buy you a cup of coffee. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 19, 2010 23:21:47 GMT
Oh that is not correct! Correlation is a technical term. There are statistical methods of dealing with the problems of indirect measurement and actually while CO2 allegedly failed the test solar allegedly passed the correlation test though the work detailing that has not been made available. Thus it remains a mere claim. However, the fact is there are statistical tests that deal with these issues.
I know what correlation means. There are many variables that show a statistical correlation with each other but which are actually totally unrelated. It's possible, for example, that a solar-climate correlation exists but it would be meaningless if temperature led solar activity. If a relationship exists it should show itself clearly as solar activity leading temperature. It should also be possible to estimate the 'lag'. For example, there is a correlation between SOI index and UAH tropospheric temperatures, i.e. SOI leads and UAH follows. What's more the relationship allows us to estimate the lag which is around 3 to 5 months.
It's difficult to get a strong CO2-temperature correlation because the increase in CO2 forcing is slow and there are other variables which mess things up. Socold's earlier post show shows that the lack of correlation can be exlained by natural variability factors.
You continually claim that there is a solar-climate correlation. There isn't. Any 'correlations' rely on obsolete solar reconstructions (e.g Lean, Hoyt & Schatten) and/or short term periods which break down once they are extended.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 20, 2010 0:57:10 GMT
One can effectively argue that a forcing has some kind of impact instantaneously but how much is dependent upon a lot of processes, oceans, clouds, wind patterns that we have no models for that we can claim that replicates the real world.
Quite - then presumably you cannot show there is a solar-climate correlation.
Oh that is not correct! Correlation is a technical term. There are statistical methods of dealing with the problems of indirect measurement and actually while CO2 allegedly failed the test solar allegedly passed the correlation test though the work detailing that has not been made available. Thus it remains a mere claim. However, the fact is there are statistical tests that deal with these issues.
I know what correlation means. There are many variables that show a statistical correlation with each other but which are actually totally unrelated.
It's possible, for example, that a solar-climate correlation exists but it would be meaningless if temperature led solar activity. If a relationship exists it should show itself clearly as solar activity leading temperature. It should also be possible to estimate the 'lag'. For example, there is a correlation between SOI index and UAH tropospheric temperatures, i.e. SOI leads and UAH follows. What's more the relationship allows us to estimate the lag which is around 3 to 5 months.
[/quote]
None of the above discussion has anything to do with your claim that one cannot show a correlation of temperature to solar activity.
The discussion might be meaningful as to whether any correlation found is the cause of temperature change but certainly not to the statistical truth of falsehood as to whether there is a statistical correlation.
It's difficult to get a strong CO2-temperature correlation because the increase in CO2 forcing is slow and there are other variables which mess things up. Socold's earlier post show shows that the lack of correlation can be exlained by natural variability factors.
The increase in CO2 forcing may be slow but the various periods of warming climate have been equally steep across vast differences in CO2 forcing suggesting when you gaze through the noise you still find no correlation.
You continually claim that there is a solar-climate correlation. There isn't. Any 'correlations' rely on obsolete solar reconstructions (e.g Lean, Hoyt & Schatten) and/or short term periods which break down once they are extended.
I must have missed the paper that redid the math on all the solar correlations GLC. Perhaps you could help out here with a few references.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 20, 2010 2:50:20 GMT
Oh that is not correct! Correlation is a technical term. There are statistical methods of dealing with the problems of indirect measurement and actually while CO2 allegedly failed the test solar allegedly passed the correlation test though the work detailing that has not been made available. Thus it remains a mere claim. However, the fact is there are statistical tests that deal with these issues.I know what correlation means. There are many variables that show a statistical correlation with each other but which are actually totally unrelated. It's possible, for example, that a solar-climate correlation exists but it would be meaningless if temperature led solar activity. If a relationship exists it should show itself clearly as solar activity leading temperature. It should also be possible to estimate the 'lag'. For example, there is a correlation between SOI index and UAH tropospheric temperatures, i.e. SOI leads and UAH follows. What's more the relationship allows us to estimate the lag which is around 3 to 5 months. It's difficult to get a strong CO2-temperature correlation because the increase in CO2 forcing is slow and there are other variables which mess things up. Socold's earlier post show shows that the lack of correlation can be exlained by natural variability factors. You continually claim that there is a solar-climate correlation. There isn't. Any 'correlations' rely on obsolete solar reconstructions (e.g Lean, Hoyt & Schatten) and/or short term periods which break down once they are extended. Do we need to dig up the quotes by climate "scientists" preaching the Gospel of AGW has overridden "natural variability"? It's always convenient for warmologists when no matter what happens, it is always consistent with AGW. You omitted Scafetta & Willson  God (LS) may not approve of S&W because it bucks his opinions, but Willson (check his credentials ) appears to know a thing or two about solar issues. Now, go visit Deltoid and read Steve Short's posts on solar contributions to surface temperatures. He's looking for someone to invalidate his math. Tim Lambert has been reduced to drooling and incoherent babbling, so maybe you can help out. Skip down to post #122 scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_43.php#commentsA change in cloud cover can very easily explain changes in "global" surface temperature. You continue regurgitating the same thing over and over that changes in solar activity "falls apart" in year XXXX. There is nothing whatsoever justified in making such unsubstantiated statements. Until cloud dynamics, and oceans for that matter (GCM's fail miserably for both), can be disassociated with solar activity, you are simply barfing up the same talking points vomit. Now it is five years since Pinker 2005, and what is the result since then? You know what is coming the next 12 months, and it isn't going to bode well for AGW believers. This El Nino is releasing enormous amounts of heat, but unlike 1998, OHC is not increasing (the true measure of "global" warming according to most). Where is the missing heat? The next IPCC report (groan) is due out in a few years. At the rate they're going, they'll be predicting an ice age sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001319verification_of_ipcc.html  |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Apr 20, 2010 3:58:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 20, 2010 4:38:21 GMT
Isn't it great seeing settled consensus science at work? Note the sparring between Trenberth and Willis:) Recall that Trenberth was lead author in IPCC AR4 and why Chris Landsea quit. He was also the town crier after Katrina claiming it was confirmation of AGW The latest sermon from Trenberth on the "problem": www2.ucar.edu/news/missing-heat-may-affect-future-climate-changeJust more confirmation of a truth of life (and climate science):  |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 20, 2010 7:19:32 GMT
I am coming in on this a bit late, and I am not sure I undersatnd it. As far as I can tell there is a difference between observed data, and model results. Observed data, I understand. If it is done properly, it has a well calculated +/- associated with each number. Model output is different. I have searched the literature before, and crossed swords with glc on the subject, but I have never found a reference which proves that any of the models used by the warmaholics have been validated. eg, radiative transfer models estimating radiative forcing. Where are the references that show that Trenberth's models have been properly validated? All the computer code, all the input data, and the answers that have been produced. And if these references dont exist, of how much value is the output of Trenberth's models? Or is it just warmaholic GIGO; Garbage In, Gospel Out? Trenberth is arguing for better observations to be done to understand the flow of energy in the earth system. Maybe you could check your understanding before issuing insults? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 20, 2010 8:00:28 GMT
magellan,
It is fallacious to invent a consensus that doesn't and shouldn't exist, and then criticise the scientists when they argue with each other.
The argument seems to be a discussion about the likely accuracy of the data. Willis is closer to the ocean data and has more confidence in the ARGO analyses than Trenberth. Trenberth seems to be weighing up the satellite data against the ocean data and coming down slightly on the satellite data side - though his central argument remains that better observing systems are required.
Are you arguing that Trenberth should simply accept Willis's position and not attempt to understand it by discussing and asking questions?
Also:
Did Willis back up Pielke's proposition that the heat would be observed "transitting" the upper 700m? I didn't think so.
Willis also said "However, as I’ve mentioned in the past, it is not uncommon for coupled models to have several year periods with little or no ocean heat accumulation as part of their natural internal variability." These are coupled models that will have been designed and run well before the ARGO results identified the current pause in warming.
This was a three-way disagreement. Not Pielke and Willis versus Trenberth.
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 20, 2010 8:37:50 GMT
I must have missed the paper that redid the math on all the solar correlations GLC. Perhaps you could help out here with a few references.It's not a single paper but a steadily evolving realisation that solar variability is not as large as once thought. To start it might be best reading this climateaudit.org/2007/11/30/svalgaard-solar-theory/Several references are made. Note Bill Livingston (of Livingston & Penn) is mentioned as one of the authors of a paper which shows the photospheric temperature has been constant over the past 3 solar cycles. Further on we see the the clear conclusion that " When all these adjustments are made we find that solar activity for cycles 11 and 10 were as high as for cycle 22 and 23. Thus there has been no secular increase in solar activity in the last ~165 years Perhaps the best illustration of the changing mindset of solar scientists is this ... www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEAN2008.pngThis is a presentation slide produced by Judith Lean. Note the green text in the bottom right hand corner which says 11 year solar cycle ~0.1%
longer term variations not yet detected ...... do they occur? This is a problem for AGWers because it means they can't explain past climate fluctuations - and if they can't explain past fluctuations why should they be able to explain current warming. They are, therefore, very reluctant to accept the findings of Leif Svalgaard (predominantly) as it means everything must "go back to the drawing board".
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 20, 2010 9:58:19 GMT
JimC
I am coming in on this a bit late, and I am not sure I undersatnd it.
I've read the rest of your post and I am sure .... that you don't understand 'it'.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 20, 2010 13:12:04 GMT
magellan, It is fallacious to invent a consensus that doesn't and shouldn't exist, and then criticise the scientists when they argue with each other. The argument seems to be a discussion about the likely accuracy of the data. Willis is closer to the ocean data and has more confidence in the ARGO analyses than Trenberth. Trenberth seems to be weighing up the satellite data against the ocean data and coming down slightly on the satellite data side - though his central argument remains that better observing systems are required. Are you arguing that Trenberth should simply accept Willis's position and not attempt to understand it by discussing and asking questions? Also: Did Willis back up Pielke's proposition that the heat would be observed "transitting" the upper 700m? I didn't think so. Willis also said "However, as I’ve mentioned in the past, it is not uncommon for coupled models to have several year periods with little or no ocean heat accumulation as part of their natural internal variability." These are coupled models that will have been designed and run well before the ARGO results identified the current pause in warming. This was a three-way disagreement. Not Pielke and Willis versus Trenberth. This was a three-way disagreement. Not Pielke and Willis versus Trenberth. That's right, and nobody knows WTF is going on.
it is not uncommon for coupled models to have several year periods with little or no ocean heat accumulation as part of their natural internal variability.
Two years ago Pielke asked Willis, who used the same talking points as you, for such an example of a GCM predicting "several year periods with little or no ocean heat accumulation". He couldn't, and you won't. Produce the model that predicted declining OHC beginning in 2003. Did Willis back up Pielke's proposition that the heat would be observed "transitting" the upper 700m? I didn't think so.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/“The oceans are absorbing more than 80 percent of the heat from global warming,” he says. “If you aren’t measuring heat content in the upper ocean, you aren’t measuring global warming.” Explain to us steve how heat can go undetected through the top 700m of water. How about this: the heat isn't there. As in the original NPR interview two years ago, Trenberth said: .......it's probably going back out into space.
First its the missing CO2 sink, now it is the heat CO2 supposedly "traps" and warms the oceans with. This is becoming comic relief. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 20, 2010 15:20:58 GMT
I must have missed the paper that redid the math on all the solar correlations GLC. Perhaps you could help out here with a few references.It's not a single paper but a steadily evolving realisation that solar variability is not as large as once thought. To start it might be best reading this climateaudit.org/2007/11/30/svalgaard-solar-theory/Several references are made. Note Bill Livingston (of Livingston & Penn) is mentioned as one of the authors of a paper which shows the photospheric temperature has been constant over the past 3 solar cycles. Further on we see the the clear conclusion that " When all these adjustments are made we find that solar activity for cycles 11 and 10 were as high as for cycle 22 and 23. Thus there has been no secular increase in solar activity in the last ~165 years Creeping realizations huh? LOL! I am sure Svalgaard is on to something but even AGW needs a multiplier to work and effectively I think Svalgaard's work as far as correlation is concerned mostly just changes the scale, not the correlation. And as far as 10 and 11 being as high as 22 and 23, that still leaves 17, 18, 19 and 21 combining with 22 and 23 to create a unique maximum doesn't it? And even 20 was probably larger than average once you include the Maunder Minimum. Leif's paper may be important in our understanding of the sun but it hardly, at least yet, destroyed every correlation of temperature to solar activity anyplace other than in your imagination. Either that or you have no understanding of what correlation entails. I realize your take has been undergoing a steady evolving realization and thats healthy. I have no doubt whatsoever that we all will as time goes on. However, you should know that tipping the scale on TSI mostly describes a change to the intensity of change in the sun that potentially can be overridden by a change in the multiplier (scale). In fact without actually doing a paper as opposed to having a creeping realization one might actually find a tightening correlation as opposed to a loosening one. Still wide open in the debate on changing climate is the nature of the interaction of the oceans. The heat in the pipeline argument only arose when the atmosphere stopped warming. Leif's paper could have a similar effect on solar advocates. But its not clear that his paper merely helps change the focus to the heat sink effects of the earth on a climate being subjected to weak forcings and instead of 168 years you need to look back even further. This is the small forcing, long term realization issue we have been debating above. This is where the debate is headed no matter where you stand and regarding quality of correlation whether it be good correlation (solar) or bad correlation (CO2). Perhaps the best illustration of the changing mindset of solar scientists is this ... www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEAN2008.pngThis is a presentation slide produced by Judith Lean. Note the green text in the bottom right hand corner which says 11 year solar cycle ~0.1%
longer term variations not yet detected ...... do they occur? This is a problem for AGWers because it means they can't explain past climate fluctuations - and if they can't explain past fluctuations why should they be able to explain current warming. They are, therefore, very reluctant to accept the findings of Leif Svalgaard (predominantly) as it means everything must "go back to the drawing board". I agree! Back to the drawing board. Too much new science, too much bias, too much multiple level referencing on questionable work, too much change in basic theory on every position. That represents a lot of change. We need to get back to working on the basics and drop the obscene expenditure on predictions under the assumption the foundation is sound. My opinion? Think oceans. It is relevant to both sides of the debate. I think significant sectors of the science community is keying on this issue or we would not have an ARGO program. I am with Leif, we need to let cycle 24 to play out as it has some promise of being a great teacher. I am no expert but I have done passive solar design work so my knowledge is rudimentary, only sightly technical, but holistic in nature. A passive solar designer relies on all the elements central to the climate change debate, greenhouses, heat storage (mostly rock and water), convection, insulation (both conductive and radiant) and while we don't create clouds we spend time avoiding them so they don't fog up our windows and turn the house into a swamp. Also being a near ocean inhabitant theories that limit ocean interaction to the top layers are wrong especially with regards to weak forcings realized over long periods (heat in the pipeline being a symptom of how far off the debate has been). It seems all too obvious that AGW theory developed on a regional dumping of heat from ocean oscillations and expanded through a lot of confirmation bias as the datasets were expanded globally. Now that the regional ocean has flipped, there is a lot of scrambling going on and it will take time for it to all be sorted out. Going back through the global datasets and correcting biases would seem to be quite fruitful activity. In fact that is what Leif's paper does albeit in another world. Every indication states that the "move on" mentality should be put to rest and lets get back to the foundational stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 20, 2010 15:38:29 GMT
magellan, It is fallacious to invent a consensus that doesn't and shouldn't exist, and then criticise the scientists when they argue with each other. The argument seems to be a discussion about the likely accuracy of the data. Willis is closer to the ocean data and has more confidence in the ARGO analyses than Trenberth. Trenberth seems to be weighing up the satellite data against the ocean data and coming down slightly on the satellite data side - though his central argument remains that better observing systems are required. Are you arguing that Trenberth should simply accept Willis's position and not attempt to understand it by discussing and asking questions? Also: Did Willis back up Pielke's proposition that the heat would be observed "transitting" the upper 700m? I didn't think so. Willis also said "However, as I’ve mentioned in the past, it is not uncommon for coupled models to have several year periods with little or no ocean heat accumulation as part of their natural internal variability." These are coupled models that will have been designed and run well before the ARGO results identified the current pause in warming. This was a three-way disagreement. Not Pielke and Willis versus Trenberth. This was a three-way disagreement. Not Pielke and Willis versus Trenberth. That's right, and nobody knows WTF is going on. Including you of course I won't because I'm not a model expert. Willis has a part reference (a presentation he went to). I don't see he has the need to invent things. He seems quite happy to argue his corner. If 0.1W/m^2 is going into the top 100 metres of the ocean at the same time as 0.1W/m^2 is going from the top 100 metres to the next 100m etc. etc. etc.....and 0.1W/m^2 is going from the layer 700 metres down to the layers below, then I think you would be hard pushed to detect the transit of this energy by using ocean buoys. Simple really. I should remind you before you get all excitable again, that I've bet on Willis in this argument. |
|
God (LS) may not approve of S&W because it bucks his opinions, but Willson (check his 