|
Post by Ratty on Apr 26, 2010 2:14:26 GMT
"Ocean studies highlight currents Scientists say the discovery of a deep ocean current in the Southern Ocean could provide new insights into climate change." www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/26/2882488.htm"We're seeing signals of change, we're seeing the water is fresher than it used to be," he said. Wow! A new discovery and they're seeing signals of change already.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Apr 26, 2010 3:19:08 GMT
"Ocean studies highlight currents Scientists say the discovery of a deep ocean current in the Southern Ocean could provide new insights into climate change." www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/26/2882488.htm"We're seeing signals of change, we're seeing the water is fresher than it used to be," he said. Wow! A new discovery and they're seeing signals of change already. Plus ça change ...
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 26, 2010 5:21:08 GMT
I am curious where they provided the support for the "or two" since the only examples they gave lasted no more than 7 or 8 years? The "or two" is old news having been shown by both Don Easterbrook and Syun-Ichi Akasofu showing "or three" exposing an underlying warming of .05C per decade. Here we have an example of speculative keep the blinders on science that adds nothing whatsoever to the debate and extrapolates well beyond any observation they provided. Trofim Lysenko should be proud of his prodigy. If the underlying (AGW) trend is 0.2 deg per decade then it's perfectly possible that there will be periods of up to a decade when natural factors will offset the warming. Anything is possible GLC. What I am complaining about is claiming is historic precedence for 12 year negative trends without admitting to their implications We've been over this dozens of times. For a while the UAH trend since 1998 was negative. It is now positive. Seems to me Wood for Trees shows that as a negative .05degC per decade. Where are you getting your data from? We still haven't managed to find out where Akasofu got his data from. Most of the long-term datasets show a flat trend throughout the 19th century - contrary to what Akasofu shows. However, Akasofu seems a bit reluctant to cite his source. How's Easterbrooks projection of cooling from 2000 doing, by the way? 1. I don't know who "we" is but I posted the link for Akasofu's references here in a reply to you months ago. Here it is in case you have not yet looked. I will leave it to you to pass it on to "we". people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/Natural_Components_of_Climate_Change.pdf2. I am not aware of an Easterbrook projection beyond noting that historically PDOs last 20 to 30 years and have had a big effect on the underlying warming trend. . . .like in taking most of the claimed acceleration to the underlying trend out of it. . . .so one could say his projection is the IPCC projection is overstated. That isn't too far off from your own predictions.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 26, 2010 7:42:14 GMT
1. I don't know who "we" is but I posted the link for Akasofu's references here in a reply to you months ago. Here it is in case you have not yet looked. I will leave it to you to pass it on to "we".
people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf....mate_Change.pdfAkasofu justifies his 0.05 deg per decade rise during the 19th century on rise on a clutch of proxy reconstructions including one by Mann & Jones and a tree ring reconstruction by Esper et al. Even here the evidence is not convincing. 2. I am not aware of an Easterbrook projection beyond noting that historically PDOs last 20 to 30 years and have had a big effect on the underlying warming trend. . . .Fig 4 in this link wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/10/new-geologic-evidence-of-past-periods-of-oscillating-abrupt-warming-and-cooling/includes the title " Easterbrook Projected Cooling". However there are a couple of issues (at least) with this graph. (1) The 'data' only extends up to the end of 2008 (very convenient!) (2) The 'data' appears to show that the 1990s were warmer than the recent decade (2000-2009). The average temperatures for 2000-2009 were ~0.2 deg higher than for 1990-1999, so his data is nonsense. Both Easterbrook and Akasofu seem to be quite imaginative when it comes to finding data which fits their particular theories.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 26, 2010 11:37:26 GMT
Easterbrook says "the red line is the IPCC projected warming from the IPCC website in 2000" Very vague. But that looks like third assessment report territory, so on a hunch I went to the website and found: www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htmEasterbrook's red line fits the HadCM3 projection like a glove, except Easterbrook has shifted it forwards a bit. The peak in the HadCM3 projection which occurs a few years after 2010 becomes a peak in 2009 in Easterbrook's graph. As has already been noted easterbrook's choice of observational record is bizzare, not referenced and just plain flat out wrong. Yet the rube commenters at WUWT are flattered and swooning at Easterbrook's presentation. Suprised? Nope.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 26, 2010 13:38:35 GMT
1. I don't know who "we" is but I posted the link for Akasofu's references here in a reply to you months ago. Here it is in case you have not yet looked. I will leave it to you to pass it on to "we".
people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf....mate_Change.pdfAkasofu justifies his 0.05 deg per decade rise during the 19th century on rise on a clutch of proxy reconstructions including one by Mann & Jones and a tree ring reconstruction by Esper et al. Even here the evidence is not convincing. I think Akasofu says it is not a lock. . . .but on the other hand you have Mann and Briffa putting their reputations on line doing sloppy and really bad science to make it less convincing. . . .suggesting that. . . .uh while not a lock it is too convincing. 2. I am not aware of an Easterbrook projection beyond noting that historically PDOs last 20 to 30 years and have had a big effect on the underlying warming trend. . . .Fig 4 in this link
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/10/new-geologic-evidence-of-past-periods-of-oscillating-abrupt-warming-and-cooling/
includes the title " Easterbrook Projected Cooling". However there are a couple of issues (at least) with this graph. (1) The 'data' only extends up to the end of 2008 (very convenient!) (2) The 'data' appears to show that the 1990s were warmer than the recent decade (2000-2009). The average temperatures for 2000-2009 were ~0.2 deg higher than for 1990-1999, so his data is nonsense. LOL! Its convenient that a 2009 post only contains data through 2008? I would like to see a glacial analysis that included 2008. As far as Easterbrook's temp reconstruction goes. . . .can you show his is outside of likely set of error bars?
Both Easterbrook and Akasofu seem to be quite imaginative when it comes to finding data which fits their particular theories. That comment is far too generalized to parse into an explicit enough of a complaint to respond to. . . .but of course it was designed as such right?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 26, 2010 13:46:57 GMT
As has already been noted easterbrook's choice of observational record is bizzare, not referenced and just plain flat out wrong. I don't suppose you have any evidence from any source that shows Easterbrook's observational record is outside of statistically derived error bars with sufficient data and methods support that somebody like Steve McIntyre could put it to the test either? Just trying to define clearly if yours or GLC's opinion's on this matter has any scientific support or whether it just based solely upon a biased and unsupported opinion or not. But it is worth noting that neither of you are recognizing the relevant issue that Easterbrook's graph certainly is more accurate than the IPCC predictions were. You Socold are complaining that a peak is going to occur in 2012 not 2009 but not recogizing that such a peak will have to double its amplitude to make up for where it has to start from if a peak does occur in 2012.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 26, 2010 14:41:51 GMT
As has already been noted easterbrook's choice of observational record is bizzare, not referenced and just plain flat out wrong. I don't suppose you have any evidence from any source that shows Easterbrook's observational record is outside of statistically derived error bars with sufficient data and methods support that somebody like Steve McIntyre could put it to the test either? McIntyre just seems interested in over-hyping minor errors like the Finnish dropping their minus sign for a few days, or US data showing 1998 going from 0.01C warmer to 0.01C cooler than 1994. Lucia's crew seem to be doing all the hard work on validating temperature reconstructions. rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-landocean-reconstructions/Arguing that any plot in which the line fits within statistical error bars is OK is just pathetic. Will you ever learn the difference between a projection and a forecast? As long as it suits the position you hold in your tightly painted corner, I guess not. Interestingly, the plot of this 10 year old CO2-forced model shows at least 4 periods of no net warming over more than a decade. Doesn't such a result prove that CO2 did not cause the warming in the model?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 26, 2010 15:40:26 GMT
McIntyre just seems interested in over-hyping minor errors like the Finnish dropping their minus sign for a few days, or US data showing 1998 going from 0.01C warmer to 0.01C cooler than 1994. Lucia's crew seem to be doing all the hard work on validating temperature reconstructions.
Minor errors are seldom detected when looking at a graph from across the room Steve. When all of Scandanavia is painted an alarming color its not a minor error.
This one got caught because it was centered over a populated area. Now that this issue has attracted attention more such stuff is being discovered in areas not so populated. Perhaps if enough research is done to find out how frequently this done we can determine an error rate and apply it to the temperature record. LOL!
Arguing that any plot in which the line fits within statistical error bars is OK is just pathetic.
That is not the case Steve. I haven't seen any argument for error bars much less whether or not one fits inside of them or not Steve.
Until one is produced one can argue every reconstruction suffers from your criticism.
What you are effectively arguing here for is statistics and quantification of observations is a non-issue to true believers. And that does not surprise me as I already knew that.
[
Will you ever learn the difference between a projection and a forecast? As long as it suits the position you hold in your tightly painted corner, I guess not.
In hindsight the only difference between a forecast and projection is whether hypothetical assumptions panned out or not Steve.
The difference in foresight is a forecast is an expectation. A projection is an expectation only if certain hypothetical conditions are met.
Does that brush it up for ya?
If so, perhaps you can acknowledge that I have asked you repeatedly as to whether a few GCMs offered up in defense of the IPCC projections as being closer than others also included hypotheticals like volcanic activity were also close.
That was a request you ran away from as if you did not understand what a projection was, as I recall once even saying the models did not project volcanic activity.
Bottom line Steve if you don't include volcanic activity in an alleged projection you don't even have a projection. Instead you only have a model suitable for dreaming up mythical worlds to write a novel or something like that.
Wanna come clean on that now?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 26, 2010 18:28:58 GMT
You are going to have to do a lot better than that icefisher if you want to salvage easterbrook's credibility. He describes the black line (even though there are two of them) as "The black curve is temperature variation from 1900 to 2009" Just why does his observed temperature line show the 2000s cooler than the 1990s? UAH, RSS, HadCRUT3 and GISTEMP show the exact opposite. Just what is it then? and why didn't he use UAH, RSS, HadCRUT3 or GISTEMP? But yeah two lines. No labelling. Very vague. Tell you what we'll just ignore whatever Easterbrook has to say until he decides to make clearer claims yeah? Don't bother raising that graph in future unless you can explain where the data comes from.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 26, 2010 19:46:20 GMT
The underlying question here is how long does a cooling period have to extend till the AGW hypothesis is accepted as flawed? What is being said here is for one two three --- name a number _decades_ the atmospheric and ocean temperatures can cool and STILL "CO 2 causes global warming by trapping heat" is a valid hypothesis. I put it to you glc that this is an unsupportable position. The amount of heat required and its concealment are just impossibilities. The AGW support for CO 2 being responsible for warming was that 'there is no other explanation'. Well the explanation now appears to be fatally flawed - although I am certain you have an excuse. Why does the explanation appear to be "fatally flawed"? "Why does the explanation appear to be "fatally flawed"?"The AGW hypothesis - and the panic legislation based on it - is predicated on CO 2 'trapping' and causing the 'downwelling' of heat energy by preventing the escape of that energy as infrared radiation in the CO 2 'absorption' bands. Meanwhile TSI energy _input_ (again as repeatedly stated here) is effectively constant and is the only source of energy into the Earth system. OK - for the sake of this discussion let us take that hypothesis as absolutely true. We then are told that there can be twenty years - that is 20 years - of global temperatures falling or remaining constant but this would still be consistent with the AGW hypothesis. This leaves us with a conundrum. The energy must be going somewhere and (to use your argument) there must be a mechanism for the energy to get to wherever that is - AND - for it to remain there despite any imbalance all without being sensed. This is not an insignificant amount of heat far more than would be needed to raise the atmospheric temperature by a small amount which is all we have seen. This is the 'heat in the pipeline' issue. Well perhaps a rearrangement of heat over a couple of years is something that may be considered a pipeline - but twenty years is appears to be well over the ' its only weather' threshold and crosses into the pre-prepared glib excuse for a failed hypothesis territory. But perhaps you have a mechanism for CO 2 absorption taking a 20 year sabbatical, or even for the alternate case of a well insulated pipeline of twenty years GW capacity?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 27, 2010 7:29:55 GMT
All the major temperature reconstructions include discussions of error and uncertainty. Your response is just trying to avoid accepting that the Easterbrook reconstruction is fantasy. In fact it shows that as soon as a pretty picture tells them what they want to hear, WUWT readers are not in the slightest bit concerned about measurement accuracy, archiving of methods, validity of temp reconstructions etc. etc.
Will you ever learn the difference between a projection and a forecast? As long as it suits the position you hold in your tightly painted corner, I guess not.
The issue is you getting hung up on every little bump and dip. The projections are perturbation experiments with relatively arbitrary starting conditions (ie. climatologically realistic).
Projections will typically include the perturbation of a subset of things (eg. GHG, GHG+aerosols etc. etc.) to look at the impact of those things over a period. Underlying the IPCC headline projection (1.5-4.5C this century) is an assumption of a limited set of feedbacks* (eg. no Amazon dieback) and no dramatic force majeures such as Yellowstone going up.
We know that volcanoes such as Pinatubo produce short term cooling, but they don't have a long term impact that would substantially change the result of the projection.
*Other projections are done (in addition to the IPCC emissions scenarios) to explore impacts of other feedbacks - they are not ignored. There are some projections that show that aspects of the carbon cycle will act as a negative feedback for much of this century. I wonder if poptech has included this in his list of "sceptic" papers?
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Apr 27, 2010 12:45:23 GMT
nautonnier, The vocabulary of AGW hype is fascinating. Where do AGW believers think 'trapped energy' goes and what does it look like? And how long do the believers think it is trapped?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 27, 2010 14:26:22 GMT
OK - for the sake of this discussion let us take that hypothesis as absolutely true. We then are told that there can be twenty years - that is 20 years - of global temperatures falling or remaining constant but this would still be consistent with the AGW hypothesis. This leaves us with a conundrum. The energy must be going somewhere and (to use your argument) there must be a mechanism for the energy to get to wherever that is - AND - for it to remain there despite any imbalance all without being sensed. Linear trends taken over a short time period will be influenced more by the internal variation than by the actual underlying energy increase. Over longer time period the effect can be significant. For example over the period 1998-2008 internal variation drew energy away from the surface and deeper into the ocean which significantly reduces the linear trend over this period. A 15 year flat period (rather than 20) was shown in a model run for the period 2016-2031, despite that being a period in which "trapped" energy was increasing.
|
|
|
Post by twalkowski on Apr 27, 2010 15:56:19 GMT
OK - for the sake of this discussion let us take that hypothesis as absolutely true. We then are told that there can be twenty years - that is 20 years - of global temperatures falling or remaining constant but this would still be consistent with the AGW hypothesis. This leaves us with a conundrum. The energy must be going somewhere and (to use your argument) there must be a mechanism for the energy to get to wherever that is - AND - for it to remain there despite any imbalance all without being sensed. Linear trends taken over a short time period will be influenced more by the internal variation than by the actual underlying energy increase. Over longer time period the effect can be significant. For example over the period 1998-2008 internal variation drew energy away from the surface and deeper into the ocean which significantly reduces the linear trend over this period. Ok. . . so from earlier in the thread. . .
Trenberth’s [and co-author, NCAR scientist John Fasullo], however, are grasping for an explanation other than the actual real world implication of the absence of this heat. * First, if the heat was being sequestered deeper in the ocean (lower than about 700m), than we would have seen it transit through the upper ocean where the data coverage has been good since at least 2005. The other reservoirs where heat could be stored are closely monitored as well (e.g. continental ice) as well as being relatively small in comparison with the ocean. * Second, the melting of glaciers and continental ice can be only a very small component of the heat change (e.g. see Table 1 in Levitus et al 2001 “Anthropogenic warming of Earth’s climate system”. Science).
Thus, a large amount heat (measured as Joules) does not appear to be stored anywhere; it just is not there.
A 15 year flat period (rather than 20) was shown in a model run for the period 2016-2031, despite that being a period in which "trapped" energy was increasing.
|
|