|
Post by socold on May 28, 2009 18:24:31 GMT
socold: "Why are comments disabled on his blog? Can you answer the realclimate arguments?" I don't know why comments are disabled. Why don't you email Dr Spencer and ask him? You mean arguments like this: "Realclimate also say he's "Jacked up the radiative forcing beyond all reason". How would anyone answer that BS. Why don't you read Spencer's paper to see if you believe the realclimate arguments have any validity and get back to us on it. No arguments like this: "Except for the response to the Pinatubo eruption (the pronounced dip during 1991), the fluctuations are on the order of 1 W/m2 or less once you smooth on an annual time scale. Based on this estimate and on the typical magnitude of Spencer's combined SOI/PDOI index, I chose a scaling factor (Roy's a) of 0.27 W/m2 .. In his article, Roy uses a value ten times as big, but then he partly covers up how large the annual radiative forcing is by showing only the five year averages. With Roy's value of the scaling coefficient, the annual radiative forcing looks like this [pic] which is clearly grossly exaggerated compared to the data. Moreover, in my own estimate of the scaling factor I tried to match the overall magnitude of the fluctuations, whereas restricting the estimate to that part of the observed fluctuation which correlates with the SOI/PDOI index could reduce the factor further. Finally, even insofar as some part of climate change could be ascribed to long term cloud changes associated with the PDOI and SOI, one cannot exclude the possibility that those changes are driven by the warming — in other words a feedback. Still, let's go ahead and ignore all that, and put in Roy's value of the scaling coefficient, and see what we get." Can you address this argument?
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on May 28, 2009 18:33:44 GMT
socold: "Can you address this argument?"
I can address the argument, but I refuse to. Just as you refuse to read Dr. Spencer's paper.
If you want to explore this issue any further, I suggest you read the paper and use the email address provided, to ask Dr. Spencer any questions you may have.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 28, 2009 18:55:40 GMT
socold: "Can you address this argument?" I can address the argument, but I refuse to. Just as you refuse to read Dr. Spencer's paper. If you want to explore this issue any further, I suggest you read the paper and use the email address provided, to ask Dr. Spencer any questions you may have. I haven't refused to read his paper. You might be interested in another one of his "papers" concerning falsification of a different theory, namely evolution www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college. You might wonder how scientists who are taught to apply disciplined observation and experimentation and to search for natural explanations for what is observed in nature can come to such a conclusion? For those of you who consider themselves open-minded, I will try to explain."
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 28, 2009 19:34:42 GMT
*phew* that's a relief...I'm glad to see we agree that those figures are obviously incorrect and that the feedbacks must be STRONGLY negative...because nobody in their right mind would claim those figures accurately reflected the real warming when they go against all observational data. So yeah... we're due MAYBE .75C more for a doubling. Glad we could clear that up. They don't go against all observational data. I have no idea where you are pulling the .75C figure from either. Because that's about the most you could argue we've had (even using GISS) and the figure I was using before as half of the 1.5C for doubling. However you are 100% wrong about the observational data supporting 3C for doubling. We quite simply have not had sufficient warming. You have never come up with any reasonable explanation to account for such an incredible shortfall on the warming. I really get the feeling that you've been fooled by the illusion of the CO2 vs temperature graphs. CO2 levels vs temperature is going to be a TERRIBLE fit in the long term. The affect of CO2 is logarithmic...they should be graphing CO2 absorption vs temperature. I'd be perfectly willing to grant you a projection based on that although I seriously doubt a substantial amount of the observed increase is from CO2. It's likely a coincidence that it fits the linear trend. ...of course, I'd also say such warming is probably harmless.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 28, 2009 20:28:28 GMT
There's good reason to think the trend is not linear. We know the greenhouse gas forcing in the past 50 years has increased faster than in the first half, so we know we aren't looking at static conditions across the 20th century which can just be extrapolated into the 21st. In addition the response to increased forcing is not instantaneous - think about the time it takes to heat up a pot of water vs an empty pot.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on May 28, 2009 20:37:53 GMT
socold: "You might be interested in another one of his "papers" concerning falsification of a different theory, namely evolution."
I am not interested in a "paper" on evolution, nor any of the other canned ad hominem attacks on catastrophic AGW debunkers that you people dig up from your little anti-debunker file on realclimate.
Dr. Spencer could be right about climate, but wrong about evolution and many other things. I really don't know enough about climate science to know whether he is correct in the details. But I do have enough common sense to know that his overall conclusion makes more sense than the hysterical fear mongering of the catastrophic AGW crowd.
Now scurry on back to realclimate and get your reply together. I am off to lunch.
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on May 28, 2009 20:39:20 GMT
Steve, Perhaps it would indeed help for me to spell out why I think relatively inexpensive actual experiments of the effect of increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere in somewhat restricted spaces (craters or valleys) would be helpful. I can see what you are saying, but the problem is how to run a suitably representative experiment, and whether your predictions about what happen to the whole earth over a number of years can be applied to what happens to your experiment in a short period. Probably the crater experiment doesn't work. I would also say that the satellite obs paper I linked to is only testing the radiation component of a model in a limited circumstance (clear sky and stable atmosphere). Maybe there are other experiments that would work better. I recall some scientists did an experiment involving dumping iron oxide in the oceans to see whether they could influence carbon uptake for example. Steve, I understand that it is possible, perhaps even likely that a crater/valley experiment would "fail". If all experiments were expected to be successful then they would not be science. I would think, based on what little I know, that they would still be useful in framing the debate and setting some limits, especially on the very high extrapolations of the effects of CO2 concentrations doubling. However, one other reason that I suggested them in this form is that they are cheap (CO2 and methane are not expensive) and the crater/valley walls would limit (but not stop) the rate of dissipation of the greenhouse gases. If they are cheap, they can be repeated many times under different ambient conditions (sunlight flux, background temperature, height of crater, concentration of GHG, rate of increase, etc., etc.,). In theory, one could perform a similar experiments from a natural gas well in open air and get better results. (i.e. controlling the rate of methane being emitted from the point source). HOWEVER, the amount of methane required would be much greater and it would be tougher to monitor the temperature increase. Also, it might be possible to do OBSERVATIONS of the increase (or lack thereof) of the temperature downwind of a natural gas well from altitude. By monitoring the temperature all around the well and the wind direction, an observer could see if there was a temperature increase downwind (higher methane concentration) of the natural gas well. If there was control of the methane flow, it could become a proper experiment. I didn't suggest that natural gas well experiment because I expect that it would be a lot more expensive (and less controlled). Of course, it would be closer to the open air that people desire. Of course, it would be harder to get it at altitude (not many gas wells at 20,000 feet. DO you know how one could model (using the existing models) a crater experiment to see if they would predict an increase (or not)? I am just not that familiar with the details of the models. IWylie
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 28, 2009 22:35:29 GMT
socold: "You might be interested in another one of his "papers" concerning falsification of a different theory, namely evolution." I am not interested in a "paper" on evolution, nor any of the other canned ad hominem attacks on catastrophic AGW debunkers that you people dig up from your little anti-debunker file on realclimate. Dr. Spencer could be right about climate, but wrong about evolution and many other things. I really don't know enough about climate science to know whether he is correct in the details. But I do have enough common sense to know that his overall conclusion makes more sense than the hysterical fear mongering of the catastrophic AGW crowd. So you know he's right, you just don't know why. Hmm
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 28, 2009 22:55:54 GMT
socold: "Can you address this argument?" I can address the argument, but I refuse to. Just as you refuse to read Dr. Spencer's paper. If you want to explore this issue any further, I suggest you read the paper and use the email address provided, to ask Dr. Spencer any questions you may have. I haven't refused to read his paper. You might be interested in another one of his "papers" concerning falsification of a different theory, namely evolution www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college. You might wonder how scientists who are taught to apply disciplined observation and experimentation and to search for natural explanations for what is observed in nature can come to such a conclusion? For those of you who consider themselves open-minded, I will try to explain." What is it with you people that when you cannot refute the evidence, it is always the case, bar none, the subject will always focus on the messenger. There is scarcely anyone more experienced than Spencer and Christy with respect to satellite data and the ability to sift through the noise, then explain it clearly. The data does not support the CO2 AGW storyline, something True Believers refuse to accept.
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on May 28, 2009 23:14:53 GMT
The most simple proof is like this: doubling of CO2 has to cause 4C warming. Since we are at 40-50% way to doubling - from 280 to 390/560, some 2-2.5C warming had already to occur. However, since 1900 we see some 0.6C and all this with grand solar maximum, strongest for last 11,000 years plus warm ocean oscillations on top (around the year 2000). Even if we forget the water vapor feedback (which seems to be negative), theoretical 1K increase due to doubling is suspicious, since we should see 0.6C already - but without the grand solar maximum. So there is not much space left for any CO2 in recent temperature record. Bleeee
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 28, 2009 23:22:50 GMT
I haven't refused to read his paper. You might be interested in another one of his "papers" concerning falsification of a different theory, namely evolution www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college. You might wonder how scientists who are taught to apply disciplined observation and experimentation and to search for natural explanations for what is observed in nature can come to such a conclusion? For those of you who consider themselves open-minded, I will try to explain." What is it with you people that when you cannot refute the evidence, it is always the case, bar none, the subject will always focus on the messenger. It's not about refuting it, this is not a game of raise and refute. I simply am not convinced by the whole PDO caused the warming idea, particularly because the PDO trend is flat over the 20th century. I raised a question about how Roy Spencer managed to get a warming signal out of a trendless wave. In particular it looked to me that he assumed the earth was out of balance in order to get the early 20th century warming. Something that is backed up by that realclimate article.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 28, 2009 23:28:53 GMT
The most simple proof is like this: doubling of CO2 has to cause 4C warming. Since we are at 40-50% way to doubling - from 280 to 390/560, some 2-2.5C warming had already to occur. However, since 1900 we see some 0.6C and all this with grand solar maximum, strongest for last 11,000 years plus warm ocean oscillations on top (around the year 2000). Even if we forget the water vapor feedback (which seems to be negative), theoretical 1K increase due to doubling is suspicious, since we should see 0.6C already - but without the grand solar maximum. So there is not much space left for any CO2 in recent temperature record. Bleeee The Earth's ocean ensures that any increase in forcing will have to be sustained for some time until the maximum temperature is reached. So being at at 40-50% way to doubling doesn't mean we've seen at 40-50% of the warming from doubling.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on May 28, 2009 23:48:40 GMT
socold: "So you know he's right, you just don't know why. Hmm"
I never said he was right. I said his theory makes more sense than the hysterical catastrophic AGW theory. It is possible that his simple model may be just as flawed as the myriad of IPCC genned not-complex-enough, full-of-suspect-assumptions models, but it seems to represent reality a lot better. Hey, if he periodically tunes his model to better fit historical data, it will get even better. Why should the warmistas be the only ones permitted to make it up as they go along.
What's that "Hmm" supposed to mean? Did that come from the realclimate file, or is it your own?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 29, 2009 0:41:47 GMT
socold: "Dear oh dear. Just how has he managed to turn PDO - which has a flat trend over the 20th century, to produce a rising trend in temperature over the 20th century. It looks to me that he's started Earth out of balance at the start of the record. The warming therefore isn't due to the PDO at all but his front-loading of the model (or "excel spreadsheet")" You read fast. Or did you get the canned refutation from the realclimate team? Spencer's model works better than the IPCC models to explain 20th century temperatures, period. I only had to look at the graph where "PDO only" produces a rising trend. PDO is flat over the 20th century, that's always been my main problem with the PDO explaination. You can only get a match with global temperature if you have another cause, in which case it's that cause - not PDO afterall. I found the realclimate article you refer to: www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/Looks like they spotted some other problems - "The actual ocean mixed layer has a depth on the order of 50 meters. That's why we got such large amplitude and high frequency fluctuations in the previous graph. What value does Roy use for the mixed layer depth? One kilometer." Well I think the page says he uses 800m, but close enough. Realclimate also say he's "Jacked up the radiative forcing beyond all reason". Are either of these arguments correct? What is Roy Spencer's response to them? Are either of these arguments correct? What is Roy Spencer's response to them? Thanks so much for asking since the fraudsters at RealClimate specialize in character assassination and twisting facts beyond all recognition. The title of RC's blog post alone highlights their trashy tabloid style, and one reason why they have lost respect amongst their piers outside the zombies who believe every utterance. climatesci.org/2008/05/22/a-response-to-ray-pierrehumbert%E2%80%99s-real-climate-post-of-may-21-2008-by-roy-spencer/climatesci.org/2008/05/23/follow-up-to-the-response-to-ray-pierrehumberts-real-climate-post-by-roy-spencer/Some folks keep track of what RC says. If you'd bother doing the same and have an interest as to whether they are telling the truth or blowing smoke, it may open your eyes a bit. Would you like to see some examples? Here's one related to a comment you made in an earlier post: You said: Looks like they spotted some other problems - "The actual ocean mixed layer has a depth on the order of 50 meters. That's why we got such large amplitude and high frequency fluctuations in the previous graph. What value does Roy use for the mixed layer depth? One kilometer." Roy Spencer's response? In Ray’s “Lesson 2″, he claims that I used a much too deep mixed layer depth; I used 1,000 m, and he claimed it should be more like 50 m. Oh, really? Well, if the mixed layer depth of the ocean on multi-decadal time scales is only 50 m, then why are we waiting for the remaining “warming in the pipeline” from our CO2 emissions, as we are constantly told exists because of the huge heat capacity of the ocean? "warming in the pipeline", a hallmark pseudo scientific assumption of AGW promoters Another example of ReinventedClimate smear mongering they did on Nir Shaviv: www.sciencebits.com/RealClimateSlursBe sure to click on the link to RC where the zombies are high fiving each other until they realize their heros have been gobsmacked www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/a-galactic-glitch/ Want more examples of RC antics?
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on May 29, 2009 1:00:49 GMT
socold: "The Earth's ocean ensures that any increase in forcing will have to be sustained for some time until the maximum temperature is reached. So being at at 40-50% way to doubling doesn't mean we've seen at 40-50% of the warming from doubling."
Maybe you should inform the warmista modelers about this. It may be one of the reasons why they are so far out of whack with actual temperatures.
|
|