|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 3, 2009 12:21:50 GMT
Looks like there have been experiments on this - and each time 'something new is learned' (i.e. the AGW hypothesis gets falsified in someway). The actual observations are then attacked to defend the models. Tropical tropospheric warming - its not there, Ocean Heat Content from Argo floats OHC is not rising as forecasr, cloud 'feedback' measured by ERBE can be strongly negative and now radiation from the TOA increases in line with SST (strangely flagged by glc in another thread) masterresource.org/?p=4307"However, actual observations seem to show that warmer oceans results in more radiation lost to space, which acts to reverse the warming—in other words, a negative feedback."Eventually, people must take notice of actual validation data. However, it seems to take longer with climate modelers than with scientists |
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 3, 2009 12:26:33 GMT
Looks like there have been experiments on this - and each time 'something new is learned' (i.e. the AGW hypothesis gets falsified in someway). The actual observations are then attacked to defend the models. Tropical tropospheric warming - its not there, Ocean Heat Content from Argo floats OHC is not rising as forecasr, cloud 'feedback' measured by ERBE can be strongly negative and now radiation from the TOA increases in line with SST (strangely flagged by glc in another thread) masterresource.org/?p=4307Exactly right. El Nino is a negative feedback, moving heat out of the oceans, and into atmosphere, and space, eventually. Hansen and the AGW gang has the process exactly backwards. "However, actual observations seem to show that warmer oceans results in more radiation lost to space, which acts to reverse the warming—in other words, a negative feedback."Eventually, people must take notice of actual validation data. However, it seems to take longer with climate modelers than with scientists |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 3, 2009 14:35:50 GMT
Thats because your authors are science deniers. You have to be to hold on to a single bristlecone pine record and ignore the dozens of other proxies out there. Its like the action of a religious zealot. They didn't use a "single bristlecone pine record". Besides the fact is that the papers that make up my graph didn't find that the MWP was about .3C warmer than present. The best you can do is write it off as a conspiracy and call those scientists liars. You certainly can't get away with claiming those scientists think the MWP was 0.3C warmer than today though. Where did I ever claim that your authors believe the MWP was .3C warmer? Thats kind of like claiming William Jennings Bryan didn't believe the whale swallowed Jonah. . . . Fact is you can have a PhD and you can have religious beliefs that color your beliefs. So its perfectly consistent that scientists believe stuff solely based upon faith and not facts. On the Bristlecone Pine record, if you want to claim that they didn't use a single record, perhaps you can provide some evidence of what exactly they did do Socold. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 3, 2009 14:52:40 GMT
Re: David Deming and 'that email', i.e. " I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." Is there any reason why Dr Deming can't reveal the identity of the "major researcher". Everyone knows Deming is an AGW sceptic, so that can't be the problem. It would certainly lend a lot more weight to his claim and would put a pretty nasty dent in the AGW case if he gave the full details. This story has been doing the rounds for a few years now and I'm not sure I buy it. If Deming is correct, then he has strong evidence that there are those who are willing to exploit science for political and/or ideological purposes. Deming may not be able to produce the email. Most of us dispose of our email after a short period of time. Deming may have erased the email before he realized its importance. . . .namely before this issue exploded on the political scene in a big way. Not naming the sender could avoid major problems for him. But it would still be fair for him to state this and it would be fair for you to discount it also. But I would like to fit the shoe on a different foot. Put it where it really belongs. The IPCC published graphs in their first and second reports that are in this thread. They changed those graphs without careful detailed reasons why in their 3rd and 4th reports. Today they still have not given an explanation. Such an approach to financial reporting would be prime lawsuit territory for a CPA issuing series of financial statements. When changes of opinion are made, as they are, the effects of those changes need to be carefully disclosed. Instead the IPCC appears to disown its own previous reports. They provide nice pictures of the covers of their previous reports but strangely unlike for their current reports they do not provide links for the contents. So instead of addressing this inconsistency with a careful description of why they discounted previous graphs, they just substitute it and proclaim it as the bleeding edge! Thats bizarre anyway you look at it. Its certainly not a scientific approach to the problem and you should recognize that. . . .because the common man does. This is something that Deming should not have to establish. . . .the responsibility for this belongs elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 3, 2009 14:57:57 GMT
They didn't use a "single bristlecone pine record". Besides the fact is that the papers that make up my graph didn't find that the MWP was about .3C warmer than present. The best you can do is write it off as a conspiracy and call those scientists liars. You certainly can't get away with claiming those scientists think the MWP was 0.3C warmer than today though. Where did I ever claim that your authors believe the MWP was .3C warmer? Thats kind of like claiming William Jennings Bryan didn't believe the whale swallowed Jonah. . . . Fact is you can have a PhD and you can have religious beliefs that color your beliefs. So its perfectly consistent that scientists believe stuff solely based upon faith and not facts. On the Bristlecone Pine record, if you want to claim that they didn't use a single record, perhaps you can provide some evidence of what exactly they did do Socold. Up until 30 years ago, everyone knew there was a worldwide MWP. Then, some fellers with no scientific crediblity decided that it shouldn't be there and tried to publish the idea that it was a myth. Well, in the very long run truth will always prevail, as there are scientists with no bone to grind, who really just want the truth. The earth has always been round. Socrates knew it, but then some feller called Plato decided it was flat. That became the consensus for quit some time, but as well all know the earth is round and the sun rotates around the earth.....oooops..ok, that was the 1/2 way point. The full circle came, and we all know that the earth rotates around the sun. The AGW hypothosis is crumbling under the evidence, just as the earth became round after being flat for some time. And for those who looked at Scappetia's epa presentation, the graph that was presented yesterday came from the IPCC report, and Scapettia had it in his presentation clear as a whistle. |
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 3, 2009 16:55:25 GMT
Looks like there have been experiments on this - and each time 'something new is learned' (i.e. the AGW hypothesis gets falsified in someway). The actual observations are then attacked to defend the models. Tropical tropospheric warming - its not there, Ocean Heat Content from Argo floats OHC is not rising as forecasr, cloud 'feedback' measured by ERBE can be strongly negative and now radiation from the TOA increases in line with SST (strangely flagged by glc in another thread) masterresource.org/?p=4307"However, actual observations seem to show that warmer oceans results in more radiation lost to space, which acts to reverse the warming—in other words, a negative feedback."Eventually, people must take notice of actual validation data. However, it seems to take longer with climate modelers than with scientists I am a bit confused by the wording of negative feedback in this example. You would expect warming to result in more radiation lost to space. That would be the 'natural' or 'normal' expectation and not require feedback. Or are they saying the oceans get colder when you warm them?  On the topic of models saying oceans will get warmer if you warm them and then get extra warmer that to me seems flawed -although locally it might be true because of the massive amount of extra evaporated water above the oceans surface in the atmosphere. What we know about the poles today is that it is tremendously dry. In Finland for example my skin gets unpleasantly dry in winter and obviously even at 61N in winter moisture is frozen out of the sky if present so that when it is -30 it is not going to snow. In the arctic it is -30 for months on end. With such dryness in Finland the snow seems to 'evaporate' if it does not snow for a few weeks while it remains very cold. We also know there is very little snow even in northern Greenland at sea level - it is just too dry to significantly snow. The main arctic snow season is around August to October. So if you provide more moisture by warming the tropics and it can get this far up even to Finland then it will snow more and glaciers will grow and melt into the sea. Cooling functions. Which evidently even in Southern Finland have massive amounts of extra capacity if only the water vapour can make it this far up to be precipitated. And currently you would need to travel about 800km north in Finland from 61N to find summer ice that could not melt by the time winter arrives again. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 3, 2009 18:26:45 GMT
What a difference an internal memo makes - "U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Hearing Statements Date: 12/06/2006 Statement of Dr. David Deming University of Oklahoma College of Earth and Energy Climate Change and the Media" "Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and distinguished guests, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am a geologist and geophysicist. I have a bachelor's degree in geology from Indiana University, and a Ph.D in geophysics from the University of Utah. My field of specialization in geophysics is temperature and heat flow. In recent years, I have turned my studies to the history and philosophy of science. In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. Warmer climate brought a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe during the High Middle Ages.
The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of.""
epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543And subsequent to that memo - the IPCC used Mann's hockey stick instead which DID get rid of the MWP. If any of this is true why would Deming not post the memo in full (to exclude the possibility he is cherrypicking 3 words) and also publicize who the "major researcher" was? Who is he trying to protect? Himself from libel? Either this happened and Deming is almost obliged to give the details rather than helping to cover it up. Or it didn't happen and Deming is lying. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 3, 2009 18:38:37 GMT
The IPCC graph you are thinking of was in the 1990 report only.  The origins of the image in the IPCC 1990 report is laid out on this climate audit thread: www.climateaudit.org/?p=3072I am interested in why the graph you posted is slightly different, specifically at the end. Where did you find that graph? The thread header introducing this topic above has the following link about half way down the text: climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/lying_made_easy~1318827/ Such a graph is not found in the 1996 IPCC report. Primarily because there was no 1996 IPCC report, there was a 1995 one. It's not in there either. The image looks like it's been photocopied from a newspaper. The blog makes blatant false claims elsewhere like: "IPCC’s third assessment report released four years ago is a Scientific Fraud…right up there with the Blair Dodgy Dossier on non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. The report implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages by displaying two 450 000 year graphs…a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that is scaled to look similar. Usually similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The IPCC Report didn’t. If it had the truth would have shown…the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels." But look what is found in the IPCC 3rd assessment report. The icecore and temperature "curves" superimposed. And no it doesn't do what the blog article claims. It doesn't show any lag, because the lag is too small to notice by eye. www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htmPlus the IPCC 3rd assessment report also reports on the lag which the blog tried to claim they were "fraudulently" ignoring. IPCC 3rd assessment report: "Fischer et al. (1999) conclude that CO2 increases started 600 ± 400 years after the Antarctic warming. However, considering the large uncertainty in the ages of the CO2 and ice (1,000 years or more if we consider the ice accumulation rate uncertainty), Petit et al. (1999) felt it premature to ascertain the sign of the phase relationship between CO2 and Antarctic temperature at the initiation of the terminations." Basically the blog article completely misrepresents the IPCC reports and attacks a bunch of strawmen. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 3, 2009 18:42:52 GMT
They didn't use a "single bristlecone pine record". Besides the fact is that the papers that make up my graph didn't find that the MWP was about .3C warmer than present. The best you can do is write it off as a conspiracy and call those scientists liars. You certainly can't get away with claiming those scientists think the MWP was 0.3C warmer than today though. Where did I ever claim that your authors believe the MWP was .3C warmer? If many reconstructions don't show that (they don't) then it isn't what "current science accepts". Nope. I think it's obvious they didn't use a single proxy dataset for a 1000 year global temperature reconstruction. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 3, 2009 18:43:06 GMT
Such a graph is not found in the 1996 IPCC report. Primarily because there was no 1996 IPCC report, there was a 1995 one. It's not in there either. The image looks like it's been photocopied from a newspaper. The blog makes blatant false claims elsewhere like: "IPCC’s third assessment report released four years ago is a Scientific Fraud…right up there with the Blair Dodgy Dossier on non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. The report implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages by displaying two 450 000 year graphs…a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that is scaled to look similar. Usually similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The IPCC Report didn’t. If it had the truth would have shown…the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels." But look what is found in the IPCC 3rd assessment report. The icecore and temperature "curves" superimposed. And no it doesn't do what the blog article claims. It doesn't show any lag, because the lag is too small to notice by eye. www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htmPlus the IPCC 3rd assessment report also reports on the lag which the blog tried to claim they were "fraudulently" ignoring. IPCC 3rd assessment report: "Fischer et al. (1999) conclude that CO2 increases started 600 ± 400 years after the Antarctic warming. However, considering the large uncertainty in the ages of the CO2 and ice (1,000 years or more if we consider the ice accumulation rate uncertainty), Petit et al. (1999) felt it premature to ascertain the sign of the phase relationship between CO2 and Antarctic temperature at the initiation of the terminations." Basically the blog article completely misrepresents the IPCC reports and attacks a bunch of strawmen. Part way through this presentation, you will see the graph posted yesterday exactly as it was posted by Radiant I believe. yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/wkshp.nsf/vwpsw/84E74F1E59E2D3FE852574F100669688#video |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 3, 2009 18:47:16 GMT
Where did I ever claim that your authors believe the MWP was .3C warmer? If many reconstructions don't show that (they don't) then it isn't what "current science accepts". Nope. I think it's obvious they didn't use a single proxy dataset for a 1000 year global temperature reconstruction. Socold: The current one is correct, the previous ones were in error. And the even older ones were correct. Why do I say that? BECAUSE the authors DIDN'T use the proxy studies done during the past 20 years. Note that I stated earlier, the truth will eventually come out. And once again it has. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 3, 2009 18:52:56 GMT
The IPCC published graphs in their first and second reports that are in this thread. They changed those graphs without careful detailed reasons why in their 3rd and 4th reports. Today they still have not given an explanation. The IPCC reports current scientific understanding of subjects, it doesn't do the research so it has changed nothing. When the understanding changes that's because the opinion of scientists has changed. So if you want the reasons why the reconstructions have changed in detail you can look at the contents of the studies. The old IPCC graph that showed a medieval warm period was based on the early central England temperature record, ie the medieval warm hump was based on a single location in part of england, in europe. Hence the whole issue soon after of whether the medieval warm period was local to europe or global. Back then noone had done a proper global reconstruction, otherwise the IPCC 1990 report would have used that and not resorted to a graph that used central england temperature as a proxy for the entire globe. Perhaps if IPCC funding was increased considerably they could compile books on the detailed history of the subjects. As it is they summarize current science. If you want the details either find books on the subjects or delve into the studies yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 3, 2009 18:55:23 GMT
If many reconstructions don't show that (they don't) then it isn't what "current science accepts". Nope. I think it's obvious they didn't use a single proxy dataset for a 1000 year global temperature reconstruction. Socold: The current one is correct, the previous ones were in error. And the even older ones were correct. Why do I say that? BECAUSE the authors DIDN'T use the proxy studies done during the past 20 years. Note that I stated earlier, the truth will eventually come out. And once again it has. There's no such thing as a "current" one. If you are of the impression that the correctness of studies is simply in the reverse date they were published you would be wrong. As it stands most recent studies show the medieval warm period was necessarily any warmer than the last decade (in fact most show it warmer in the last decade, but given the range of error the "not necessarily" part has to be added). Edit: and in fact the "current" study you are talking about isn't a global reconstruction anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 3, 2009 20:12:44 GMT
The main thing is the truth is back and center. There was a MWP........period. And that is supported by widespread data.
As far as temp, everything I have read from a serious scientific point of view indicates a temp of .3 to .5 warmer than today at the peak period of the MWP.
In relative terms, .3 to .5 is nothing so it could be called equal to .....but certainly not colder than.......present climate temps.
The folks at RC have so much egg on their faces from thier poor science that last I heard they were starting a chicken farm......but wait!.....they have been crying chicken little for so long that we all know they have a chicken farm.
In reality tho, I do believe they were earnest in what they were trying to find, it is just that by pointing themselves so narrowly, and then trying to defend themselves, that they have lost the perspective of real climate. They are wrapped up in models, which if you listen to the link I posted, are not very good models. The beauty of that link is that it provides,without being filtered, insight into what other climat scientists think of the data.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 3, 2009 20:51:12 GMT
Looks like there have been experiments on this - and each time 'something new is learned' (i.e. the AGW hypothesis gets falsified in someway). The actual observations are then attacked to defend the models. Tropical tropospheric warming - its not there, Ocean Heat Content from Argo floats OHC is not rising as forecasr, cloud 'feedback' measured by ERBE can be strongly negative and now radiation from the TOA increases in line with SST (strangely flagged by glc in another thread) masterresource.org/?p=4307"However, actual observations seem to show that warmer oceans results in more radiation lost to space, which acts to reverse the warming—in other words, a negative feedback."Eventually, people must take notice of actual validation data. However, it seems to take longer with climate modelers than with scientists I am a bit confused by the wording of negative feedback in this example. You would expect warming to result in more radiation lost to space. That would be the 'natural' or 'normal' expectation and not require feedback. Or are they saying the oceans get colder when you warm them? On the topic of models saying oceans will get warmer if you warm them and then get extra warmer that to me seems flawed -although locally it might be true because of the massive amount of extra evaporated water above the oceans surface in the atmosphere. What we know about the poles today is that it is tremendously dry. In Finland for example my skin gets unpleasantly dry in winter and obviously even at 61N in winter moisture is frozen out of the sky if present so that when it is -30 it is not going to snow. In the arctic it is -30 for months on end. With such dryness in Finland the snow seems to 'evaporate' if it does not snow for a few weeks while it remains very cold. We also know there is very little snow even in northern Greenland at sea level - it is just too dry to significantly snow. The main arctic snow season is around August to October. So if you provide more moisture by warming the tropics and it can get this far up even to Finland then it will snow more and glaciers will grow and melt into the sea. Cooling functions. Which evidently even in Southern Finland have massive amounts of extra capacity if only the water vapour can make it this far up to be precipitated. And currently you would need to travel about 800km north in Finland from 61N to find summer ice that could not melt by the time winter arrives again. I agree it is poorly worded and the report itself will be available soon. However, what it says is that it was expected that ocean heat would NOT result in increased radiation from the TOA as CO 2 would be doing its GHG bit and stopping a proportion of the radiation. However, the measurements appear to show that the radiation at the TOA increased more than would be expected even without GHG - a NEGATIVE forcing in other words. So it would appear that there is some mechanism - the hydrologic cycle? - that is transporting energy faster when the oceans warm in other words a negative feedback. Let's see what the full paper says. |
|
