Ledgers, Graphics, and Carvings
Ledgers, Graphics, and Carvings: Models, Water, and Temperature (4)
This is a series of blogs on models, water, and temperature (see Intro). I am starting with models. In this series, I am trying to develop a way to build a foundation for nonscientists to feel comfortable about models and their use in scientific investigation. I expect to get some feedback on how to do this better from the comments. In order to keep a solid climate theme, I am going to have two sections to the entries. One section will be on models, and the other will be on a research result, new or old, that I think is of particular interest.
Doing Science with Models 1.1: In the previous entry of this series I argued that if one considered the types of models used in design and engineering, then we use models all of the time. In fact, when we build or do just about anything, we use some sort of model to get us started. I ended the previous entry with the example of building a simple picnic bench that would hold three, two-hundred-pound men. Not only do the materials need to be of sufficient strength, but the legs of the bench need to be attached in a way that they form a solid and stable foundation. If the bench wobbles and the legs spread apart, then it will be unsafe. If we have experience of some sort, we construct a model from this experience. For example, if we have built or repaired tables and benches we have some ideas of good and bad construction. If we have no direct experience then we can find or ask about plans. These plans might be a schematic, a graphic model of the bench.
For those who do not build benches, but who, say, balance their checkbooks, there are models as well. The forms in a ledger represent models that have proven usable through practice or that have become standard approaches. Information is collected and organized: the check number, the date, the payee, the amount, the purpose and the category of expenditure.
These graphic, tabular, or touchable models are common enough that we develop intuition about their use. Introductory materials to climate models often use the words “mathematical,” “numerical,” and “computational.” These words take us not only away from our intuitive notions of models, but also into subjects that many of us find difficult and obscure. However, in the past couple of decades we have seen the tabular models of checkbook balancing coded as computational products such as Quicken. Design and architecture move to tools such as Computer-assisted Design. Recently, we have seen this combination of the world of digital models and touchable products come full circle with the advent of three-dimensional printing. In three-dimensional printing, solid objects made of plastic and metal are rendered from mathematical descriptions of the objects. I will return to this idea of mathematical descriptions of objects later. The point that I would like to make now is that using computers as tools to represent the real world has in the last two decades become routine. Therefore, in and of itself, the use of computers to make numerical calculations of the real world is common. It might not be as universally intuitive to people as a ledger or a wooden design of a boat, but there is large body of experience that affirms the value of computer-based modeling.
There are a number of steps that need to be taken from here to climate models. So far, I have been talking about models that are in the spirit of a work or a structure used in testing or perfecting a final product. In climate modeling, the final product of the construction is a model. It is the purpose of that model to provide a credible representation of the climate. That representation has a number of attributes. There is the attribute of representing what we have already observed. There is also the attribute of predicting what we will observe, that is, predicting the future. Therefore, the final product of the whole process is the simulation of and the prediction of the climate.
As with many words, there is more than one definition of model in the dictionary. Another relevant definition from my print edition (third) of the American Heritage Dictionary is “A schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further studies of its characteristics.” (American Heritage Dictionary online) This definition is directly descriptive of a climate model. But like those introductions to climate models that I referred to above, it quickly goes to words like “system” and “theory” that are not quite as intuitive as I would like. This is where I will start next time.
Interesting Research: Attribution of 2011 Extreme Weather to Climate Change - Some might recall in 2011, I wandered into the contentious subject of the attribution of climate change to humans (collected here) and talking about communicating extreme weather events in the media (Shearer and Rood). The paper I highlight in today’s blog is a compilation of efforts to understand the role of planetary warming in some of the extreme events of 2011. The paper is Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective edited by Tom Peterson and others and published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. This paper looks at six of the extreme events of 2011 and tries to attribute, in a variety of ways, the role played by human-caused global warming. (nice summary in New Scientist)
I want to focus on the part of the paper that discusses the extreme heat and drought in Texas in the summer of 2011. Much of that discussion is based on evaluating the effect of sea surface temperature, and specifically, the role of El Nino and La Nina. El Nino and La Nina are the names given to recurring patterns of sea surface temperature distributions in the eastern, tropical Pacific Ocean. The approach to this problem is to use models to make many simulations with sea surface temperature distributions similar to the La Nina conditions of 2011. Simulations were made for times in the 1960s and for the year 2008. The simulations provide an ensemble of many plausible outcomes, and it is possible to investigate the odds of a drought of similar extreme attributes as the 2011 drought occurring in the 1960s. The authors conclude that the warming climate made the 2011 drought 20 times more likely to occur now than in the 1960s. The authors point out that they cannot make statements about absolute probability. That is, they cannot state that in the absence of carbon dioxide increases and associated warming, that the drought would not have occurred.
This approach of using probability to discuss the impact of warming is an active area of research as well as an emerging way to communicate the relation between extreme weather and global warming. In the Washington Post, Jim Hansen has an op-ed piece that describes a paper which was released on Monday, August 6 (reference at end). In this paper Hansen revisits his metaphor that compares extreme weather in a warming climate with playing a dice game with loaded dice. That is, the dice are loaded in a way such that what used to be “extreme” will more likely occur. Going back to the Texas drought, that result mentioned in the previous paragraph says that the dice are loaded so that the extreme attributes of the 2011 drought are 20 times more likely. The takeaway message from Hansen is that we have, so far, underestimated how much the dice are loaded and that we have underestimated the probability of extreme events such as droughts, floods, heat waves, and yes perhaps, persistent cold snaps.
r
Hansen, Early Edition, PNAS, Perception of Climate Change
Hansen, Perception of Climate Change, Public Summary
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 — Blog Index
Beginning with this post from Neapolitan in the other thread:
I thought that this post was fascinating for many reasons.
Neapolitan decided to personally attack me by accusing me of having undeveloped reading comprehension skills, instead of addressing all of the evidence from peer reviewed science that I posted that suggests a strong solar contribution to Stratospheric Cooling. Perhaps Neapolitan in the future should address the science from the peer reviewed papers that I post instead of personally attacking my comprehension skills.
A classy evading technique.
He then goes on to attack Dr. Soon and Dr. Scafetta with no basis at all. I am curious as to what credentials Neapolitan has to evaluate Dr. Soon and Dr. Scafetta's papers and arguments as "illogical and easily dismissed things"
Neapolitan then tries to fool the lay lurkers of this forum by posting Stratospheric Temperatures for the month of June instead of the yearly Stratospheric Temperature anomalies to get the maximum cooling possible during the recent flatline in temperatures since 1995 in the stratosphere. Who did you think you were trying to fool? Note the upper left hand of his first image, the temperature trends he has posted are only for the month of June, and not yearly Stratospheric Temperature trends.
Neapolitan then makes an amazing claim that a peer reviewed paper that I had posted (Liu and Weng 2009) is wrong because when Neapolitan eyeballed a chart (and yes these are actually yearly stratospheric temperature anomalies in his second chart) he thought that it didn't look like as if the stratosphere had stopped cooling and started warming. Unfortunately for him, the scientists who evaluated the temperature trends in the stratosphere using scientific statistical methods come to the conclusion that stratospheric temperatures have increased recently (since about 1995-1996). I trust robust statistical analyses from qualified experts instead of eyeballing a possible trend with no scientific rigor from an amateur.
The paper that the Skeptical Science quote is referring to is Foster and Rahmstorf 2011. What they tried to do is "take out" factors that impact climate and then assume that the trend left must be the anthropogenic trend. They remove Total Solar Irradiance (which comes from PMOD) and Volcanic Eruptions, then assume that the rest is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
Well this paper is not at all robust at all in my opinion, because it oversimplifies the climate system, and does not try and remove other factors that we know impact the climate system (Ozone changes, Land use changes, Ocean changes, and the Indirect forcing from the sun).
Total Solar Irradiance is actually one of the sun's weakest influences on climate, and is widely agreed by everyone that it could not have contributed much to climate change, so therefore an amplifying mechanism is needed. We have observational proof that such an amplifying mechanism actually exists.
The Total forcing observed during a Solar Cycle has been observed to be up to seven times as large than the forcing from Solar Irradiance variations alone (Shaviv 2008) And this has been confirmed by multiple analyses.
According to Marsden and Lingenfelter 2002, Kirkby and Laaksonen 2000 found that the Cosmic Ray/Low Cloud Forcing over a solar cycle was around 1.2 w/m^2. We can see how large this amplifying mechanism is compared to the solar irradiance variations during a Solar Cycle. It is agreed that over the course of a solar cycle, TSI generally fluctuates by around 1 w/m^2. These fluctuations are insolation changes, so to get the true forcing of these TSI variations over the solar cycle, we need to take the Earth's Geometry and albedo into account. When you do so, the TSI forcing is around 0.18 w/m^2. The 1.2 w/m^2 is approximately seven times the TSI forcing, and the total forcing is eight times than what you would expect with the TSI forcing alone, matching the Shaviv analysis perfectly.
Now we can calculate how much Solar Activity has contributed to the recent warming with this amplifying mechanism. First, we need to figure out how much TSI has risen recently. According to Haigh 2003 TSI has risen by around 3-4 w/m^2 since the Maunder Minimum. The Maunder Minimum ended roughly in the beginning of the 18th Century, and the IPCC radiative forcings are since 1750, so we can, roughly, do an accurate comparison between the anthropogenic forcing and the true solar forcing. If we assume that TSI increased 3 w/m^2 since the Maunder Minimum, this would give a forcing of around 0.53 w/m^2 from TSI. Using the amplifying mechanism that was calculated in the previous three papers, we can calculate that the true solar forcing is around 3.71 w/m^2. We get a solar contribution of around 69% to the warming since the Maunder Minimum. Assuming TSI increased 4 w/m^2 since the Maunder Minimum, it would represent a forcing of around 0.7 w/m^2 when accoutning for the Earth's Geometry and albedo. When this is multiplied by the amplifying mechanism, the true solar forcing is 4.9 w/m^2. You then get a solar contribution of 75% since the Maunder Minimum, assuming an irradiance increase of 4 w/m^2 since the Maunder Minimum. If you assume an amplifying mechanism of eight times the TSI value, you get values even higher.
The cause of the amplifying mechanism is probably Cosmic Rays, given the amount of observational evidence that supports the notion that Cosmic Rays play a significant role in the atmospheric parameters and Cloud Formation (Dengel et. al 2009)(Dragic et. al 2011)(Svensmark et. al 2009)(Kniveton and Todd 2001)(Stozhkov et. al 1995)
If Foster and Rahmstorf had adequately evaluated the solar influence to climate change, and treated the climate system as a chaotic non-linear system that has many, many factors influencing Climate Change, their results would have been totally different, as they would have substracted a greater solar forcing from the linear temperature trend, resulting in a smaller temperature trend and a smaller anthropogenic contribution to the warming trend than what they calculated.
Unfortunately for Skeptical Science, according to their own calculations, Hansen overestimated climate sensitivty. According to their own chart, the total radiative forcing was around 0.6-0.7 w/m^2 from anthropogenic sources over the late-20th Century.
According to Skeptical Science, the total forcing roughly fell in between Scenario B and C of Hansen's forecasts. If Dr. Hansen got the sensitivity correct, then we should see temperature values in between Scenario B and C. Unfortunately we do not see that in Skeptical Science's own charts.
Note that temperatures are below Scenario C. Even if we assume that there is no natural contribution to the late-20th Century warming (which is wrong) we would get less of a temperature reponse than what Hansen predicted should have happened to the forcing, thus he has overestimated climate sensitivity. Satellites have measured more incoming solar radiation reaching Earth's studies, which equates to a forcing of around 0.6 w/m^2, which roughly equates to around the same anthropogenic forcing during this period (Pinker et. al 2005). This means that the total forcing is actually closer to around 1.3 w/m^2 than the 0.6-0.7 w/m^2 value that Skeptical Science claims actually happened. So therefore, the true forcing is actually larger than Scenario A, which we are not even close to reaching, thus the climate sensitivity that Dr. Hansen used in his 1988 predictions was grossly overestimated.
If we warm earlier than that (which I highly doubt) then I will convert to a proponent of AGW.
You do know the difference between the net feedback and the lapse rate feedback, right?
03:09 GMT le 08 août 2012
Isn't that what I am supposed to do?
Of course, I was just clarifying for anyone who was confused as to which posts I was quoting Dr. Rood.
Yep.
I've been reading lots of climate science papers for about 10 years now with a view to understanding. You, OTOH, have been reading (OK, probably just copy-pasting from others) for maybe a few months with a view to misunderstanding. Just sayin'.
I really have to admire this passage. It's the utterest gobbledygook I've seen in quite some time.
Well I salute you for doing your own research. I can not say that I have researched this issue for 10 years, but I can certainly say that in the few years that I have begun to research this issue, that I know so much more than when I first started doing my own research in early 2009.
But I do not copy and paste from others, so your claim that I do is simply unsubstantiated.
Why don't you show what you don't like about specific parts of my analysis and the peer reviewed papers that I cited.
It's been over 6 hours since Dr. Rood posted a very lengthy an informative post. He did not do this for his benefit or his ego. He did this to educate us about the complexities and challenges regarding the modelling of climate change.
Meanwhile in the real world, the artic ocean is undergoing an unheard of event with a massive cyclone that will have lasting impacts on global weather events worldwide, for decades to come.
What's happenning on this blog tonight??
Well, SnowBLOWER has been spamming us with insults to the regular posters here, with very suspect claims.
And then our friend CB expects Dr. Rood to magically model the Tunnels, at no cost, without providing detailed proven data. If feasible to produce, the modelling and simulation will cost millions of dollars.
I first would like to say that I appreciate what Dr. Rood posts on this blog and what he has to say.
However, where is your evidence that the abnormally strong area of low pressure in the Arctic will have lasting implications on the weather patterns over the next few decades? Which of my claims are suspect? Where have I insulted anyone?
Start providing a basis for your claims instead of childishly insulting people.
The Arctic ice extent shrinking did not slow down today as I had expected. I do think that tomorrow should have slower shrinking values than today. I will evaluate how that will go tomorrow.
I say the word shrinking instead of melting, because most of the ice loss is coming from compaction, whose impacts I may have underestimated. The Arctic is actually quite cold compared to normal right now.
So why don't you show us where your claims have substantiation and how your claims have substantiation?
For example, how and where are my previous claims suspect?
BoingBoing.net
Our grid is old. The average substation transformer is 42 years old—two years older than the designed lifespan of a substation transformer. For the most part, our grid hasn’t been modernized—it’s largely mechanical equipment operating a digital world, Clark Gellings said. Perhaps most importantly, the grid isn’t being prepared for the future.
”From 1995-2000, the electricity sector put less than ⅓ of 1% of net sales into research and development,” Massoud Amin said. “In the following six years, that number dropped to less than 2/10 of 1%. We are harvesting the existing infrastructure more and investing less and less in the future.”
The frustrating thing is that this isn’t simply a technology problem. It’s also social and political. Just like the national grid is really a patchwork of grids, it’s also a patchwork of regulatory systems. That uncoordinated mixture of regulation and de-regulation often fails to incentivize the investments the grid actually needs. Building transmission lines, for instance, is a job that crosses multiple states. Many of those states aren’t going to get a direct benefit from the line, even if that’s what’s best on the whole. Local regulators may understand that, but when they have to operate in the best interests of their state or county, they might still challenge the line, Gellings said. This is part of why it can take as long as 12 years to get a single new transmission line built. In another example, de-regulation in many states has created a confused system where there are now lots of stakeholders in the electric grid, but nobody has an incentive to think about, or invest in, the long term.
If we want the grid to work as well three decades from now as it does today, we need to put some money into it. Massoud Amin has estimated the cost of grid improvements. To make the grid stronger—adding more high-voltage lines and upgrading the existing ones—he says we need to spend about $8 billion a year for 10 years. To make the grid smarter—digital, centralized, automated, and with the kind of big-picture communication that helps us stop blackouts before they happen—it’ll take an investment of $17-20 billion a year for 20 years.
Of course, scientists understand that the variability in nature prevents a pure 100% probability from ever occurring. Nevertheless, the very words "probability", "variance", and "error" can be seen as detractors from a concise conclusion by those outside of science. Some my friends even like to use the euphemism "statistics lie", when in fact it's not the statistics that lie, but those who misuse it.
I have yet to find a solution to this miscommunication, as the human brain seems wired to perceive absolutes: either you're 100% sure, or you're not. Those wishing for science to be incorrect on a subject will be able to exploit that small percentage of uncertainty by always pointing to it in a debate.
However, I still find that metaphors such as Dr. Hansen's dice explanation as helpful. It might not strike a chord with everyone, but if we keep coming up with useful metaphors, maybe we can reach enough people who can relate to those metaphors. Personally, I still enjoy the "Weather on Steroids" analogy that Dr. Masters and Dr. Broccoli have talked about, and the video by Noah Besser:
Steroids, baseball, and climate change
Yeah, we are at pretty low levels Sea Ice extent wise in the Arctic. A lot of the shrinking now has to do with compaction and not melt. Temperatures are now below normal in the Arctic Basin.
LOL! How can you have compaction in areas where there is no ice?
Also what about all that missing MASS. Doesn't that make you mad that we are missing so much snow and ice that you love so much?
I actually read one of those dreaded book length notes you write so well and so often too. Every cut and past and link. The subject was stratospheric heating/cooling and solar input. The last article came right out at the end and said that it wasn't solar forcing; the previous was the German guy that caught the inferences of the JPL group(the subject of the above is including chlorine chemistry in ozone cycles).
Then you went on about what a well meaning ready to learn guy you are and that in 15 years or so you might change your position. No hind-casting in complexity for you! At which time you will have wasted too much of too many peoples precious time. For all your fancy cut and paste seeming manners, I think you are just an intellectual filibusterer.
It really is epic, isn't it?
Because it has already been done in the peer-reviewed literature in many cases, Snowlover. The rest are largely ignored by serious scientists, and so, need not be addressed at all on this blog.
In post number four of this thread I see that Hansen's projections are measured against something called "Solheim Temperature." What is "Solheim Temperature?"
I also notice that failing to answer pertinent questions is fairly common among denialists.
I actually read one of those dreaded book length notes you write so well and so often too. Every cut and past and link. The subject was stratospheric heating/cooling and solar input. The last article came right out at the end and said that it wasn't solar forcing; the previous was the German guy that caught the inferences of the JPL group(the subject of the above is including chlorine chemistry in ozone cycles).
Then you went on about what a well meaning ready to learn guy you are and that in 15 years or so you might change your position. No hind-casting in complexity for you! At which time you will have wasted too much of too many peoples precious time. For all your fancy cut and paste seeming manners, I think you are just an intellectual filibusterer.
I actually read one of those dreaded book length notes you write so well and so often too. Every cut and past and link. The subject was stratospheric heating/cooling and solar input. The last article came right out at the end and said that it wasn't solar forcing; the previous was the German guy that caught the inferences of the JPL group(the subject of the above is including chlorine chemistry in ozone cycles).
Then you went on about what a well meaning ready to learn guy you are and that in 15 years or so you might change your position. No hind-casting in complexity for you! At which time you will have wasted too much of too many peoples precious time. For all your fancy cut and paste seeming manners, I think you are just an intellectual filibusterer.
1) First, I didn't "attack" you. Or to put it another way, if I did attack you, it was only in direct response to your own remarks ("Dr. Scafetta and Dr. Soon are not correct because you say so" and "Your second post is just simply ridiculous, so I won't even address that in great detail at all".) Such tactics are typical of denialists, of course; they lob grenades, and then clutch their pearls and pretend indignant confusion when those grenades are lobbed back at them. "Oh, dear, what ever did I do to deserve that?" But you already know that, don't you?
2) Yes, I posted a graph with June stratospheric temps, because that was the most recent one in the dataset. I could have chosen any other month, however, or any combination of months, and the results are the same. Feel free to run your own charts. Then be prepared to accept and acknowledge this truth: the stratosphere is not warming. Not in June, nor in any month, nor in any region, nor in any data set. There may be month to month or even year to year upward spikes, but it's the heart of cherry-picking to arbitrarily choose a low month followed by a higher month, then proclaim, "See?! It's warming!" But you know that, too, don't you? Anyway, knock yourself out here. Now, I'm sure if you look long and hard enough, you'll be able to manufacture a chart that shows a short-term (monthly or yearly) upward trend. Latch onto that as your "proof" of a warming stratosphere if you'd like. But if you try to come here and show it around, be prepared to defend it vigorously, for it will be challenged vigorously. (And this reminder again: a slowdown in cooling is not warming.)
3) You've inquired sarcastically about my "credentials" to "attack" Soon and Scaffeta (and there's that word again. I do not think it means what you think it means. Pointing out that a particular person who is looked upon as an expert has been discredited isn't an attack. It happens every day in courtrooms all over the world). Well, here are my credentials: a) I can read, and b) I have an IQ above 70. One doesn't need more than that to see how wrong these gentlemen are--and that's without even taking into consideration the buckets opf cash they've taken from Big Oil and Big Coal. If you'd like, I can copy and paste 100,000 words about each of your heroes and the numerous and varied ethical, judgemental, and scientific errors they've made, but that would just be scratching the surface. Besides, your blinders would prevent you from seeing the truth anyway.
Anyway, I can see you're becoming very agitated, throwing around ad hominems with greater and greater frequency ("fool", "amateur", etc.). Since I don't like watching anyone melt down, I'll leave you be. But if you bring back proof that the stratosphere is warming, or that GW stopped in 1998, or that GHGs aren't the cause of the warming, I'll jump back in.
Me thinks Snowlover123 is Joe Bastardi........
Snow is, of course, fairly uncommon in the area, though it is far from unheard of, falling on average about every eight years or so.
Where is your proof that "Snowlover is Joe Bastardi?" Or are these once again more unfounded assumptions?
Yeah, it is uncommon in the area, the overall synoptic set up in the upper atmosphere is highly unusual in Southern Africa, there are negative 5 standard deviation 500 mb height anomalies in Southern Africa right now.
Birthmark,
A few things you need to know.
I am not a "denialist" because I did not answer your questions. If you look above to my previous posts, you will see that I wrote extensive amounts of information. That took about three hours in total to write.
I should have wrote that I will soon reply to your questions, but I did not have enough time to, as it was close to 10:30 pm when I finished up my last long reply.
3rd place since 1979.
5th place since 1979.
I'm very sorry that you had to take so many hours to write up your side of the issue, staying up until 10:30 at night, only to have your opinion rejected by so many. We know how frustrating it can be.
Scientists at work in their labs are known to stay up all night, several nights a month, monitoring vital lab analyses or model compilations, returning home only after sunrise. Many of these same scientists spend months to years writing journal papers or theses based on those analyses, only to have them rejected multiple times by a committee of their peers who request revisions or re-writes.
Fortunately for all of us, this is the life of a scientist. It creates a better product in the end, free of substantive errors in the science, and a sound building block for another scientist to build their work upon.
Perhaps you should learn from their example.
All of the papers that I have looked at are published in peer-reviewed and credible journals. I have no idea how many papers support the AGW hypothesis verses how many support the solar hypothesis, simply put, there are a lot on both sides. However, I noticed that with the Solar side there are more papers that focus on observational evidence rather than numerical modelling. The numerical modelling can easily be falisified by observational evidence, and we have direct evidence that the models are less than adequate for many climatic parameters. (Probst et. al 2012) (Douglass et. al 2007)(Anagnostopoulos et. al 2010)(Christy et. al 2010)(Govindan et. al 2002)
And if there is an insensitive climate system, that does not invalidate paleoclimate in any way. We have no idea how strong the forcings were that caused the temperature changes in the past. We have no idea what forcings even caused temperature changes in the past, however, we are starting to get a good idea that it was driven by Solar Activity, while being amplified by a variety of mechanisms, like the Cosmic Ray mechanism. (Christl et. al 2004)(Marchitto et. al 2010)(Zhao et. al 2009)(Tan et. al 2011)(Shaviv and Veizer 2003) Such a mechanism would strongly suggest an insensitive climate system, and not a sensitive one.
Actually, contrarily, the overwhelming observational evidence is supporting the solar hypothesis than the AGW hypothesis. The numerical modelling may support the AGW Hypothesis, but those have shown to have several notable flaws which is shown in several papers that I linked you up above.
The halt in the warming recently is now a basic fact in Climate Science. The fact that you do not want to accept it, I am sorry to say, indicates denial.
I picked an 11 year period to illustrate this halt in the warming. I started in 1990, which was a neutral ENSO year, which ended in 2001 which was a Nina. I then started 2001 which was a Nina and ended it in 2012 which was largely a Nina year (though starting to transition to a Nino in the Tropical Pacific). (CPC) If the trend is the same, and there is no halt in the warming, we should actually see a smaller trend in the 1990-2001 dataset, since I started on a neutral ENSO year instead of a Nina ENSO year. We don't observe that at all.
Here is the WTI.
Here is HadCruT3
Here is RSS.
Hansen made "scenarios" for the future. We have fallen a little bit below Scenario A in terms of the total forcing (natural and anthropogenic) impacting the climate system, and yet the temperature response is below Scenario C.
Something isn't adding up. It seems as if he has grossly overestimated climate sensitivity.
Dessler acknowledging strong negative feedbacks have dominated the climate system from 2000-2010 creating a halt in the warming would surprise anyone who has followed Climate Change for a while, considering that he has previously stated that he agrees with future warming estimates (from positive feedbacks) to be 2.5-4 Degrees C. (Source)
Here is HadCruT3
Neapolitan still has not addressed any of the evidence that supports a significant solar contribution to stratospheric cooling. Readers should take note of this.
1) He claims that saying that someone's reading comprehension skills are poor is not a personal attack. Perhaps he should say that to someone in real life, and see what their reaction is. Trust me, Neapolitan, it won't be a very nice reaction at all. Saying that your post was ridiculous is not directly attacking you. It is addressing that your point was ridiculous.
Also note that Neapolitan, in his third reply to me, has still not provided any scientific evidence that Dr. Scafetta and Dr. Soon's papers and argumetns are "illogical and easily dismissed things."
Instead, he resorts to a red herring by saying that " {He} can read, and b) {He has} an IQ above 70." He then resorts to the Big Oil Conspiracy again, which is one of the least scientific arguments one can possibly argue on a science forum. They must be being paid by big oil, so they must be wrong!
2) If you posted a chart for June Stratospheric Temperatures, you should have said so. If you knowingly posted a chart for only one month without saying it, you are being very intellectually dishonest. In addition, your link does not work. The overall yearly (not one-monthly) trend in stratospheric temperatures since 1995-1996 is upward, and this trend has been verified to be a statistically significant change in the stratospheric temperature trend and sign.
3) The big oil conspiracy is simply ridiculous.
And calling you an amateur is a personal attack? Are you not an amateur? I am also an amateur, but I do not get offended because of the fact that I am an amateur. Perhaps you should look at the definition of a personal, or ad-hominem attack, as you seem to be severely confused on what it actually means.
I do not cut and paste from anyone. Prove it, instead of throwing out baseless conjectures.
Thanks.
For what it's worth, I've visited your infrequently updated blog (on blogspot), and it's very evident that you've gone all-in on the discredited and nonsenical Willie Soon solar hypothesis, with a side order of "it's the clouds". It's also very evident that you have much knowledge--erronous though much of it may be--and a writing style that's generally reader friendly. But anyone with their own modicum of knowledge about current climate science can read what you've written both there and here and recognize that you've carefully cherry-picked certain phrases from certain papers in an attempt to validate your point. But that's not honest, my friend. Not at all. This will have to be my last response to you; I have a lot of irons in the fire, so I just can't afford to waste any further time talking to someone who is intellectaully dishonest, and continues to promulgate deception, whether intentinally or not. It's unbecoming of someone as intelligent as you seem to be.
co2now.org
394.49ppm
Atmospheric CO2 for July 2012
Let's have a little review of current events, shall we Snow?
On 8/6/12, comment #297 you stated "Certainly the halt in the warming over the last 10-15 years does not bode well for CAGW at all, ...."
You apparently accept that you misspoke? The Foster and Rahmstorf paper is in your face and you are discussing it, acknowledging the non-halting of warming over the last 15 years.
Now you're trying to minimize at least GHG, if not human cause. Trying to turn CAGW to CaGW?
Ozone changes, land use changes - those are us.
--
As for cosmic rays causing the warming that you said wasn't happening, let me give you the Skeptical Science opening paragraphs on that topic...
Cosmic rays may play a part in helping form clouds. If this is the case, increased cosmic rays would lead to more cloud cover, resulting in a cooling effect.
Conversely, decreased cosmic rays would warm the earth.
To calculate the maximum possible role of cosmic rays in recent warming, global temperatures were compared to cosmic radiation levels measured by neutron monitors at the Earth's surface. While there was good correlation between cosmic radiation and temperature prior to 1970, the correlation breaks down sharply after 1970.
The analysis concludes that "between 1970 and 1985 the cosmic ray flux, although still behaving similarly to the temperature, in fact lags it and cannot be the cause of its rise. Thus changes in the cosmic ray flux cannot be responsible for more than 15% of the temperature increase" (Krivova 2003).
Why don't you give their site a good read on that topic and if you think they've got it wrong then take it up with people who are very knowledgeable in that sub-field? Link
--
BTW, that cold spell in the Arctic that had you all aflutter is bashing the crap out of the sea ice.
We won't likely have a good idea of the extent for a few more days when things settle down enough for accurate measurements, but if present measurements are close to accurate the Arctic will have taken a major hit.
All of the papers that I have looked at are published in peer-reviewed and credible journals.
One question, Snowlover.
How did you find those papers, through a legitimate literature search or via web sites?
Viewing: 1 - 51
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 — Blog Index