tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post704662321851102680..comments2024-02-10T20:36:43.004+11:00Comments on Duae Quartunciae: The APS and global warming: What were they thinking?sylashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10594421176931832170noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-66011646921316026802022-08-26T00:20:38.124+10:002022-08-26T00:20:38.124+10:00ل سئمت من مشاكل تسريب المياه في منزلك الان يمكنك ح...<br />ل سئمت من مشاكل تسريب المياه في منزلك الان يمكنك حل هذه المشكل بكل سهولة من خلال شركة ركن كلين لكشف تسربات المياه فى الرياض، حيث تقدم لكم الشركة افضل الحلول لكشف تسرب المياة بأفضل التكنولوجيا الحديثة دون الحاجة الى التكسير حيث اننا من افضل الشركات المتخصصة فى كشف تسرب الماء , لدينا افضل طاقم عمل مدرب على اجهزة الكشف واكتشاف المشاكل واصلاحها.<a href="https://www.nileriyadh.com/%d8%a7%d8%b1%d8%ae%d8%b5-%d8%b4%d8%b1%d9%83%d8%a9-%d9%83%d8%b4%d9%81-%d8%aa%d8%b3%d8%b1%d8%a8%d8%a7%d8%aa-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%85%d9%8a%d8%a7%d9%87-%d8%a8%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b1%d9%8a%d8%a7%d8%b6/" rel="nofollow">ارخص شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالرياض</a><br /><a href="https://www.nileriyadh.com/%d8%b4%d8%b1%d9%83%d8%a9-%d9%83%d8%b4%d9%81-%d8%aa%d8%b3%d8%b1%d8%a8%d8%a7%d8%aa-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%85%d9%8a%d8%a7%d9%87-%d8%a8%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%ae%d8%b1%d8%ac/" rel="nofollow">شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالخرج </a><br /><br />فاعندما يتم الكشف عن التسرب فى هذه الحالة تحتج الى شركة عزل اقدم اليكم خدمتنا فى العزل <br /><a href="https://www.nileriyadh.com/%d8%b4%d8%b1%d9%83%d8%a9-%d8%b9%d8%b2%d9%84-%d8%ae%d8%b2%d8%a7%d9%86%d8%a7%d8%aa-%d8%a8%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b1%d9%8a%d8%a7%d8%b6/" rel="nofollow">شركة عزل خزانات بالرياض</a><br />آدمhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16541591855705605146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-82097348627663108912016-09-14T18:17:33.677+10:002016-09-14T18:17:33.677+10:00Still getting lots of idiotic spam pretending to l...Still getting lots of idiotic spam pretending to like this site, but linking to some other page they want to promote. It's dishonest. Stop it.sylashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10594421176931832170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-66776331690642670742013-08-09T23:49:44.181+10:002013-08-09T23:49:44.181+10:00This is an old article. Posts that say something c...This is an old article. Posts that say something complimentary but non-specific, and include some random link, are deemed to be attempts at spam; and deleted without my even looking at the link.sylashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10594421176931832170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-29162370463425152202010-03-24T20:26:13.262+11:002010-03-24T20:26:13.262+11:00Thank you... I do plan to update it very soon!Thank you... I do plan to update it very soon!sylashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10594421176931832170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-66626217310883232452008-12-25T03:53:00.000+11:002008-12-25T03:53:00.000+11:00Saturn:You call this dropping sea levels?Saturn:<BR/><BR/>You call <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/how_would_you_describe_this_gr.php" REL="nofollow">this</A> dropping sea levels?Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-82823370987913963792008-11-30T10:44:00.000+11:002008-11-30T10:44:00.000+11:00Duae, considering the current extending temperatur...Duae, considering the current extending temperature cold around the world, massive growing ice sheets at the north and south pole, dropping sea levels and the clear association with the negative PDO can you seriously still believe that CO2 is a significant effect on global temperatures?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07258211248756033148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-20455436806873126682008-11-30T10:04:00.000+11:002008-11-30T10:04:00.000+11:00Buried at the bottom of a looong comment thread, t...Buried at the bottom of a looong comment thread, tag: http://thinkingforfree.blogspot.com/2008/11/like-you-all-care.htmlEamon Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262012749524758120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-80156373305989045652008-08-13T09:46:00.000+10:002008-08-13T09:46:00.000+10:00Saturn says: "This is not the data I've seen befor...<B>Saturn says: <I>"This is not the data I've seen before."</I></B><BR/><BR/>Yes, it is. It is the same data you cited in your link to a graph, and it gives the same numbers you have been using to make basic errors in trend estimates.<BR/><BR/><B>Saturn says: <I>"Amazingly some of the data sets seem to show almost all the increase in temperature occurring during the later half of the century and some show a more balanced trend. It is very disturbing how little surety we have about temperature data over such recent periods of time and that the proxies are so different."</I></B><BR/><BR/>There's nothing "amazing" about different values in North or South hemispheres, or in different countries. The page lets you look at those. You are also misusing the word "proxy". This data is not proxy; the data on that page is direct measurement, and with good accuracy. You are just being silly now.<BR/><BR/>The remainder of your comment is mostly a perspective on the basic work of science in sorting through all the different available data on different aspects of climate, in the same way as is done for real world measurements in any area of science.<BR/><BR/>I think I've explained enough already above about the particular issues of Argos floats, and radiosondes, and satellites, and so on, to give a good idea of how it all works, and I'm content to let my earlier comments stand as given. In my view, Saturn's comment above simply shows he has no experience or understanding of measurement as used throughout science, and certainly no comprehension at all of how a time series of data can show both trends and natural variation at the same time, or how you treat it mathematically. Saturn, on the other hand, apparently thinks I'm just picking and choosing in some way. I'm happy for our two views to stand side by side.<BR/><BR/><B>Saturn says: <I>"Do you believe in the little ice age, Duae? If so, how do you explain getting out of it and the warming over the last 300 years without SUVs?"</I></B><BR/><BR/>Available data shows a small drop in global temperatures, and my guess is that solar variation has a part in moving into, and out of, that dip. It lines up roughly with an inferred drop in solar activity obtained independently.<BR/><BR/>The data also shows different patterns in different parts of the planet, in the past just as in the present. The little ice age period shows some strong drops in the North Atlantic region, but only small drops in the Southern Hemisphere, sometimes not apparent at all above normal variations. Hence I also find persuasive the argument that the NOA (North Atlantic Oscillation) is involved, or other such effects with a strong regional component. Note that these two factors might even be linked. A change in a global input can give a slight direct effect over the whole globe, which in turn can trigger local shifts like the NOA with larger regional differences.<BR/><BR/>As far as basic physics and thermodynamics goes, the "little ice age" does not have anything like as plain a cause as the much larger global changes now going on right now and which we can measure far more directly.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the exchange.sylashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10594421176931832170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-60588187590537640652008-08-13T03:16:00.000+10:002008-08-13T03:16:00.000+10:00> Well, that sure is the GHCN-ERSST dataset. Th...> Well, that sure is the GHCN-ERSST dataset. Thanks. I strongly recommend you go to this link, which I have given previously as well. It will let you make your own plots, look at trends, and also download the numbers. <BR/><BR/>Duae. This is not the data I've seen before. But using your site and depending on the data set you choose and the exact time periods you can get anywhere from 0.02 or -0.01 all the way up to 0.32 rate of increase for this 10 year period between 1999 and 2008. Of course different time periods get even greater variability. Amazingly some of the data sets seem to show almost all the increase in temperature occurring during the later half of the century and some show a more balanced trend. It is very disturbing how little surety we have about temperature data over such recent periods of time and that the proxies are so different.<BR/><BR/>Even for the period since 1979 and the emergence of satellites there seems to be people who continue to discredit one proxy or another. Scientists who love high sensitivity seem to prefer land site data instead of satellite data. However, when it comes to measuring the troposphere they prefer indirect proxies rather than the equivalent of land data (the balloons). When it comes to the ocean there seems to be a lot of second guessing of the robotic diving probes in the ARGO network we spent so much time and money building and deploying. I thought these were amazing and would settle the debate. Instead when the results came in that the oceans were cooling the HS (high sensitivity) pro-AGW folks were ready with reasons to discount the data again!!! Everywhere we look one group or another is discrediting the data of one source or another. It's amazing actually. The issue of heat islands is still huge and nobody seems to agree if it is accounted for or not. The lack of data and consistency of the data for even the most recent time periods is amazing! <BR/><BR/>Believe it or not this actually INCREASES my skepticism. The curves variabilities are huge and can occur over shorter or even longer time periods. The amount of the curve varies dramatically on the proxy chosen. This leads me to believe we actually don't know anything and makes me less likely to grip onto the most rapidly changing curves in either direction, predict that will continue for 100 years and say the world is doomed!!!! I understand you believe there is science to back it up but it is very incomplete science. The only way your science "works" is if you get to pick the data sets, the time periods and pick which effects you want to count and which you will ignore or discount. The same could be said of the opposition but this simply tells me no-one knows. That is my position. No one knows. It's not proven. It can't be because nobody can even agree on the data and proxies let alone all the interactions.<BR/><BR/>When we get to the longer time periods there is debate that seems crazy. We know that Greenland was populated and that it was much warmer than today. It is extremely unlikely that Greenland was 10 degrees warmer for 300 years without the rest of the earth participating in this yet many "scientists" continue to insist the MWP didn't exist around the world EVEN when data is shown that confirms other areas saw warmth and even considering how unlikely the effect would be local. Can anyone name another place on the globe that has experienced much hotter than normal temperatures for hundreds of years while the rest of the planet was cool? Yet HS enthusiasts continue to discredit the MWP because they can't explain it. Yet they can't explain a massively hotter isolated Greenland for 300 years either. <BR/><BR/>It's quite apparent to me we've had 10 years of no temperature increases. Up until the last 18 months temperatures have remained higher than last century on average but this is simply the nature of an upward slope and the mathematical truism that data near any point on the slope tends to close to that slope. In the last 18 months temperatures have plunged to the point of almost erasing the entire 20th century rise. Sea levels are falling for 2 years now, Kilimanjaros cap is bigger than in 40 years. Did you know that in the US the decade with the most "high temperature records" is not the 1990s but the 1930s! It's not even clear if temperatures are actually warmer than in 1930s. There are written accounts of people traversing the open north pole sea lanes in the 1930s. It is simply not clear at all that the current temperature is particularly high, is continuing to move higher or is going to sustain and this is in spite of the fact that CO2 production is well above anybodies wildest predictions.<BR/><BR/>You have decided to focus on a trend from 1979. A trend which I say is highly cherry picked since it corresponds too closely to the +side of the PDO and AMO phenomenon. This has created a huge bias in the trends in favor of faster warming. If you remove PDO and AMO somehow from the temperature record of 1979-now then it would be interesting to see what residual CO2 heat remained. I understand how you can get a curve that you can extrapolate 2-3 degrees in the next century if you assume PDO and AMO don't contribute and that we don't get more pauses or temperature declines in the next 100 years. If you remove the El Ninos in the 80s and 90s I think you would find the trend much less and if you were to put in more La Ninas as we would expect with a -PDO you might find the entire 1979-1999 period is flat or down!!! <BR/><BR/>In any case... I might even have fallen for it for longer had it not been that we've had no temperature increase for 10 years and even more damning the recent plunge in temperatures, the lack of solid data on the land, in the water or troposphere and the constant fighting over the proxies and lack of clarity over temperature even recently let alone over the last 100 or 1000 years. All of this debate makes me believe the theory is not proven and makes HS unlikely.<BR/><BR/>The mere fact that HS (high sensitivity) proponents are needing to attack the ARGO data and that only recently 2 papers were able to explain partially the lack of tropospheric warming, the denialist attitude towards the recent 10 year (likely 15 or 20) haitus leads me to believe LESS in the theory of HS. Like I've said I am perfectly happy to continue to believe in CO2 being a greenhouse gas that will increase the amount of retained heat but now I'm beginning to realize how that heat can be thrown away in no time at all by an ocean upwelling here or a slightly bigger ozone hole there or movement of energy from one place to another or by a little pollution or by forces we don't understand yet that end little ice ages and cause MWPs. I believe the prudent thing to say is that it is likely the temperature change in the 21st century will be slightly more than the 20th century and 19th centuries and 18th centuries ... probably about 1.2 degrees instead of the 0.7 degrees in those previous centuries (assuming we believe any of the proxies for those times or that you believe in a little ice age.)<BR/><BR/>Do you believe in the little ice age, Duae? If so, how do you explain getting out of it and the warming over the last 300 years without SUVs?<BR/><BR/>I simply don't believe the trend from 1979-1998 is sustainable or believable. In fact as you point out it isn't sustained. Even using your proxies the trend in the last 10 years is almost 0. You simply can't get to 2-3 degrees with unexplained 20 year pauses. This will simply be a repeat of the last 3 centuries if that happens and frankly we are in the middle of a 20 year pause most likely which looks suspiciously just like a -PDO period like we've had last century between 1945-1975. I believe the germans that the lack of ocean heat is going to give us a cool 10 more years. If the PDO and AMO cycles persist then it is likely we will have another pause later in the century in another 50 years or so which will give us another 20-30 years of down temperatures and if we get these then the probability of a HS rise seems low. (Let me be a little understated to get the point across gently.)<BR/><BR/>I also believe that other factors are affecting temperatures that we don't even understand. The idea that the overall trend can somehow be calculated while individual decades can go one way or another is not compelling. There is large uncertainty in the heat of the system and how long it needs to persist that makes such calculations suspect. The amount of heat added by CO2 is miniscule and you depend on H2O and other "feedbacks" to get 2/3 of the heat you estimate for the next century to get high sensitivity. These assumptions are vastly more unproven than even the CO2 forcing. Even if we assume all that it appears that upwelling of cool ocean water or that somehow energy can leak from the system in unknown ways puts large uncertainty on when the extra heat from CO2 will be manifest or if it will ever be manifest. <BR/><BR/>From a political point of view if you can't show that the temperature is going up 2 or 3 degrees by 2100 then the political argument is lost. If we have 2 or 3 centuries to deal with 2 or 3 degrees then the problem doesn't exist. It is necessary for you to have high sensitivity. It is necessary for you to have this temperature rise be dramatic and occur soon not 300 years from now. It is neccessary for the temperature rise to be damaging to life. It is neccessary that you have some way to mitigate the rise in CO2 that is less painful and costly than simply living with the high temperatures that might or might not happen. <BR/><BR/>So, to me the case is not proven.<BR/><BR/><BR/>It is so obvious, Duae that we have a theory of CO2 affecting climate but we are far from understanding how it will affect the climate. It seems ridiculous to me for scientists to say they know how this works to such precision. It seems obvious to me that scientists who say that are only saying it because they have a financial reason to say so (grants, financial investments in companies related to AGW) or they have a political position to stake out NOT because the science is proven.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07258211248756033148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-68320175784717737642008-08-13T02:10:00.000+10:002008-08-13T02:10:00.000+10:00Hey Skut;I'd never heard of "Iron fertilization", ...Hey Skut;<BR/><BR/>I'd never heard of "Iron fertilization", so I had to look it up. So I'm not speaking with any knowledge.<BR/><BR/>My own personal inclinations are that we should be really <I>really</I> cautious about deliberately engineering whole-planet environment to suit. Since we are so finely adapted to the prevailing environment, unintended consequences are far more likely to be negative than positive; and unintended consequences are almost inevitable. It's a policy of desperation, I think. And I'm not despairing. I think there are ways to moderate our impact, and which don't involve wrecking the economy. But that's another topic. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, you've skewered me neatly; because in fact I don't know much about it; and a rational skepticism should allow that it might be a great idea. So yes, I think it is worth a look.<BR/><BR/>In my view, regardless of any other approaches we might try, we should still take the foot off the accelerator, and reduce our pressure on the environment. Nudging things back might be worthwhile, and so some study of this would be reasonable; but rushing to deliberately add another new major human impact with an equal but opposite magnitude scares the hell out of me.<BR/><BR/>The term "pro-warming" is odd, though I guess you mean the people who recognize that warming is real. But surely that includes the people who are proposing and experimenting with iron fertilization? So yes, it gets serious consideration from the "pro-warming camp". The "pro-warming camp", or better "recognize-AGW camp", includes the vast majority of working scientists, so pretty much any group of scientists looking into the subject will include plenty of the "recognize-AGW" camp.sylashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10594421176931832170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-29371161054130803932008-08-12T21:43:00.000+10:002008-08-12T21:43:00.000+10:00Hi Duae,I'm enjoying reading the ongoing debate be...Hi Duae,<BR/><BR/>I'm enjoying reading the ongoing debate between you and Saturn. I am still a skeptic but it is very informative reading arguments from both sides of the debate. The resepct from each side for the other is also very heartening. Freeman Dyson recently called the debate between the climate skeptics and the mainstream a "dialogue of the deaf" which, in all many cases, is too true. We will never advance the science if that situation continues, so in that respect your forum offers a ray of hope - well done to both you and Saturn.<BR/><BR/>I'd like to throw a bit of a tangent into the debate. If it's outside the scope of your forum, let me know. However it strikes me that, if we assume for the purposes of this post that something is happening warming-wise, then the methods currently being proposed for dealing with it - limiting carbon emissions - will be hopelessly doomed to fail. The economnic incentives simply aren't there, particularly when it is in each separate nation's economic interest to force others to limit their emissions whilst doing nothing about its own. <BR/><BR/>It strikes me that, if warming is happening, then iron fertilisation of the oceans would actually promise to have a tangible effect on CO2 levels. It's at least worth some further research. My main reason for thinking this is the Keeling Curve - the yearly oscillations, particularly the northern summer CO2 reduction, show that despite all our industrial and other activity, the biosphere (speifically plants) are capable of sequestering enough CO2 to cause a fall in atmospheric CO2 concentration. If this effect could be replicated by stimulating oceanic phytoplankton growth, which then sequesters (at least a proportion of) the CO2 on a long-term basis (via the biological pump), then CO2 concentrations could actually be reduced (not merely limited as in the presently proposed schemes).<BR/><BR/>Now I realise a lot of nay-sayers jump up and down about the effect on marine ecosystems, but it strikes me that some of these effects may actually be positive and, in any case, if warming continues, then the effects on the marine biosphere are going to be drastic in any case. Besides, some believe that changing human land use practices and the consequent reduction in dust being blown from land to sea (and stimulating phytoplankton blooms) has actually reduced phytoplankton levels over the past 50 years or so; therefore iron fertilisation would - at least to an extent - simply be redressing the balance. <BR/><BR/>So my question is: do you know whether or not the pro-warming camp given any serious consideration to iron fertilisation that you are aware of? If not, surely it's worth a look?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-22762662382851103932008-08-12T14:50:00.000+10:002008-08-12T14:50:00.000+10:00I've rearranged the order of these replies to suit...I've rearranged the order of these replies to suit my order of response. Saturn's comment was ordered differently.<BR/><BR/><B>(1) Saturn says: <I>" The data I use is: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif which is jan-dec data. I don't need to download data to see directly from the chart the temperature anomaly in 1941 is >0.1 and the temperature anomaly in 2008 is <0.6 closer to 0.4 difference so I can't imagine how you get 0.7 degree in that timeperiod unless you are doing some rolling average or something. The fact is as everyone knows the entire increase in the 20th century is 0.7 degree and it wasn't all concentrated in 1941-2008 so you are wrong. The slope in that period is closer to 0.0045/year not 0.009."</I></B><BR/><BR/>Well, that sure is the GHCN-ERSST dataset. Thanks. I strongly recommend you go to <A HREF="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/index.jsp" REL="nofollow">this link</A>, which I have given previously as well. It will let you make your own plots, look at trends, and also download the numbers. There's one point to beware. The numbers are given as "anomalies", or temperature differences; and your graph is aligned slightly differently. When you download the data, you'll find the numbers are all about 0.08 less than on your graph. It simply to do with whether data is aligned to a 1901-2000 baseline, or a 1961-1990 baseline. All the slopes and differences are unaffected. When exploring, make sure you use Jan and Dec and the start and end month, and that you use GHCN-ERSST, not the other sets.<BR/><BR/>There's no 2008 there yet; the last year in that series is 2007. Here are the last ten values, which are from 1998 to 2007, as they appear in the graph you've linked.<BR/>0.57, 0.38, 0.35, 0.48, 0.55, 0.55, 0.52, 0.59, 0.53, 0.54<BR/>The largest temperature there is for 2005. 2005 was the hottest year ever; but so close to 1998 as to make the difference insignificant. 2007 is only 0.03 degrees less than 1998; but everything less than 0.5 is over earlier in the series. This is an exceptionally clear case of an increasing series, with one high value at the start, followed by the three lowest values. Overall, that's a strong upward trend, as there is more weight to the right than to the left.<BR/><BR/>Draw it for yourself on a bit of graph paper where you don't have the blue smoothing line or error bars, and see how it looks; or try a plot with the advanced page. It will tell you that the slope is warming for 0.11 C/decade, but with low significance. (To make matters worse, there's a bug in their calculation of the slope. It's really 0.13. Caveat Emptor.)<BR/><BR/><B>(2) How to calculate a trend. Saturn says: "<I>I believe you're looking at 20 year running averages or something. I'm looking at absolute peak temperature of 1941 compared to 2008. It's about 0.4 degree difference.</I>"</B><BR/><BR/>The method I am using is called linear regression. This is a basic tool for calculating slopes in data, and you'll find it used pretty much everywhere in science or statistics. What you are doing is not merely a different technique. It's essentially meaningless.<BR/><BR/>The correct method is to fit a straight line to be as close as possible to all your data points., and check the slope of the line. If you don't know what I am talking about, then most of my previous comment must have been pretty hard to follow! Sorry. There are lots of tutorials about this if you want to look it up. Linear regression. I recommend it.<BR/><BR/>For example, the slope from 1941 to 2007 is most definitely 0.081 C/decade, in this data set. Just look to see where the line of best fit should fall; it should be intuitively obvious from the shape of the curve that it will pass well under the 1941 high point, but rather closer the 2007 end point. Hence the best fit line is a bit steeper than a line between end points.<BR/><BR/><B>(3) Saturn says: <I>"0.08*70 = 0.56 ... the entire period of 1900-2008 has only 0.7 increase yet we know the period 1900-1941 went up 0.4 degrees so there is seriously wrong with your arithmetic because 0.4+0.56 != 0.7. The fact is as I pointed out the period 1900-1941 had a FASTER acceleration of temperature than the period 1941-2008 which is the period of rapid CO2 production. That seems odd."</I></B><BR/><BR/>You've chosen a high point to start from, so of course the line of best fit is going to pass below your start point, which means the 0.4 end to end rise is expected to be less than the rising trend. And so it is. Comically, if you insist on using the end to end method you'll find the rise from 1900 to 1941 is 0.17; not 0.4.<BR/><BR/>It's very easy to fool yourself by playing games with your eyes and picking out convenient years to prove anything you like. A disciplined use of basic statistical methods will help avoid the pitfalls. It's also essential if you want to be taken seriously by working scientists. None of this is specific to global warming; its basic maths used the same way right across every field of science.<BR/><BR/>To find a trend over a long series of data, use regression. There are also statistics to check how good a fit you have. To compare the start and end, without caring about the middle, then you should take some kind of average at each end point, to avoid problems with outliers and noise, and take a difference between those.<BR/><BR/>Using averages over a decade, GHCN-ERSTT rises by about 0.3 from the 1900-1909 decade through to 1940-1949, and then by about 0.45 to 1998-2007; for a rise of 0.75 in total. The trend, on the other hand, is about 0.063 C/decade.<BR/><BR/>The causes of change are, of course, not limited to CO2. Over the first half of the century, the solar constant increased by about 0.8 W/m^2. (From a standard data series by Lean, 2000). I won't go through all the numbers, but basically that should be expected to account for about 0.1C, leaving 0.2C for other forcings. Could be more or less, depending on climate sensitivity, which is not well known. But if ridiculously low sensitivies are chosen, then we have a problem, because it would mean that the solar 0.1C drops below 0.05C; and leaving 0.25C for other forcings, which also need to be stronger to overcome the insensitivity.<BR/><BR/>In the latter half of the century, the Sun has held much steadier. With realistic notions of climate sensitivity, the other forcings… mostly greenhouse… have to explain 0.2C prior to the 1940s, and 0.45C afterwards. Not so odd after all.<BR/><BR/><B>(4) Saturn says: <I>"In order for us to get the 2-4.5 or 3 degree temperature rise you predict and Hansen and Gore ... requires a slope of at least 0.45 /decade or 5 times the period of 1941-2008 you stipulate."</I></B><BR/><BR/>To pick a nit… I don't predict. I sometimes calculate consequences of certain assumptions; those are called projections. But there is still a heap of scope for choices than will make a difference, and I don't predict those. There are also large uncertainties, so all my calculations for possible alternatives in the future usually have some range of possibilities, not definite predictions. Just a clarification on my approach.<BR/><BR/>IPCC 4AR projections are sometimes given wrt 1980-1999; so we've already got nearly 0.3C. 2.7C more, and that is a 3C rise. To get 2.7 degrees from now to the end of this century requires about 0.3C/decade; which is substantially more than the 0.18 or so seen since 1975, when the current spate of warming got going. <BR/><BR/><B>(5) Saturn says: <I>"Among the things I haven't mentioned which make this so extremely improbable is the logarithmic nature of temperature sensitivity to CO2."</I></B><BR/><BR/><BR/>It's why we always speak of doubling CO2. Each doubling has about the same effect. It's one of the basic formulae we all are using. You can't use the log argument to reduce numbers given by me, or the IPCC or the models. This is already taken into account in every projection you see.<BR/><BR/>For example, an amount of CO2 added at the start of the last century has something like 30% more effect than the same amount of CO2 added at the end.<BR/><BR/>The effect of doubling CO2 is around about 3C. It could be 2C, or it could be 4.5C. If you are doing risk analysis, you should look at a worst case. If you want a best estimate, you use 3C. The increase from 280ppm pre-industry to the current 385 is worth about 3*Log2(385/280) = 1.38 degrees. However, that is an equilibrium response. If CO2 levels were frozen at current levels, there would still be another half a degree or so of temperature rise over the next few decades as the ocean slowly heats up and restores the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere. If CO2 levels rise to 560ppm, that is roughly 3C rise over pre-industrial times total, or 2.3C more from the present, for the best estimate of sensitivity.<BR/><BR/>There's a fair bit of uncertainty in that number; it could be that there's only 2C temperature rise in total, which means another 1.3C from the present. Some of the consequences may be expensive; but all up it is not something that would worry me much. Another 2.3C is more serious; and that's the best estimate. A worst case, in this scenario, would be another 3.8C, which would almost certainly be very bad.<BR/><BR/><B>(6) Saturn says: <I>" the slope is negative for this last 8 years"</I></B><BR/><BR/>Still in search of something I will agree is negative? The trend in your data set for the last eight years is 0.2C/decade warming.<BR/> <BR/><B>(7) Saturn says: <I>"At the current rate of CO2 output the models should probably be predicting 1 degree/decade or more to achieve the high sensitivity scenario. We're not, Duae. There is no way to massage the data to get this. You can't interpolate winds in the troposphere and tell me we're seeing this or anything like it. It's dead. Don't you see it? There is no way the high sensitivity can be right."</I></B><BR/><BR/>How on Earth did you get 1 degree per decade? All I can see, frankly, is that you aren't much good at maths; or else somehow not applying yourself.<BR/> <BR/>Here's a calculation for you. We'll assume CO2 gets to 560ppm, which is double pre-industrial. It's now 385. The high sensitivity increase in temperature from right now is 4.5*Log2(560/385) = 2.43C. If temperatures increase at a constant rate from 2008 to 2100, that is 0.26C/decade. It's a little bit more than at present; but not massively so. We have often had ten years with a greater swarming trend than this.<BR/><BR/>But wait… temperatures have only gone up by 0.7C since pre-industrial times. There seems to be 1.37C missing! This mainly because of the slow response of the ocean to temperature change. Assuming high sensitivity, we have a situation where the Earth is in an energy imbalance, with the difference being taken up as the ocean takes up heat. This is the meaning of heat "in the pipeline". It may be many decades before the ocean warms enough for this heat to be apparent on the surface.<BR/> <BR/>To maintain a constant rate of forcing increase, the CO2 level has to rise exponentially, because of its logarithmic effect. The increase required is a bit over 45% in 92 years, which is a 0.4% increase in CO2 concentration each year. The current rate of increase is a bit more than 0.5%.<BR/><BR/>The scenario is quite plausible. The rate of temperature increase is not actually much larger than what has occurred recently; and if we take into account the ocean's lag in the whole system, then the rate of temperature increase should be reduced, as it takes longer to come to full effect. In other words… the rates of temperature increase and CO2 increase right now are both consistent with high sensitivity and a doubling of CO2 by the end of the century.<BR/><BR/>To give an idea of the effects of logarithmic CO2 increase, let CO2 increase linearly, rather than logarithmically. The rate of increase is (560-385)/92, or 1.9 ppm/year. That's STILL less than the current rate of increase.<BR/><BR/>Let's underline that. A linear CO2 increase is 1.9 ppm/year, to get to 560 by the year 2100. An exponential CO2 increase is 4%/year, which would be initially about 1.6 ppm/year, and 2.3 ppm/year by 2100. That logarithm effect matters, but it is not making as much difference as Saturn thinks.<BR/><BR/>The atmospheric CO2 increase measured in 2007 was 2.17 ppm<BR/>.<BR/><B>(8) Saturns says: <I>"However, it is a FACT that the IPCC clearly states they use the reverse method to calculate the forcings for aerosols and other factors. I don't know why you are trying to deny it. They are continually "improving" the models. By definition the mere process of improving is to take how the data and models fail to coincide come up with some modifications and incorporate those changes in the models to they "fit" the data."</I></B><BR/><BR/>It's a bit like survival of the fittest, really. But seriously, this is what you do in science. Falsification is how you get rid of what doesn't work. It results in theory well fitted to evidence; but the process of falsification and elimination is different from the process of tuning or curvefitting.<BR/><BR/>As for the reverse methods… of course! Nothing I said was intended to deny that. The aerosols in particular are an example where reverse methods are applied. This is a form of tuning; but only at a very crude level. Basically, you propose a strength of the effect, but you can't just make aerosols strong here and not there. You also cannot make the effect stronger, or weaker, than reasonable. Hence, in my previous post, I said "there are tight constraints on what kinds of alterations are physically credible". This is actually a direct reference to the reverse techniques and the constraints under which they must work. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, the big one is greenhouse gases. There's pretty much no room for adjustments here at all. The strength of the forcing follows from basic physics. The concentrations over time are known. There's not much for a modeler to play with; they just have to represent the known physics and known emissions and fire it up.<BR/><BR/>Greenhouse gases act to absorb thermal radiation, which heats up the atmosphere. The effect is definite, and very well quantified. The overall response of climate is a tough nut to crack, but it is also well constrained by both theory and evidence. Hopefully we will be able to constrain it further beyond limits that are currently known. But the limits we do know are well founded. Ideas for very insensitive climate and negative overall feedback are invariably nonsense. Ideas that the very sensitive climate is easily falsified by some easy drive by sophomoric reasoning are invariably nonsense as well.<BR/><BR/>--------<BR/><BR/>Added as a late revision.<BR/><BR/><B>(8) Saturn says: <I>"… regarding the movement of heat from southern to northern hemisphere it is amazing. Clearly the models never picked up this amazing heat movement. For some reason the north has become 0.75C hotter over the last 30 years compared to the southern hemisphere."</I></B><BR/><BR/>What!? Of course the models pick this up. It is a consistent feature of the models that they do predict precisely this difference, and for obvious simple physical reasons. Once, again, "It's the physics, Simplicio".<BR/><BR/>The major physical reason for the difference between hemispheres is that the ocean responds much more slowly than the land to rising temperatures and the Southern Hemisphere has a lot more ocean. A second significant reason is sea-ice feedbacks. The North pole is sea ice; the South pole is an ice cap. When sea-ice melts, the Arctic albedo drops, which means more sunlight gets absorbed and temperatures are pushed even further. It's a simple positive feedback, which is far stronger in the Northern hemisphere. Climate models, which are based on the underlying physics, show this effect very strongly.<BR/><BR/>Simply asserting that models don't pick this up is the very opposite of skepticism. A skeptic might reasonably <I>wonder</I> whether or not models pick this up, and be in a position to learn something when finding useful new information on the matter. But jumping to wild presumptions about incompetent modelers is just naïve credulity.<BR/><BR/>Here's a link to a page where you can look at how an important NASA model predicts (or retrodicts) the response to known forcings: <A HREF="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelE/transient/climsim.html#climsim_table1" REL="nofollow">here</A>. There's a wealth of information about the forcings, and about how the model responds to them. There is also a very detailed associated paper, from 2007, linked at the top of the page.<BR/><BR/>You can look at the trends from 1979 to the present, distributed across latitudes, and you will see the same strong warming in the northern hemisphere, substantially weaker in the south, which is a feature of the observational record that you linked.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, this NASA page really is giving you the model output; NOT observations. Read the paper for even more details and comparisons with observations. There are quite a number of substantial <I>differences</I> between the model and the observational record, to do with rainfall and pressure gradients and all kinds of other climate variables. In particular… this model does not capture the peak-and-dip pattern of temperature change seen in the mid century. The model does show rising temperatures in the first half of the century, a leveling off mid century, and a strong rise thereafter; but it is obviously not a simple fit to the temperature record – contra your misunderstanding of the "reverse" methods used with models.<BR/>(PS. This might yet end up being a case where the models are better than the measurements! It's not all sorted out, but there will shortly be some important revisions to the historical temperature record. Changes in the way different ships measure temperatures give well known systematic errors, which are accounted for in the data already. But some recently published work describing information obtained sorting through the post-war logs of various navies, suggest that there are still some further uncorrected errors. This will have an impact on the mid-century record, but we'll have to wait and see the details.)<BR/><BR/>As for the observational record: you can get the data direct from RSS here: <A HREF="http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html" REL="nofollow">data description</A>. This is the basis for the graph you wanted me to look at. I've linked to the data description, not the data set itself; anyone wanting to use the data should read this first anyway. The graph at the top of the CA blog is simply the TLT series (lower troposphere) from satellite measurements, using a straight subtraction of two columns in the ascii dataset representing the different hemispheres.<BR/><BR/>Do note the use of a regression line here; the graph you want me to look at is yet another example showing you the right way to do trends, with linear regression.<BR/><BR/>For comparison, I have looked at the standard HadCRUT3 data, for the northern and southern hemispheres, just to put some more numbers on the N/H S/H difference... here are the trends, in C/decade, over 1979-present<BR/>+0.29 --- TLT from RSS, North, from lat 20 to 82.5<BR/>+0.32 --- HadCRUT3, North, above lat 30<BR/>+0.22 --- HadCRUT3, Northern Hemisphere, total<BR/>+0.06 --- TLT from RSS, South, from lat -20 to -70<BR/>+0.07 --- HadCRUT3, South, below lat -30<BR/>+0.10 --- HadCRUT3, Southern Hemisphere, totalsylashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10594421176931832170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-10483086491101842882008-08-12T02:57:00.000+10:002008-08-12T02:57:00.000+10:00Daue, if you look at the chart below:http://www.cl...Daue, if you look at the chart below:<BR/><BR/>http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3405<BR/><BR/>regarding the movement of heat from southern to northern hemisphere it is amazing. Clearly the models never picked up this amazing heat movement. For some reason the north has become 0.75C hotter over the last 30 years compared to the southern hemisphere. <BR/><BR/>How could the models miss this huge heat movement? Why would we be having a hemispheric bias of such magnitude? <BR/><BR/>I suppose there could be many reasons but it does make one think that it has something to do with the sun because the most obvious way to get one hemisphere to heat more than another is if the light is pointing stronger at it. If the earth is in an orbit or is precessed so that it is tilting the northern hemisphere slightly more to the sun over the last 30 years then this would say that the sun is having a large effect on climate something most physicists including me would have trouble understanding given that solar irradiance and orbits are well understood and measured. Nonetheless, there it is. One wonders what other large factors and effects the models miss and didn't predict? Ocean upwelling of course is one that we might be able to make advances on with the ARGO system.<BR/><BR/>I am excited to think we are learning all this stuff, Daue. I am always amazed how little we really know even though we think we are so smart. It is common in mans history to take a little scientific knowledge and extrapolate that we know more than we do.<BR/><BR/>I think some scientists are over exploiting the AGW hysteria for financial benefit or to get contracts. Some are politically motivated and want the science to match their philosophy badly. Others are truly convinced something is going on and are probably naive like scientists have been over the years about the complexity of things. I am always astonished by the story of stomach ulcers and how this one researcher was unable to get funding and to get to speak at conferences because of his bizarre theory that ulcers were caused by a bacterium. At the time he was shunned as an idiot because everyone knew that ulcers were caused by other reasons.<BR/><BR/>There is a reason scientists need to remain skeptical and to consider new explanations all the time. We really don't know as much as we pretend.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07258211248756033148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-51657767515796354452008-08-11T19:34:00.000+10:002008-08-11T19:34:00.000+10:00> All global datasets show temperatures from 19...> All global datasets show temperatures from 1941 to 2007 overall increasing at 0.08 or 0.09 C/decade, NOAA data included<BR/><BR/>I believe you're looking at 20 year running averages or something. I'm looking at absolute peak temperature of 1941 compared to 2008. It's about 0.4 degree difference. <BR/><BR/>0.08*70 = 0.56 ... the entire period of 1900-2008 has only 0.7 increase yet we know the period 1900-1941 went up 0.4 degrees so there is seriously wrong with your arithmetic because 0.4+0.56 != 0.7. The fact is as I pointed out the period 1900-1941 had a FASTER acceleration of temperature than the period 1941-2008 which is the period of rapid CO2 production. That seems odd.<BR/><BR/>But once again, it isn't even necessary for me to argue this. In order for us to get the 2-4.5 or 3 degree temperature rise you predict and Hansen and Gore ... requires a slope of at least 0.45 /decade or 5 times the period of 1941-2008 you stipulate. It's still ridiculous.<BR/><BR/>Since we've already lost almost 10 years in the 21st century and the slope is negative for this last 8 years (again forget 10 years if you want to argue over +0.004 or 0.000 or -0.004 it makes no difference. We are so far from the necessary temperature increases it is laughable.<BR/><BR/>You must realize that we've never experienced 0.45 degree/decade increase in the history of temperatures we have throughout the 20th century. It is multiple times the temperature increase rate we've ever experienced and you are telling me you expect it to do this for 92 consecutive years without stopping!!!!! If we get the current haitus continuing much longer or if magically surprise surprise we were to get another 10 or 15 year "unexplained" haitus then we'd need even larger rates of temperature increase to compensate. It's unbelievable for a number of reasons chief among them that before I accept such alarmist predictions I need more than a theory. There are too many theories possible and possible explanations we don't even know about.<BR/><BR/>Among the things I haven't mentioned which make this so extremely improbable is the logarithmic nature of temperature sensitivity to CO2. All the physics says that temperatures go up as the log of the CO2. What this means as you know (and as the IPCC modeled in all their predictions) is that most of the temperature increase occurs EARLY in the CO2 increase because subsequent increases in CO2 cause less and less forcing unless CO2 output keeps increasing exponentially as it has for the last few decades. This is unlikely as I've said before becuase of natural resource limitations and natural technology improvements but in any case both the IPCC and physics agrees that if we are going to see temperature increases they should be front loaded - i.e. we should be seeing them NOW not later. Since we've been increasing CO2 output at an exponential rate of 1%/year of doubling every 70 years or so well above the predicted trend of the IPCCs "worst case" we almost surely should be seeing some response in temperature ESPECIALLY if there is high sensititivity as you predict for CO2 this would be the time we'd be seeing this increase. This means the rate might have to be much higher than even 0.45 to get the kind of increase you need to show a 2-4 degree sensitivity to doubling. We would need to see the temperature increase 3 or 4 degrees in the next 70 years not 100 years or we should be seeing that happening. At the current rate of CO2 output the models should probably be predicting 1 degree/decade or more to achieve the high sensitivity scenario. We're not, Duae. There is no way to massage the data to get this. You can't interpolate winds in the troposphere and tell me we're seeing this or anything like it. It's dead. Don't you see it? There is no way the high sensitivity can be right. <BR/><BR/>For high sensitivity to be right at this point is like being in the 9th inning of a baseball game and being 15 runs behind and hoping to win the game. It happens. It's possible but incredibly unlikely.<BR/><BR/>That is simply the facts Daue. We're not seeing that kind of temperature increase at all. In fact the last year has been blisteringly cold. We have have COLDEST EVER recorded summer in Alaska. South America and Antarctica are also in record territory for the last century!!! They had the first snowstorm in Buenas Aries recorded ever. The snowfall and coverage on Kilamanjaro is higher than in 40 years and what used to be a poster child for declining glaciers has become the opposite. <BR/><BR/>I can't believe you're actually arguing temperatures are up for 10 years. If they are it is infinitessimal and a pure cherry picking of the dates because if you look at the charts it's pretty clear that past 1998 and the huge El Nino of that year temperatures have pretty much been sloping down and I know you've seen the same temperature records I have which show a continuous trend downward with the last 18 months as being on a slope downward that is frightening.<BR/><BR/>The data I use is: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif which is jan-dec data. I don't need to download data to see directly from the chart the temperature anomaly in 1941 is >0.1 and the temperature anomaly in 2008 is <0.6 closer to 0.4 difference so I can't imagine how you get 0.7 degree in that timeperiod unless you are doing some rolling average or something. The fact is as everyone knows the entire increase in the 20th century is 0.7 degree and it wasn't all concentrated in 1941-2008 so you are wrong. The slope in that period is closer to 0.0045/year not 0.009.<BR/><BR/>> The 1940s show a significant drop in temperatures. Part of the reason for this is aerosol pollution, which has negative forcing<BR/><BR/>I used to believe this made sense, Daue. However, after looking at the NAO and PDO charts I've become convinced that a large part of the 1941-1975 cooling was caused by the repetitive moving of heat in the atmoosphere that has occurred every 35 years or so. I don't know why there is this cyclical phenomenon but they are better documented and explain the lull from 1941-1975 better than aerosols. I'm not saying aerosols didn't also play a role but it is clear to me that we have to cut the sensitivity to aerosols substantially because of this cyclical phenomenon. The NAO and PDO phenomenon appear irrefutable and need to be included in the models. They will drastically reduce the sensitivity to CO2 as well. This makes more sense and explains current temperatures better than the AGWIPCC models.<BR/><BR/>> You and I have both recognized that there was a start to strong warming from about 1975, and before that it was not warming much, if at all. Further back to the 1940s it was cooling. How can you now say that the rate of increase is decreasing?<BR/><BR/>What I am saying is that the period from 1900-1941 saw a 0.3 increase in temperatures which is larger rate of increase than the 0.4 increase over the subsequent 70 years. Check it out. All the charts show a substantial increase from 1900-1941. In fact they show an increase in temperature from 1750 to 1941 when SUVs weren't manufactured and Ford Motor company didn't even exist. However, I'm unwilling to discuss data before 1900s because there are constant arguments about tree rings vs leather buckets and engine inlet temperatures and ice cores and island heat effects and all this other stuff. <BR/><BR/>> Using HadCRUT3v annual timeseries, from 1941 to 2007, here's what I get:(a) Simple regression line over the whole period: +0.09 C/decade warming.<BR/>(b) Floating ten year windows, from 1941-1950 through to 1998-2007, average +0.087 C/decade warming, but with a standard deviation of 0.16 C/decade. That is; lots of variation between different ten year windows.<BR/><BR/>YET all the amounts are 5 times to 10 or 15 times less than required to get to high sensitivity temperatures. You do understand that if we return to the 0.09C/decade you calculate you are only going to get about 0.9 degree for the 21st century which is the same as the 20th century and is a factor of 3 less than "high sensitivity". Once again this assumes that it is uninterupted temperature increase and that our CO2 output slows to be doubling every 100 years instead of every 70 years as it is now.<BR/><BR/>> The period from 1941-2007 shows overall strong warming and also a strong increase in the rate of warming. This is "just the maths".<BR/><BR/>Duae, it doesn't show strong warming because even your (notice here again I concede your point because it makes no differnce to the end result) 0.09 isn't strong warming. 0.45 would be strong warming. 0.09 is the same warming we got for the last 100 years which is the same warming we've been getting for hundreds of years since the last ice age ended and is inconsequential.<BR/><BR/>High sensitivity means 2-4 degrees which is about 3-6 or more times > rate of warming than we've been experiencing even during the 1980s and 1990s. It's simply unlikely, Daue. Extremely unlikely. It's not scientific to make such unlikely predictions. It is more religious or shooting craps at the crap table. Scientists aren't crap shooters and don't believe in divine intervention of the heat gods to suddenly warm up the oceans massively and to put fire into the atmosphere that apparently we are having a devil of a time finding except by looking at winds and extrapolating or something. If it was warming anywhere near the 0.45C/decade you need we would have no problem finding all that heat accumulating someplace. It would be evident that heat was being massively accumulated somewhere and it should be easy to find it. Instead we're trying to find out where all the heat went. Did it sneak into the deep ocean below our ARGO probes 6,000 foot depth. Is it hidden in blowing winds in the near massless troposphere? <BR/><BR/>What I learned in stock market analysis is a simple rule. To get from 100 dollars a share to 200 you have to go through 110, 120, 130 etc... If we are going to get to 3 degrees warmer by 2100 we have to first get 0.45 degrees warmer and 0.9 warmer and 1.35 warmer etc... we can't get there by sitting at the same damn temperature for 10 years even if it is a higher temperature than we've seen in some time it still has to go higher faster and we just aren't seeing that and we aren't seeing the "volumes" to continue the stock analogy to drive the stock price or the temperature up.<BR/><BR/><BR/>> However that works out, simply dismissing the definite measured cooling effect of aerosols as "gobbledygook" is very telling. You really are having awful problems with dealing with very basic physics here.<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry for that. I have a strong bias against models. As a computer scientist I don't believe you can build models of the earth easily. We've been trying to do that for the climate and weather for many years to no avail. I think there are good reasons to believe the problem is extremely complex and that we have a very simplistic model right now that really has zero chance of working. I think it is likely in 50 years we'll have progress but not much before.<BR/><BR/>> The obvious slow down in the last ten year window does not yet have sufficient significance to conclude that the long term warming trend is slowing down.<BR/><BR/>I don't care if the trend slows down or stays the same. If we are going to get to 2 degrees for a doubling of CO2 or greater you need temperatures to start accelerating now and very fast in unprecedented ways that are unscientific.<BR/><BR/><BR/>> You most certainly don't add a bit of Sun here and a bit of aerosol there to fit a curve, and you are WAY out of line with those insinuations. These are measured changes, and their effect on climate is just the physics.<BR/><BR/>Duae, it is most certainly the case that the forcings are calculated by the "reverse method" as the IPCC calls it. This is "fitting a curve." Duae, the effect of corruption of data is subtle. It's not just as simple as the "fitting" I described. The mere idea that you know the shape of historical curve of data leads you to build models which you know will fit that data even if you don't actually plug numbers in. This is corruption of the data too. However, it is a FACT that the IPCC clearly states they use the reverse method to calculate the forcings for aerosols and other factors. I don't know why you are trying to deny it. They are continually "improving" the models. By definition the mere process of improving is to take how the data and models fail to coincide come up with some modifications and incorporate those changes in the models to they "fit" the data. I don't understand why you resist this. Past data cannot be used to validate the models. Only data that has never been seen before is valid. Since 2001 when the models were issued they have completely failed to predict the data since then. That is catastrophic in my opinion or at least puts doubts and does not confirm the theory leaving it completely unverified.<BR/><BR/>Now some of the recent papers have looked at data I believe the original model authors had no access to and probably made no attempt to incoroporate into their thinking. This data was then compared against models and the models were found completely unpredictive. If the data and models had coincided it would have been mildly interesting and positive for the models but not confirmatory in my opinion. However, the lack of conformance is damning because like string theory you can show lots of calculations which string theory seems to match real world data fine. Unfortunately so do many other theories. Therefore, string theory remains a theory and the nobel committee refuses to grant a nobel prize to its authors because nobody is sure string theory is right. I would say the models are less confirmed and maybe contradicted because unlike string theory the data doesn't contradict string theory. Data does contradict the models. <BR/><BR/>> This is the pattern that has to be explained by models; and the explanation cannot just speculate about a bit of NOA here and a bit of aerosol there. You need a physical model which reproduces the pattern when it takes the forcings as inputs.<BR/><BR/>Sure. I think this is a 50 year effort that's all. The current models don't work and aren't likely to work. It would be astonishing if they did and every study of them has shown they don't work.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07258211248756033148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-44649079964451087852008-08-11T15:52:00.000+10:002008-08-11T15:52:00.000+10:00(1) Saturn says: " For the period of 1941-2008 or ...<B>(1) Saturn says: <I>" For the period of 1941-2008 or nearly 70 years we have a total temperature variation of 0.4 degrees or 0.045/decade."</I></B><BR/><BR/>All global datasets show temperatures from 1941 to 2007 overall increasing at 0.08 or 0.09 C/decade, NOAA data included. If you tell me what data you used, I may be able to help identify how you got a different number. Feel free to use links.<BR/><BR/>The NOAA website provides a recent GHCN-ERSST dataset <A HREF="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/index.jsp" REL="nofollow">here</A>. If you stick to the GHCN-ERSST dataset you'll be fine; but there are bugs in their implementation of HadCRUT2. (I told them about this problem weeks ago, and it still isn't fixed.) HadCRUT data is better viewed at the <A HREF="http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/" REL="nofollow">Hadley Center website</A>, since they maintain that data. The NOAA interface can be confusing; if you want the annual data, make sure months have the range January to December; and then pick any range of years. You can look at plots, or download and play with numbers.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>(2) Saturn says: <I>"At that rate over 100 years we would have a total increase of 0.4 degrees or 1/3 LESS than the increase of the last 100 years. This is not even an accelerating trend!!!"</I></B><BR/><BR/>Your numbers for slope all seem to be wildly incorrect. The slope over the last 100 years is about 0.07, which is a bit less than the slope over the last 70 years. The biggest acceleration of warming was from 1975 onwards.<BR/><BR/>The 1940s show a significant drop in temperatures. Part of the reason for this is aerosol pollution, which has negative forcing. Such pollution washes out of the atmosphere quite quickly once you stop emitting it, and a major clean up in emissions mid century resulted in much "cleaner" emissions, which reduced problems with smog and acid rain and so on, though it has no effect on CO2.<BR/><BR/><B>(3) Saturn says: <I>"How is that for facts, Duae? There may be disagreement about all the other proxies and what happened over time and what caused it but in the last 67 years the total temperature increase has been DECREASING!"</I></B><BR/><BR/><BR/>I think you've mixed up your analysis; or you are using the wrong data at NOAA. You speak of the "total temperature increase" as something that "decreases". That sounds like an attempt to go to a second derivative.<BR/><BR/>You and I have both recognized that there was a start to strong warming from about 1975, and before that it was not warming much, if at all. Further back to the 1940s it was cooling. How can you now say that the rate of increase is decreasing? I don't get it; that makes no sense. If you tell me how you get your numbers, I might be able to help sort it out. I use linear regression, and check my results on a couple of different datasets.<BR/><BR/>Here's one way to show the accelerating warming trend; you'll need to get the data into a spreadsheet first. Calculate the slope over a 10 year moving window. Then see if those slopes increase, or decrease, with time. For moving windows, you have to calculate the regression explicitly; not get it from a chart. With Excel, use the LINEST function. Using HadCRUT3v annual timeseries, from 1941 to 2007, here's what I get:<BR/>(a) Simple regression line over the whole period: +0.09 C/decade warming.<BR/>(b) Floating ten year windows, from 1941-1950 through to 1998-2007, average +0.087 C/decade warming, but with a standard deviation of 0.16 C/decade. That is; lots of variation between different ten year windows.<BR/>(c) Plot a regression line over the series of slopes for the ten year windows! This shows an increase in the rate of warming of about +0.06 C/decade/decade.<BR/><BR/>The period from 1941-2007 shows overall strong warming and also a strong increase in the rate of warming. This is "just the maths".<BR/> <BR/><B>(4) Saturn says: <I>" I believed that explanation but it is starting to look suspect because the NAO and PDO phenomenon seem to explain these temperature variations better than aerosols, CO2 and all the other gobbledygook the IPCC came up with."</I></B><BR/><BR/>The aerosol effect is not gobbledygook, and neither is the notion of oscillations having an effect. The idea of one "replacing" the other is… odd.<BR/><BR/>I'm enthusiastic about work on the oscillations; I think it offers some good prospects for improving models. I don't think anyone working on it directly proposes to replace the definite and known effect of aerosols. It can't explain a large trend such as the last thirty years, for a number of reasons, but that is not a criticism of the work, because no-one is seriously proposing such a thing. (Isolated uninvolved outsiders not counted; there are some onlookers who are capable of saying almost anything.) This work is potentially a way of sorting out some of the second-order trends that so far I have called "natural variation". If we can model those variations better, great!<BR/><BR/>However that works out, simply dismissing the definite measured cooling effect of aerosols as "gobbledygook" is very telling. You really are having awful problems with dealing with very basic physics here.<BR/><BR/>The cooling effect of aerosols has a definite physical basis; by raising albedo. The effect is also measurable; this is how volcanoes cool things down, for example. The reduction in aerosol pollution in the post war period is basic data.<BR/><BR/><B>(5) Saturn says: <I>"You are telling us that even though over the last 70 years temperatures have been going up at 0.004C/year or over the last 110 years 0.006C/year we are to expect in the remaining 91 years of the 21st century that temperatures are going to go up 0.045C/year or MORE THAN TEN TIMES the rate for the last 10 years, the last 40 years, the last 70 years or even the last 110 years!!"</I></B><BR/><BR/>Come now, Saturn, settle down. Those are your numbers, not mine. Don't put them into my mouth. What I am telling you is written in my own words.<BR/><BR/>I can calculate the trends, if you like. I'll use HadCRUT3v again; other datasets may have small variations, but large differences would suggest one or other of us has messed up in our calculations. It happens. Here's what I get, from HadCRUT3v annual series:<BR/>(1) Last 110 years, 1898-2007. trend of +0.069 warming.<BR/>(2) Last 70 years, 1938-2007, trend of +0.080 warming.<BR/>(3) Last 40 years, 1968-2007, trend of +0.155 warming.<BR/>(4) Last 20 years, 1988-2007, trend of +0.198 warming.<BR/>(5) Last 10 years, 1998-2007, trend of +0.087 warming.<BR/>Note that as the periods get short, the effects of natural variation get large. There is a slow down in the last ten years, certainly; but we've had even larger slowdowns than during the last 40 years. The ten-year slope went negative (just) from 1977-1986, and then almost did it again over 1987-1996. But two years later, 1989-1998 was one of the largest trends!<BR/><BR/>The obvious slow down in the last ten year window does not yet have sufficient significance to conclude that the long term warming trend is slowing down.<BR/> <BR/><B>(6) Saturn says: <I>"In order to have high sensitivity to CO2 it is necessary to incorporate reasons why temperatures varied as they did over the last 100 years. Particularly since 1900 there wasn't very much CO2 you ascribe 1/2 of the rapid heat increase in the early part of the 20th century to the sun. Then we assume aerosols create a large effect so we can explain the 1940-1975 temperature decrease (in the face of massive CO2 increases). All of that allows us to then ascribe the latest temperature surge to CO2. It is a carefully orchestrated plan that depends on many parameters and many unknown values."</I></B><BR/><BR/>That sounds like an accusation of lack of integrity. Are you serious?! Disagree if you must; but you have crossed a line here. There is no basis for these rather poisonous little insinuations.<BR/><BR/>Climate models are based on physics. (Just the physics, again.) They don't use curve fitting to a particular temperature record. Any forcing effect, from the Sun or aerosols or greenhouse gases or anything else, has to match up with independent data for that forcing. Total solar irradiance really was increasing over the first half of the twentieth century; the modelers don't come up with that. Aerosols really did increase in the middle of the century, and then became cleaned up somewhat. (This was part of fixing the "acid rain" problem.) Greenhouse gases are measured; you can't adjust the levels to fit temperature.<BR/><BR/>The forcing effects of these factors have to be physically sensible as well. The forcing from the Sun comes fairly directly from irradiance levels. The forcing from greenhouse gases is calculated quite accurately by physicists, not by modelers. Aerosols I am not so sure about; but they alter albedo, and there are tight constraints on what kinds of alterations are physically credible.<BR/><BR/>You most certainly don't add a bit of Sun here and a bit of aerosol there to fit a curve, and you are WAY out of line with those insinuations. These are measured changes, and their effect on climate is just the physics.<BR/><BR/><B>(7) Saturn says: <I>"As you must know choosing 1975 happens to correspond to the end of the last leg of the negative PDO and AMO cycles and the end of the cooling period from 1941-1975. It would be far more fair to include the 1945 data to be conservative and to include a full PDO/NAO cycle in the data. Picking a timeline corresponding to the start of the +PDO time period is unfair."</I></B><BR/><BR/>You miss the point. Of course 1975 is chosen precisely because it is the start of a strong warming trend. I've said that explicitly; nothing is being hidden. Trends over the twentieth century are not simple linear effects. Roughly speaking, there is a strong warming trend from 1910 to 1940, then a sharp drop to 1950, then a wavering level from 1950 to 1970, then a strong rise up to the present. If you want to know the warming rate over recent decades, you should fit a line from about 1975. Going further back than this no longer matches well with a linear trend line.<BR/><BR/>This is the pattern that has to be explained by models; and the explanation cannot just speculate about a bit of NOA here and a bit of aerosol there. You need a physical model which reproduces the pattern when it takes the forcings as inputs.<BR/><BR/>There's also a slow down in the last couple of years, but it does not yet have enough significance to indicate another significant shift. It could turn out that way, but you'll have to wait a few years yet to tell. After all, twice since 1975 we've had even bigger "slowdowns" than this.<BR/><BR/><B>(8) Saturn says: <I>"It is indisputable the earth has been getting colder for 10 years."</I></B><BR/><BR/>Other than the fact every data set shows a warming trend from 1998-2007 when you actually do the calculation, of course.sylashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10594421176931832170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-34680933947694935742008-08-11T07:20:00.000+10:002008-08-11T07:20:00.000+10:00Re: Spencer: He uses frequency analysis over a sho...Re: Spencer: He uses frequency analysis over a short time span from satellites to calculate a sensitivity, and the time scale used pretty much assures that he's mostly measuring the immediate baseline response, not the feedbacks at all;<BR/><BR/>Duae, I looked at the latest charts from NOAA regarding temperature anomaly. For the period of 1941-2008 or nearly 70 years we have a total temperature variation of 0.4 degrees or 0.045/decade. At that rate over 100 years we would have a total increase of 0.4 degrees or 1/3 LESS than the increase of the last 100 years. This is not even an accelerating trend!!! The rate of temperature increase (without significant CO2 generation) was HIGHER than the post-war period in which CO2 production has massively increased.<BR/><BR/>How is that for facts, Duae? There may be disagreement about all the other proxies and what happened over time and what caused it but in the last 67 years the total temperature increase has been DECREASING! Now, I know you'll say I'm cherry picking. How can I be cherry picking over 70 years? Shouldn't the "monstrous 2-4.5 degree high sensitivity to CO2" be evident in some way in the last 70 years? What form of science are you using that projects massive changes when under the same conditions (1%/year increase in CO2) we've had 0.004degree/year increase for almost 70 consecutive years.<BR/><BR/>I know the period 1941-1975 is a problem because it was a 34 period of decreasing temperatures that happened during a period of massive increase in CO2 but this is "explained" by aerosols. I believed that explanation but it is starting to look suspect because the NAO and PDO phenomenon seem to explain these temperature variations better than aerosols, CO2 and all the other gobbledygook the IPCC came up with. The recent heating in the arctic is better explained by NAO than by CO2 and it explains the recent cooling in the arctic better than CO2.<BR/><BR/>Do you see yet how outrageous your claims that everything is right in dodge seems when presented with real indisputable data? You are telling us that even though over the last 70 years temperatures have been going up at 0.004C/year or over the last 110 years 0.006C/year we are to expect in the remaining 91 years of the 21st century that temperatures are going to go up 0.045C/year or MORE THAN TEN TIMES the rate for the last 10 years, the last 40 years, the last 70 years or even the last 110 years!!<BR/><BR/>Do you understand why we need more than you have given us about assertions you have "proved" this? It's unrealistic for anyone to believe this. It's a crazy theory to believe that with ocean temperatures on the way down or just flat, with the troposphere not responding very highly, with land temperatures plummeting in the last year, ice in the south pole and north pole both increasing, sea levels declining for 2 years now that suddenly we are going to go into a "science fiction" nightmare scenario of rapid unmitigated, unstoppable increase when we just had a 10 year pause.<BR/><BR/>I just cannot emphasize how unbelievable you and Hansen and Gavin appear these days. This is why questions are appearing and why the APS central committee on keeping its funding going from key government sources needs to re-issue its political proclamation that we "believe in serious global warming". The doubts are flying everywhere because the data is contradicting everything any of you ever said would happen (and frankly I said at one time would happen.) I no longer can believe this. <BR/><BR/>So, what I have concluded and continue to conclude is that CO2 is still a greenhouse gas. It is being put out by humanity in large quantities affecting its percentage of the atmosphere. It will capture extra heat. However, the atmosphere and oceans are incredibly complex phenomenon with enormous heat capacity. There are phenomenon we clearly don't completely understand yet that seem to be creating a negative feedback to the CO2. We are studying those processes and trying to figure out how they work. It is conceivable that temperatures will climb some amount, maybe 1 degree or at the outside 1.5 degrees or even a little more by 2100 but unlikely at this time it will get to 2 degrees let alone 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 as Hansen, Gavin and others have speculated or that models have guesstimated.<BR/><BR/>I understand fully well that you believe the physics supports a "high sensitivity" but you must understand it doesn't take a genius to figure how you can sustain this. It is clear you are able to sustain high sensitivity only because you have manipulated lots of parameters that you have no proof are what you say they are. Let me explain a little.<BR/><BR/>In order to have high sensitivity to CO2 it is necessary to incorporate reasons why temperatures varied as they did over the last 100 years. Particularly since 1900 there wasn't very much CO2 you ascribe 1/2 of the rapid heat increase in the early part of the 20th century to the sun. Then we assume aerosols create a large effect so we can explain the 1940-1975 temperature decrease (in the face of massive CO2 increases). All of that allows us to then ascribe the latest temperature surge to CO2. It is a carefully orchestrated plan that depends on many parameters and many unknown values. These values are played with in models till you get something that looks sort of like the temperature history of the last 100 years then you start jumping up and down proclaiming we have "proved" that there is high sensitivity to CO2. Yet your model of how things work depends on your assumption you know all the phenomenon affecting the environment, that you have picked the correct values for each of the forcings you are aware of. This is speculation. It is a theory. <BR/><BR/>I say that the theory may be right but one big thing working against it at this time is that it now predicts a very large asymptotic temperature increase that seems unlikely. The reason I would guess is that you have chosen a very high sensitivity to CO2 which causes the spiking temperature that seems unrealistic at this time given the behavior over the last 30 years or 70 years.<BR/><BR/>A more likely scenario is that CO2 has low sensitivity and that there is other behaviors and interactions that are pumping heat around the system that are contributing a lot to the temperature record over the last 100 years. In particular the NAO and PDO phenomenon appear to dominate temperatures over 70 periods pushing temperatures up and down over this period in a cycle. There is probably some residual CO2 effect that is pushing temperatures up overall but we also have to look at exogenous factors that could be adding heat to the system.<BR/><BR/>> Using HadCRUT3, the last twenty years show an increase of +0.186 C/decade, with 99% confidence limits from +0.149 to +0.224. The last ten years show +0.05 warming, but the 99% confidence limits on slope are from -0.05 to 0.14. ... We know there's a strong warming trend since 1975 <BR/><BR/>The high sensitivity case Duae requires at this point a >0.45C/decade warming or 3 times your 20 year average and 10 times your 10 year average. As you must know choosing 1975 happens to correspond to the end of the last leg of the negative PDO and AMO cycles and the end of the cooling period from 1941-1975. It would be far more fair to include the 1945 data to be conservative and to include a full PDO/NAO cycle in the data. Picking a timeline corresponding to the start of the +PDO time period is unfair. What is more damning is that even if you include all of the data from 1975 and this cherry picked period for the high sensitivity case you still end up with only 1/3 of the needed rate increase to get to the high sensitivity CO2 scenario and to 2 to 3 degrees by 2100 on a doubling of CO2.<BR/><BR/>It is just unreasonable to imagine as we are going into the down cycle of the PDO and NAO cycles, with the oceans cooler, the sea level falling that suddenly we are going to go into a hyper accelerated trend of temperature increases. Yes, it's possible and maybe some people feel embolden enough to make such a prediction but it can't be mainstream to predict this. <BR/><BR/>It is indisputable the earth has been getting colder for 10 years. Not only ocean temperatures are flat (give you the benefit of the doubt here again) but it's been frigid everywhere. Southern hemisphere is friggin amazing cold. I saw a chart that showed that over the last 30 years the divergence between the northern and southern hemispheres has ballooned. The northern hemisphere has gone up 0.25 degrees in that time period but the southern hemisphere has plunged 0.5 degrees leading to a 0.75 degree difference. This is a massive amount of energy that has moved around. Why? There must be some reason? Just as there must be a reason for the PDO and AMO phenomenon. We know these things exist. We use the AMO to actually predict winds and storms in the atlantic with accuracy. The PDO accurately predicts the effects of La Ninas and El Ninos on the world. These theories are far better backed up by data, history and predictions being correct than AGW-IPCC theory and those models.<BR/><BR/>I suspect we will discover one reason why things haven't worked out for the AGWIPCC models has to do with their lack of physical understanding of these large unexplained phenomenon. <BR/><BR/>I suspect there are phenomenon and physics in these phenomenon that when we understand them better and integrate them into the models will provide a much better analysis of the worlds climate. Until the models explain why we have had a 10 year haitus in temperature increases and explain the NAO and PDO phenomenon and model them I won't believe the models or predictions from the models again. Even if the resulting models predict high sensitivity to CO2 after that I may reserve my faith in them until the temperature data of the planet seem to be coming back into compliance with the models.<BR/><BR/>Let's say you (and me) are right that some of the current temperature variation is caused by aerosols from pollution in China and India and also some upwelling of deep ocean cool water depressing temperatures this is very significant. The ocean has 300 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. Just raising ocean temperatures 0.1C will be able to offset 30C of air temperatures. It may take thousands of years to warm the ocean enough for the high sensitivity CO2 effect to finally happen. We don't understand how this process of ocean currents and air heat exchange works obviously and this understanding could mean that heating is put off for thousands of years. That is critical because if the temperature increase is put off for just 200 or 300 years all the CO2 we put in the atmosphere will probably burn off. It means we have hundreds or thousands more years to solve the problem instead of the 10 days that Gore and Hansen claim we have to enact legislation!! Legislation that may emperil a billion people to a lower lifestyle and possibly death to solve a problem that we were wrong won't exist for 2,000 years or something.<BR/><BR/>I agree with "it's the physics." I don't think we understand the physics of all this nearly enough to claim we know much. We are at the very beginning of understanding this stuff. ( AS we are with many disciplines like genetics). The reason people want to seem MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE than they really are is because of the politics and I hate that. I hate that people will emperil science to satisfy a political desire. I believe that doing so will have massive implications on science. I am trying to say. We need to come clean. We need to say we don't really know. We need to study it. It is important to study but we can't tell you very many truths yet.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07258211248756033148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-88668498524459419702008-08-09T17:52:00.000+10:002008-08-09T17:52:00.000+10:00Another series of numbered responses:(1) Saturn sa...Another series of numbered responses:<BR/><BR/><B>(1) Saturn says: <I>"While you and others claim the current data is within the normal variability the problem for me is that it isn't confirmatory."</I></B><BR/><BR/>Well, sure… of course it isn't. The whole point is that a ten year regression tells you very little. It fails to show that warming has stopped, and it can't show that it <I>hasn't</I> stopped either.<BR/><BR/>With longer windows of time, the confidence limits on slopes become much tighter. The last 20 years has seen a strong and unambiguous warming trend. Using HadCRUT3, the last twenty years show an increase of +0.186 C/decade, with 99% confidence limits from +0.149 to +0.224.<BR/><BR/>The last ten years show +0.05 warming, but the 99% confidence limits on slope are from -0.05 to 0.14. See the difference? Short periods of time are no good at all if you are just looking at trends or correlations. We don't use the last ten years to define a trend. The data won't support it; there's too much natural variation going on. OK?<BR/><BR/>We know there's a strong warming trend since 1975 or so. That's measured, to a very high level of significance indeed. There's excellent theoretical reason to think it will continue, and also that we will continue to see the same kinds of natural variation expected both by extrapolation and by theory. That's just the physics. It is also a falsifiable prediction; but it is not falsified by one ten year window; especially one that actually still shows warming.<BR/><BR/><B>(2) Saturn says: <I>"Yet, what is damning about "your" science is how you insist beyond all reasonable argumentation that there is no doubt this high sensitivity exists."</I></B><BR/><BR/>There is a solid basis for confidence that the sensitivity is somewhere from 1.5C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2. So there is heaps of room for debate and argument, which goes on all the time. It's unlikely to be less than 2C, and very unlikely to be less than 1.5C. There is no rational argument at all for sensitivities less than this.<BR/><BR/>There are plenty of pseudoscientific arguments; such as Monckton's paper. Your own argument is confused… you mix up sensitivity and forcings. You speak of China and India, and aerosol pollution that helps to depress temperatures somewhat. That's a matter of forcings, not sensitivities.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, such pollution has immediate and very serious negative health and economic consequences, so India and China can be expected, as they develop, to address it just as the west has done. This kind of particulate pollution cleans up much more easily, as the particles wash out of the atmosphere quite quickly; whereas CO2 does not. In other words, you are looking at a regional short term partial masking of the longer term greenhouse warming.<BR/> <BR/><B>(3) Saturn says: <I>"How could the oceans be getting cooler?"</I></B><BR/><BR/>The oceans are not getting cooler. At best, there is conflicting evidence, as I pointed out previously, with some evidence indicating strong warming, and some indicating about four years of almost constant temperature (Willis, and the Argos data). But in any case, just like for surface temperatures, there are variations going on, all the time, within the longer trends. The real issue is not that there are variations in the rate of warming, but that there is an as yet unexplained conflict between different measurement methods.<BR/><BR/>Did you read the links I gave last time? Here they are again: <A HREF="http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1747" REL="nofollow">NASA</A>, and <A HREF="http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/03/31/josh-willis-on-climate-change-global-warming-is-real.aspx" REL="nofollow">Willis</A>. They are short and easy to follow, and they are not just a denial of the effect. They are directly from the very people doing the measurements that suggest show no warming of the ocean over the last four years. Read them.<BR/><BR/>Put it in a nutshell. Oceans are not getting cooler – that report was a measurement error, since fixed. Even so, you can get some cooling of the upper ocean over short time spans (several years). This is expected from theory, and from models, and fits naturally observed variations. There's plenty of room to look at what is uncertain; and my guess is that the major cause for a lack of warming in the upper ocean will be variation in the rates of exchange with the deeper ocean. Either that, or another set of systematic errors in the Argos floats; which remains a real possibility. But if the difference in Argos and Grace/Jason data is real, and due to exchanges with the deep ocean, it is part and parcel of the effect of the ocean's "thermal inertia", which bound up with heat transfer to the ocean. Any such flux offsets a matching energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. When everything comes to balance again (as it must because of limited heat capacity available) then the balance will be taken up again by surface warming. This also is "just the physics". It means that there is a certain amount of warming which is "in the pipeline", and will eventually be realized even with no change at all to any forcings.<BR/><BR/><B>(4) Saturn asks: <I>"Is there something different about measuring temperatures in the troposphere compared to here on the land?"</I></B><BR/><BR/>Of course there is! Each set of instruments have their own associated problems. The fact of measurement errors in radiosondes for the troposphere is definite. Quite apart from changes in the instruments being used over time, the instruments used in balloons are different from those used on the surface, as well as a difference that might occur to you about measuring from a drifting and rising balloon, and measuring from a station fixed at the same location with plenty of time to equilibriate, or to measure a daily maximum. There's been a lot of work on this, and sources of error specifically limited to radiosondes unambiguously identified. This isn’t some excuse to avoid the data. It IS the data. It's part of the whole deal of measurement in science.<BR/><BR/><B>(5) Saturn asks <I>"I've never seem a "physics" statement of position on einstein. It's absurd. Why would we need such a thing?"</I></B><BR/><BR/>You need such things when there is widespread popular distortion and misinformation on some issue. The APS has statements of position on a number of matters where well established scientific fundamentals become a focus of pseudoscientific mischief or other forms of popular confusion, into which category the denial of global warming most definitely belongs.<BR/><BR/>For example, the APS has statements on <A HREF="http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/03_3.cfm" REL="nofollow"> perpetual motion machines</A>, <A HREF="http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/81_1.cfm" REL="nofollow">creationism</A>, <A HREF="http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm" REL="nofollow">climate change</A>, <A HREF="http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/99_5.cfm" REL="nofollow">Kansas state board of education</A>, and <A HREF="http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/05_3.cfm" REL="nofollow">health effects of power lines</A>.<BR/><BR/><B>(6) Saturn says: <I>"I also want to emphasize again that as the temperature data continues to be moderate it makes the probability of 2 or 3 degrees by 2100 less and less likely even if the theory is correct."</I></B><BR/><BR/>No, it doesn't.<BR/><BR/>This is a really elementary bit of basic philosophy of science, but first we have to clear up the difference between a projection and a prediction. The numbers for 2100 are not exactly predictions, because they depend on assumptions about the choices made by humanity for future development and emissions. These choices are not predicted; they remain open and this is why it becomes such a political issue. What we collectively choose really does make a difference to what the world will be like in 2100.<BR/><BR/>But let's allow a particular scenario, to make things more concrete. The <A HREF="http://chooseclimate.org/jcm/jcm24dec02/doc/emit/sres.html#a1b" REL="nofollow"><I>"A1B"</I> scenario</A> is one of the standard SRES scenarios, involving rapid economic growth, but with a balance between fossil fuels and other energy sources. Under this scenario, the IPCC projects a mean temperature change by 2100 from 1.7C to 4.4C, with 2.8C as the best estimate. (IPCC 4AR table SPM.1) This is a projected average for 2090-2099, wrt 1980-1999.<BR/><BR/>The first thing to note is that this is much wider than the 2-3 range saturn speaks of. The plain fact is that scientists DON'T have confidence in such tightly constrained predictions. Scientists are perfectly well aware of uncertainty and lack of knowledge, and this is consistently reflected in their work. Dismissing pseudoscientific objections is not the same as pretending to know all the answers!<BR/><BR/>Now to the philosophy of science bit, and the implications of the small warming slowdown in the last decade. The crucial point is that the projection is not based on correlations and extending a curve. It's based on the theory of climate and the underlying physics. Now as to whether that model is refuted by a slowdown that is only about 1.25 standard deviations below a trend… does this imply the model should be revised?<BR/><BR/>No, it doesn't; and as a physicist you should know that! The models already predict variation of this level. Models are NOT used to predict a specific series of temperatures. (And hence you don't give a temperature for 2100, but an average for the decade 2090 to 2099.) Weather is chaotic, you simply cannot predict the temperatures series year by year! <BR/><BR/>The way a model is really used is that you make a number of different runs, and the prediction is not any one of those runs, but the envelope of variation within the series can be expected to fall. The prediction is falsified when you get an observed series that is outside the range of variation given by the model. And you don't have that… not even close!<BR/><BR/><B>(7) Saturn says: <I>"The fact that there is real reason to doubt 2-4 degree sensitivity. The lack of willingness to accept the theory isn't proven. It will take 50 years of sustained data collection for such a theory to even approach proof."</I></B><BR/><BR/>The evidence plainly indicates that sensitivity is in the range 1.5-4.5C per doubling, and probably within 2-4. There are some isolated lines of evidence for smaller values down to 1.5C; but that has to be balanced for other lines of evidence for larger values. There is, however, no credible line of evidence for values smaller than 1.5. Claims to the contrary are based on outright errors. I don't say that because of any refusal to look at the alternatives; but because this is what you see when you DO look at the purported alternatives.<BR/><BR/>The claim about 50 years is just silly. Science never gets absolute proof of things, but the current state of data and evidence is ample to show that the planet is warming; that the major cause of that in recent decades is an enhanced greenhouse effect driven by human activity, and that the planet heats up in response to elevated greenhouse levels, with a sensitivity that is greater than the base Planck response.<BR/><BR/>50 years of data will naturally nail down the sensitivity a lot more, but you don't need it to see the mathematical errors in bad arguments for stupidly low sensitivities, nor do you need it to get a high level of confidence in the bounds 1.5C to 4.5C. That's just not looking at the evidence we already have, or swallowing uncritically a lot of tosh and wondering why scientists aren't taking it into account.<BR/><BR/>The simple fact that there continue to be lots of real and substantial unresolved uncertainties gives the lie to the implication that scientists are just refusing to look at dissent. The problem is not that scientists refuse to look at the counter arguments. They HAVE looked at the counter arguments from those trying to undermine the basics, and quite properly identified them as nonsense.<BR/><BR/>---<BR/><BR/>These comments are getting long, and I'm necessarily selective in what points I actually comment upon. I appreciate that you've been substantive, even though I think you've been wrong. If there is any one particular point I have not addressed and you think I should, feel free to single it out for my special attention. Thanks!sylashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10594421176931832170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-80090556819618959532008-08-09T03:52:00.000+10:002008-08-09T03:52:00.000+10:00Duae,One last point.Another very disturbing thing ...Duae,<BR/><BR/>One last point.<BR/><BR/>Another very disturbing thing to me that has given me grave doubts about high sensitivity is the fact of the timing of this temperature lull.<BR/><BR/>As I've said before models are a dime a dozen and getting some which match past data is no hard feat. In fact several articles have pointed out that if you took a flat line it would be almost as good as all the models in "accuracy" so I start with the presumption which I think in science is very important that our theory has zero validity until presented with facts that confirm it. The models were issued in 2001. Since that was the starting point the fact that they immediately failed to predict this lull or that we got it is very concerning. Maybe it's just random bad luck but from a betting mans perspective it casts tremendous doubt. It obviously reduces drastically the probability of correctness if the first 10 numbers to pop out of your random number generator happen to be less than 10 that you have a random number generator that creates randomly numbers between 1 and 100. What are the chances that the first 10 numbers out of the random number generator are all lower than 10 when it is supposed to be generating numbers up to 100 randomly? Yes, it's possible and there are runs of numbers in any 10 range that can go for a long string of times but it puts into doubt that it truly is a random number generator when the first 10 happen to be just by chance to be clumped together like this. <BR/><BR/>Yes, the data fits within the error bars but the timing of the data and its extent is incredibly worrisome. It would obviously have been much better if temperatures had gone up much faster in the first 10 years since the models were issued. The probability of them being correct seems greatly diminished because no data supports them according to my way of thinking. Again, this is because I don't consider regression tests convincing. <BR/><BR/>Frankly, for me I have no reason to believe in high sensitivity because I don't accept past data as convincing since there are millions of ways to explain past data or to model it and many physics and climate variables and processes we don't understand. It is not likely to me the models are correct because of their newness and because of our lack of understanding of the climate generally and because of many other reasons, one as simple as "what proof" do we have that the models are even coded correctly? What processes were used in the validatiion of the code? It wasn't until recently that the code was even released on some of the models.<BR/><BR/>I also want to emphasize again that as the temperature data continues to be moderate it makes the probability of 2 or 3 degrees by 2100 less and less likely even if the theory is correct. It seems likely there will be other lulls since we've already had this one. We have the PDO and NAO documented pretty well now. They seem consistent with the current data therefore making them seem like real phenomenon much more than high sensitivity global warming. They also explain things like the fact the arctic has heated up but NOT the antarctic. It explains why this year has turned out cooler better than AGW models.<BR/><BR/>These things place doubts in people's minds. Maybe you still "believe" in high sensitivity but you can at least understand why others may have doubts and these doubts aren't evidence of complete mental deficiency.<BR/><BR/>If we say in 2001 that the probability of 2 degrees in 2100 was 90% according to the IPCC what is the chance of 2 degrees NOW? I believe it is LOWER. Much lower. The sheer fact is you've lost 10 years. Frankly, temperatures are down absolutely almost 1/2 degree since 2000. We now understand the PDO and NAO will probably give us some pausing. We have doubts about cloud and temperature feedback. All of this suggests that sustained large continuous temperature increases seem less likely making 2-3 degrees by 2100 less and less likely. It seems to me a prudent thing would be to say it is likely our range for a doubling of CO2 or 2100 is more like 1.2 degrees or twice what we did in the 20th century. That to me seems possible if temperatures increased substantially in the next decade but you have to look at the 20th century and see how even with 2 very large spikes in temperature between 1910-1930 and 1980-2000 there were large periods of down or flat periods like we are experiencing right now. This implies it is likely we will see similar flat periods in the remaining 90 years of this century. It is also hard to believe we will get spikes much more massive upward than the ones we had in those time periods of 1910-1930 and 1980-2000. Those are very steep curves to get us to 0.7 for the century. How do we get 3-6 TIMES that much if we have lulls like the last 10 years and what may be a 15 year lull? Shouldn't we assume at least one more lull like this in the rest of the century. That means that we have 70 years to get the 3 degrees or 7 decades of 0.43/decade increase. Not inconcievable but very very high and unprecedented. It just feels risky to say we "know this will happen" therefore I am skeptical. 0.43/decade is very high increase. We have seen a 0.6 decrease this year so it is certainly possible to have a sustained increase in a decade of this magnitude but to do it consistently over 70 years seems improbable without seeing more evidence.<BR/><BR/>The argument I've heard is that even if this is low probability of happening we should make big changes in our society and how it uses energy because the risk is huge IF it happens. The problem with this is that I don't believe the negative consequences either. The temperature of the earth has been rising since 1750 and every increase has been associated with positive improvements in life and the world. I see no compelling reason to believe that will change for the next degree or 2. Nobody has proved to me that todays temperature, not yesterdays and not tomorrows is the ideal temperature for life on earth. Everything in my gut tells me that warmth is good. Life likes warmth and heat. Most of the planet is now covered in ice. If you fly much you see this all the time. When flying to europe from california I fly over 5 thousand miles of ice covered land. The earth could stand a little higher temperatures without significant negative effect it seems obvious to me. What if canada was more arable or large parts of russia? What if we could get at resources under the north pole or sail easily between europe and the US? Would this really be catastrophic? It seems unlikely. Also, CO2 is a plant food and as you point out humidity and rainfall are up, not down. This means more water, more freshwater. Glaciers melting means more water. It is also per chance increasing the size of Bangladesh easily overpowering the effect of sea level rising.<BR/><BR/>On and on Daue the arguments of the "believers" of high sensitivity CO2 climate seem designed to support a political thesis not to advance science or humanity or life. They want to prove they are right not even to advance science but to advance a poltiical agenda. That is worrisome because it ties science to politics and may cause backlash on science. I personally think this is more important than any political agenda. If there is one thing I love is truth and science is the embodiment of mans search for truth. To corrupt that for political purposes is unworthy and damaging. I think you must agree.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07258211248756033148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-12890265187015719332008-08-09T03:01:00.000+10:002008-08-09T03:01:00.000+10:00Duae,Your points are cogent and fairly precise.I s...Duae,<BR/><BR/>Your points are cogent and fairly precise.<BR/><BR/>I still have a problem as you can imagine.<BR/><BR/>While you and others claim the current data is within the normal variability the problem for me is that it isn't confirmatory. Yes, if you make the error bars big enough then of course any data fits within the error bars but that doesn't mean we've proved einstein is right. We can say that nothing disproves the standard model's postulation that the Higgs particle exists. The fact we haven't seen the Higgs particle is mildly good in that it didn't happen at an energy level too low for current theory but the lack of the Higgs particle also leaves a severe doubt in people's mind as to if we will find it or not. Now particle physics has a huge amount of supporting data for the standard model. We've been studying this for decades and yet people are willing to accept the fact that the non-existence of the Higgs particle will be a massive blow. Physicists talk about it all the time and nobody is going to be crying if it isn't found.<BR/><BR/>Yet, what is damning about "your" science is how you insist beyond all reasonable argumentation that there is no doubt this high sensitivity exists. All I'm doing is saying I no longer believe in high sensitivity. I say this because the models are stupid. Nobody could possibly believe the models actually predict anything and that is before all these new papers came out. It's patently obvious and even the modelers would never argue they are predictions for 2100. Your large error bars on temperatures more or less prove that the error bars on the eventual temperature in 2100 is quite large. We have no idea if it will be 2 or 4 degrees sensitivity or if temperatures will be down in 2100 in SPITE of high sensitivity to CO2. Other factors could be at play. The reason I say that is that the current "lull" (down for 9 years ... flat for 10) is unexplained. If someone could explain why the temperature is flattening like we did in the 90s with the volcanoes when we had some short period declines that would be very helpful. Maybe China is pumping out so much pollution or India that they are depressing temperatures like happened in the 1945-1975 time period. It's important to know that becuase the current data is putting doubt.<BR/><BR/>I am happy to believe in global warming at high sensitivity if it is true. I just don't believe it anymore. But that is almost beside the point.<BR/><BR/>I think what disturbs me the most on realclimate and here which are supposed to be more scientific and "truth" is the lack of willingness to acknowledge that sensitivity MIGHT be lower than 2 degrees or to acknowledge how difficult it might be to get to 2 or 3 degrees by 2100 and how the unprecedented temperature rises would be difficult to understand in the context of the PDO, NAO and natural variability that takes decades of "falling" temperatures. We only got 0.6 or 0.7 degree in the 20th century with 2 periods of very rapid temperature rises. In order to get 3 to 6 times the temperature increase of the 20th century we are either going to need some huge temperature jumps or some very consistent year over year increases. We are sitting here in the very first decade since the models came out with a 0.05 slope. This slope will result in LESS temperature rise than in the 20th century and this has been going on for 10 years. More worrisome is that temperatures are sinking so fast in just the last year dropping massively. Heat seems to have escaped the system. We can't say the heat escaped into the oceans only to come out maybe in 2 or 3 years because the oceans are COOLER. Amazing. This german team says we may have another 5 or 10 years of cool weather. If we do and this seems likely if not proven then where is high sensitivity Climate change theory going to be? They say it will all catch up but can you see why this is not the conservative "sure" "scientific" position to take? To bet on a massive unprecedented rise in temperatures at this point seems more like religion to me. The models don't provide any evidence to me. They are wrong. Every study shows they can't predict jack.<BR/><BR/>I think you are missing the big picture. Heat is missing. The explanations are unsatisfactory. How could the oceans be getting cooler? How could the land temperatures without volcanoes be getting cooler? How come the troposphere can't reveal its temperature to balloons? Is there something different about measuring temperatures in the troposphere compared to here on the land? How can temperatures sustainably go higher and higher without heat in the ocean or land or troposphere accumulating?<BR/><BR/>The problem is not simply that the data is barely withing the acceptable "natural variability" of the theory but that so much else is completely unconvincing and unexplained. Compounding that is the near religious zeal and derogatory way and political way these "scientists" are dealing with the issue. They keep wanting to suppresss debate, lambasting those who aren't believers as unscientific and stupid. I am an MIT grad with 4 years of rigorous science training and mathematics. I am not some stupid guy who doesn't understand simple math that is involved here. I have enough ego to not believe I'm stupid or to take political treateses like the APS "statement of position" as useful documents. They frighten me frankly. I've never seem a "physics" statement of position on einstein. It's absurd. Why would we need such a thing? It's is wrong. <BR/><BR/>So there is much wrong about this. The way the science is being debated. The lack of skepticism. The politicization. The fact that there is real reason to doubt 2-4 degree sensitivity. The lack of willingness to accept the theory isn't proven. It will take 50 years of sustained data collection for such a theory to even approach proof. <BR/><BR/>Let's get back a little to your specific points. I accept most of your data on ice extent, etc... I've been looking at charts at the official sites and they show a trend for ice in the arctic that is exactly on the same slope as the 30 year average. However, as you point out the ice is actually building from last year not exceeding last years decline or going to ice free as some predicted would be a 50/50 chance. That to me was political as there seemed to be no basis for this other than to create a news story. The real story was that ice extent was far GREATER than last year not less but that story wasn't reported. <BR/><BR/>" But there is a plenty of data on this, and the conclusion of increasing moisture is robust. <BR/><BR/>Moisture is robust absolutely. I never said that. What I guess I understand is that even though there is more H2O it is raining so the moisture is not staying in the atmosphere to increase heat. I guess people expected cloud cover to increase or something. This seems to be where the problem resides as the feedback calculations in the models assumed we would get this robust positive feedback with clouds and moisture in the atmosphere creating additional greenhouse effects. That has not materialized which is why the author of the IPCC feedbacks section is now recanted and said that there may be no relationship between clouds and moisture and heat or the relationship may be reverse meaning that the clouds drive temperature not the other way around which means that this component of feedback can be removed as a positive feedback and simply become a normal variability parameter. <BR/><BR/>I believe the biggest problem for the "high sensitivity" is the fact that 2/3rds of the high sensitivity is based on feedbacks in computer models that are completely unproven.<BR/><BR/>I insist that if you want to call yourself a scientist and not a political hack you have to acknowledge that computer models with complicated physics, massive assumptions about the interactions of many complex chaotic components cannot possibly be proven by the very little work done so far and that frankly the results from comparing models to the real world have been dissapointing. If you said that I would start to believe you were a scientist more and less of a politically motivated person.<BR/><BR/>This is all I'm trying to say. I'm not trying to "prove" the high sensitivity case is wrong. I don't know if we have proof either way. I would say there are reasons for severe doubts there will be high sensitivity. I expect any scientist to be able to admit this. It is impossible that any true scientist actually "believes" in these models yet. They are too new and there is so little to back them up and there are many reasons to doubt there legitimacy on purely abstract basis. So, that's all I'm asking is that the people speaking about this "theory" express the same skepticism and willingness to consider alternate theories as I see in physics or any other branch of true science.<BR/><BR/>When I see people issuing "statement of positions" as the APS did and so many other politicized organizations have it degrades science. We have no "statement of position on algebra" or something. We have no "statement of position" on the age of the universe. These imply somebody is trying to "force" us to believe not unlike when you go to church and they make you recite "god is great" over and over. It's scary, daue to see science reduced to "I believe in high senstivity global warming" " i believe it is proved" and repeat over and over until everyone agrees. That's why I have liked your comments so far because at least there is an attempt to defend the science but I think you could still be a lot more skeptical and willing to consider where the weaknesses in the science are.<BR/><BR/>We are not idiots. We know there must be weaknesses. There are weaknesses in the standard model of particles in physics. This is a theory under intense intense intense scrutiny for nearly 100 years. We have had billions and billions spent trying to confirm every detail and we still don't know if the whole thing will fall on its face in the next year if we don't find the Higgs.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07258211248756033148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-72002016509781509632008-08-08T17:38:00.000+10:002008-08-08T17:38:00.000+10:00The reason AGW lost the debate for me was the cond...The reason AGW lost the debate for me was the conduct of the various pro-AGW blogs, and the conduct of the Climate Science community.<BR/><BR/>I started out like most people just accepting the theory. It seemed to make sense, from the point of view of physics, and the Hockey Stick data seemed irrefutable support for the argument that the recent present was decisively different. I became interested, and started to read Real Climate.<BR/><BR/>My first unease was with the tone of dismissive abuse of any critical voices. It raised the hair on the back of the neck a little. This, one thought, is not the way settled science is defended. It was because of this that I started to read more widely. Rabett, Stoat, Tamino, Deltoid and others. The characteristic venomous tone was more marked. One had encountered it before, in the Soviet era from Party hacks. Increasingly suspicious, but lacking any real factual or scientific basis for this suspicion, I turned to the critical sites, and focussed on the Hockey Stick as a point of entry.<BR/><BR/>The first striking scientific issue was Mann's refusal to reveal his raw data. He was obliged to do this finally, but has still not revealed, even to Congressional Committee, his algorithm. I found the Wegman report with its endorsement of the M&M critique very convincing. From CO2 Science I became convinced that there's a mass of evidence that MWP both real and was global.<BR/><BR/>I started to discover two more things. First, a general pattern of the refusal to reveal data which would make results reproducible. This characterized the University of East Anglia group. We had the extraordinary episode where only proceedings under the Freedom of Information Act could compel the release of the identities of 80 Chinese surface stations. What conceivable legitimate reason could there be for that? Why was the Tornetrask data so hard to come by? But even outside East Anglian, how could it be, that Dr Thompson's data was in good enough shape to allow him to do adequate quality control for his published studies, but yet require totally excessive and impossible amounts of work to be got into publishable form? It made no sense. I concluded that nothing published by the Hockey Stick group was to be trusted.<BR/><BR/>In the face of the statistical and methodological demolition of the HS, the response of the AGW community was even more puzzling. It was defence at all costs. The continuing saga of the Hockey Stick has continued the pattern. We now have obtained most of the missing data. This has permitted full analysis, and we can see both that the statistical methodology was indefensible, and that the results are highly sensitive to the selection of data series.<BR/><BR/>I concluded that we have to throw it all out, and go back to the historical record as previously understood, and that the Roman Warm period and MWP were probably at least as warm as today, and that the LIA really did happen. This in turn leads one to the view that natural climate variability is far greater than AGW proponents have admitted, and so makes one sceptical about the unique and dangerous nature of modern warming.<BR/><BR/>At about this time the surface stations project began to throw up data, not only about the state of the stations, but about the way we pass from raw data to the climate record. It was not just that the stations seem sited so as to give a warm bias to the record. It was that the basis for the continual adjustments of the previous temperature record were incomprehensible. What on earth are we doing raising and lowering the recorded temperatures in some obscure town in Texas in the early years of the 20th century? This also makes no sense.<BR/><BR/>But at least in the GISS material one could get to the algorithm, however mad. In the case of Hadcru, the algorithm is kept secret. This is truly crazy.<BR/><BR/>We next came to the issue of the statistical validity of the IPCC forecasts. Lucia has patiently worked her way through the statistics, and shown that they are falsified at the magnitudes given. It does not mean there is no warming, but it does mean that, so far, the IPCC forecasts of 0.2 per decade are clearly falsified. It just is not warming as much as people had thought it would.<BR/><BR/>And so finally we come to sensitivity, surely the key issue. It was a surprise to me to discover (from Monckton) how the IPCC estimate of sensitivity had changed. Over the years, the direct effects of CO2 have been reduced, and the feedback effects increased. In conjunction with the observations above about natural variability, I became highly sceptical that feedbacks could possibly be of the size asserted. If so, previous natural variations would surely have invoked much larger swings. And it seemed impossible to reconcile the succession of coolings we know about from recorded history with the existence of such large sensitivities.<BR/><BR/>I concluded that we did not know why it had warmed in the past, nor why it had cooled. This affects your view of the present. The warming is happening, but is lower than forecast, and doesn't seem particularly alarming, or likely to continue indefinitely.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, I read Pielke. Now what emerges from Pielke is not that it is not warming. Nor does one conclude that CO2 does not matter. But one does see that other factors, like land use changes, are probably far more important. <BR/><BR/>And Pielke has also focussed attention on ocean heat content. And this too does not seem to be acting as it should if AGW were correct and catastrophic warming were round the corner.<BR/><BR/>To an outside observer, because I am not a climate scientist, this is a stock I would not invest in. There are too many things that don't make sense, and too many indicators that are not pointing in the right direction. It has all the marks of one of the great mass scientific delusions of the past - eugenics for instance.<BR/><BR/>Like Saturn, I notice around me in conversations a general mutinous scepticism about it. People just are not buying. We will see. Maybe the wisdom of crowds in this case will be wrong. Maybe this will have all the marks of being a bad one, but fly anyway.<BR/><BR/>But I doubt it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-65984597456937822592008-08-08T12:08:00.000+10:002008-08-08T12:08:00.000+10:00Hi zinfan94,This may sound like a cop-out; but my ...Hi zinfan94,<BR/><BR/>This may sound like a cop-out; but my speculations on the different factors that impact water vapour are not worth much.<BR/><BR/>Speculations are a dime a dozen. You're better to study the matter for yourself. That way you learn about the various speculations and proposals already considered by people who study this for a living; and you also end up in a position where your own speculations start to be more meaningful. I'm not there yet, so I can't help much on causes of humidity variation.sylashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10594421176931832170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-80078860769968735512008-08-08T07:57:00.000+10:002008-08-08T07:57:00.000+10:00DQ, I appreciate your patience, and the even hande...DQ, I appreciate your patience, and the even handed way you are addressing saturn. I do think however, that he is jumping all over with his comments, which simply makes the discussion more difficult, and less rewarding than focusing on one area at a time.<BR/><BR/>I do have what might be a stupid question. Monckton has used his perceived lack of tropical mid-troposphere heating as a reason to slash the sensitivity by more than one third. Well, he actually slashed the CO2 forcing by one third, but basically he wants to simply throw a fudge factor in reduce sensitivity, and he doesn't seem to care where he puts it in, based on his recent rebuttals. His reliance on tropical mid-troposphere data to change the entire global physical model seems mis-placed. And if I understood you correctly, the stratosphere cooling is an extremely strong fingerprint of radiative forcing from increased CO2 and manmade GHGs.<BR/><BR/>Since Monckton is mis-using data on the lower than expected tropical mid-troposphere heating, it might be helpful to focus on what other causes could possibly affect this. So to my question:<BR/><BR/>When you described the connection between the CO2 forcing and the water vapor feedback, you seemed to indicate that the CO2 is absorbing and re-radiating energy throughout the troposphere, and by causing some warming there, increases the amount of water vapor present, and hence getting a positive feedback leading to more warming than would be expected from the CO2 increase by itself (increased sensitivity?). But is it possible that some other factors could limit the increase in water vapor levels? Perhaps there are circulations of the troposphere in the tropics, that mixes and cools the mid-troposphere enough, such that the water vapor positive feedback isn't as strong as the models might suggest? How is the troposphere in the tropics affected by the higher rotational speed of the earth, compared to the slower rotational speed at the higher latitudes? Are there other factors that you can think of that would limit the penetration of water vapor to higher altitudes, and thus give us a muted warming in the mid-troposphere? Is it possible that the gases in the mid-troposphere are not as saturated with water vapor, as we might expect, due to limitations in mass transfer rates etc.? What about periodic drops in temperature, reducing or condensing water, then re-warming to a less saturated water vapor state?<BR/><BR/>I don't have an agenda here... I am just brainstorming, and in that process, a lot of ideas come out that are "stupid" and can be dismissed easily. I just was wondering, instead of relying on simply questioning the data collected, whether the models themselves need modifications to account for different behavior of the mid-troposphere in the tropics.Paul Klemencichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08152841160175948575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-38201278156875128062008-08-07T11:37:00.000+10:002008-08-07T11:37:00.000+10:00Gotta say saturn, it is nice that you don't take a...Gotta say saturn, it is nice that you don't take any offense. You are, however, completely wrong on the specifics in nearly every case. So here we go again, with no personal attack intended as usual. I'm responding to <A HREF="http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com/2008/07/aps-and-global-warming-what-were-they.html#comment-7849203095828967408" REL="nofollow">this comment</A>.<BR/><BR/>(1) Saturn says: <I>"We had a thirty year cooling, a 20 year warming and now 10 years down."</I><BR/><BR/>These widely repeated claims about the last 10 years are simply false. Get the data for yourself, put it in a spreadsheet, and calculate the regression for the last ten years. It will show a warming trend. Use the <A HREF="http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/" REL="nofollow">HadCRUT3 data</A>, because it shows less warming over the last decade than NASA-GISS datasets. (HadCRUT3 omits the poorly measured Arctic Ocean from the average calculation, while GISS extrapolates values from highest latitude measurements.) The link also shows some plots, which reveal lots of natural variation; and with smoothing it shows an upward trend since around 1950, which is especially strong from 1975 onwards.<BR/><BR/>Using just the last 10 years of monthly data, you get about +0.05 C/decade warming. If you use the annual timeseries, then you get about +0.07.<BR/><BR/>If you take any other ten year window up to any other month in the last decade… you <I>still</I> get a positive warming slope. Start right from the peak of the 1998 high and measure ten years forward. It still shows warming.<BR/><BR/>The most recent ten year window with a negative slope was 1987 through to the end of 1996, or into early 1997. This is right in the middle of what saturn rightly identifies as a period of warming. It's just perfectly natural variation.<BR/><BR/>To see the effect of normal year to year variation, look at the range of slopes over every ten year window back to about 1970. The average is over 0.18 C/decade; but the standard deviation on ten year slopes is 0.11 C/decade. Thus the slope for the most recent ten years is about 1.25σ below the mean, well within normal variation. You would need cooling over a fifteen year window to be 3σ below average.<BR/><BR/>(2) Saturn goes on to say: <I>"The troposphere data is not solid or defensible, the ocean is getting cooler and on and on and you say the data is not going in the opposite direction. Don't you realize the debate is not shutting down as it should if the arguments were rock solid and the data was truly consistent. If we were experiencing the type of heat the models predicted nobody (including me) would be debating the feedbacks. I might still be debating the negative effects of the warming but I would be on your side totally as to the physics and the science."</I><BR/><BR/>Nonsense. Available evidence robustly shows an increase in tropospheric moisture. There's a lot of ongoing work to nail down the details, because moisture content shows large natural variation across seasons and location. But the overall trend of increasing moisture shows up strongly. I cited and linked a recent paper above (Soden 2005); saturn ignored it. More work on this includes <A HREF="http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.abstract" REL="nofollow">Santer et al (2007)</A>, <A HREF="http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/Fasullo/refs/Trenberth2005FasulloSmith.pdf" REL="nofollow">Trenberth at al (2005)</A>, and IPCC 4AR sec 3.4.2.<BR/><BR/>I don't know why specifically saturn thinks different. He gives no data or argument; only an assertion. But there is a plenty of data on this, and the conclusion of increasing moisture is robust. <BR/><BR/>Similarly… the ocean is not getting cooler. The situation here is more complex. There were some legitimate papers arguing for cooling of the ocean a couple of years ago. Since then, the authors have identified and measured systematic errors, and withdrawn the claim of cooling. (<A HREF="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030323.shtml" REL="nofollow">Willis et al, 2007</A>).<BR/><BR/>There are still outstanding problems in reconciling all the different measurements, outside confidence limits, and so there are still unresolved systematic errors somewhere, and this is being actively investigated. The issue concerns short term variations. Everyone working on this still recognizes an ongoing warming trend in the ocean. (Ref: <A HREF="http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1747" REL="nofollow">NASA JPL news release</A>; and a <A HREF="http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/03/31/josh-willis-on-climate-change-global-warming-is-real.aspx" REL="nofollow">recent statement by Josh Willis</A> putting his work in context.)<BR/><BR/>(3) Saturn says: <I>"31,000 scientists signed a statement saying they question the idea of severe AGW several months ago"</I>.<BR/><BR/>Argument from authority backfires badly.<BR/><BR/>The petition is not limited to "scientists"; anyone with a science degree can sign up, and even that is not checked. It was not "several months ago"… this petition has been collecting signatures for nearly ten years now. There are lots of people with science degrees sucked in by the nonsense, but the arguments used (as we see also right here) don't even use minimal levels of checking. The material associated with this petition is spectacularly bad, and the petition statement on the relative merits of evidence is more or less insane. You get the same kinds of informal uncontrolled petition in lots of fields of pseudoscience.<BR/><BR/>For people who like argument by authority, my response is in the comment on <A HREF="http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com/2008/07/aps-and-global-warming-what-were-they.html#comment-6848265565014548865" REL="nofollow">5 August 2008 08:33</A>. Look at the formal statements of national academies of science, and professional bodies that have national representation for a whole field of science. There are hundreds of formal statements by such bodies noting the reality and seriousness of AGW; and none denying it.<BR/><BR/>Strong statements on all sides go beyond disagreement on AGW, and claim that the other side of the debate is not merely wrong, but actively incompetent – or worse. So it's not just about AGW. It's about science education and practice generally. So who represents the pseudoscience? The NAS? or the 31,000+ signers of the petition? Here's a free clue: it's not the NAS.<BR/><BR/>I find it surreal that anyone would think the Oregon petition makes a better argument from authority that the formal statements of the NAS, AAAS, Royal Society, NSF, national and multinational science academies all over the world, and hundreds of national organizations representing a particular scientific field. But so be it. As for me and my house, we will continue to rely on examination of evidence and argument.<BR/><BR/>(4) <I>"The arctic has stopped melting"</I><BR/><BR/>I'm guessing this is not quite what saturn meant; but in any case: the Arctic is still melting; and will continue to melt through to the September minimum, which at this point seems likely to be one of the biggest melts on record; probably something like the third or fourth lowest ever. We'll see soon enough. (<A HREF="http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html" REL="nofollow">Arctic Sea Ice News, Aug 1, 2008</A>) Everyone working in this area expects the trend towards less and less Arctic ice to continue into the foreseeable future.<BR/><BR/>(5)<I>"there will be no ice free north pole this summer as predicted"</I><BR/><BR/>That was never a prediction; it was described as a 50% possibility. Furthermore, although symbolic, whether the North Pole itself becomes part of the melt this year is not actually dependent on temperatures, but on currents. The Pole seems likely to remain covered in ice this year. (More detail: <A HREF="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/north-pole-notes/" REL="nofollow">North Pole Notes</A>) <BR/><BR/>(6)<I>"the melting is about the same as the average of the last 30 years"</I><BR/><BR/>Nonsense again. Where do you get this stuff? As of July 31, the sea-ice extent was 7.71 million sq km; well below the 1979-2000 average of 8.88. Global warming affects the totals more than the rate of decline, since both maximum and minimum ice extents are in a general decline. (<A HREF="http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html" REL="nofollow">Arctic Sea Ice News, Aug 1, 2008</A>, again.)<BR/><BR/>----<BR/><BR/>There's more, but the above are the simplest outright errors in saturn's comment. I don't doubt that saturn could fix these up and carry on pretty much unchanged; because there is an endless supply of such errors being presented with bland confidence by those denying the science behind AGW. If you don't check things out, you [i]will[/i] end up being deceived. I suspect saturn is the victim, not the source, of these errors.<BR/><BR/>Here's a more general point.<BR/><BR/>This mismatch between scientific and public debate on this is not because the science is settled. There is lots of active research and dispute going on to sort out details and points on which we are uncertain.<BR/> <BR/>We know about uncertainties and inaccuracies. None of them do any damage to the conclusion that the Earth is warming up significantly in recent decades, or refute the notion that this is a trend that is highly likely to continue, along with the natural variations seen observations and predicted by theory.<BR/><BR/>We know about lots of different factors that impact on climate change. The point about "it's the physics" is that you can quantify the greenhouse forcing quite accurately… and nothing else even comes close as a comparable contribution to warming over recent decades. The other effects are important… but they are smaller than the greenhouse effect.<BR/> <BR/>We know about trends and natural variation. It's a pretty basic calculation that you need something like cooling over a 15 year window to be 3σ outside the normal variation seen in the warming trend since 1970; and over an 18 year window to be 4σ. This might be a good topic for a blog post sometime. In the meantime, people rabbiting on about how cooling has stopped are really only advertising their inability with trends and timeseries. <BR/><BR/>We don't know the climate sensitivity for forcings, except within generous uncertainty bounds. Claims for negative feedback are way outside those bounds, and are based on fundamental errors by a tiny handle of individuals, and then get picked up – it must be said – by credulous simpletons who have no idea how to derive a sensitivity estimate. The evidence simply does not support this in the slightest.<BR/><BR/>A maverick in science can explore ideas that don't fit what is conventionally considered known. This is an important part of how science works. The crank or pseudoscientist claims to have already proven that everyone else is wrong, on the basis of arguments riddled with errors, and loudly proclaims that it is only bias that prevents their insight from being accepted. The denial of AGW is nearly all pseudoscience.sylashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10594421176931832170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-6573909505302429602008-08-06T09:47:00.000+10:002008-08-06T09:47:00.000+10:00Ad hominem is not the same as criticism. An ad hom...Ad hominem is not the same as criticism. An ad hominem argument is one that uses comments on persons as the basis for argument.<BR/><BR/>Saturn's comments are welcome. He provides a strong focus on substance, and accepts with good grace the focus on substance which I give in return, without getting upset that I think he is completely wrong. Likewise, I don't mind that he thinks I am completely wrong.<BR/><BR/>I am preparing a response to saturn, but without being in any rush. Both saturn's comments and mine have a strong focus on substance, and we both have critical remarks about each other. Neither of us has attempted to argue from the person as a premise, which would be ad hominem. Being critical is not ad hominem.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous' comment above, on the other hand, is classic ad hominem. There is no use of substance, and the basis of argument is all on persons. This is destructive and unwelcome.sylashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10594421176931832170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-74663846778814653982008-08-06T02:29:00.000+10:002008-08-06T02:29:00.000+10:00DQ voices his opinion of Saturn´s competence thus:...DQ voices his opinion of Saturn´s competence thus:<BR/><BR/>“I will also be very dismissive of Saturn's claims.”<BR/><BR/>and he goes on to intersperse his arguments from physics with an extraordinary concatenation of ad hominem insults, viz:<BR/><BR/>“The heart of the problem of what word to use for the AGW-skeptics is that their arguments are so dreadfully bad.” <BR/> <BR/>“You need to wake up to yourself, Saturn”<BR/><BR/>"It's the physics, stupid".<BR/><BR/>Saturn might have said “You need to wake up to yourself, DQ” and "It's the facts, stupid". But he didn´t.<BR/><BR/>His avoidance of the easy ad hominem is admirable: his concerned arguments are restrained and altogether convincing.<BR/><BR/>DQ´s cosy little “Me and Gavin, yeah, that's the ticket.” is utterly nauseating, is it not?<BR/><BR/>“Respect the facts!” Chris, and you might justify the label<BR/>"physicist", rather than the train-spotting, computer-modelling nerd you appear to be. (Er…, no ad hominem intended).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com