Simple Question About AGW

[CapelDodger]

I need to remember that turn of phrase the next time I passionately argue forth, then realize I made a mistake. I hope I'll have the courage to do so though and admit my mistake and apologize, as you have. Your integrity and honesty is appreciated.

Slimething is known for this ability, which puts him a cut above many others. In that particular regard. Or "metric", which seems to be a current fad. I weep for the language I love so much.

If history is any judge, though, I'll have an opportunity to test my courage very soon. :)

You can test your weapons, your armour, and your tactics but at some point you have to get into the arena to prove yourself :).

[CapelDodger]

The right hand is "what we got".

left hand is "AGW mid level warming."



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422447cf4b13e7875.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11141)

I'll take that as a "No, you're not convinced of the greenhouse effect". You present a picture that gives you cause to doubt it.

Feel free to contest this interpretation.

[David Rodale]

I'll take that as a "No, you're not convinced of the greenhouse effect". You present a picture that gives you cause to doubt it.

Feel free to contest this interpretation.

Do you agree with Dr. Roy Spencer's evaluation?
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Recent-Evidence-Reduced-Sensitivity-NYC-3-4-08.pps

What will you say when his new peer reviewed paper is released which reveals yet another error in climate models?
December, 2007 RESEARCH UPDATE: We have received back from peer review our article showing how natural climate variability has probably been misinterpreted, at least partially, by researchers who claim to see evidence of positive feedback (which would make global warming worse) in the climate system. Our article was carefully reviewed by two of the world's leading climate model experts who both agreed that we have raised a legitimate issue that has been previously ignored. Those reviewers even developed their own simple climate models to demonstrate the effect to themselves. It is still not known how much of an effect this is, but accounting for it would logically reduce estimates of how much global warming can be blamed on mankind.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Recent-Evidence-Reduced-Sensitivity-NYC-3-4-08.pps

[mhaze]

I'll take that as a "No, you're not convinced of the greenhouse effect". You present a picture that gives you cause to doubt it.

Feel free to contest this interpretation.

Sure, you see "What we got" isn't acceptable with greenhouse theory as modeled, but that could mean numerous things. For example, water vapor is credited with 80-97% of the greenhouse effect, depending on who one listens to. But that occurs down lower in the atmosphere, often very close to the ground, and might well block ground emissions that would otherwise get to the higher layers when the CO2 effect is imagined.

Here, though, we are discussing the CO2 greenhouse effect, and whether it is a large or a small effect. From the "modeled hotspot" vs "actual no hotspot", we have to pretty much conclude that CO2 has a low effect. So I'm not saying there is no CO2 greenhouse effect, but just to peg a number on it, let's say 2xCO2 for climate sensitivity of 0.5C increase. I can reconcile this type of CO2 climate sensitivity with the "What we got" image.

Make sense?

[a_unique_person]

Sure, you see "What we got" isn't acceptable with greenhouse theory as modeled, but that could mean numerous things. For example, water vapor is credited with 80-97% of the greenhouse effect, depending on who one listens to. But that occurs down lower in the atmosphere, often very close to the ground, and might well block ground emissions that would otherwise get to the higher layers when the CO2 effect is imagined.

Here, though, we are discussing the CO2 greenhouse effect, and whether it is a large or a small effect. From the "modeled hotspot" vs "actual no hotspot", we have to pretty much conclude that CO2 has a low effect. So I'm not saying there is no CO2 greenhouse effect, but just to peg a number on it, let's say 2xCO2 for climate sensitivity of 0.5C increase. I can reconcile this type of CO2 climate sensitivity with the "What we got" image.

Make sense?

Which makes me wonder why you would post the "Falsification of CO2", since it denies any greenhouse effect from CO2.

[CapelDodger]

Sure, you see "What we got" isn't acceptable with greenhouse theory as modeled, but that could mean numerous things

I only care (in this case) about one meaning, which is that you're not convinced of the greenhouse effect. Which you clearly aren't. Question answered, let's all move on.

[CapelDodger]

Which makes me wonder why you would post the "Falsification of CO2", since it denies any greenhouse effect from CO2.

You wonder, but you're not surprised are you :)?

[bobdroege7]

You mean my view of the greenhouse effect, which is defined as requiring a mid level atmospheric temperatures hotter than surface temperatures?

Surely you mean a mid level atmospheric temperature anomaly greater than the surface temperature anomoly?

Just keeping you straight

[bobdroege7]

I didn't think it was but it just sprang up from some dusty room.



"I'm not a pheasant plucker,
I'm a pheasant plucker's son,
I'm only plucking pheasants,
'Til the pheasant plucker comes."

Chorus For A Drinking Song, Anon

Well, I can guess where that song devolves to when well into the cups, you pleasant...

So I was knicking a knicker, knicking an old knicking ditty.

[bobdroege7]

Sure, you see "What we got" isn't acceptable with greenhouse theory as modeled, but that could mean numerous things. For example, water vapor is credited with 80-97% of the greenhouse effect, depending on who one listens to. But that occurs down lower in the atmosphere, often very close to the ground, and might well block ground emissions that would otherwise get to the higher layers when the CO2 effect is imagined.

Here, though, we are discussing the CO2 greenhouse effect, and whether it is a large or a small effect. From the "modeled hotspot" vs "actual no hotspot", we have to pretty much conclude that CO2 has a low effect. So I'm not saying there is no CO2 greenhouse effect, but just to peg a number on it, let's say 2xCO2 for climate sensitivity of 0.5C increase. I can reconcile this type of CO2 climate sensitivity with the "What we got" image.

Make sense?

Yeah, except for the following:

CO2 and Water absorb infared at differing wavelegths, so CO2 is transparent at the wavelength water absobs at and vice versa, although there is some overlap.

I think we can already see a 0.5 C increase due to CO2 and we have not doubled yet.

[a_unique_person]

Yeah, except for the following:

CO2 and Water absorb infared at differing wavelegths, so CO2 is transparent at the wavelength water absobs at and vice versa, although there is some overlap.

I think we can already see a 0.5 C increase due to CO2 and we have not doubled yet.

A question. :w2:

Does the absorbed radiation get re-emitted at the same frequency, or can it be re-emitted at a differrent frequency?

[Slimething]

So there you go. Find data of troposphere temperature measurements why is it important. The important thing is to make sure is not yet another contrarian straw man.

I don't think I have to go find it. mhaze has posted it. CapelDodger has stated that a tropospheric hotspot is a bona fide requirement of the current AGW hypothesis. All I'm looking for is confirmation that this predicted effect is not happening.

Mind you that I don't believe that the lack of a tropospheric hotspot is the deathknell of AGW. I've been after Capel Dodger and others to desist from hanging on to the various "secondary" predictions of the AGW GHG mechanics because I believe that all is not known about the expression of this mechanism. After all, the physics underlayment of the hypothesis is elegant and compelling. I must caution everyone in extrapolating too far from this basis, though. IOW, I disagree that the lack of such tropospheric hotspot as falsification.


In my experience, I can count the number of times that a prediction has gone according to theory on one hand. My personal opinion is that the beauty of science si not in the knowing but in the discovery. The very fact that a model of the abnormal climate based such a simple mechanism has eluded very talented physicists is evidence that there are unrealized influences, IMHO.

[TrueSceptic]

I only care (in this case) about one meaning, which is that you're not convinced of the greenhouse effect. Which you clearly aren't. Question answered, let's all move on.
I'm trying to find out if mhaze accepts the CO2 greenhouse effect but with minimal contrbution to the recent temperature rise, or doubts it altogether.

Last July he said (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2779020&postcount=60)
We've put more CO2 in the air and the air should warm up a bit because of that. Relatively affluent, say Western, lifestyles, cause 10-20 tons of CO2 per person to be released. Western lifestyles are a form of behavior, so yes, global warming is real and is at least partially driven by human behavior.

From that one must ask, well, what are we talking about here? Is it a 0.5 C rise over 50 years (does not matter at all) a 6 C rise over 50 years (not good) or a completely unknown rise because we ain't that smart to figure it out?
That suggests to me that he used to accept the effect, albeit with large uncertainty in the effect on temperature, and has moved towards very low effect. I'd like like to know what evidence caused the change in his position.

[bobdroege7]

A question. :w2:

Does the absorbed radiation get re-emitted at the same frequency, or can it be re-emitted at a differrent frequency?


Here is a site with a graph of the absorption spectra for various greenhouse gases.

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

It's from the enemy camp, but you can find the errors in their arguments!

but the simple answer is that it can re-emit at the same frequency, but more likely it will tranfer the energy to other molecules in collisions and then be radiated as blackbody radiation at a range of frequencies.

Nice question though, took some thought, and research, now I have to get back to your reading list. But beware the bandwith police as I am foaw. they took my pandora away.

[a_unique_person]

Here is a site with a graph of the absorption spectra for various greenhouse gases.

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

It's from the enemy camp, but you can find the errors in their arguments!

but the simple answer is that it can re-emit at the same frequency, but more likely it will tranfer the energy to other molecules in collisions and then be radiated as blackbody radiation at a range of frequencies.

Nice question though, took some thought, and research, now I have to get back to your reading list. But beware the bandwith police as I am foaw. they took my pandora away.

Thank you, much appreciated.

[mhaze]

Here is a site with a graph of the absorption spectra for various greenhouse gases.

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

It's from the enemy camp, but you can find the errors in their arguments!

but the simple answer is that it can re-emit at the same frequency, but more likely it will tranfer the energy to other molecules in collisions and then be radiated as blackbody radiation at a range of frequencies.

Good article. Are there errors in this argument?



"Because a linear increase in temperature requires an exponential increase in carbon dioxide (thanks to the physics of radiation absorption described above), we know that the next two-fold increase in CO2 will produce exactly the same temperature increase as the previous two-fold increase. Although we haven't had a two-fold increase yet, it is easy to calculate from the observed values what to expect.
Between 1900 and 2000, atmospheric CO2 increased from 295 to 365 ppm, while temperatures increased about 0.57 degrees C (using the value cited by Al Gore and others). It is simple to calculate the proportionality constant (call it 'k') between the observed increase in CO2 and the observed temperature increase: "
http://brneurosci.org/co2-equations.png


"This shows that doubling CO2 over its current values should increase the earth's temperature by about 1.85 degrees C. Doubling it again would raise the temperature another 1.85 degrees C. Since these numbers are based on actual measurements, not models, they include the effects of amplification, if we make the reasonable assumption that the same amplification mechanisms that occurred previously will also occur in a world that is two degrees warmer."

please use quote boxes or something?

done

[Pipirr]

mhaze, could you please use quote boxes or something? Hard to tell where your quoting begins and ends.

[a_unique_person]

Good article. Are there errors in this argument?



Because a linear increase in temperature requires an exponential increase in carbon dioxide (thanks to the physics of radiation absorption described above), we know that the next two-fold increase in CO2 will produce exactly the same temperature increase as the previous two-fold increase. Although we haven't had a two-fold increase yet, it is easy to calculate from the observed values what to expect.
Between 1900 and 2000, atmospheric CO2 increased from 295 to 365 ppm, while temperatures increased about 0.57 degrees C (using the value cited by Al Gore and others). It is simple to calculate the proportionality constant (call it 'k') between the observed increase in CO2 and the observed temperature increase:
http://brneurosci.org/co2-equations.png


This shows that doubling CO2 over its current values should increase the earth's temperature by about 1.85 degrees C. Doubling it again would raise the temperature another 1.85 degrees C. Since these numbers are based on actual measurements, not models, they include the effects of amplification, if we make the reasonable assumption that the same amplification mechanisms that occurred previously will also occur in a world that is two degrees warmer.


You are forgetting Enhanced effect and feedbacks. That's the worry. We know temperature will rise, (you do now acknowledge that CO2 is a GHG and it is causing temperatures to rise, at least. You can now drop the "falsification of CO2").

[mhaze]

You are forgetting Enhanced effect and feedbacks. That's the worry.

No this is backing it out from the real world. So those are incorporated, and since this attributes all temp rise to co2 it would be an absolute worst case.

Of course, the plant is emerging from the Little Ice Age so it should be warming, and the PDO shift of the 1970s, similar effect.

[fsol]

Good article. Are there errors in this argument?



"Because a linear increase in temperature requires an exponential increase in carbon dioxide (thanks to the physics of radiation absorption described above), we know that the next two-fold increase in CO2 will produce exactly the same temperature increase as the previous two-fold increase. Although we haven't had a two-fold increase yet, it is easy to calculate from the observed values what to expect.
Between 1900 and 2000, atmospheric CO2 increased from 295 to 365 ppm, while temperatures increased about 0.57 degrees C (using the value cited by Al Gore and others). It is simple to calculate the proportionality constant (call it 'k') between the observed increase in CO2 and the observed temperature increase: "
http://brneurosci.org/co2-equations.png


"This shows that doubling CO2 over its current values should increase the earth's temperature by about 1.85 degrees C. Doubling it again would raise the temperature another 1.85 degrees C. Since these numbers are based on actual measurements, not models, they include the effects of amplification, if we make the reasonable assumption that the same amplification mechanisms that occurred previously will also occur in a world that is two degrees warmer."

please use quote boxes or something?

done

Is that reasonable? Do they back that up with anything?

[a_unique_person]

Good article. Are there errors in this argument?

It's certainly a lot better than "The Falsification of CO2" as far as articles go.

[CapelDodger]

No this is backing it out from the real world.

Not as such; the real world is where the feedbacks apply. Isolating the CO2 influence (if it has any) is backing out of the real world.

So those are incorporated, and since this attributes all temp rise to co2 it would be an absolute worst case.

Gibberish.

Of course, the plant is emerging from the Little Ice Age so it should be warming, and the PDO shift of the 1970s, similar effect.

The planet should be warming why? Do you regard it as an emergent property? Where's the energy coming from? What's the mystic influence that made the LIA what it was and the current situattion what it is (rather different)? These things don't just happen, they have causes. "Emerging from the LIA" is not a cause.

[CapelDodger]

Good article. Are there errors in this argument?

yup.

"Because a linear increase in temperature requires an exponential increase in carbon dioxide (thanks to the physics of radiation absorption described above), we know that the next two-fold increase in CO2 will produce exactly the same temperature increase as the previous two-fold increase. Although we haven't had a two-fold increase yet, it is easy to calculate from the observed values what to expect."

It is not at all easy, because we have not yet reached an equilibrium state with the CO2-load we're already carrrying. We could stop increasing it today and warming would continue. CO2 doesn't create heat, it contributes to the accumulation of heat.

Your quote is simply silly.

[mhaze]

yup.
It is not at all easy, because we have not yet reached an equilibrium state with the CO2-load we're already carrrying. We could stop increasing it today and warming would continue. CO2 doesn't create heat, it contributes to the accumulation of heat.

Your quote is simply silly.

Your assertion(s) are unprovable.

[Slimething]

It is not at all easy, because we have not yet reached an equilibrium state with the CO2-load we're already carrrying. We could stop increasing it today and warming would continue. CO2 doesn't create heat, it contributes to the accumulation of heat.

I'll write it again: field measurements always trump modeling. Field observations by their nature include all working mechanisms. What you are arguing against is the application of thermodynamics to observations. They hold. I know they hold. I spent a better part of my life doing research on the dissipation of xenobiotics in the environment and pseudo-first order is king there.

Warming would continue for a short time until the s-curve or equilibrium completes. Like I've stated before, the AGW effect does not seem all that scary to me in this context.

BTW, why is no one addressing the missing tropospheric hotspot? mhaze has mentioned it various times and I've asked about it twice with no response from the AGW experts here.

[a_unique_person]

I'll write it again: field measurements always trump modeling. Field observations by their nature include all working mechanisms. What you are arguing against is the application of thermodynamics to observations. They hold. I know they hold. I spent a better part of my life doing research on the dissipation of xenobiotics in the environment and pseudo-first order is king there.

Warming would continue for a short time until the s-curve or equilibrium completes. Like I've stated before, the AGW effect does not seem all that scary to me in this context.

BTW, why is no one addressing the missing tropospheric hotspot? mhaze has mentioned it various times and I've asked about it twice with no response from the AGW experts here.

Of course they do field measurements. Do you think they are stupid? There are satellites with instruments that can measure the radiation coming from the earth, there are instruments that can do the same looking up from the surface.

http://ao.osa.org/ViewMedia.cfm?id=20806&seq=0



H. W. Yates, "Measurement of the earth radiation balance as an instrument design problem," Appl. Opt. 16, 297- (1977)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kippandzonen-CNR1.jpg

[a_unique_person]

There's more

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L03202, doi:10.1029/2003GL018765, 2004
Radiative forcing - measured at Earth’s surface - corroborate the
increasing greenhouse effect
Rolf Philipona,1 Bruno Du¨rr,1 Christoph Marty,1 Atsumu Ohmura,2 and Martin Wild2
Received 3 October 2003; revised 3 December 2003; accepted 23 December 2003; published 6 February 2004.
[1] The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change
(IPCC) confirmed concentrations of atmospheric
greenhouse gases and radiative forcing to increase as a
result of human activities. Nevertheless, changes in
radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas
concentrations could not be experimentally detected at
Earth’s surface so far. Here we show that atmospheric
longwave downward radiation significantly increased
(+5.2(2.2) Wm
2) partly due to increased cloud amount
(+1.0(2.8) Wm
2) over eight years of measurements at eight
radiation stations distributed over the central Alps. Model
calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase
(+4.2(1.9) Wm
2) to be in due proportion with temperature
(+0.82(0.41)
C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m
3)
increases, but three times larger than expected from
anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, after
subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity
rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward
radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm
2) remains statistically
significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an
enhanced greenhouse effect.
Satellite radiation-budget measurements [Raval and
Ramanathan, 1989; Inamdar and Ramanathan, 1997] have
been used to examine the radiative feedbacks in the climate
system. Changes of the Earth’s outgoing longwave radiation
[Harries et al., 2001; Wielicki et al., 2002] have been
reported also from satellite measurements. Yet to our
knowledge, radiative forcing and its direct relation to
surface temperature and humidity changes, has not been
observationally examined in depth and over long time
periods with radiation budget measurements at Earth’s
surface.
[4] Here we present the changes and trends of radiative
fluxes at the surface and their relation to greenhouse gas
increases and temperature and humidity changes measured
from 1995 to 2002 at eight stations of the Alpine Surface
Radiation Budget (ASRB) network.



GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L22208, doi:10.1029/2004GL020937, 2004
Greenhouse forcing outweighs decreasing solar radiation driving rapid
temperature rise over land
Rolf Philipona and Bruno Du¨rr
Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos Dorf, Switzerland
Received 6 July 2004; revised 1 September 2004; accepted 25 October 2004; published 25 November 2004.
[1] Since 1988, surface temperature over land in Europe
increased three times faster than the northern hemisphere
average. Here we contrast surface climatic and radiative
parameters measured in central Europe over different time
periods, including the extreme summer 2003, to pinpoint
the role of individual radiative forcings in temperature
increases. Interestingly, surface solar radiation rather
decreases since 1981. Also, on an annual basis no net
radiative cooling or warming is observed under changing
cloud amounts. However, high correlation (rT = 0.86) to
increasing temperature is found with total heating radiation
at the surface, and very high correlation (rT = 0.98) with
cloud-free longwave downward radiation. Preponderance of
longwave downward radiative forcing suggests rapidly
increasing greenhouse warming, which outweighs the
decreasing solar radiation measured at the surface and
drives rapid temperature increases over land.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L19809, doi:10.1029/2005GL023624, 2005
Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback
increase temperature in Europe
Rolf Philipona,1 Bruno Du¨rr,2 Atsumu Ohmura,3 and Christian Ruckstuhl3
Received 25 May 2005; revised 8 July 2005; accepted 17 August 2005; published 8 October 2005.
[1] Europe’s temperature increases considerably faster
than the northern hemisphere average. Detailed month-bymonth
analyses show temperature and humidity changes for
individual months that are similar for all Europe, indicating
large-scale weather patterns uniformly influencing
temperature. However, superimposed to these changes a
strong west-east gradient is observed for all months. The
gradual temperature and humidity increases from west to
east are not related to circulation but must be due to
non-uniform water vapour feedback. Surface radiation
measurements in central Europe manifest anthropogenic
greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback,
enhancing the forcing and temperature rise by about a
factor of three. Solar radiation decreases and changing cloud
amounts show small net radiative effects. However, high
correlation of increasing cloud-free longwave downward
radiation with temperature (r = 0.99) and absolute humidity
(r = 0.89), and high correlation between ERA-40 integrated
water vapor and CRU surface temperature changes (r =
0.84), demonstrates greenhouse forcing with strong water
vapor feedback.

[BobK]

I visit a couple sites that discuss A/GW. I found this to be interesting. For it to be coincidence would be extraordinary.

Luke's comment March 8, 2008 10:53 PM Australia time found in this thread (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002824.html) is identical with a_unique_person's comment found just above. If you ignore the two word preface and make allowance for different software handling of blank lines.

I'm unsure of the time difference between EST and Australia. So I'm wondering if they might be the same person, or if one of them is making use of the efforts of the other without attribution.

Insight, anyone?

[Pipirr]

I visit a couple sites that discuss A/GW. I found this to be interesting. For it to be coincidence would be extraordinary.

Luke's comment March 8, 2008 10:53 PM Australia time found in this thread (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002824.html) is identical with a_unique_person's comment found just above. If you ignore the two word preface and make allowance for different software handling of blank lines.

I'm unsure of the time difference between EST and Australia. So I'm wondering if they might be the same person, or if one of them is making use of the efforts of the other without attribution.

Insight, anyone?

Sad.

[BobK]

Sad.

If you're saying it's sad that someone would take the post of another person who made the effort to look up the references, leaving the reader with the assumption that it was their effort. I think I would say it is indeed sad they couldn't make even a minimal effort to acknowledge the originator. Especially since some research time was required due to the originator compiling the information from three different issues.

I don't know that to be true though. It could be the same person using a different name at different sites. Hence the query.

[Pipirr]

No. I'm saying that your post is sad.

I can't begin to imagine why you think there is a problem here, nor why you seem to want to 'out' a JREF forum poster.

For heaven's sake, its a list of three abstracts. Anyone can find this information. I don't see why you think this needs 'insight', or is 'interesting'. You really want to know if this is the same person, send a PM to them. I don't see the point, but it would be at least more respectful than making snide insinuations.

[CapelDodger]

No. I'm saying that your post is sad.

And you spoke for me.

[CapelDodger]

Your assertion(s) are unprovable.

Your posts are increasingly Delphic.

Since CO2 continues to accumulate, and the climate response is cumulative not immediate (CO2 doesn't create heat), then we are most certainly not at climate equilibrium with today's CO2-load.

[CapelDodger]

CapelDodger has stated that a tropospheric hotspot is a bona fide requirement of the current AGW hypothesis.

I have stated that a greater rate of mid tropospheric temperature increase vis-a-vis the surface is the result of any warming forcing. It's not specific to AGW.

All I'm looking for is confirmation that this predicted effect is not happening.

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest. You won't find it. This argument emerged ten years ago and was shot down; now it's re-emerged but focused on the tropical troposphere. Do you ever get the feeling that the walls are closing in on you?

Mind you that I don't believe that the lack of a tropospheric hotspot is the deathknell of AGW. I've been after Capel Dodger and others to desist from hanging on to the various "secondary" predictions of the AGW GHG mechanics because I believe that all is not known about the expression of this mechanism

Let us know how that works for you.

After all, the physics underlayment of the hypothesis is elegant and compelling. I must caution everyone in extrapolating too far from this basis, though. IOW, I disagree that the lack of such tropospheric hotspot as falsification.

But boy do you believe it's lacking.

In my experience, I can count the number of times that a prediction has gone according to theory on one hand. My personal opinion is that the beauty of science si not in the knowing but in the discovery. The very fact that a model of the abnormal climate based such a simple mechanism has eluded very talented physicists is evidence that there are unrealized influences, IMHO.

The ugliness of nature is that it doesn't give a fig for beauty, or opinions, or anything mystical.

[a_unique_person]

I visit a couple sites that discuss A/GW. I found this to be interesting. For it to be coincidence would be extraordinary.

Luke's comment March 8, 2008 10:53 PM Australia time found in this thread (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002824.html) is identical with a_unique_person's comment found just above. If you ignore the two word preface and make allowance for different software handling of blank lines.

I'm unsure of the time difference between EST and Australia. So I'm wondering if they might be the same person, or if one of them is making use of the efforts of the other without attribution.

Insight, anyone?

You are sad. I found the information there, posted by Luke, and posted it here. What is your problem? It's a list of abstracts.

[CapelDodger]

I'm trying to find out if mhaze accepts the CO2 greenhouse effect but with minimal contrbution to the recent temperature rise, or doubts it altogether.

Both and neither.

We've all been there with mhaze and it's like trying to nail down jelly. Think of it as an initiation, and you've passed muster :).

[CapelDodger]

You are sad. I found the information there, posted by Luke, and posted it here. What is your problem? It's a list of abstracts.

Ad Hominem actually seems appropriate in this case.

[CapelDodger]

I'll write it again: field measurements always trump modeling.

WTF has that got to do with what you quoted? If you're going to quote me, please address your response to what I said.

Field observations by their nature include all working mechanisms. What you are arguing against is the application of thermodynamics to observations.

Gibberish

They hold. I know they hold. I spent a better part of my life doing research on the dissipation of xenobiotics in the environment and pseudo-first order is king there.

Well bully for you but I majored in the real world and retired at 50.

Warming would continue for a short time until the s-curve or equilibrium completes.

Why would it be a short time, and relative to what scale? Human, geological, CERN?

Like I've stated before, the AGW effect does not seem all that scary to me in this context.

Heaven forfend that you be alarmed.

BTW, why is no one addressing the missing tropospheric hotspot? mhaze has mentioned it various times and I've asked about it twice with no response from the AGW experts here.

There's no "hotspot", there's a different (and more rapid) mid-troposhperic rate of warming relative to the surface, clearly observed everywhere but the tropics, where there's some uncertainty. You're clinging to that uncertainty.

[a_unique_person]

There's no "hotspot", there's a different (and more rapid) mid-troposhperic rate of warming relative to the surface, clearly observed everywhere but the tropics, where there's some uncertainty. You're clinging to that uncertainty.

Actually, Spencer et al have made the same claim twice. Once they claimed it was a global issue, and were proven to be wrong, it was their measurements that were in error. This time they have come back with a much reduced scope in their claim, it only applies to one layer of the tropics.

Measurements are good, but the satellite record is not nearly as accurate as has been claimed. The measurements are very precise, but they are not directly measuring the temperature record that is being published. It has to be inferred from other measurements, since the satellites cannot directly measure the troposphere.

When that is taken into account, the measurements and predictions are within the error bounds.

[Slimething]

Of course they do field measurements. Do you think they are stupid? There are satellites with instruments that can measure the radiation coming from the earth, there are instruments that can do the same looking up from the surface.

There's more



Thank you for that, AUP. Your responses to me are always informative and constructive.

I shold have been clearer in my statement. What I meant was that the equation posted by mhaze used direct temperature measurements. As tmeperature is what we're ultimately concerned with in this debate, I see it as a first-level relevant prediction. The radiation measurements you are citing are what I consider of second-level relevance as the radiation measurements are relevant only towards the causation or hypothetical casuation per GW models. Yes, they are measurements but they are not as valuable as direct temperature measurement.

Thanks.

[Slimething]

I have stated that a greater rate of mid tropospheric temperature increase vis-a-vis the surface is the result of any warming forcing. It's not specific to AGW.

Thanks for clarifying.


This argument emerged ten years ago and was shot down; now it's re-emerged but focused on the tropical troposphere. Do you ever get the feeling that the walls are closing in on you?


No. Could you give a short recap of the argument and how it was resolved? I am unaware of this.


But boy do you believe it's lacking.


No. I'm just following the particular claim. mhaze has claimed there is no hotspot and has not been effectively rebutted. When you replied you stated that the hotspot must be present if any warming occurs. Most people, including myself, believe there has been warming so why no hotspot? Or I'm looking for your rebuttal that there is a hotspot.


WTF has that got to do with what you quoted? If you're going to quote me, please address your response to what I said.

Sorry if I misrepresented your position. I was simply stating that direct temperature measurements trump anything the models spit out. The former is what the latter is hoping to predict.


Gibberish...

Well bully for you but I majored in the real world and retired at 50.


Why is it that no one wants to believe alarmists? Could it be their condescending attitudes? Surely not!


Why would it be a short time, and relative to what scale? Human, geological, CERN?


As I've pointed out to you, you need to establish your k's. By this point, you should be able to answer that question, not me.


Heaven forfend that you be alarmed.


So the AGW hypothesis depends on fear for validity? That really bespeaks an underlying agenda. Well, I don't care. I listen to science. Science includes falsifiability, testing, refinement, and so on. If you're satisfied with what you have right now, you've failed. What's on the table for AGW right now is not science.

There's no "hotspot", there's a different (and more rapid) mid-troposhperic rate of warming relative to the surface, clearly observed everywhere but the tropics, where there's some uncertainty. You're clinging to that uncertainty.

I'm not cliniging to anything. I'm looking for explanations. You appear to be one of the more knowledgeable posters regarding present AGW modeling. I want to know how serious this lack of a hotspot is to present modeling.

So, from what you're saying, there is a tropospheric hotspot. You should have said this before. It's too easy to dislike you and your regal attitude. Try to stick to the issue. Let me know how that goes for you.

[BobK]

You are sad. I found the information there, posted by Luke, and posted it here. What is your problem? It's a list of abstracts.
Maybe you're still unfamiliar with the purpose of the quote function here. Or maybe you consider yourself an exception because you have so many posts to put up and so little time.

I'm the type of person who thinks it is discourteous to the reader and the true author to leave the impression the idea and compilation is your own when all that was done is a simple copy/paste of another person's idea and effort. The information may all be public, but that is not the point. The idea for and organization of the post was the product of another and some effort was involved. This leaves the reader with a skewed impression of the thought process and effort used by the person doing the copying.

When noticed I see nothing wrong with pointing it out. It reflects on how much actual thought and effort a person is willing to use in support of their position versus how much they want the reader to believe they used. After all it would only take one sentence to give attribution.

As this search of JREF shows, at least I'm willing to put some thought and effort into my posts.
Here we have you chastising another (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=866339&postcount=27)person for an unattributed copy/paste of part of a post from a blog. You used stronger language than I did, but even you seem to think it isn't right and should be pointed out.

If you take umbrage when someone comments about such things, I would suggest you might be overly sensitive or the comment may have hit close to the mark.

[a_unique_person]

Maybe you're still unfamiliar with the purpose of the quote function here. Or maybe you consider yourself an exception because you have so many posts to put up and so little time.

I'm the type of person who thinks it is discourteous to the reader and the true author to leave the impression the idea and compilation is your own when all that was done is a simple copy/paste of another person's idea and effort. The information may all be public, but that is not the point. The idea for and organization of the post was the product of another and some effort was involved. This leaves the reader with a skewed impression of the thought process and effort used by the person doing the copying.

When noticed I see nothing wrong with pointing it out. It reflects on how much actual thought and effort a person is willing to use in support of their position versus how much they want the reader to believe they used. After all it would only take one sentence to give attribution.

As this search of JREF shows, at least I'm willing to put some thought and effort into my posts.
Here we have you chastising another (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=866339&postcount=27)person for an unattributed copy/paste of part of a post from a blog. You used stronger language than I did, but even you seem to think it isn't right and should be pointed out.

If you take umbrage when someone comments about such things, I would suggest you might be overly sensitive or the comment may have hit close to the mark.

Still sad. Google threw up a link to that post. The post is mostly a list of abstracts. The abstracts contain attribution to the authors of the work. I could have quoted the list, but they are not "Lukes" words. If I had thought it worthwhile including Luke's actual comments, I would have done so, but they were irrelevant.

The continual presentation of charts and graphs that are not the authors own work are presented here, with no attribution, is completely different.

[soylent]

Mid-late 60s: The population bomb: we were going to have a SRO world by sometime in the 1990s resulting in global famines, etc.

See the work of Norman Borlaug et. al.

Early 70s: we would be OUT of oil (completely out) by the early to mid-90s.

Wrong. The claim was peak oil, not running out of oil. M.K. Hubbert who successfully predicted the timing of the peak extraction rate of oil in the US put it somewhere around the year 1990-2000, using two different estimates of ultimately recoverable resource. This prediction was made under the assumption that we gobble it up as fast as we can, which did not happen(remember the oil shocks? They put a significant dent in the growth of oil consumption).

Have you looked at the oil situation lately? Production rates have plateaued. The inflation adjusted price of oil is now higher than what it was at its worst in the early 80's. We're increasingly relying on previously uneconomical heavy, sour crudes and tar sands. It appears to have been a fairly good guess to me.

Mid to late 70s: The coming Ice Age. Global climate was growing dangerously...colder, and we were entering a new ice age.

This was always a minority view.

[mhaze]

Your posts are increasingly Delphic.

Since CO2 continues to accumulate, and the climate response is cumulative not immediate (CO2 doesn't create heat), then we are most certainly not at climate equilibrium with today's CO2-load.

A. CO2 continues to accumulate

B. we are most certainly not at climate equilibrium with today's CO2-load

Two statements.

B does not follow from A.
B is, as I have already noted, Unprovable.
A is irrelevant to the issue.

[mhaze]

I want to know how serious this lack of a hotspot is to present modeling.

So, from what you're saying, there is a tropospheric hotspot. You should have said this before. It's too easy to dislike you and your regal attitude. Try to stick to the issue. Let me know how that goes for you.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/12/douglass-christy-pearson-singer.html

"In the International Journal of Climatology,David Douglass, John Christy, Benjamin Pearson, Fred Singer (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/117857349/ABSTRACT) (full-text paper in PDF (http://www.uah.edu/News/pdf/climatemodel.pdf), backup (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf))show, in their article "A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions", that the previously discussed "fingerprint (http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/08/greenhouse-warming-wrong-altitude-and.html)" predicted by 22 greenhouse-dominated models disagrees with the observed data summarized in 10 datasets."

http://bp1.blogger.com/_4ruQ7t4zrFA/R14vtJ7162I/AAAAAAAAAOc/-V_JV7Bpv8E/s400/douglass-singer.JPG (http://bp1.blogger.com/_4ruQ7t4zrFA/R14vtJ7162I/AAAAAAAAAOc/-V_JV7Bpv8E/s1600-h/douglass-singer.JPG)

"The models and observations are compatible near the surface. However, about 5 kilometers above the surface (where the greenhouse effects starts to become relevant) in the tropical zones, models predict between 2 times and 4 times higher warming trend than what is observed. Above the altitude of 8 kilometers, the theoretical and empirical trends have opposite signs....the true mechanisms driving the changes of temperature are not understood and the overall effect of greenhouses gases is being overestimated - between 2 times and 4 times - by all existing models. ...... reduced to the standard 1 °C climate sensitivity which means that the additional greenhouse-induced warming by 2090 will be less than 0.5 °C."

Which indicates that the number we derived earlier of 1.85C for 2xCO2, an absolute high estimate of climate sensitivity based on years 1900-2000 and CO2 of 295 ppm and 365 ppm, was in fact too high. But that was obvious, because it presumed a perfect correlelation between 20th century co2 and temperature.

[Alric]

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/12/douglass-christy-pearson-singer.html

Its funny how in this paper the urban island effect is dispelled in a sentence when discussing surface temperatures:

The three observed trends are quite close to each other.
There are possibly systematic errors introduced by urban
heat-island and land-use effects (Pielke et al., 2002;
Kalnay and Cai, 2003) that may contribute a positive
bias, though these are estimated as being within
±0.04 °C/decade (Jones and Moberg, 2003).

The contrarians always make a huge issue of the models and any deviation from what is predicted. Even if its only the tropics and other areas are in good agreement.

Regardless of the models and theories, the empirical observation is that there is warming based on glacier retreat, coral growth, tree ring data, measured temperature and others. Note that its not a matter of whether there will be an increase in temperature. The conversation is around how much.

[mhaze]

Its funny how in this paper the urban island effect is dispelled in a sentence when discussing surface temperatures:



The contrarians always make a huge issue of the models and any deviation from what is predicted. Even if its only the tropics and other areas are in good agreement.

Regardless of the models and theories, the empirical observation is that there is warming based on glacier retreat, coral growth, tree ring data, measured temperature and others. Note that its not a matter of whether there will be an increase in temperature. The conversation is around how much.

Okay, you seem to think you have made some kind of a point about "the contrarians", whatever that is remains fairly undefined, as well your obscure point if any.

You are trying to argue against some peer reviewed research here, with what exactly? Some kind of alleged point on personalities?

Don't waste my time.

[a_unique_person]

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/12/douglass-christy-pearson-singer.html

"In the International Journal of Climatology,David Douglass, John Christy, Benjamin Pearson, Fred Singer (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/117857349/ABSTRACT) (full-text paper in PDF (http://www.uah.edu/News/pdf/climatemodel.pdf), backup (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf))show, in their article "A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions", that the previously discussed "fingerprint (http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/08/greenhouse-warming-wrong-altitude-and.html)" predicted by 22 greenhouse-dominated models disagrees with the observed data summarized in 10 datasets."

http://bp1.blogger.com/_4ruQ7t4zrFA/R14vtJ7162I/AAAAAAAAAOc/-V_JV7Bpv8E/s400/douglass-singer.JPG

"The models and observations are compatible near the surface. However, about 5 kilometers above the surface (where the greenhouse effects starts to become relevant) in the tropical zones, models predict between 2 times and 4 times higher warming trend than what is observed. Above the altitude of 8 kilometers, the theoretical and empirical trends have opposite signs....the true mechanisms driving the changes of temperature are not understood and the overall effect of greenhouses gases is being overestimated - between 2 times and 4 times - by all existing models. ...... reduced to the standard 1 °C climate sensitivity which means that the additional greenhouse-induced warming by 2090 will be less than 0.5 °C."

Which indicates that the number we derived earlier of 1.85C for 2xCO2, an absolute high estimate of climate sensitivity based on years 1900-2000 and CO2 of 295 ppm and 365 ppm, was in fact too high. But that was obvious, because it presumed a perfect correlelation between 20th century co2 and temperature.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029875.shtml



We examine the sensitivity of modeled and observed tropical tropospheric temperature trend amplification (the ratio of T2LT “lower troposphere” to surface changes) to several sources of uncertainty. Model behaviour is robust across a large perturbed physics ensemble of HadCM3, yielding a smaller amplification range (1.44 ± 0.06) than a previous multi-model ensemble (1.41 ± 0.24). The uncertainty of inter-satellite calibration implied by available MSU T2 (mid-troposphere) estimates (σ = 0.035K) is much greater than that required to adequately resolve the trend (σ < 0.01K), or the amplification behaviour (implied amplification range ±0.95). Trend amplification uncertainty in both models and observations decreases as the timescale increases. Depending upon choice of dataset and time period, uncertainty in trend amplification estimates over 21 years lies between ±1.5 and ±0.2.



The satellite errors are too great to make a call. Don't forget, the satellites can't directly measure the temperature, it has to be derived, there are several complications such as orbit changes, and it has taken several attempts to get to the accuracy they have now.

[Slimething]

"The models and observations are compatible near the surface. However, about 5 kilometers above the surface (where the greenhouse effects starts to become relevant) in the tropical zones, models predict between 2 times and 4 times higher warming trend than what is observed. Above the altitude of 8 kilometers, the theoretical and empirical trends have opposite signs....the true mechanisms driving the changes of temperature are not understood and the overall effect of greenhouses gases is being overestimated - between 2 times and 4 times - by all existing models."

Thanks for clarifying, mhaze. I wonder what will come first, a popular abandonment of AGW or an admission by adherents that environmental modeling is not as straightforward as looking up physics equations in a book. Of the various environmental models I work with (erosion, convecton in large water bodies, leaching, etc), none of them predict nature. We use their predictions as indices, not predictions. They are all well founded in all known relevant physics.

Still, though, this does not mean that AGW doesn't exist. It just mean that it's not following what's been set down on paper.

[a_unique_person]

Thanks for clarifying, mhaze. I wonder what will come first, a popular abandonment of AGW or an admission by adherents that environmental modeling is not as straightforward as looking up physics equations in a book. Of the various environmental models I work with (erosion, convecton in large water bodies, leaching, etc), none of them predict nature. We use their predictions as indices, not predictions. They are all well founded in all known relevant physics.

Still, though, this does not mean that AGW doesn't exist. It just mean that it's not following what's been set down on paper.

Did you read my previous post?

They have tried this on previously, that globally the predictions were wrong, in comparison to the satellite measurements. After being proven wrong on that claim, they came back with a much reduced scope, it was only one layer of the atmosphere, and only over the tropics. Even that is not correct, given the error bounds of the satellite record.

The IPCC has always made clear about the limits of modelling, and have never made out is 'simple'.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/

[mhaze]

Thanks for clarifying, mhaze. I wonder what will come first, a popular abandonment of AGW or an admission by adherents that environmental modeling is not as straightforward as looking up physics equations in a book. Of the various environmental models I work with (erosion, convecton in large water bodies, leaching, etc), none of them predict nature. We use their predictions as indices, not predictions. They are all well founded in all known relevant physics.

Still, though, this does not mean that AGW doesn't exist. It just mean that it's not following what's been set down on paper.

By all means I favor the careful revision of hypotheses in accordance with confirmed real world data. The obvious direction here is towards a weak or insignificant net greenhouse CO2 contribution. Are there other conclusions?

This is a meaningful question, but warmers would instead scoff at and deny the science.

Don't forget, there is no need for an AGW hypothesis. There is only a need to adequately and sufficiently explain real world phenomena which present.

[David Rodale]

Did you read my previous post?

They have tried this on previously, that globally the predictions were wrong, in comparison to the satellite measurements. After being proven wrong on that claim, they came back with a much reduced scope, it was only one layer of the atmosphere, and only over the tropics. Even that is not correct, given the error bounds of the satellite record.

The IPCC has always made clear about the limits of modelling, and have never made out is 'simple'.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/

This is amazing. When I first joined JREF it was claimed only a handful of scientists disagreed with the "consensus" and there was very little peer reviewed literature as well. In fact, it is just the opposite.

Now you post RC on satellite data, of course with the expected attacks on S&C which I've read before. Naturally RSS according to RC, must be more accurate as it "fits neatly within the range of model results, indicating that this is probably physically more consistent than the original UAH data." Oh yes, the data doesn't match the models, so the data must be corrupt.....typical.
I've already posted a recent peer reviewed article that concluded UAH is the more accurate of the two, In addition, note that RSS is in more agreement with UAH nowadays ;)

RC is becoming a joke amongst serious scientists as even Judith Currie admits ClimateAudit is a more appropriate venue for discussion whereas RC is more of a tabloid rag that censors opposing views. Don't bother arguing this, they do it.

Also, I read the articles you posted a few days back. First, they are wrong on water vapor feedback, and the mention of the 2003 European heat wave as somehow being evidence for CO2 AGW has been debunked not once, but twice. Even Connelly agrees.

If you're going to post articles, first make sure you actually read and understand them, then research to see if there may be subsequent updated science. Relying on AGW scripted blogs that only present articles (mostly outdated) they think support their POV doesn't seem to be very objective on your part.

Until climate models can demonstrate reliable predictions, they are nothing more than fudge factories for programmers who would otherwise be out of a job if they were evaluated based on the quality of their work. Now that Hadley as conceded previous models were not reliable, we must wait several more years for their latest and greatest to accurately predict, but that policy makers should act now because they guarantee the newest models are right this time.....they promise.

AUP, you are aware that IPCC TAR was based on faulty data from HITRAN aren't you? And they knew it......

[mhaze]

Did you read my previous post?

They have tried this on previously, that globally the predictions were wrong, in comparison to the satellite measurements. After being proven wrong on that claim, they came back with a much reduced scope, it was only one layer of the atmosphere, and only over the tropics. Even that is not correct, given the error bounds of the satellite record.

I've stated what section of the atmosphere the work applies to, so there is no need to bring in the vain confusions of RC.

[a_unique_person]

I've stated what section of the atmosphere the work applies to, so there is no need to bring in the vain confusions of RC.

And RC rebuts it, using peer reviewed research.

[mhaze]

This is amazing. When I first joined JREF it was claimed only a handful of scientists disagreed with the "consensus" and there was very little peer reviewed literature as well. In fact, it is just the opposite.

RC is becoming a joke amongst serious scientists as even Judith Currie admits ClimateAudit is a more appropriate venue for discussion whereas RC is more of a tabloid rag that censors opposing views.

Well, there is the new Climateaudit message board. (http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/)

That would put RC away for good.

Anthony Watts on Glenn Beck isn't helping RC any either -

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc-1SNZepoU&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc-1SNZepoU&feature=related)

[a_unique_person]

Well, there is the new Climateaudit message board. (http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/)

That would put RC away for good.

Anthony Watts on Glenn Beck isn't helping RC any either -

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc-1SNZepoU&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc-1SNZepoU&feature=related)



Al Gore's Fascist Liberal Global Warming Corrupt Data



:wink8:

[a_unique_person]

This is amazing. When I first joined JREF it was claimed only a handful of scientists disagreed with the "consensus" and there was very little peer reviewed literature as well. In fact, it is just the opposite.



It depends on what you call a "scientist". Here is one of the presentations from the recent "NIPCC", by one of their scientists. It's good for a laugh.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

Look at page 4. Look at how he picks out the "5 year lag" between solar activity and temperature. If I ever wanted a fruit picker, David would be my man.



Now you post RC on satellite data, of course with the expected attacks on S&C which I've read before. Naturally RSS according to RC, must be more accurate as it "fits neatly within the range of model results, indicating that this is probably physically more consistent than the original UAH data." Oh yes, the data doesn't match the models, so the data must be corrupt.....typical.
I've already posted a recent peer reviewed article that concluded UAH is the more accurate of the two, In addition, note that RSS is in more agreement with UAH nowadays ;)



It's the other way around. UAH has had several iterations of it's data set. The word "original" is a give away.



RC is becoming a joke amongst serious scientists as even Judith Currie admits ClimateAudit is a more appropriate venue for discussion whereas RC is more of a tabloid rag that censors opposing views. Don't bother arguing this, they do it.
I think she means, a place where inane converstations of no consequence can meander on. http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=380 Thirty pages of earnest attempts to beat basic thermodynamics into the head of someone. RC doesn't have time for that.

AUP, you are aware that IPCC TAR was based on faulty data from HITRAN aren't you? And they knew it......
Faulty data on HITRAN? HITRAN is undergoing contstant review and refinement. The basic figures will be correct.

"They knew it" Evidence?

[Alric]

Anthony Watts on Glenn Beck

I thought that once you mention Glenn Beck you are barred from intelligent conversation for a couple of weeks.

What's next? A link to O'Reilly?

[mhaze]

I thought that once you mention Glenn Beck you are barred from intelligent conversation for a couple of weeks.

What's next? A link to O'Reilly?

Radical far left fringe environmentalists such as yourself would like such things to be true. Especially when you cannot argue effectively or apparently at all, against the content of the Glenn Beck/Anthony Watts video.

Noted: You didn't even try, instead went on into ad hominems. As usual.

[Alric]

You didn't even try, instead went on into ad hominems.

With Glenn Beck I make an exception. Besides, you already provided the best reference for understanding the true extent of the urban island effect. Minimal, at best.

[mhaze]

It depends on what you call a "scientist". Here is one of the presentations from the recent "NIPCC", by one of their scientists. It's good for a laugh....http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

Look at page 4. Look at how he picks out the "5 year lag" between solar activity and temperature. If I ever wanted a fruit picker, David would be my man....It's the other way around. UAH has had several iterations of it's data set. The word "original" is a give away.

The scientific, peer reviewed study I presented has withstood a couple of bumbling attempts by RC to criticize it. It certainly can withstand the attempts by AUP cheerleadering.

Scientists are welcome to submit their crticisms to the peer review process if they think they have valid issues. So may AUP.

So quite obviously, we are left with a prediction of greenhouse warming 2-4 times higher than actual measurements, at the locations that are most relevent in the atmosphere.

That's something to deal with, isn't it?

[Slimething]

Did you read my previous post?

Yes.

They have tried this on previously, that globally the predictions were wrong, in comparison to the satellite measurements. After being proven wrong on that claim, they came back with a much reduced scope, it was only one layer of the atmosphere, and only over the tropics. Even that is not correct, given the error bounds of the satellite record.

I followed your links and the author's method of negating the tropical anomaly is by claiming that the rate of warming is very small indeed and that such trends can be measured in the tropical troposphere when considering decade-long trends in the measurements. The abstract of one paper linked to even refered to "other physical processes" controlling the temperature in the tropics. (A reasonable person would consider the tropics to be the region of the planet most susceptible to AGW.)

Frankly, how is that different from what I wrote? I have often stated that I regard AGW as "probable but not proven", that I don't perceive a warming rate of concern and that the underpinning physics are compelling but over-simplified. I use different language than the bloggers at RC but I don't see a basic contradiction there. Do you?

The IPCC has always made clear about the limits of modelling, and have never made out is 'simple'.

Correct and I respect them for that. I would thereby caution those who think that my attempts at warning about unsupported conclusions as reliance on voodoo physics or mystic science.

I believe that all of us with cooler heads (no pun intended) can agree that we are witnessing the birth of a new science in climatology. There is much to learn and we need to take the time to do so responsibly. There is not cause for alarm but there is ample call for thought and reason. None of us should be taken in by scaremongers who capitalize on p<0.00001 dire prognoses before testable claims are presented.

Fair enough?

[Alric]

There is much to learn and we need to take the time to do so responsibly. There is not cause for alarm but there is ample call for thought and reason. None of us should be taken in by scaremongers who capitalize on p<0.00001 dire prognoses before testable claims are presented.

Fair enough?

Would you say that to the physician that tells you you have cancer and should begin chemotherapy immediately? Maybe climatologists know enough to tell you you should worry.

No one would want you to do something crazy like getting a hybrid or require corporations to pollute less. Personally, all I need are these two graphs to know there is an unprecedented trend that should be addressed. Also that I am not willing to risk it for the sake of oil companies who do not have our best interest at heart.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/5/52/Carbon_History_and_Flux_Rev.png/300px-Carbon_History_and_Flux_Rev.png

[mhaze]

Yes.

I believe that all of us with cooler heads (no pun intended) can agree that we are witnessing the birth of a new science in climatology. There is much to learn and we need to take the time to do so responsibly. There is not cause for alarm but there is ample call for thought and reason. None of us should be taken in by scaremongers who capitalize on p<0.00001 dire prognoses before testable claims are presented.

Fair enough?

You (and others) may have an interest in the March 2008 recent solar influences by Scafetti. (http://www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf)We contend that the changes in Earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to two distinctly different aspects of the Sun’s dynamics: the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles.

We showed that the stochastic properties of the average global temperature are linked to the statistics of TSI.2 It is the linking of the complexity of Earth to the complexity of the Sun that forces Earth’s temperature anomalies to adopt the TSI statistics. Consequently, both the fluctuations in TSI, using the solar flare time series as a surrogate, and Earth’s average temperature time series are observed to have inverse power-law statistical distributions.

We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature, depending on the TSI reconstruction used.
Analysis: Given 20th century warming of 0.57C, and presuming 69% due to solar, the max that could have been due to greenhouse heating would have been 0.18C. Does this support Douglass & Singer's finding of "no tropospheric hot spot?" Obviously, yes, and it accounts for the major part of the 0.57C temperature increase, without the need for said greenhouse heating a la the hot spot.

Taking 0.57C for 20th century warming, LN(365/295)/(31%*0.57) = 1.2.
Plugging that in to the doubling of CO2 formula, LN(2)/1.2 = 0.58C for a doubling of CO2.

[Slimething]

Would you say that to the physician that tells you you have cancer and should begin chemotherapy immediately? Maybe climatologists know enough to tell you you should worry.

Climatology is a new science. The only people who have told me to worry are politicians. Climatology is so new that I don't personally know any climatologists.

BTW, a physician would be able to prove to me that I have cancer so your analogy fails factually, if not thematically.

No one would want you to do something crazy like getting a hybrid or require corporations to pollute less. Personally, all I need are these two graphs to know there is an unprecedented trend that should be addressed. Also that I am not willing to risk it for the sake of oil companies who do not have our best interest at heart.

From what you've written, you want to use AGW toward political purposes. Maybe I agree with you but I think you have a very simplistic view of the world. I don't mind getting a hybrid. I don't mind using a bicycle. I don't mind conserving. I do mind idiots wanting to make daily operation more expensive for corporations because we all pay with an added fee.

In the meantime, I'm only addressing the science. If you don't want to do that, don't reply to my posts.

[a_unique_person]

You (and others) may have an interest in the March 2008 recent solar influences by Scafetti. (http://www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf)We contend that the changes in Earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to two distinctly different aspects of the Sun’s dynamics: the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles.

We showed that the stochastic properties of the average global temperature are linked to the statistics of TSI.2 It is the linking of the complexity of Earth to the complexity of the Sun that forces Earth’s temperature anomalies to adopt the TSI statistics. Consequently, both the fluctuations in TSI, using the solar flare time series as a surrogate, and Earth’s average temperature time series are observed to have inverse power-law statistical distributions.

We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature, depending on the TSI reconstruction used.
Analysis: Given 20th century warming of 0.57C, and presuming 69% due to solar, the max that could have been due to greenhouse heating would have been 0.18C. Does this support Douglass & Singer's finding of "no tropospheric hot spot?" Obviously, yes, and it accounts for the major part of the 0.57C temperature increase, without the need for said greenhouse heating a la the hot spot.

Taking 0.57C for 20th century warming, LN(365/295)/(31%*0.57) = 1.2.
Plugging that in to the doubling of CO2 formula, LN(2)/1.2 = 0.58C for a doubling of CO2.

More 'curve fitting'. There are a hundred and one people out there looking for correlations of the earths climate to the record. None of them have come up with an actual physical basis for their claims to be true. AGW theory has a physical basis.

[Alric]

But that's the problem. You are not addressing the science. The observations that CO2 is rising along with temperature and that many empirical observations are consistent with a warming earth is the data. Do not fall for the contrarian arguments that because they don't understand it or someone dusagreees an observation is not true.

With regards to climate change there is a consensus and the empirical observations are in. If you chose to ignore this you do so at our own peril.

[mhaze]

Ok, we all ignore the warnings of an anonymous Internet poster, Alric, at our own peril.

[a_unique_person]

Ok, we all ignore the warnings of an anonymous Internet poster, Alric, at our own peril.

I believe Alric is referring to such authoritave sources as the IPCC reports.

[mhaze]

I believe Alric is referring to such authoritave sources as the IPCC reports.

I had the district impression he relied on his own concepts of graphs with spurious correlation.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3517757#post3517757)
You (and others) may have an interest in the March 2008 recent solar influences by Scafetti. (http://www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf)We contend that the changes in Earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to two distinctly different aspects of the Sun’s dynamics: the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles.

We showed that the stochastic properties of the average global temperature are linked to the statistics of TSI.2 It is the linking of the complexity of Earth to the complexity of the Sun that forces Earth’s temperature anomalies to adopt the TSI statistics. Consequently, both the fluctuations in TSI, using the solar flare time series as a surrogate, and Earth’s average temperature time series are observed to have inverse power-law statistical distributions.

We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature, depending on the TSI reconstruction used.
Analysis: Given 20th century warming of 0.57C, and presuming 69% due to solar, the max that could have been due to greenhouse heating would have been 0.18C. Does this support Douglass & Singer's finding of "no tropospheric hot spot?" Obviously, yes, and it accounts for the major part of the 0.57C temperature increase, without the need for said greenhouse heating a la the hot spot.

Taking 0.57C for 20th century warming, LN(365/295)/(31%*0.57) = 1.2.
Plugging that in to the doubling of CO2 formula, LN(2)/1.2 = 0.58C for a doubling of CO2.


More 'curve fitting'. There are a hundred and one people out there looking for correlations of the earths climate to the record. None of them have come up with an actual physical basis for their claims to be true. AGW theory has a physical basis.

So according to my little calculation (based on Scafetta), a doubling of CO2 results in a whopping temperature increase of 0.58C!

[a_unique_person]

I had the district impression he relied on his own concepts of graphs with spurious correlation.

You must be referring to David Archibald's presentation to the ICCC, if you are talking about spurious 'correlations'.

[a_unique_person]

So according to my little calculation (based on Scafetta), a doubling of CO2 results in a whopping temperature increase of 0.58C!

Scaffeta today, Watts tomorrow, Corbyn next week. These a whole smorgasbord of choices, thats the great thing about being a denier.

[Alric]

While mhaze purports his "spurious correlation" denial of the data and argue about where you place a thermometer this is the kind of paper published by Geophysical Research Letters:

http://www.agu.org/journals/scripts/highlight.php?pid=2007GL032388&cls=edt

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L04705, doi:10.1029/2007GL032388, 2008

Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions

H. Damon Matthews
Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Ken Caldeira
Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, California, USA

Abstract
Current international climate mitigation efforts aim to stabilize levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, human-induced climate warming will continue for many centuries, even after atmospheric CO2 levels are stabilized. In this paper, we assess the CO2 emissions requirements for global temperature stabilization within the next several centuries, using an Earth system model of intermediate complexity. We show first that a single pulse of carbon released into the atmosphere increases globally averaged surface temperature by an amount that remains approximately constant for several centuries, even in the absence of additional emissions. We then show that to hold climate constant at a given global temperature requires near-zero future carbon emissions. Our results suggest that future anthropogenic emissions would need to be eliminated in order to stabilize global-mean temperatures. As a consequence, any future anthropogenic emissions will commit the climate system to warming that is essentially irreversible on centennial timescales.
Received 17 October 2007; accepted 11 January 2008; published 27 February 2008.

[mhaze]

While mhaze purports his "spurious correlation" denial of the data and argue about where you place a thermometer this is the kind of paper published by Geophysical Research Letters:

http://www.agu.org/journals/scripts/highlight.php?pid=2007GL032388&cls=edt

All I've done is take the 20th century temperature rise and back out a climate sensitivity from it directly, getting 1.86C for a doubling of CO2. Then, just for grins, I applied Scafetti's analysis in which 69% of the warming was attributable to solar, and in this case, climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is only 0.58C.

Pretty simple.

Then I asked whether these numbers agreed with anything. Douglass and Singer 2007, yes. Schwartz 2007 Heat Capacity (Climate sensitivity 1.1C) Yes. Several others, yes.

Let me guess - climate models tell you otherwise?

[Alric]

Looks to me you are making up numbers using numbers other people have made up...

[mhaze]

Looks to me you are making up numbers using numbers other people have made up...

Oh, okay, peer reviewed research that does not agree with you is "numbers other people have made up".

I'll disregard that, but that means disregarding your comment.


In the meantime, I'm only addressing the science. If you don't want to do that, don't reply to my posts.

Certainly a reasonable point of view.

[CapelDodger]

Scaffeta today, Watts tomorrow, Corbyn next week. These a whole smorgasbord of choices, thats the great thing about being a denier.

Monckton will be miffed that his name didn't spring to your mind. But he can easily dismiss you as just a colonial whose opinion could hardly matter. 'Murricans love him, and isn't that what really matters?

[Slimething]

But that's the problem. You are not addressing the science. The observations that CO2 is rising along with temperature and that many empirical observations are consistent with a warming earth is the data. Do not fall for the contrarian arguments that because they don't understand it or someone dusagreees an observation is not true.

Alric, I'm not dismissing the physics underpinnings of AGW. However, from what I see, there is no compelling scientific reason to way to disentanble the effect from natural GW. The scientists working on delivering a falsifiable AGW posit are not able to deliver such yet. Strictly, AGW does not qualify as science yet.

You are trying to presume AGW is proven and thereby dictate change in the public's perceptions and habits. That's OK by me. High time, as a matter of fact. However, I don't think you need AGW to do that. In the event that AGW cannot be detangled from GW, that viewpoint still has validity just by virtue of the fact that pollution will kick our ass sooner or later.

With regards to climate change there is a consensus and the empirical observations are in. If you chose to ignore this you do so at our own peril.

Oh, I'm so afraid. Let me cower under my bed over 0.19K/decade warming. (See AUP's post.) Seriously, don't expect me to take the scare-thing seriously. I'm not built that way. Nor do I respect majorities or what you call "empirical observations" that are really your cherry-picked observations. There are other observations that are contrary to current AGW posits and you seem to be ignoring them. Even AUP's buddy at RealClimate is writing about "other physical processes" just like I've been doing.

Alric, relax. There are scientists working on delivering what you want to know. I doubt they will confirm what you perceive right now. The AGW signal is very weak compared to what most scaremongers want you to believe. That's fine. You still have a good point but I would frame it more in terms of total environmetnal toxicity than AGW. I don't think AGW will carry the day once all is said and done.

[Slimething]

Monckton will be miffed that his name didn't spring to your mind. But he can easily dismiss you as just a colonial whose opinion could hardly matter. 'Murricans love him, and isn't that what really matters?

What an idiotic thing to post. Clearly, you are more interested in the players than the game. Since you've retired so young and are so interested in physics, why not go to school and get a real degree that would allow you to understand the science you try to trumpet so loudly? Context is such a terrible thing for people like you.

CapedDodger, there's a guy at RealClimate who needs your correcting about "voodoo science" and "mystic physics". He also believes that there are "other physical forces" at work in the environment, specifically the tropics. Please correct him.

[Slimething]

Looks to me you are making up numbers using numbers other people have made up...

Alric, what mhaze is doing is fair game. He's using the first-order kinetics equation Ct= C0 e^(-kt). You can do the same but you have to justify your numbers as mhaze has done. Do you have differnt numbers? The important one is k. I'll help you with the derivation if you PM me your Ct's.

[bobdroege7]

from PNAS to be found at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/10/3713





Despite the direct response of the model to solar forcing, even large solar irradiance change combined with realistic volcanic forcing over past centuries could not explain the late 20th century warming without inclusion of greenhouse gas forcing.





Without anthropogenic forcing, the 20th century warming is small. The simulations with only natural forcing components included yield an early 20th century peak warming of 0.2°C (1950 AD), which is reduced to about half by the end of the century because of increased volcanism. This trajectory is similar for all magnitudes of solar irradiance change or the magnitude of cooling before. High scaling of the solar irradiance leads to model temperatures by the end of the century that are only marginally (0.1°C) warmer than those from the low and medium scaled forcing. This finding suggests that, while solar irradiance changes and explosive volcanism were the dominant forcings in preindustrial times, their combined role has been changing over the past century. Although these natural forcing factors could be responsible for some modification of the decadal structure over the 20th century, they only played a minor role in the most recent warming.



Therefore, the 20th century warming is not a reflection of a rebound from the last Little Ice Age cool period, but it is largely caused by anthropogenic forcing.



By the end of the 20th century, global temperatures simulated with natural and anthropogenic forcings included are >0.5°C warmer than if only natural factors are allowed to change after 1870 AD.



In conclusion, our model results indicate that the range of NH-temperature reconstructions and natural forcing histories (cosmogenic isotope record as a proxy for solar forcing, and volcanic forcing) constrain the natural contribution to 20th century warming to be <0.2°C. Anthropogenic forcing must account for the difference between a small natural temperature signal and the observed warming in the late 20th century.


This group does seem to be able to differentiate the GW from the AGW.

Can anyone lead me to a model that does account for the 20th century temperature rise without taking account of greenhouse gases?

This group has the solar influence on twentieth century tempurature increase at <0.2 C.

[David Rodale]

from PNAS to be found at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/10/3713



This group does seem to be able to differentiate the GW from the AGW.

Can anyone lead me to a model that does account for the 20th century temperature rise without taking account of greenhouse gases?

This group has the solar influence on twentieth century tempurature increase at <0.2 C.

There's no shortage of pal reviewed horoscope papers using climate models from PNAS; forming a hypothesis with a hypothesis. Is that part of the scientific method?

Hey bob, would you do us the favor of listing all those PNAS "peer reviewed" articles in IPCC? Thanks! Be sure to include the 80 ft. sea level rise ones ok?

Maybe you missed this one?
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031383.shtml
Climate forcing and climate sensitivity are two key factors in understanding Earth's climate. There is considerable interest in decreasing our uncertainty in climate sensitivity. This study explores the role of these two factors in climate simulations of the 20th century. It is found that the total anthropogenic forcing for a wide range of climate models differs by a factor of two and that the total forcing is inversely correlated to climate sensitivity. Much of the uncertainty in total anthropogenic forcing derives from a threefold range of uncertainty in the aerosol forcing used in the simulations.

In other words, the models are fudged......

[mhaze]

Scaffeta today, Watts tomorrow, Corbyn next week. These a whole smorgasbord of choices, thats the great thing about being a denier.

Consider the facts for a moment.

I allocated a part of the temperature increase to natural causes - only a part of it -and left the remainder to AGW.

You'd like to claim all 20th century warnings was AGW, but the "smorgasbord of choices" you scoff at indicates that is NOT the case. Science does not support what you want. Look at Bob's post. would you like me to recompile my number for climates sensitivity using his reference?

Originally Posted by Caspar M. Ammann et al,PNAS | March 6, 2007 | vol. 104 | no. 10 | 3713-3718 Despite the direct response of the model to solar forcing, even large solar irradiance change combined with realistic volcanic forcing over past centuries could not explain the late 20th century warming without inclusion of greenhouse gas forcing.

Result; climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 is 1.2C.

All 20th century feedbacks, positive and negative, and forcings are taken into account empirically.

ANALYSIS: What this means is that if the world continues as it is, emitting CO2 indiscriminately, by the time CO2 doubles over pre industial levels we may have (1.2 - 0.57) = 0.63C additional warming. And this is in line with the temperature trends (no warming) of the last ten years.

[bobdroege7]

Hey bob, would you do us the favor of listing all those PNAS "peer reviewed" articles in IPCC? Thanks! Be sure to include the 80 ft. sea level rise ones ok?



I didn't take much time on it but I think I listed them all above. Did I miss any.
Actually, on a fast skim of the IPCC report for 2007, I didn't find any peer reviewed articles cited. Did you?

Is this something you had in mind?

from

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/15/5326




However, a sudden reduction in air pollution without a concomitant reduction in global GHGs also can accelerate the warming in South Asia because, according to the present simulations, ABCs have masked as much as 50% of the surface warming due to GHGs.



J. T. Kiel doesn't seem to be on your side.

[Alric]

....justify your numbers as mhaze has done.

But he does not justify the numbers or references the equations used. He lost his argument with this sentence"

Given 20th century warming of 0.57C, and presuming 69% due to solar, the max that could have been due to greenhouse heating would have been 0.18C.

Why the presumptions? Where do they come from?

All that is needed to evaluate the validity of a claim.

[Megalodon]

There's no shortage of pal reviewed horoscope papers using climate models from PNAS; forming a hypothesis with a hypothesis. Is that part of the scientific method?

Hey bob, would you do us the favor of listing all those PNAS "peer reviewed" articles in IPCC? Thanks! Be sure to include the 80 ft. sea level rise ones ok?

Maybe you missed this one?
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031383.shtml


In other words, the models are fudged......

And here we have it again, ladies and gentlemen:

Our very own loud-mouthed schmuck, yet again insulting a class of scientists and a leading scientific organization, all for your viewing pleasure!

Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, step right up...

[Alric]

I knew I had seen something similar to mhaze's analysis. Stephen Schwartz (http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf) has made a similar analysis without adding the made up solar component. His estimate is 1.1±0.5 deg C for C02 doubling. This is on the low end of other models that predict 2 to 4.5 deg C for doubling CO2.

Of course contrarians are going to take this discrepancy and argue is the end of AGW. However, as usual, if they took the time to read the paper they would find this statement:

Finally, as the present analysis rests on a simple single-compartment energy balance model, the question must inevitably arise whether the rather obdurate climate system might be amenable to determination of its key properties through empirical analysis based on such a simple model. In response to that question it might have to be said that it remains to be seen. In this context it is hoped that the present study might stimulate further work along these lines with more complex models.

In summary, Schwartz is proposing a novel method of analysis which he understands to need further refinement.

This is all underlined by the assumption that 1 deg C change won't kill our way of life. Which in truth it might.

Also important to note is that research in this area and the empirical observations agree warming occurs and is likely to increase. Its just a matter of how much and in what timeframe. I personally prefer empirical observations to modeling voodoo. That is why a graph like this has more meaning than any modeling:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/oerlemans2005/fig3a-sm.jpg

[mhaze]

But he does not justify the numbers or references the equations used. He lost his argument with this sentence"

Why the presumptions? Where do they come from?

All that is needed to evaluate the validity of a claim.

Yes, I did justify the numbers and reference the equations used.

What isn't clear?

Alric, it really sounds like you are saying this -

"Those numbers can't be right because they are too low."

[David Rodale]

And here we have it again, ladies and gentlemen:

Our very own loud-mouthed schmuck, yet again insulting a class of scientists and a leading scientific organization, all for your viewing pleasure!

Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, step right up...

Another example of "a leading scientific organization" publication; a prophecy and unsubstantiated assumptions. This is your idea of a science article?
Global temperature change (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/39/14288)
Global surface temperature has increased http://www.pnas.org/math/ap.gif0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within http://www.pnas.org/math/ap.gif1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than http://www.pnas.org/math/ap.gif1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute "dangerous" climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species.



Megalodon, would you mind graphing the lower stratosphere data and create a pretty graph demonstrating it is cooling?

[mhaze]

Another example of "a leading scientific organization" publication; a prophecy and unsubstantiated assumptions. This is your idea of a science article?
Global temperature change (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/39/14288)

Never let it be said Hansen is not entertaining! It's at least on a par with a Stephen King novel!

oh wait.... this is supposed to be scientific articles!

hmmm....

[Megalodon]

Another example of "a leading scientific organization" publication; a prophecy and unsubstantiated assumptions. This is your idea of a science article?
Global temperature change (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/39/14288)

Edited for civility Write a rebuttal! Or better yet, ask one of the bloggers you feed on to write one... You can even submit it to Energy and Environment.

Megalodon, would you mind graphing the lower stratosphere data and create a pretty graph demonstrating it is cooling?I'm supposed to do your homework now?

And why are you so hung up on the stratospheric cooling? It's almost as if you have no idea what you're talking about... Chew on this for a while, and maybe I'll give you some time another day...

Impact of middle-atmospheric composition changes on greenhouse cooling in the upper atmosphere

R.A. Akmaeva, , , V.I. Fomichevb and X. Zhuc
aCIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
bDepartment of Earth and Space Science and Engineering, York University, Toronto, Ont., Canada
cApplied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, Laurel, MD, USA

Available online 12 May 2006.

Abstract

The greenhouse effect, commonly associated with lower-atmospheric warming, manifests as cooling in the middle and upper atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the main cooler and its continuing rise has been demonstrated to result in dramatic temperature reductions, particularly in the thermosphere. In a hydrostatic atmosphere, the cooling is associated with a density decrease at a given height. The stratospheric ozone depletion documented in satellite observations since 1979 and a steady increase of water vapor are also expected to introduce a net cooling in the middle atmosphere primarily via a reduced solar heating and increased emissions in the infrared, respectively. These effects are simulated with the global spectral mesosphere/lower thermosphere model (SMLTM) extending approximately from the tropopause to over 200 km. Climatological distributions of the radiatively active gases are prescribed in the model, which makes it suitable for studies with imposed realistic trends in CO2, O3, and H2O approximately corresponding to the period 1980–2000. Although confined to the stratosphere, the ozone depletion has a profound cooling effect on mesospheric temperatures, which is comparable to or exceeding that of the CO2 forcing. The water vapor cooling appears to play a secondary but non-negligible role, especially in the overall density reduction in the lower thermosphere. The additional hydrostatic contraction of the colder middle atmosphere is predicted to result in a local maximum of the density decline near 110 km of up to -6.5% per decade over the twenty-year period.

Stop this pattern of uncivil behaviour toward a member

[CapelDodger]

And why are you so hung up on the stratospheric cooling?

It's the minutia de jour, old boy. They come and they go, and Rodale goes with them.

The stratosphere is a fine refuge. There are other cooling influences, so you have some play in attribution. Temperatures up there are tricky to measure, and we're pretty new at the game. It's ideal GWSceptic territory.

[CapelDodger]

What an idiotic thing to post. Clearly, you are more interested in the players than the game.

Damn' straight. The proper study of Man is Man.

Since you've retired so young and are so interested in physics, why not go to school and get a real degree that would allow you to understand the science you try to trumpet so loudly? Context is such a terrible thing for people like you.

I understand the science I talk about perfectly well. I already have a degree in something more remunerative than physics, and my main interest is in history anyway. Then there's the garden to think about.

And I'm very keen on context. Context is at the root of scepticism; you have to understand its context before you can judge a statement.

CapedDodger, there's a guy at RealClimate who needs your correcting about "voodoo science" and "mystic physics". He also believes that there are "other physical forces" at work in the environment, specifically the tropics. Please correct him.

There are physical forces specific to the tropics? I'm sure I'd have noticed that claim. Go on, give me a clue.

[bobdroege7]

Never let it be said Hansen is not entertaining! It's at least on a par with a Stephen King novel!

oh wait.... this is supposed to be scientific articles!

hmmm....

But you read Crichton,don't you.

How about you refute Hansen's arguments rather than ad hom attacks.

But you can't.

It's the same old same old, any time I post something from PNAS, nobody attacks the arguments, they only argue that PNAS is not peer reviewed and not science.

[mhaze]

But you read Crichton,don't you.

How about you refute Hansen's arguments rather than ad hom attacks.

But you can't. It's the same old same old, any time I post something from PNAS, nobody attacks the arguments, they only argue that PNAS is not peer reviewed and not science.

Well, like refuting what, exactly? I've seen assertions made by Hansen that do not merit refutiing, for example, the 80 foot sea level rise "prediction". Hansen does not provide any heat capacity calculations to substantiate it, he just throws it out there as a possibility.

So what did you have in mind that needed refutation? Wild claims of massive species extinction?

Likely, the easiest way to "refute Hansen" is to simply compare him with IPCC, and note how far to the side he is of the "consensus view".

[a_unique_person]

Well, like refuting what, exactly? I've seen assertions made by Hansen that do not merit refutiing, for example, the 80 foot sea level rise "prediction". Hansen does not provide any heat capacity calculations to substantiate it, he just throws it out there as a possibility.

That's because there are other reasons for glaciers causing the sea level to rise, including a sudden collapse. Collapses have been observed of several large glaciers. It's a real risk, which is what this whole topic is about. Risk management.

[mhaze]

But you read Crichton,don't you. How about you refute Hansen's arguments rather than ad hom attacks. But you can't. It's the same old same old, any time I post something from PNAS, nobody attacks the arguments, they only argue that PNAS is not peer reviewed and not science.

I'll agree without doing a full literature survey, that some of the wilder stuff seems to come from PNAS. Now a question is to what extent anyone should have to support or refute it. What's reasonable? AUP would like to throw out some suggestions that "it's all about risk management".


Okay, well, then, I'll just throw some risk management issues, too!
Man isn't severely messing up the planet.
Coastlines are not going to flood.
No reason for being alarmed.
Supposing we somehow melted a big pile of ice, enough to create a 20 foot sea level rise. This would cause sea temperature for the top 300 meters of the ocean to go down about 2C. And that would result in much, much more sea ice and larger amounts of ice in the polar regions, because the water got substantially colder, causing the ice lines to move south In other words, if it melts, then it reforms ice. But Hansen doesn't want to discuss these concepts of heat capacity, does he?

Then again, we could look at actual science - here is a relevant piece that shows a explained variance of 85% (as opposed to wild speculation). "Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseason oscillations", by Spencer, Braswell, Christy and Hnilo, 8-2007, GRL. Vol 34, L15707.

"A linear regression yields a sensitivity factor of -6.1 W/m^-2/K^-1 with an explained variance of 85%. This indicates that the net (SW + LW) radiative effect of clouds during the evolution of the compositie ISO is to cool the ocean-atmosphere system during its tropospheric warm phase, and to warm it during it's cool phase.

ANALYSIS: Shows a very strong negative feedback mechanism and is supportive of Lindzen's "Infrared iris Hypothesis". Tropical troposphere was measured, and these results help explain why there may be no "tropical mid troposhere hot spot" as predicted by AGW theory - negative feedbacks predominate.

[Megalodon]

Tropical troposphere was measured, and these results help explain why there may be no "tropical mid troposhere hot spot" as predicted by AGW theory

You keep throwing this little gem around, but when it comes to evidence:

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 16, NO. 12, PAGES 1441–1444, 1989

How will Changes in Carbon Dioxide and Methane Modify the Mean Structure of the Mesosphere and Thermosphere?

R. G. Roble

High Altitude Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric Research


R. E. Dickinson

Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Abstract

A global average model of the coupled mesosphere, thermosphere and ionosphere is used to examine the effect of trace gas variations on the overall structure of these regions. In particular, the variations caused by CO 2 and CH 4 doublings and halvings from present day mixing ratios are presented. The results indicate that the mesosphre and thermosphere temperatures will cool by about 10K and 50K respectively as the CO 2 and CH 4 mixing ratios are doubled. These regions are heated by similar amounts when the trace gas mixing ratios are halved. Compositional redistributions also occur in association with changes in the temperature profile. The results show that global change will occur in the upper atmosphere and ionosphere as well as in the lower atmosphere during the 21st century.

Received 14 September 1989; accepted 5 October 1989.

Can you explain where does this idea that stratospheric cooling, as a consequence of GHG emission, was not predicted by science?

Or is it GRL also a part of the world-domination conspiracy of left-wing scientists?

[Megalodon]

It's the minutia de jour, old boy. They come and they go, and Rodale goes with them.

Yes, I've noticed that... It's like playing whack-a-mole, but against a dumber adversary.

The stratosphere is a fine refuge. There are other cooling influences, so you have some play in attribution. Temperatures up there are tricky to measure, and we're pretty new at the game. It's ideal GWSceptic territory.

Actually it's only a refuge if you don't have access to databases of scientific literature. As the abstract above shows, the effect was predicted in 89...

Loud-mouthed schmucks... the lot of them.

[David Rodale]

Have a problem with it, schmuck? Write a rebuttal! Or better yet, ask one of the bloggers you feed on to write one... You can even submit it to Energy and Environment.




Read the IPCC :D

[Megalodon]

BTW, here is the global values shifts of temperature, throughout the atmosphere.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_28147daab456ac25.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11257)

And for those who like to focus on the troposphere, here is the breakdown by latitude

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_28147daabbcc276f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11258)

Let the hand-waving start...

[Slimething]

But he does not justify the numbers or references the equations used.

All that is needed to evaluate the validity of a claim.

The 69% claim is not what I commented about. I commented on the first-order prediction of temperature increase based on actual temperature data vs CO2 concentrations. That k number is the maximum warming rate from any source. From there, you have to use an estimate of how much of that k is due to GHG and how much is due to other factors.

I knew I had seen something similar to mhaze's analysis. Stephen Schwartz (http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf) has made a similar analysis without adding the made up solar component. His estimate is 1.1±0.5 deg C for C02 doubling. This is on the low end of other models that predict 2 to 4.5 deg C for doubling CO2.

If you have actual measurements that by definition include all possible components, made-up or otherwise, why do you need to correct the first-order model? You're losing me here. I looked at his abstract and could not see any justification for messing with the thermodynamics of the case.


Of course contrarians are going to take this discrepancy and argue is the end of AGW.


You keep using the term "contrarian" to label people who don't agree with you. How is that contrarian? A contrarian would be someone who disagrees automatically, as in opposional-defiant disorder. That's not what we have here. There's a few of us who want a full scientic treatment of these claims before we either believe them or make changes specifically for these claims.

Also, no one can argue that a small number negates AGW. The true warming of AGW alone has not been isolated, only the effective number of the all contributions.

This is all underlined by the assumption that 1 deg C change won't kill our way of life. Which in truth it might.

You must live in San Diego. That's the city with the lowest day-to-day temperature variance. Nice place. The rest of us live in places where daily temperatures vary by much more than 1 C on any given day. My way of life sucks but it's not because of the daily temperature.

[Slimething]

Damn' straight. The proper study of Man is Man.

We're talking science here. Try to keep up.

I understand the science I talk about perfectly well.

Nope. If you can dismiss Einstein's relativity theories just because you don't use them in everyday life, you don't understand science.

I already have a degree in something more remunerative than physics, and my main interest is in history anyway. Then there's the garden to think about.

Thanks for being honest finally about your true interests. Money and plants. Yeah, if I want to know about thermodynamics, I'll be sure to give you a call. :rolleyes:


And I'm very keen on context. Context is at the root of scepticism; you have to understand its context before you can judge a statement.


You haven't been able to place all the physiccs you bandy about re AGW in any type of context. To you, these models are absolute and primal, exempt from any limits.

There are physical forces specific to the tropics? I'm sure I'd have noticed that claim. Go on, give me a clue.

That's what the guy at RealClimate seems to believe. Write him. You don't believe me when I say the same thing, although I don't limit myself to the tropics with that statement. Go ahead. Write him. What are you worried about? He might help you with context.

[mhaze]

Of course another approach Originally Posted by Alric http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3522723#post3522723)
I knew I had seen something similar to mhaze's analysis. Stephen Schwartz (http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf) has made a similar analysis without adding the made up solar component. His estimate is 1.1±0.5 deg C for C02 doubling. This is on the low end of other models that predict 2 to 4.5 deg C for doubling CO2.
If you have actual measurements that by definition include all possible components, made-up or otherwise, why do you need to correct the first-order model? You're losing me here. I looked at his abstract and could not see any justification for messing with the thermodynamics of the case.

The 69% claim is not what I commented about. I commented on the first-order prediction of temperature increase based on actual temperature data vs CO2 concentrations. That k number is the maximum warming rate from any source. From there, you have to use an estimate of how much of that k is due to GHG and how much is due to other factors.



Well, I noted where I got the 69% other factor (solar, peer reviewed).

Another approach would be to presume that an amount of 20th century warming equal to 17th (or 18th) century warming was natural (since it was natural when it happened in those times, no AGW then). But this leaves the AGW believers with basically, nothing.

How about we go that route?

[mhaze]

Yes, I've noticed that... It's like playing whack-a-mole, but against a dumber adversary. Actually it's only a refuge if you don't have access to databases of scientific literature. As the abstract above shows, the effect was predicted in 89... Loud-mouthed schmucks... the lot of them.

Read the IPCC, ch. 9.:D

[David Rodale]

BTW, here is the global values shifts of temperature, throughout the atmosphere.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_28147daab456ac25.jpg

And for those who like to focus on the troposphere, here is the breakdown by latitude

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_28147daabbcc276f.jpg

Let the hand-waving start...

No hand waiving needed. Here, allow someone who does know what is going on explain it. Lindzen must have heard your cries of despair as it is fresh off the press and saves me time:
CO2 and Global Warming (http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2008/03/12/co2-global-warming/)
“I used this data to show that the trend at 300 hPa was not about 2.5 x the surface trend which is what greenhouse warming [models] requires.” Apparently climate models that predict global warming ala increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 assume increasing temperature trends in the troposphere, where CO2 concentrates, and the reality is the troposphere is not getting hotter, it is getting cooler.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347db049b4226f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11261)

[David Rodale]

Is the correlation between solar proxies and clouds
affected by ENSO and volcanic events? (http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2008/06330/EGU2008-A-06330.pdf?PHPSESSID=)
Studies of correlation between the cloud cover and solar proxies suggest that variations of solar activity can affect the cloud cover at Earth. Atmospheric processes are important when studying the extent of the link between the solar activity and global climate change and it was suggested that climatic or terrestrial quasi-periodic and sporadic phenomena, such as ENSO and/or major volcanic eruptions, which do affect the cloud formation, may influence the results of statistical studies of the Sun-cloud relation. Using partial and total correlation analysis, we show that removing ENSO and volcanic years from the full-set analysis does not alter the results. Moreover, some relations, as for instance the anticorrelation between low clouds and UV irradiance, are improved. This supports the idea that the solar signal affects clouds directly. An interesting result relates to an area in the eastern Pacific, where the full-set analysis showed that the relationship between cosmic ray induced ionization and clouds is opposite to the global one. This odd correlation is no longer observed when the “problematic” years are removed. We conclude that, although removing years of strong ENSO and volcanic eruptions has no important effect on global correlation patterns, caution must be paid when interpreting the results of correlation studies in some areas, prone to be affected by extreme internal climate processes.

[mhaze]

Is the correlation between solar proxies and clouds affected by ENSO and volcanic events? (http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2008/06330/EGU2008-A-06330.pdf?PHPSESSID=)

well, like I gotta comment, this stuff is real headache level complicated.

Like, you gotta actually read, think to plough thru well, this there science stuff, and some of these papers like, ten or twenty pages with lots of like, equations and math and stuff, and wouldn't if all be a lot easier if we could like, just blame all the warming on CO2?:D

I mean like, the planet's getting warming, right?

What, its cooling? Well, like, blame that, you know, like on co2 too, like cool, man!

[a_unique_person]

No hand waiving needed. Here, allow someone who does know what is going on explain it. Lindzen must have heard your cries of despair as it is fresh off the press and saves me time:
CO2 and Global Warming (http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2008/03/12/co2-global-warming/)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347db049b4226f.jpg

How about some actual references to claims that are made for others here, and not just opinions and interpretations.

[Slimething]

Well, I noted where I got the 69% other factor (solar, peer reviewed).

I don't doubt that you have a source for that estimate. I was admiring the total temperature vs CO2 due to the fact that it's a touchstone. That's the real-world limit of effects that we have to work with. No amount of argumentation can supplant it. I also like it because it takes the scare-factor away from the present climatological debate.


Another approach would be to presume that an amount of 20th century warming equal to 17th (or 18th) century warming was natural (since it was natural when it happened in those times, no AGW then). But this leaves the AGW believers with basically, nothing.


That presumption would have to be justified. Given the fact that tne nature of the planet's warming and cooling have not yet been satisfactorily explained, it's difficult to say that two periods of time should be equivalent and thus one variable can be isolated. I do have to admit, though, that the geologic scale temperature charts don't appear to take any wild swings from one century to the next. So that would be a worthwhile approximation.

I asked a few AGW proponents on this thread a while back just how much GHG warming would be needed to qualify as AGW in their minds and have had no reply. I'm a purist, in case you haven't been able to tell, and would regard even a femtokelvin per millennium due to any or all GHGs as AGW. I'm not ready to dismiss AGW yet because the physics behind it makes sense but I do want to know that AGW is not the threat that some with agendas want to make it. Science is fascinating but, to me, the discovery is even more so.

How about we go that route?

It's an open forum. Have at it.

[mhaze]

Quote:
Another approach would be to presume that an amount of 20th century warming equal to 17th (or 18th) century warming was natural (since it was natural when it happened in those times, no AGW then). But this leaves the AGW believers with basically, nothing.

That presumption would have to be justified. Given the fact that tne nature of the planet's warming and cooling have not yet been satisfactorily explained, it's difficult to say that two periods of time should be equivalent and thus one variable can be isolated. I do have to admit, though, that the geologic scale temperature charts don't appear to take any wild swings from one century to the next. So that would be a worthwhile approximation.

Attributing Micro warming to AGW would not satisfy the essential greed for all the warming characteristic of AGW neither the fundamental strong desire to link it all to CO2. Of course there is that little cold spell from 1940-7970 to deal with.

Then again, a hypothetical planet with a set heat content and with unchanging solar forcing by no means must have a constant averaged global temperature.

This point is widely misunderstood or outright disbelieved.

[a_unique_person]

Yes.



I followed your links and the author's method of negating the tropical anomaly is by claiming that the rate of warming is very small indeed and that such trends can be measured in the tropical troposphere when considering decade-long trends in the measurements. The abstract of one paper linked to even refered to "other physical processes" controlling the temperature in the tropics. (A reasonable person would consider the tropics to be the region of the planet most susceptible to AGW.)


A reasonable person might, but the models tell us a different story. They have predicted most warming at the poles, except for the polar vortex area of the Antarctic. The models were right.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/polar/polar_climate.html

[mhaze]

A reasonable person might, but the models tell us a different story. They have predicted most warming at the poles, except for the polar vortex area of the Antarctic. The models were right.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/polar/polar_climate.html

But that warming at the poles is the accumulation of circulation from the tropics.... the troposphere hotspot.

And so there we are again.


Interesting question by Piekle-

we all agree that there has been strong global-average warming since the 1970’s. Well, how do you know this wasn’t the result of a small, natural change in cloud cover? Doesn’t it seem like (another) coincidence that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) just happened to shift to a different mode in 1977, about the time that the warming started? (Please don’t say that the greater warming over land versus ocean is consistent with manmade greenhouse gas forcing…because it is also consistent with ANY kind of change in the Earth’s radiant energy budget, whether natural or manmade.)

The fact is, we DON’T know how much of recent warming is natural, simply because we don’t have good enough global cloud observations back to the 1970’s (and earlier) to measure any long-term changes in cloudiness to the required accuracy – 1% or less.

[a_unique_person]

But that warming at the poles is the accumulation of circulation from the tropics.... the troposphere hotspot.

And so there we are again.


You didn't read the link, did you?

[a_unique_person]

Yes, I've noticed that... It's like playing whack-a-mole, but against a dumber adversary.



Actually it's only a refuge if you don't have access to databases of scientific literature. As the abstract above shows, the effect was predicted in 89...

Loud-mouthed schmucks... the lot of them.

Watch a loud mouthed schmuk get his mouth slapped at climate-audit.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2679#comment-224682

The Australian nutter, David Archibald, who gave a presentation at the recent 'climate conference' hosted by the heartland foundation, tries to get Lief Svalgaard to acknowledge his credibility as a 'scientist'. Svalgaard treats him like the idiot he is, and turns on Svalgaard, accusing him of being a secret 'warmer'. High drama, better than "Days of our Lives".

[mhaze]

You didn't read the link, did you?

About half. I skipped penguins and polar bears, then gave up on...

Being "carbon neutral" means removing as much carbon dioxide (http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/physical_science/chemistry/carbon_dioxide.html) from the atmosphere as we put in. How can we remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere? One way is to buy "carbon offsets". This supports projects like a wind farm (http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/images/windfarm_jpg_image.html) or solar park. It helps make clean energy more affordable. It reduces future greenhouse gas emissions to make up for our travel and electricity use today.

[mhaze]

Watch a loud mouthed schmuk get his mouth slapped at climate-audit.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2679#comment-224682

The Australian nutter, David Archibald, who gave a presentation at the recent 'climate conference' hosted by the heartland foundation, tries to get Lief Svalgaard to acknowledge his credibility as a 'scientist'. Svalgaard treats him like the idiot he is, and turns on Svalgaard, accusing him of being a secret 'warmer'. High drama, better than "Days of our Lives".

Got to watch out for those "secret warmers!":D

[Alric]

And yet, barring theoretical considerations and argumentations, the empirical observations continue to accumulate. These are measures of worldwide glacier balance:

http://homepage.mac.com/alric/Glaciers1.png

http://homepage.mac.com/alric/Glaciers2.png

Link for methodology and references:

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb9/sum06.html

I would like to point out that besides theoretical arguments there isn't a single empirical observation that contradicts AGW.

[Alric]

And a good presentation on the history of climate change, and how the contrarian movement began, by Naomi Oreskes herself:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

I am about halfway through and I would recommend it to everyone. Its very useful for the basic questions that the contrarians keep bringing up. Most were answered in the 1950s or earlier.

[mhaze]

And yet, barring theoretical considerations and argumentations, the empirical observations continue to accumulate. These are measures of worldwide glacier balance:

http://homepage.mac.com/alric/Glaciers1.png

http://homepage.mac.com/alric/Glaciers2.png

Link for methodology and references:

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb9/sum06.html

I would like to point out that besides theoretical arguments there isn't a single empirical observation that contradicts AGW.

Alric, when did glaciers start melting?

[a_unique_person]

Alric, when did glaciers start melting?

And what rate are they melting at now compared to previous years. If they had been melting at the same rate they are now, they would have disappeared a very long time ago.

[a_unique_person]

Got to watch out for those "secret warmers!":D


That is what I have been talking about. Deniers. Svalgaard is a serious scientist, and treats his colleagues with respect, even if he disagrees with them, and slaps down nutcases when they call for it. Archibald deserves no recognition, he is just a self acknowledged 'cancer researcher', (read "nutcase"), yet he was given time at the recent 'climate change' conference, along with similar nutcases like Corbyn. If the deniers want to be known as sceptics, they have got to lift their standards.

I noted that McIntyre also deleted (censored!) references to another nutcase, landscheidt, one of Fred Daly's pals, because, despite his pretensions to science, he was an astrologer.

[Alric]

Alric, when did glaciers start melting?

If you have a point please go ahead and discuss.

[David Rodale]

If you have a point please go ahead and discuss.

Let's make it simple so you can understand.

"Arctic ice lowest since records began". Apply that to glaciers as well.

How long have records been kept? Is that simple enough?

[mhaze]

That is what I have been talking about. Deniers. Svalgaard is a serious scientist, and treats his colleagues with respect, even if he disagrees with them, and slaps down nutcases when they call for it. Archibald deserves no recognition, he is just a self acknowledged 'cancer researcher', (read "nutcase"), yet he was given time at the recent 'climate change' conference, along with similar nutcases like Corbyn. If the deniers want to be known as sceptics, they have got to lift their standards.

I noted that McIntyre also deleted (censored!) references to another nutcase, landscheidt, one of Fred Daly's pals, because, despite his pretensions to science, he was an astrologer.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

That was pretty funny.

Seems like I brought the Svalgaard discussion to your attention a while back sort of along the lines of "here is when you can overload on all the solar stuff" (which I do not really understand that well), but those threads have a needed sense of balance.

[Alric]

What is most upsetting is that contrarians will not listen or discuss new arguments and will continue rehashing old debunked ones. Over, and over....

We discussed solar input before and there was nothing said to contradict this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_vs_temp.gif

Although there might be a solar input component it will only be exacerbated by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. As you can see since the 1970s solar activity and temperature do not correlate.

I specially like this image from LASP (http://lasp.colorado.edu/science/solar_influence/index.htm) that shows how solar input has correlated with temperature and volcanic activity and the correlation is LOST in the 1970s due to greenhouse gases:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/images/science/solar_infl/Surface-Temp-w-paleo.jpg

What about addressing increased rate of glacier loss in an intelligent manner?

[mhaze]

Well, first you started out with worldwide glacial balance, now it's "increased rate of glacier loss?"

We have discussed solar, and I did propose splitting the recent warming between solar and AGW based on an article. The article in question does in fact address your assertion "since 1970 solar and temperature do not correlate".

[Alric]

You are still not addressing it. Each point in the graph is glacial balance, the slope curve in the graph is the rate. The idea of graphing is to estimate the rate.

Why don't YOU discuss how the article in question addresses solar input. And what is the article?

[Alric]

This is priceless! I found the Svalgaard discussion on climateaudit.org

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2470

And Leif Svalgaard joins and schools everyone on how they have misinterpreted his work:

"I’m not in the debate over how GW is forced or if we should [or even could] do anything. All I want to point out is that any argument based on the notion that solar activity has increased steadily since the 1700s should be re-examined with the possibility in mind that the variation might have been a lot less than preciously assumed or not happened at all. This applies in particular to the Scafetta paper that started this thread."

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2470#comment-167956

[mhaze]

This is priceless! I found the Svalgaard discussion on climateaudit.org

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2470

And Leif Svalgaard joins and schools everyone on how they have misinterpreted his work:

"I’m not in the debate over how GW is forced or if we should [or even could] do anything. All I want to point out is that any argument based on the notion that solar activity has increased steadily since the 1700s should be re-examined with the possibility in mind that the variation might have been a lot less than preciously assumed or not happened at all. This applies in particular to the Scafetta paper that started this thread."

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2470#comment-167956
Yep, there are some real gems in those threads....3 or or threads so far a couple thousand posts - real climate scientists, too, some fair fraction of the content.

[David Rodale]

Yep, there are some real gems in those threads....3 or or threads so far a couple thousand posts - real climate scientists, too, some fair fraction of the content.

Note Alric fails to mention Svalgaard's lack of faith in man made CO2 as the cause of climate changes.

[Alric]

Note Alric fails to mention Svalgaard's lack of faith in man made CO2 as the cause of climate changes.

Can you point where he states this? He also lacks faith is the sun obviously.

Also take another sentence of his:

"Jack, the issue here is that it is almost dogma that the sun is the cause of the climate swings the last few thousand years [LIA, MWP, etc]. This is so because we don’t know what else could do it [certainly not man-made CO2, if we except that last 100 years]."

Note the "except the last 100 years". Meaning that in the last 100 years it CAN be explained by CO2.

As I've said since the beginning of the "other" thread. Every time a contrarian posts something if you actually read where it comes from it will be lots more temperate or actually the opposite of what they are arguing. My feeling is that the source has a message that can be distorted.

[David Rodale]

Can you point where he states this? He also lacks faith is the sun obviously.

No he doesn't lack "faith" in the sun. He plainly states we don't know enough about the complexities to claim we fully understand it's implications on climate. Carefully read through all his posts and keep in mind the question of solar influence (all of it) is far from "settled". Isn't it interesting that Steve McIntyre encourages differing views on his blog? Compare that to RealClimate.

I suppose every scientist (they are humans too) all have their own standard of perfection and don't like to be told they are wrong. This is human nature. Svalgaard does not encompass all knowledge and is man enough to admit it. He has also indicated SC24 will be a good test for both sides.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2679#comment-205697
I would like that too http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif
Jack, the issue here is that it is almost dogma that the sun is the cause of the climate swings the last few thousand years [LIA, MWP, etc]. This is so because we don’t know what else could do it [certainly not man-made CO2, if we except that last 100 years]. The problem is that the latest solar data seem to indicate [and this is still controversial] that the sun varies less than what we thought just a few years ago, so if we will maintain that the sun is still the culprit, then we have to crank up significantly the sensitivity of the climate to solar forcing. Most people [like Steve M] think that that is ‘impossible’. I don’t know if it is and actually came originally to this blog to find out, but it seems that few want to discuss this. I think we cannot maintain that we know what is going on if we just gloss over this problem…


I do find it interesting the graph that Anthony Watts posted recently on the magnetic strength of the sun here. (http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/sun-still-blank-no-sign-of-cycle-24/) Is this yet another coincidence? I don't know enough about this area.

Alric, aside from my somewhat acidic posts, seriously, at some point if it continues to fail to warm you guys are going to have to start asking questions. To glibly state "it's only temporary until GW kicks in again" is a tautology. As it is now IPCC predictions (or is it still a "projection") are being dismantled.

Not to be too harsh, but when you post those charts which are scaled to scare the bejeebus out everyone, to someone who must read charts and graphs every day as their job views them as parlor games. The CO2 levels are done the same way.

To go on and on about consensus and appealing to Authority is meaningless. Consensus is for politicians. Do you also trust the government so much as to not question what they do and say? Why should any institution be given special precedence over reality? Did they take a vote? Are their conclusions based on IPCC? What gives you such confidence in their statements? I find this herd mentality very troubling.

Another issue is this witch hunt for scientists having any association, even 3rd generation in line. Why isn't it an issue when leaders of these "consensus" institutions being closely linked to environmentalist groups? Why shouldn't they be put under the same scrutiny?

A few on this forum (warmers specifically) are fully critical of scientists who aren't "climate scientists" that comment on climate issues. When it's pointed out there are actually very few bonafied "climate scientists" in existence and why that matters anyway, it is obvious this type of argument is simply more logical fallacy.

Dr. Roy Spencer is a "climate scientist". He has recently written an essay asking valid questions concerning IPCC conclusions. What do you think?
Hey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me This (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Hey-Nobel-Prize-Winners-Answer-Me-This.pdf) Or is he somehow not qualified to comment either?

[David Rodale]

Can you point where he states this? He also lacks faith is the sun obviously.

Also take another sentence of his:

"Jack, the issue here is that it is almost dogma that the sun is the cause of the climate swings the last few thousand years [LIA, MWP, etc]. This is so because we don’t know what else could do it [certainly not man-made CO2, if we except that last 100 years]."

Note the "except the last 100 years". Meaning that in the last 100 years it CAN be explained by CO2.

As I've said since the beginning of the "other" thread. Every time a contrarian posts something if you actually read where it comes from it will be lots more temperate or actually the opposite of what they are arguing. My feeling is that the source has a message that can be distorted.

No Alric, stop reading into it what is not there. You are so drunk with CO2 you can't see straight.

[Alric]

Its clear. What Svalgaard is saying is that in previous earth history the sun drives temperature "except in the last 100 years when man-made CO2 takes over". Read it again.

In other news: this just out in Science magazine:

Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections
We present recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global-mean air temperature and sea level, and we compare these trends to previous model projections as summarised in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol in which almost all industrialised nations have committed to binding reductions of their greenhouse gas emissions. The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1136843v1

[Alric]

Alric, aside from my somewhat acidic posts, seriously, at some point if it continues to fail to warm you guys are going to have to start asking questions. To glibly state "it's only temporary until GW kicks in again" is a tautology. As it is now IPCC predictions (or is it still a "projection") are being dismantled.

Not to be too harsh, but when you post those charts which are scaled to scare the bejeebus out everyone, to someone who must read charts and graphs every day as their job views them as parlor games. The CO2 levels are done the same way.


The graphs are the data. That is the only way this issue can be discussed intelligently. See the recent Science publication for your second point:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1136843v1

[David Rodale]

Its clear. What Svalgaard is saying is that in previous earth history the sun drives temperature "except in the last 100 years when man-made CO2 takes over". Read it again.

In other news: this just out in Science magazine:

Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections
We present recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global-mean air temperature and sea level, and we compare these trends to previous model projections as summarised in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol in which almost all industrialised nations have committed to binding reductions of their greenhouse gas emissions. The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1136843v1

Alric, CO2 concentrations account for the 1920-1940's temperature rise and the subsequent cooling until the late 70's? That's pretty slick....how did it do that?

Here's another quote from Leif Svalgaard:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2679#comment-224358
That solar activity is declining is something that I won’t disagree with. That CO2 generally is good for us [and the plants] is something I won’t disagree with. That we are not staring disaster from global warming in the face is something I won’t disagree with. Where I have a problem is the poor way the ‘evidence’ is brought to bear.

Alric,
There are zero details in that "abstract". A few excerpts would help because it does not say much. You are aware that IPCC AR4 was due for release and maybe, just maybe those authors were attempting to influence it? Well, they failed. Maybe it's not worth much. Reading the last sentence one gets the impression they don't have much faith in their models, and rightly so.

Hadley has recently conceded their models didn't work so well.

That said Alric, what is the reality one year later?

[mhaze]

Note Alric fails to mention Svalgaard's lack of faith in man made CO2 as the cause of climate changes.

lack of faith....

I didn't miss that at all, but just thought anyone who read those threads would learn a lot. Yes they can be misinterpreted and or misunderstood but look at the context-

Anyone that wants to can ask Svalgaard a question, and he answers as best he can. And this is the real stuff, not that weird circular RC logic.

Pretty nice.

Postscript: I've read through DR and Alric's interchange. Well, as I noted, Alric, you can ask Svalgaard questions directly - you don't have to take my word or DR's for what he says (You could even grab the handle "secret warmer", that'd be funny).

But what he is going to say about the sun (he repeats this over and over) is that either it isn't the big driver, or else climate senstivity to solar is very high. Which to me seems really obvious, for example, at the minimum solar has got to be 2x any greenhouse effect (including water vapor).

[TrueSceptic]

But what he is going to say about the sun (he repeats this over and over) is that either it isn't the big driver, or else climate senstivity to solar is very high. Which to me seems really obvious, for example, at the minimum solar has got to be 2x any greenhouse effect (including water vapor).
Well, he's not the sole authority on the matter, but all the same, why don't you ask him the above, verbatim?

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3535525#post3535525)
But what he is going to say about the sun (he repeats this over and over) is that either it isn't the big driver, or else climate senstivity to solar is very high. Which to me seems really obvious, for example, at the minimum solar has got to be 2x any greenhouse effect (including water vapor).


Well, he's not the sole authority on the matter, but all the same, why don't you ask him the above, verbatim?

No need at all, see bolded part.

[TrueSceptic]

No need at all, see bolded part.
This is you claiming he does, and we know how reliable you are.

If you won't do it, I will.

[fsol]

I do find it interesting the graph that Anthony Watts posted recently on the magnetic strength of the sun here. (http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/sun-still-blank-no-sign-of-cycle-24/) Is this yet another coincidence? I don't know enough about this area.


Has he figured out what temperature anomalies are yet?

[a_unique_person]

Alric, aside from my somewhat acidic posts, seriously, at some point if it continues to fail to warm you guys are going to have to start asking questions. To glibly state "it's only temporary until GW kicks in again" is a tautology. As it is now IPCC predictions (or is it still a "projection") are being dismantled.



Natural variation is always present, the underlying signal is the issue. That's up, as Pat Michaels agrees. His only bone of contention is how much it is going up.

[CapelDodger]

Yes, I've noticed that... It's like playing whack-a-mole, but against a dumber adversary.

At least you brought a gun to the game :).

Actually it's only a refuge if you don't have access to databases of scientific literature. As the abstract above shows, the effect was predicted in 89...

Loud-mouthed schmucks... the lot of them.

I think the GWSceptic argument is that such cooling was predicted but isn't happening. (It's hard to be sure; their contributions do tend towards the Delphic). What attracts them to the stratosphere is that they can question the observations and the attributions. And, of course, it's not the surface, where things really aren't going their way. Or the troposphere, where they've had to retreat to the tropics and are hard-pressed even there. So they go higher.

[CapelDodger]

Has he figured out what temperature anomalies are yet?

:D

The man can't be trusted to interpret a graph. He can knock together a bar-chart, though, which is one stage up from having opposable thumbs.

[CapelDodger]

Natural variation is always present, the underlying signal is the issue. That's up, as Pat Michaels agrees. His only bone of contention is how much it is going up.

The sensitivity issue. When forced to concede the principle Michaels starts trying to minimise its relevance. I'm seeing a pattern.

When Michaels lied to Congress back in '98 he did it to exaggerate the climate sensitivity predicted by models. Was he already doing the groundwork for his latest erection? "We report, you decide" :).

[mhaze]

Another priceless CA thread - "The Sayings of Rasmus!" (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=464#comment-225120)

[CapelDodger]

We're talking science here. Try to keep up.

Anthropology is a science.

Nope. If you can dismiss Einstein's relativity theories just because you don't use them in everyday life, you don't understand science.

Misrepresentation is easy to understand. Do you really think anybody's going to believe I've ever done that?

Thanks for being honest finally about your true interests. Money and plants. Yeah, if I want to know about thermodynamics, I'll be sure to give you a call. :rolleyes:

You're clearly the go-to guy regarding relativity's relevance to climate science.

You haven't been able to place all the physiccs you bandy about re AGW in any type of context. To you, these models are absolute and primal, exempt from any limits.

The only model I care about is the big bad analogue model, and that's the context I apply my scientific understanding to. Thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, radiative physics, stuff like that. Nothing extreme or mystical. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but postulate Dark Climate to go with Dark Energy and Dark Matter, and for no discernable reason.



That's what the guy at RealClimate seems to believe. Write him. You don't believe me when I say the same thing, although I don't limit myself to the tropics with that statement. Go ahead. Write him. What are you worried about? He might help you with context.

Do you expect these "other physical processes" to lie outside the realm of thermodynamics, fluids, yadda yadda? If you do you're rowing alone. There may well be some behaviour specific to the equatorial region of a rotating globe with a thin surface skim of fluid. If there is, it'll be explicable by the usual science. And you can be sure there are qualified people looking at the problem right now.

Just to put this in context, the tropical troposphere thing is a restricted re-hash of a global troposphere thing from a decade ago. That turned out to be a measurement problem; the tropical anomaly is all that's left to explain. It might tell us something very interesting, but it's restriction to that slice of the world severely limits its relevance.

It's worth noting at this point that the predicted inverse relationship between surface temperature and the surface-to-troposphere temperature gradient is independent of the forcing involved. It's a GW effect, not a distinctive AGW one. Which makes it something of a distraction from the more relevant issue of warming down here where we all live. That's not to say the physics involved isn't interesting in itself, of course.

[Slimething]

A reasonable person might, but the models tell us a different story. They have predicted most warming at the poles, except for the polar vortex area of the Antarctic. The models were right.

I followed your link and found text telling me that ice in the poles was melting but nothing about predictions that the poles should get warmer than the tropics. As computer models are merely the restatement of a hypothesis in computer language, it really doesn't mean much if they predicted it or not, frankly.

Can you tell me why, if CO2 interacting with IR photons is the operateive process of AGW, the tropics aren't heating? I can see mega-convection if you want to postulate that but that would still require the tropcis to be hotter than the poles.

[David Rodale]

The only model I care about is the big bad analogue model, and that's the context I apply my scientific understanding to. Thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, radiative physics, stuff like that. Nothing extreme or mystical.

Well, then Schwartz and Chylek should be all you need then ;)

[CapelDodger]

Alric, CO2 concentrations account for the 1920-1940's temperature rise and the subsequent cooling until the late 70's? That's pretty slick....how did it do that?

Given that the abstract you so helpfully quoted includes
"The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates."


it's clear that ...

Well, I can't see an easy way to say this. It's clear that you're posting through your fundament. There, I've said it. The paper is calling climate models into question. I suggest you embrace it, not demand that it do something it explicitly didn't set out to do in the first place.

[Slimething]

Anthropology is a science.

Nope. Sorry. Just like medicine isn't a science.


Misrepresentation is easy to understand. Do you really think anybody's going to believe I've ever done that?


Too tired to go back and chase the quote up. It was in response to my question as to whether or not you could cite any examples of physics that were not predicted by what was known up to that point. You couldn't. I gave the SToR as an example and you said it was a miniscule artifact. The SToR is one of the most beautiful statements of theoretical physics ever penned by a human. Don't hold it against Einstein if you don't understand it.


You're clearly the go-to guy regarding relativity's relevance to climate science.


Let us know when you're running out of straw, OK?

The only model I care about is the big bad analogue model, and that's the context I apply my scientific understanding to. Thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, radiative physics, stuff like that. Nothing extreme or mystical. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but postulate Dark Climate to go with Dark Energy and Dark Matter, and for no discernable reason.

Why don't you quote me saying any of that, fella? You really are too funny. Anthropology a science. Isolated mechanisms with no competition, physics without prediction/falsification... What else do you consider science?

Do you expect these "other physical processes" to lie outside the realm of thermodynamics, fluids, yadda yadda? If you do you're rowing alone.

Nope. You would have me believe that but I don't. I don't believe in a simple world that conforms to what little physics you know either.

There may well be some behaviour specific to the equatorial region of a rotating globe with a thin surface skim of fluid. If there is, it'll be explicable by the usual science. And you can be sure there are qualified people looking at the problem right now.

Well, that helps a lot...not. CO2 trapping photons and heating up Earth's surface. CO2 exists at the tropics. Highest photon flux at the tropics. No noticeable warming. Explain. Don't give me jibber-jabber when you have mocked my statements that not all is known or understood. You've admitted as much in the above statement anyway. Thanks for playing.

Just to put this in context, the tropical troposphere thing is a restricted re-hash of a global troposphere thing from a decade ago. That turned out to be a measurement problem; the tropical anomaly is all that's left to explain. It might tell us something very interesting, but it's restriction to that slice of the world severely limits its relevance.

It's worth noting at this point that the predicted inverse relationship between surface temperature and the surface-to-troposphere temperature gradient is independent of the forcing involved. It's a GW effect, not a distinctive AGW one. Which makes it something of a distraction from the more relevant issue of warming down here where we all live. That's not to say the physics involved isn't interesting in itself, of course.

Wow! Hand-waving at its finest. Frankly that pile is still steaming!

[CapelDodger]

I followed your link and found text telling me that ice in the poles was melting but nothing about predictions that the poles should get warmer than the tropics.

There's a pretty fundamental distinction between absolute values and rates of change. The prediction is that the rate of climate change at the poles will be greater than at the tropics. No rational mind would expect the sun-kissed lands of the equator to ever get warmer than the poles, with their long winters and grudging summers. The Sun is where it all starts from, after all.

As computer models are merely the restatement of a hypothesis in computer language, it really doesn't mean much if they predicted it or not, frankly.

Do let us know how that attitude works out for you.

Physical climate models are based on a vast array of hypotheses, many of which came of age in the 19thCE.

Can you tell me why, if CO2 interacting with IR photons is the operateive process of AGW, the tropics aren't heating? I can see mega-convection if you want to postulate that but that would still require the tropcis to be hotter than the poles.

You seem to have missed the points that that the tropics are warming at the surface, the tropical troposphere is warming but apparently not much faster than the surface, and as to the mega-confection (sic) I'm lost for words.

[mhaze]

The sensitivity issue. When forced to concede the principle Michaels starts trying to minimise its relevance. I'm seeing a pattern.

When Michaels lied to Congress back in '98 he did it to exaggerate the climate sensitivity predicted by models. Was he already doing the groundwork for his latest erection? "We report, you decide" :).

Well, now I don't think that is right. Hansen stated the sensitivity. The scenarios A, B ,and C were not based on different climate sensitivities.

[mhaze]

You seem to have missed the points that that the tropics are warming at the surface, the tropical troposphere is warming but apparently not much faster than the surface, and as to the mega-confection (sic) I'm lost for words.

You've got the riddle right there. The near surface warming would be water vapor's 97% or 86%, or whatever it was at that point and place in time. Using up all or most of that precious IR down by the ground.

No or minimal CO2 greenhouse effect.

[Slimething]

There's a pretty fundamental distinction between absolute values and rates of change. The prediction is that the rate of climate change at the poles will be greater than at the tropics. No rational mind would expect the sun-kissed lands of the equator to ever get warmer than the poles, with their long winters and grudging summers. The Sun is where it all starts from, after all.

You are a very confused human being. First, the mechanisms are not known but now they're known. Except, not exactly. If I squeeze your nose, will it beep?

Yes, from your very own physics, a rational mind would absolutely expect the rate of warming at the tropics to exceed any other place on this planet. Beer's Law. The greater the light intensity, the greater the absorbance. Who's touting Dark, Mystical Physics now?

Do let us know how that attitude works out for you.

It works just fine. Thanks for asking. As I've written, I am very familiar with a great many environmental models. The scientists come up with a hypothesis and the programmer codes it. Not the other way around, sorry.

So you really think anthropology is a science? That's really rich. I put that question to google and the only thing I found was one anthropologist claiming it was. Let us know how that works out for you, OK?

Physical climate models are based on a vast array of hypotheses, many of which came of age in the 19thCE.

Why don't you take one apart for us? My money is on that you don't know what goes into any given climate model. Go ahead. Please, put your claims on paper. Name any environmental model and give us all the contributive physics. (You haven't got a clue.)

You seem to have missed the points that that the tropics are warming at the surface, the tropical troposphere is warming but apparently not much faster than the surface, and as to the mega-confection (sic) I'm lost for words.

Why am I not surprised that you're trying to evade the question I asked? You really know your BS very well but that just won't cut it. Now, are you going to deal with the fact that the physics you've posted are contradicted by the fact that the tropics are not heating up faster than any other place despite the highest intensity sunlight and CO2 concentrations as high as anywhere else? No? You're just going to give us the mean old analog model BS you like so much? Really, fella, all you've got going for you is scare. Without the fear, you've got nothing going for you.

[mhaze]

Really, fella, all you've got going for you is scare. Without the fear, you've got nothing going for you.

Mongering though has use, if not of fear then fish?

[TrueSceptic]

Another nice quote from Svalgaard (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2868#comment-225378)
18,19 (pete,Andrew): In my book climate is a 30-year thing. So making statements as many people have based on a few months worth of data (cold 2008), or a decade’s worth of data does not make much sense. My comment #721 still summarizes my opinion about TSI: no trend has been demonstrated. Lockwood: he has been wrong before [’doubling of Sun;s magnetic field’] and may be again when it comes to detailed explanations based on preferred data. Time will tell.

[TrueSceptic]

I followed your link and found text telling me that ice in the poles was melting but nothing about predictions that the poles should get warmer than the tropics.

Did you really mean to say that?

[TrueSceptic]

Nope. Sorry. Just like medicine isn't a science.

Science is the study of nature. Anthropology is the study of humanity. Unless you want to claim that humanity is not part of nature, you are simply wrong.

[TrueSceptic]

This is you claiming he does, and we know how reliable you are.

If you won't do it, I will.
And here is his reply (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2868#comment-225398).

22 (TrueSceptic):

Can I ask you whether you consider the following to summarise correctly your views?

But what he is going to say about the sun (he repeats this over and over) is that either it isn’t the big driver, or else climate sensitivity to solar is very high.

so far, so good, the following:

Which to me seems really obvious, for example, at the minimum solar has got to be 2x any greenhouse effect (including water vapor).

is your own opinion.

(Of course it was mhaze's opinion, not mine!)

[mhaze]

And here is his reply (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2868#comment-225398).
Which to me seems really obvious, for example, at the minimum solar has got to be 2x any greenhouse effect (including water vapor).
is your own opinion. (Of course it was mhaze's opinion, not mine!)


You really do have a way of searching needlessly hard for the truly obvious.

But some people pick up on non-subtle things right in front of them quicker than others, I guess.

See bolded section above.

[TrueSceptic]

You really do have a way of searching needlessly hard for the truly obvious.

But some people pick up on non-subtle things right in front of them quicker than others, I guess.

See bolded section above.
This is frankly dishonest. You initially said that as if you were paraphrasing Svalgaard.

[mhaze]

Not at all. Why on earth would I give him credit for my opinions?

But for the grammer tense challeneged, here is the paragraph again with "Claifications for Trueseptic"

But what he (Svalgaard) is going to say about the sun he (Svalgaard) repeats this over and over) is that either it isn't the big driver, or else climate senstivity to solar is very high. Which to me (Mhaze) seems really obvious, for example, at the minimum solar has got to be 2x any greenhouse effect (including water vapor).

Got it? No? Doesn't bother me. Yes? Great.

[TrueSceptic]

Not at all. Why on earth would I give him credit for my opinions?

But for the grammer tense challeneged, here is the paragraph again with "Claifications for Trueseptic"

But what he (Svalgaard) is going to say about the sun he (Svalgaard) repeats this over and over) is that either it isn't the big driver, or else climate senstivity to solar is very high. Which to me (Mhaze) seems really obvious, for example, at the minimum solar has got to be 2x any greenhouse effect (including water vapor).

Got it? No? Doesn't bother me. Yes? Great.
No, you said that as if his posts support that claim, following on from misreading posts mentioning the last 100 years. Got that?

And my "grammer tense" (sic) is pretty good. Perhaps you meant semantics?

[mhaze]

No, you said that as if his posts support that claim, following on from misreading posts mentioning the last 100 years. Got that?

And my "grammer tense" (sic) is pretty good. Perhaps you meant semantics?

I have NO idea now what you are talking about. Somebody else's post? Somehow related to mine? Somehow? Something about 100 years? Did I quote someone else's post? No? But it is somehow related? To you? Hmm... Perhaps you should connect the dots for us there?

Oh, or you could just forget it, chalk it up to some sort of misunderstanding on your part. I suspect you don't like that idea, thought. Well, whatever.

[TrueSceptic]

I have NO idea now what you are talking about. Somebody else's post? Somehow related to mine? Somehow? Something about 100 years? Did I quote someone else's post? No? But it is somehow related? To you? Hmm... Perhaps you should connect the dots for us there?

Oh, or you could just forget it, chalk it up to some sort of misunderstanding on your part. I suspect you don't like that idea, thought. Well, whatever.
You followed on from Alric and DR disagreeing on what Svalgaard meant when he (Svalgaard) mentioned the last 100 years.

In any case, Svalgaard did not support your opinion about solar being 2x CO2 (or whatever) did he? That was the whole point of my asking him (the first part was obviously true but I didn't want to quote you out of context).

[TellyKNeasuss]

Dr. Roy Spencer is a "climate scientist". He has recently written an essay asking valid questions concerning IPCC conclusions. What do you think?
Hey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me This (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Hey-Nobel-Prize-Winners-Answer-Me-This.pdf) Or is he somehow not qualified to comment either?

And the sea ice in the Arctic is melting faster than any of the models predicted. So your point is?

Roy Spencer is not a global warming denier (though he is an evolution denier). He just thinks that the warming will not be sufficient to cause major disruptions to human or other lifestyles.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3538079#post3538079)
I have NO idea now what you are talking about. Somebody else's post? Somehow related to mine? Somehow? Something about 100 years? Did I quote someone else's post? No? But it is somehow related? To you? Hmm... Perhaps you should connect the dots for us there?

Oh, or you could just forget it, chalk it up to some sort of misunderstanding on your part. I suspect you don't like that idea, thought. Well, whatever.

You followed on from Alric and DR disagreeing on what Svalgaard meant when he (Svalgaard) mentioned the last 100 years.

In any case, Svalgaard did not support your opinion about solar being 2x CO2 (or whatever) did he? That was the whole point of my asking him (the first part was obviously true but I didn't want to quote you out of context).

Yes, I think I got it - you were confused by not reading exactly what I said, or thinking it meant something other than exactly what I said, and after being confused about some vague "follow on" impression that you had, you doubled that confusion by confusing a comment that I attributed to "I" to someone else, Svalgaard. Man, that's a mess of confusatory stuff you got there.

I think I'll just continue saying things in a plain and simple way. Well, of course probably I get confused sometimes too.

Okay, so what's this about your now pronouncing something about Svalgaard agreeing or not agreeing with me? Who cares? Did someone say he should agree? Not I. I'm just the guy that suggested to AUP, Alric, others they should all go read the Svalgaard threads at Climateaudit.

[TellyKNeasuss]

computer models are merely the restatement of a hypothesis in computer language

Completely incorrect. Computer models are simulations of natural physical processes. Of course they are subject to error because of the simplifications inherent in them as well as (normally) the incomplete understanding of the physical process that the model is simulating.

Can you tell me why, if CO2 interacting with IR photons is the operateive process of AGW, the tropics aren't heating? I can see mega-convection if you want to postulate that but that would still require the tropcis to be hotter than the poles.Polar regions are much more sensitive to changes than tropical regions because of the reflective properties of snow and ice. Snow and ice reflect more than 80 percent of the insolation back into space. Therefore, a decrease in snow and ice extent will lead to an decrease in the amount of insolation reflected and thus an increase in the amount of insolation absorbed. This will amplify the warming.

Tropical regions are also proficient at exporting heat. The rest of the Earth would be cooler if local temperature was solely a function of local processes.

[TrueSceptic]

[INDENT]

Yes, I think I got it - you were confused by not reading exactly what I said, or thinking it meant something other than exactly what I said, and after being confused about some vague "follow on" impression that you had, you doubled that confusion by confusing a comment that I attributed to "I" to someone else, Svalgaard. Man, that's a mess of confusatory stuff you got there.

You said A, correctly summarising Svalgaard. You followed that with B, as if B followed from A and you expected Svalgaard to agree with B. That is all. No confusion: just a misunderstanding.


I think I'll just continue saying things in a plain and simple way. Well, of course probably I get confused sometimes too.

So can we all.

Okay, so what's this about your now pronouncing something about Svalgaard agreeing or not agreeing with me? Who cares? Did someone say he should agree? Not I. I'm just the guy that suggested to AUP, Alric, others they should all go read the Svalgaard threads at Climateaudit.
I'm with you there and I'll be asking him more stuff.:)

[Megalodon]

At least you brought a gun to the game :).

Let's not go that way, or I might get reported again ;)

I think the GWSceptic argument is that such cooling was predicted but isn't happening. (It's hard to be sure; their contributions do tend towards the Delphic).

If by Delphic you mean moronic, then we agree... What I get is that the troposphere is not warming fast enough for some of them, and then you have the other that confuse it with stratosphere... and then the fun starts.

What attracts them to the stratosphere is that they can question the observations and the attributions. And, of course, it's not the surface, where things really aren't going their way. Or the troposphere, where they've had to retreat to the tropics and are hard-pressed even there. So they go higher.

Yes... and I'm guessing they use chemical assistance for that...

[TrueSceptic]

If by Delphic you mean moronic, then we agree... What I get is that the troposphere is not warming fast enough for some of them, and then you have the other that confuse it with stratosphere... and then the fun starts.

Delphic |ˈdelfik| (also Delphian |-fēən|)
adjective
of or relating to the ancient Greek oracle at Delphi.
• (typically of a pronouncement) deliberately obscure or ambiguous.

CD's a man of learning, in case you didn't already realise. :)

[TellyKNeasuss]

Well, that helps a lot...not. CO2 trapping photons and heating up Earth's surface. CO2 exists at the tropics. Highest photon flux at the tropics. No noticeable warming. Explain. Don't give me jibber-jabber when you have mocked my statements that not all is known or understood. You've admitted as much in the above statement anyway. Thanks for playing.

CO2 trapping photons and heating up Earth's surface??? Where did you get that idea from? That is not an accurate summation of the AGW theory. Do you understand this topic?

Can you tell me why, if CO2 interacting with IR photons is the operateive process of AGW, the tropics aren't heating? I can see mega-convection if you want to postulate that but that would still require the tropcis to be hotter than the poles.Ummm, the tropics are hotter than the poles. And no GW theory is predicting that this will change.

[a_unique_person]

Delphic |ˈdelfik| (also Delphian |-fēən|)
adjective
of or relating to the ancient Greek oracle at Delphi.
• (typically of a pronouncement) deliberately obscure or ambiguous.

CD's a man of learning, in case you didn't already realise. :)

The Greeks invented a lot of things, including how to be a good fortune teller.

[CapelDodger]

CD's a man of learning, in case you didn't already realise. :)

An Old School Classical Education, don'cha know. (Really old; founded in the 17thCE.) A blessing, and a curse :).

[CapelDodger]

The Greeks invented a lot of things, including how to be a good fortune teller.

They'd like you to think that, but there was a much earlier oracle at Siwa, Egypt, using the same trick. Hustling must surely have been one of the earliest professions, so the first successful fortune teller was probably called something like "Ug the Prophet".

[CapelDodger]

Another nice quote from Svalgaard (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2868#comment-225378)
18,19 (pete,Andrew): In my book climate is a 30-year thing. So making statements as many people have based on a few months worth of data (cold 2008), or a decade’s worth of data does not make much sense. My comment #721 still summarizes my opinion about TSI: no trend has been demonstrated. Lockwood: he has been wrong before [’doubling of Sun;s magnetic field’] and may be again when it comes to detailed explanations based on preferred data. Time will tell.

Svalgaard ploughs his own furrow, but is numbered amongst the righteous. It's understandable that he makes the effort to explicitly distance himself from frauds and loonies.

[TrueSceptic]

Svalgaard ploughs his own furrow, but is numbered amongst the righteous. It's understandable that he makes the effort to explicitly distance himself from frauds and loonies.
He has my respect (FWIW). It is already clear that he is not impressed by the wackier end of McIntyre's following. I also have to say that CA is a well run blog. I've said it before but it's worth repeating.

[CapelDodger]

Well, now I don't think that is right. Hansen stated the sensitivity. The scenarios A, B ,and C were not based on different climate sensitivities.

The lie involved the predicted warming (by the Hansen et al model) during the 90's, which goes directly to the sensitivity. In essence, the lie was meant to convey that the estimated sensitivity was way too high, and that's the message a lot of people seem to have got from it, going by the reaction in the GWSceptic camp. It was quite the thing for a while, before the more recent alternatives (warming stopped in 1998, troposphere, stratosphere, Mars, Pluto, Antarctic sea-ice - it's been a creative first decade of the 21stCE) turned up.

Perhaps Michaels already saw which way the wind was blowing (it don't take a weatherman to know that, after all). He's not been knocking himself out trying to deny the warming, he's been concentrating on the "it doesn't matter" fall-back line all along, knowing you guys will thank him (and the Cato Institute) for it when the time comes. Clear minds remain focused on the strategic objective of an operation, and in this case that's to prevent any regulatory or behavioural action being taken to curb CO2 emmissions.

I could be wrong, of course. I may have mis-overestimated him.

[Round Robin]

They'd like you to think that, but there was a much earlier oracle at Siwa, Egypt, using the same trick. Hustling must surely have been one of the earliest professions, so the first successful fortune teller was probably called something like "Ug the Prophet".

Yes, but in Delphi, the Pythia (priestess) would sit on a stool positioned over a gas vent so that the vapors would make her a bit, uh, loopy. I imagine her riddles were very entertaining!

Sorry that was way off topic... I wonder of those vapors were GHGs. There; that's better. ;)

[CapelDodger]

He has my respect (FWIW). It is already clear that he is not impressed by the wackier end of McIntyre's following. I also have to say that CA is a well run blog. I've said it before but it's worth repeating.

Fair comment, but McIntyre is still a weasel. He doesn't have to be wacky to get in the spotlight (unlike, say, Rush Limbaugh).

Maybe we should take this to a different thread ... :)

[CapelDodger]

Yes, but in Delphi, the Pythia (priestess) would sit on a stool positioned over a gas vent so that the vapors would make her a bit, uh, loopy. I imagine her riddles were very entertaining!

Way off topic but ... what were those vapours doing to the other people in the room, the ones that weren't used to it? If I was running an Oracle I wouldn't put somebody up-front that was likely to run off at the mouth. You'd want them on-message, and the message would be plausibly deniable. Having witnesses that are slightly smashed at the time is a great help with the deniablity.

At Siwa they were probably throwing cannabis on the sacred braziers, but that didn't stop theOracle telling Alexander he'd conquer the world if he'd kindly f*** off to India.

Sorry that was way off topic... I wonder of those vapors were GHGs. There; that's better. ;)

I can't conjure-up a get-out at all :o. I'm a pedant. My apologies to whoever started this thread.

[a_unique_person]

I can't conjure-up a get-out at all :o. I'm a pedant. My apologies to whoever started this thread.

Tokie? I don't think he cares anymore.

[CapelDodger]

Yes, from your very own physics, a rational mind would absolutely expect the rate of warming at the tropics to exceed any other place on this planet. Beer's Law. The greater the light intensity, the greater the absorbance. Who's touting Dark, Mystical Physics now?

Greenhouse gases don't absorb light, they're transparent to it. They absorb infra-red radiation. Surfaces absorb (or reflect) light, and emit infra-red. Absorbed light is the energy-income, and infra-red the energy outgoings, of the global energy budget. (That's from radiative physics, which is founded on observations.)

The greenhouse effect is a local (the Earth's surface) phaenomenon in which the Sun plays no part. It is just as effective at the poles as it is at the equator (or anywhere else), and its effect is to reduce outgoings. Since the poles import heat from the tropics (thermodynamics) their energy-balance is going to increase faster than the equatorial region (which exports heat by other than radiative means). Other things being equal, such as a flat Earth.

Really, fella, all you've got going for you is scare. Without the fear, you've got nothing going for you.

From your increasingly garbled responses I can see how you might be scared of me (there's a hint of panic in there) but I don't set out to frighten anybody.

[CapelDodger]

Tokie? I don't think he cares anymore.

Hopefully he's getting the care he so clearly needs :).

Since Tokie determinedly martyred himself I guess this thread is open territory now. Let's not even get into what the "Simple Question" was in the first place.

Tokie. Gone, but not forgotten. Nor mourned, if I'm any judge. He was an embarrassment even to his friends.

[mhaze]

The lie involved the predicted warming (by the Hansen et al model) during the 90's, which goes directly to the sensitivity. In essence, the lie was meant to convey that the estimated sensitivity was way too high.....

I could be wrong, of course. I may have mis-overestimated him.

Sure looked way too high to me....eg, not a lie.

Well, but now we are hindcasting, then they were trying to predict.

How do you lie when predicting?

[varwoche]

Tokie. Gone, but not forgotten. Hey, we missed out on the third chapter in the trilogy. :)

[TrueSceptic]

The lie involved the predicted warming (by the Hansen et al model) during the 90's, which goes directly to the sensitivity. In essence, the lie was meant to convey that the estimated sensitivity was way too high, and that's the message a lot of people seem to have got from it, going by the reaction in the GWSceptic camp. It was quite the thing for a while, before the more recent alternatives (warming stopped in 1998, troposphere, stratosphere, Mars, Pluto, Antarctic sea-ice - it's been a creative first decade of the 21stCE) turned up.

Perhaps Michaels already saw which way the wind was blowing (it don't take a weatherman to know that, after all). He's not been knocking himself out trying to deny the warming, he's been concentrating on the "it doesn't matter" fall-back line all along, knowing you guys will thank him (and the Cato Institute) for it when the time comes. Clear minds remain focused on the strategic objective of an operation, and in this case that's to prevent any regulatory or behavioural action being taken to curb CO2 emmissions.

I could be wrong, of course. I may have mis-overestimated him.
My understanding is that Hansen's 3 scenarios were not of different assumptions about sensitivity but of 3 different trends of CO2 output.

Regardless, Michaels was being dishonest in showing only the one scenario. This (http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/patMichaels.html) quite nicely summarises what happened and also tells us about some other examples of Michaels's failings.

[TrueSceptic]

Fair comment, but McIntyre is still a weasel. He doesn't have to be wacky to get in the spotlight (unlike, say, Rush Limbaugh).

Maybe we should take this to a different thread ... :)
Yes, I shall. GWS behaviour, perhaps? ;)

[TrueSceptic]

Hopefully he's getting the care he so clearly needs :).

Since Tokie determinedly martyred himself I guess this thread is open territory now. Let's not even get into what the "Simple Question" was in the first place.

Tokie. Gone, but not forgotten. Nor mourned, if I'm any judge. He was an embarrassment even to his friends.
Maybe, but I don't recall anyone on the GWS side correcting him.

[TrueSceptic]

Sure looked way too high to me....eg, not a lie.

Well, but now we are hindcasting, then they were trying to predict.

How do you lie when predicting?
This was about testifying to Congress in 1998 about projections Hansen had made in 1988.

See my other message.

[Round Robin]

My understanding is that Hansen's 3 scenarios were not of different assumptions about sensitivity but of 3 different trends of CO2 output.

Regardless, Michaels was being dishonest in showing only the one scenario. This (http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/patMichaels.html) quite nicely summarises what happened and also tells us about some other examples of Michaels's failings.

Was not Michaels' abbreviated graph the one used in Crichton's State of Fear? I have a co-worker who is convinced that GW is fiction after having reading that novel.

[mhaze]

Was not Michaels' abbreviated graph the one used in Crichton's State of Fear? I have a co-worker who is convinced that GW is fiction after having reading that novel.

Given the huge amounts of fiction about GW in the media and press, and that promulgated by far left radical environmental groups, I can certainly understand his thinking GW is fiction.

Oh, wait? There was a fiction book about the GW fiction? Which fictions, the ones I mentioned in the prior paragraph?

[Round Robin]

Oh, wait? There was a fiction book about the GW fiction? Which fictions, the ones I mentioned in the prior paragraph?

My understanding is that Hansen never put forth "Scenario A" as a probable scenario, so by including it solely in his testimony, Michaels was committing what I would consider to be a "lie of omission". When Michaels testified, the observed data was correlating with "Scenario B" reasonably well--and this is what Hansen did suggest as the most probable, AFAIK.

A lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies.

[mhaze]

My understanding is that Hansen never put forth "Scenario A" as a probable scenario, so by including it solely in his testimony, Michaels was committing what I would consider to be a "lie of omission". When Michaels testified, the observed data was correlating with "Scenario B" reasonably well--and this is what Hansen did suggest as the most probable, AFAIK.

Oh, well, now you can correct your understanding. Scenario A was cited by Hansen as "business as usual".

Wait - your sources didn't tell you that? I wonder why....

[Megalodon]

Oh, well, now you can correct your understanding. Scenario A was cited by Hansen as "business as usual".

Wait - your sources didn't tell you that? I wonder why....

There we go again... For all interested in finding out how deep mhaze can go in order to perpetuate this lie, please follow the link.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87475&page=53

The two following pages contain most of the relevant discussion.

Enjoy

[TrueSceptic]

There we go again... For all interested in finding out how deep mhaze can go in order to perpetuate this lie, please follow the link.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87475&page=53

The two following pages contain most of the relevant discussion.

Enjoy
<Sigh> Why does this not surprise me?

[fsol]

<Sigh> Why does this not surprise me?

It all rather pathetic isn't it?

[Round Robin]

Oh, well, now you can correct your understanding. Scenario A was cited by Hansen as "business as usual".

Wait - your sources didn't tell you that? I wonder why....

mhaze, my source was memory, but this quote (http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200604/viewpoint.cfm) from Hansen on the APS site seems to validate it:

In my testimony in 1988, and in an attached scientific paper written with several colleagues at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and published later that year in the Journal of Geophysical Research (volume 93, pages 9341-9364), I described climate simulations made with the GISS climate model. We considered three scenarios for the future, labeled A, B and C, to bracket likely possibilities. Scenario A was described as “on the high side of reality,” because it assumed rapid exponential growth of greenhouse gases and it assumed that there would be no large volcanoes (which inject small particles into the stratosphere and cool the Earth) during the next half century. Scenario C was described as “a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined,” specifically greenhouse gases were assumed to stop increasing after 2000. The intermediate Scenario B was described as “the most plausible.” Scenario B had continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions at a moderate rate and it sprinkled three large volcanoes in the 50-year period after 1988, one of them in the 1990s.

Not surprisingly, the real world has followed a course closest to that of Scenario B. The real world even had one large volcano in the 1990s, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which occurred in 1991, while Scenario B placed a volcano in 1995.
In my testimony to congress I showed one line graph with scenarios A, B, C and observed global temperature, which I update in Figure 1. However, all of the maps of simulated future temperature that I showed in my congressional testimony were for scenario B, which formed the basis for my testimony. No results were shown for the outlier scenarios A and C.

Back to Crichton: how did he conclude that I made an error of 300%? Apparently, rather than studying the scientific literature, as his footnotes would imply, his approach was to listen to “global warming skeptics.” One of the skeptics, Pat Michaels, has taken the graph from our 1988 paper with simulated global temperatures for scenarios A, B and C, erased the results for scenarios B and C, and shown only the curve for scenario A in public presentations, pretending that it was my prediction for climate change. Is this treading close to scientific fraud? Crichton’s approach is worse than that of Michaels. Crichton uncritically accepts Michaels’ results, and then concludes that Hansen’s prediction was in error “300%.” Where does he get this conclusion?

I also read through the thread TrueSceptic linked and it seems like this question was put to rest a long time ago... Is it so hard to believe that Michaels may have been dishonest?

[mhaze]

mhaze, my source was memory, but this quote (http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200604/viewpoint.cfm) from Hansen on the APS site seems to validate it:

I also read through the thread TrueSceptic linked and it seems like this question was put to rest a long time ago... Is it so hard to believe that Michaels may have been dishonest?

I need only repeat what I've already said now that you have validated it:

Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3541503#post3541503)
Oh, well, now you can correct your understanding. Scenario A was cited by Hansen as "business as usual". Wait - your sources didn't tell you that? I wonder why....

[Round Robin]

I need only repeat what I've already said now that you have validated it:

Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3541503#post3541503)
Oh, well, now you can correct your understanding. Scenario A was cited by Hansen as "business as usual". Wait - your sources didn't tell you that? I wonder why....

I'm sorry, I don't follow you mhaze. Hansen says this:

Scenario A was described as “on the high side of reality,” because it assumed rapid exponential growth of greenhouse gases and it assumed that there would be no large volcanoes (which inject small particles into the stratosphere and cool the Earth) during the next half century. Scenario C was described as “a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined,” specifically greenhouse gases were assumed to stop increasing after 2000. The intermediate Scenario B was described as “the most plausible.” Scenario B had continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions at a moderate rate and it sprinkled three large volcanoes in the 50-year period after 1988, one of them in the 1990s. (my emphasis)

How does this contradict my memory that he considered Scenario B as the most plausible?

[varwoche]

How does this contradict my memory that he considered Scenario B as the most plausible? It doesn't, of course. It should be crystal clear (to anyone who isn't an over-the-top zealot) that Michaels twisted the truth beyond recognition and then some.

[mhaze]

[quote=Round Robin;3542118]

Well, let's see. You said - Originally Posted by Round Robin http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3541456#post3541456)
My understanding is that Hansen never put forth "Scenario A" as a probable scenario, so by including it solely in his testimony, Michaels was committing what I would consider to be a "lie of omission". When Michaels testified, the observed data was correlating with "Scenario B" reasonably well--and this is what Hansen did suggest as the most probable, AFAIK.
And I responded -

Oh, well, now you can correct your understanding. Scenario A was cited by Hansen as "business as usual". Wait - your sources didn't tell you that? I wonder why....

And then after another interchange -
I need only repeat what I've already said now that you have validated it:
Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3541503#post3541503)
Oh, well, now you can correct your understanding. Scenario A was cited by Hansen as "business as usual". Wait - your sources didn't tell you that? I wonder why....

And you then said -I'm sorry, I don't follow you mhaze. Hansen says this:
(my emphasis)
How does this contradict my memory that he considered Scenario B as the most plausible?
Well, what else do you want me to do? Repeat myself a third time? I have no idea (or interest) what goes on in your memory, I only corrected a statement you made that was quite wrong. My understanding is that Hansen never put forth "Scenario A" as a probable scenario
And then I asked a relevant question -

Wait - your sources didn't tell you that? I wonder why....

[Round Robin]

[/INDENT]Well, what else do you want me to do? Repeat myself a third time? I have no idea (or interest) what goes on in your memory, I only corrected a statement you made that was quite wrong.

My statement was not wrong, and I have posted proof from Hansen himself.

You seem to think that "Business as usual" = "Most Probable". I don't.

Scenario A was included as an upper bound, as Hansen said, and he used Scenario B as a basis for his testimony to Congress.

I do not wish for you to repeat yourself, mhaze. If you still think I am too thick to understand your point, it may be better for you to go on thinking that rather than for the two of us to litter this thread further on a topic that has been thrashed to death before.

[TrueSceptic]

It doesn't, of course. It should be crystal clear (to anyone who isn't an over-the-top zealot) that Michaels twisted the truth beyond recognition and then some.
Michaels misrepresented Hansen to such a degree that it can only be considered fraud. It was a blatant straw man.

[mhaze]

My statement was not wrong, and I have posted proof from Hansen himself.

You seem to think that "Business as usual" = "Most Probable". I don't.

Scenario A was included as an upper bound, as Hansen said, and he used Scenario B as a basis for his testimony to Congress.

I do not wish for you to repeat yourself. If you still think I am too thick to understand your point, it may be better for you to go on thinking that rather than for the two of us to litter this thread further on a topic that has been thrashed to death before.

No, you haven't posted "proof" from Hansen. You've posted what he had to say some time after the events occurred, his point of view. Do I think "Business as usual" refers to "Most probable"? Did I say that? Don't think so. As Hansen used the phrase (and it is a standard industry phrase by the way) it referred to no government control or restrictions on emissions such as were incorporated in Scenario B and C. Business as usual simply meant, everything wildly and capitalistically careening forward.

Well, that's what happened, isn't it? The controls that he requested in the absence of which he asserted Scenario A would be likely were not put into place.

Now let's see where we are going.

First you say Hansen never put forward Scenario A as a probable scenario. Yep, he sure did. Business as usual was what we got.

Then you say How does this contradict my memory that he considered Scenario B as the most plausible?
Hmm...no relation between that and the correction I made. Then you say You seem to think that "Business as usual" = "Most Probable".
Hmm...no relation between that and any of my comments, but you do preface it by saying "you seem to think".

Why all the shifting goalposts? Sheesh.

Now, why was it none of your prime sources (including Hansen himself) wanted to tell you about Hansen saying Scenario A was "business as usual?"

[TrueSceptic]

[quote=Round Robin;3542118]

Well, let's see. You said - Originally Posted by Round Robin http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3541456#post3541456)
My understanding is that Hansen never put forth "Scenario A" as a probable scenario, so by including it solely in his testimony, Michaels was committing what I would consider to be a "lie of omission". When Michaels testified, the observed data was correlating with "Scenario B" reasonably well--and this is what Hansen did suggest as the most probable, AFAIK.
And I responded -

Oh, well, now you can correct your understanding. Scenario A was cited by Hansen as "business as usual". Wait - your sources didn't tell you that? I wonder why....

And then after another interchange -
I need only repeat what I've already said now that you have validated it:
Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3541503#post3541503)
Oh, well, now you can correct your understanding. Scenario A was cited by Hansen as "business as usual". Wait - your sources didn't tell you that? I wonder why....

And you then said -I'm sorry, I don't follow you mhaze. Hansen says this:
(my emphasis)
How does this contradict my memory that he considered Scenario B as the most plausible?
Well, what else do you want me to do? Repeat myself a third time? I have no idea (or interest) what goes on in your memory, I only corrected a statement you made that was quite wrong. My understanding is that Hansen never put forth "Scenario A" as a probable scenario
And then I asked a relevant question -

Wait - your sources didn't tell you that? I wonder why....
You discount RR's evidence because the source is Hansen himself. Care to provide an impartial source? (Ignoring the fact that Hansen made clear what he meant 10 years before Michaels's presentation.)

[a_unique_person]

Was not Michaels' abbreviated graph the one used in Crichton's State of Fear? I have a co-worker who is convinced that GW is fiction after having reading that novel.

Oh, the irony.

[mhaze]

I don't recall the graph being in the novel, although there were perhaps 30 some graphs, but there was something like a reference to Hansen or a prominent scientist talking to a Senate committee along the lines of "This scientist was wrong by 300% in his prediction", which (Again, if I recall correctly) in one of the 400 some footnotes was attributed to Michaels.

The context was more or less, climate prediction is very poor because of the state of the art of the models and here is an example of that.

[TrueSceptic]

I don't recall the graph being in the novel, although there were perhaps 30 some graphs, but there was something like a reference to Hansen or a prominent scientist talking to a Senate committee along the lines of "This scientist was wrong by 300% in his prediction", which (Again, if I recall correctly) in one of the 400 some footnotes was attributed to Michaels.

The context was more or less, climate prediction is very poor because of the state of the art of the models and here is an example of that.
IOW an egregious straw man.

[mhaze]

IOW an egregious straw man.

Oh, you have read the book?

Or are arguing from ignorance?

[fsol]

Crichtons 300% he swallowed hook line and sinker from Michaels. You know, completely uncritically. Without bothering to go read the actual paper. It's like a bad joke really. Unfortunately there are people out there who then swallowed it hook line and sinker from Crichton. They are even further away from reading the paper.

Scenario A being business as usual. Well it didn't include a volcano. It didn't include the Montreal Protocol. Both of those things happened, in the real! :eek: Meanwhile Scenario B which guessed the overall forcings pretty well...well, it performed pretty well. Funny that. So it turns out the most plausible guess was the most plausible guess afterall! Whoddathunkit?:confused:

[mhaze]

[quote=mhaze;3542368]

[quote=mhaze;3542368] Originally Posted by Round Robin

Well, let's see. You said - Originally Posted by Round Robin http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/...s/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif)
My understanding is that Hansen never put forth "Scenario A" as a probable scenario, so by including it solely in his testimony, Michaels was committing what I would consider to be a "lie of omission". When Michaels testified, the observed data was correlating with "Scenario B" reasonably well--and this is what Hansen did suggest as the most probable, AFAIK.
And I responded -

Oh, well, now you can correct your understanding. Scenario A was cited by Hansen as "business as usual". Wait - your sources didn't tell you that? I wonder why....

And then after another interchange -
I need only repeat what I've already said now that you have validated it:
Originally Posted by mhaze
Oh, well, now you can correct your understanding. Scenario A was cited by Hansen as "business as usual". Wait - your sources didn't tell you that? I wonder why....

And you then said -I'm sorry, I don't follow you mhaze. Hansen says this:
(my emphasis)
How does this contradict my memory that he considered Scenario B as the most plausible?
Well, what else do you want me to do? Repeat myself a third time? I have no idea (or interest) what goes on in your memory, I only corrected a statement you made that was quite wrong. My understanding is that Hansen never put forth "Scenario A" as a probable scenario
And then I asked a relevant question -

Wait - your sources didn't tell you that? I wonder why....



You discount RR's evidence because the source is Hansen himself. Care to provide an impartial source? (Ignoring the fact that Hansen made clear what he meant 10 years before Michaels's presentation.)

Care to think before you post?You discount RR's evidence because the source is Hansen himself.No, I didn't discount RRs links (which were not evidence to the question at hand).Care to provide an impartial source?Okay, since you insist, I'll repeat it a 3rd time. Scenario A was cited by Hansen as "business as usual".

Source, Hansen. Oh wait, I already said that, twice. Hmm, same source as RR.(Ignoring the fact that Hansen made clear what he meant 10 years before Michaels's presentation.)The comments in which Hansens talked about Scenario A being Business as Usual were made 10 years before Michaels presentation. Now the comments you link... when were they made?

Funny, you seem reluctant to directly or at all address my question -

Wait - your sources didn't tell you that(Referring to Hansen calling out Scenario A as being Business As Usual)? I wonder why....

[mhaze]

Crichtons 300% he swallowed hook line and sinker from Michaels. You know, completely uncritically. Without bothering to go read the actual paper. It's like a bad joke really. Unfortunately there are people out there who then swallowed it hook line and sinker from Crichton. They are even further away from reading the paper.

Oh, have you read the book? Cool. Can you lead us to the paragraph in question?

[a_unique_person]

Oh, have you read the book? Cool. Can you lead us to the paragraph in question?

I read the book. It reminds me of a childs action cartoon. I could just see Mr Evils son saying "Just let me shoot him, dad". It had everything but the sharks with the frikken laser beams on their heads.

[mhaze]

All direct quotes (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19131) from Hansen. Want more examples?

If emissions of greenhouse gases continue to increase at the current rate—"business as usual"—then the rate of isotherm movement will double in this century to at least seventy miles per decade. If we continue on this path, a large fraction of the species on Earth, as many as 50 percent or more, may become extinct.

If human beings follow a business-as-usual course, continuing to exploit fossil fuel resources without reducing carbon emissions or capturing and sequestering them before they warm the atmosphere, the eventual effects on climate and life may be comparable to those at the time of mass extinctions

In order to arrive at an effective policy we can project two different scenarios concerning climate change. In the business-as-usual scenario, annual emissions of CO2 continue to increase at the current rate

The business-as-usual scenario yields an increase of about five degrees Fahrenheit of global warming during this century

The business-as-usual scenario, with five degrees Fahrenheit global warming and ten degrees Fahrenheit at the ice sheets, certainly would cause the disintegration of ice sheets. The only question is when the collapse of these sheets would begin. The business-as-usual scenario, which could lead to an eventual sea level rise of eighty feet

If this business-as-usual growth of CFCs had continued just one more decade, the stratospheric ozone layer would have been severely depleted over the entire planet and CFCs themselves would have caused a larger greenhouse effect than CO2.

Scientists present the facts about climate change clinically, failing to stress that business-as-usual will transform the planet. The press and television, despite an overwhelming scientific consensus concerning global warming, give equal time to fringe "contrarians" supported by the fossil fuel industry. Special interest groups mount effective disinformation campaigns to sow doubt about the reality of global warming. The government appears to be strongly influenced by special interests, or otherwise confused and distracted, and it has failed to provide leadership. The public is understandably confused or uninterested.

if we stay on the business-as-usual course, disastrous effects are no further from us than we are from the Elvis era.

continuing with business-as-usual will cause 60 percent to become extinct.

Hansen called out Scenario A as Business As Usual?

Michaels brought this Business As Usual Sliding Ten Year forecast of Doom trip of Hansen to the attention of the Congressional committee?

Hmm....

Got a few of the True Believers a bit perturbed, did he?

[CapelDodger]

Crichtons 300% he swallowed hook line and sinker from Michaels. You know, completely uncritically. Without bothering to go read the actual paper. It's like a bad joke really. Unfortunately there are people out there who then swallowed it hook line and sinker from Crichton. They are even further away from reading the paper.

I'm 2cm further from New York every year, but I wasn't going to swim there even as a young 'un :). The influence of an airport novel is fleeting, but the damage done to a cause that embraces it lasts forever. It's only compounded by having Inhofe involved.

Crichton is to them what they like to think Al Gore is to us. IMO.

Scenario A being business as usual. Well it didn't include a volcano. It didn't include the Montreal Protocol. Both of those things happened, in the real! :eek: Meanwhile Scenario B which guessed the overall forcings pretty well...well, it performed pretty well. Funny that. So it turns out the most plausible guess was the most plausible guess afterall! Whoddathunkit?:confused:

Yeah, no, but, you see, what they did was to make a model that framed CO2 for the warming that they knew was coming. The paladins of proper science were blind-sided because they weren't privy to Solar Cycles 22 and 23 (let alone 24 and 25); the plotters kept the data to themselves. There's been no guessing or luck involved until now, when the paladins do have Solar Cycles 24 and 25 sussed. Sort of. And they reckon "cooler to come fairly soonish". No surpirises there, then.

The next two-to-seven years should put a few ghosts to rest.

[CapelDodger]

I read the book. It reminds me of a childs action cartoon. I could just see Mr Evils son saying "Just let me shoot him, dad". It had everything but the sharks with the frikken laser beams on their heads.

It's an airport novel, and not a particularly good one. Alastair MacLean he ain't, nor even a Robert Ludlum. I didn't finish it, I re-donated it to the Oxfam book-shop. Life's too short.

[Round Robin]

Here (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf) is Hansen's 1988 paper.

We define three trace gas scenarios to provide an indication of how the predicted climate trend depends upon trace gas growth rates. Scenario A assumes that growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely; the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially. Scenario B has decreasing trace gas growth rates, such that the annual increase of the greenhouse climate forcing remains approximately constant at the present level. Scenario C drastically reduces trace gas growth between 1990 and 2000 such that the greenhouse climate forcing ceases to increase after 2000.

The range of climate forcings covered by the three scenarios is further increased by the fact that scenario A includes the effect of several hypothetical or crudely estimated trace gas trends (ozone, stratospheric water vapor and minor chlorine and fluorine compounds) which are not included in scenarios B and C.

These scenarios are designed to yield sensitivity experiments for a broad range of future greenhouse forcings. Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource constraints and environmental concerns, even though the growth of emissions in scenario A (~1.5%/yr) is less than the rate typical of the past century (~4%/yr). Scenario C is a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined; it represents elimination of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions by 2000 and reduction of CO2 and other trace gas emissions to a level such that the annual growth rates are zero (i.e., the sources just balance the sinks) by the year 2000. Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases. (my emphasis)

My read of this paper is that, while scenario A may represent "business-as-usual" (my first highlight), Hansen did not believe "business-as-usual" to be the most plausible future (my second highlight), and indeed, it was not.

I did not find a transcript of his congressional testimony yet, but Hansen claims in the article I linked above that he based his testimony on Scenario B; are you accusing him of lying?

[mhaze]

Here (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf) is Hansen's 1988 paper.

(my emphasis)

My read of this paper is that, while scenario A may represent "business-as-usual" (my first highlight), Hansen did not believe "business-as-usual" to be the most plausible future (my second highlight), and indeed, it was not.

I did not find a transcript of his congressional testimony yet, but Hansen claims in the article I linked above that he based his testimony on Scenario B; are you accusing him of lying?

Not answering my questions, eh?

Here is part (http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/Hansen.0623-1988%20oral.pdf)of what you may be looking for.

[CapelDodger]

Given the huge amounts of fiction about GW in the media and press, and that promulgated by far left radical environmental groups, I can certainly understand his thinking GW is fiction.

That would constitute conclusion by ad hominem. That may be good enough for you, but Crichten might well feel affronted by your suggestion.

Oh, wait? There was a fiction book about the GW fiction? Which fictions, the ones I mentioned in the prior paragraph?

Do you remember the fictions of yesteryear? There won't be any warming, there isn't any warming, OK so maybe there's warming but it's caused by something else, there are cycles so everything's normal. The last couple are sputtering on but as a dying format. The Da Vinci Code is more in tune with the zeitgeist. Climate change is just too obvious to make good conspiracy material. It may work for you, but you represent a niche market.

[mhaze]

That would constitute conclusion by ad hominem. That may be good enough for you, but Crichten might well feel affronted by your suggestion.

Do you remember the fictions of yesteryear? There won't be any warming, there isn't any warming, OK so maybe there's warming but it's caused by something else, there are cycles so everything's normal. The last couple are sputtering on but as a dying format.

Hmm.... Nope, I do not remember these fictions which you have just fictionated.

[mhaze]

I read the book. It reminds me of a childs action cartoon. I could just see Mr Evils son saying "Just let me shoot him, dad". It had everything but the sharks with the frikken laser beams on their heads.

How did you like the outcome for the actor?

[CapelDodger]

Here (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf) is Hansen's 1988 paper.

(my emphasis)

My read of this paper is that, while scenario A may represent "business-as-usual" (my first highlight), Hansen did not believe "business-as-usual" to be the most plausible future (my second highlight), and indeed, it was not.

We old-timers have been through pages and pages of this with mhaze, and he will not let go of the last straw that somehow a blatant lie is dependent on something Hansen said. Some last straws simply cannot be dislodged.

I did not find a transcript of his congressional testimony yet, but Hansen claims in the article I linked above that he based his testimony on Scenario B; are you accusing him of lying?

Something I've said before, but I'll say it again : if you can only run three scenarios you make a best-guess and then put in two opposite outliers, in the hope that you catch the actual outcome somewhere in-between. As it turned out, carbon-intensity of global GDP fell during the 90's pretty much in line with Scenario B, and there was one serious volcano. Not exactly at the right time but the model reproduced its influence remarkably well.

mhaze has a thing about "Business as usual", but the real tale is told by the middle scenario of only three that were available.

[Round Robin]

Not answering my questions, eh?

Here is part (http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/Hansen.0623-1988%20oral.pdf)of what you may be looking for.

Thank you for the link, mhaze.

Wow... that was it? They didn't give him much time to speak, did they? :)

I'm sorry, I wasn't ignoring your questions... I started to get the feeling that we were arguing past each other, so I went to Hansen's original 1988 paper where I thought I had settled the "business as usual" vs. "most plausible" question. In that paper, "business as usual" represented only the anthropogenic trace-gas component of Scenario A, which included many other assumptions (not least of which was no volcanos) to create a high bound to the simulations.

To address your question, I suppose that "my sources" (not sure which they were because I've heard about this incident from several places and ultimately read James Hansen's account of it) didn't mention the phrase "Business as usual" because it represented merely the trace gas component of Scenario A. Hansen demonstrably didn't consider this to be the most plausible scenario, nor was it the basis of this testimony to Congress.

Indeed, I read Hansen's written statement (http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/Hansen.0623-1988%20written.pdf) (found near your link; thanks!) to congress and he writes that he based his graphs on Scenario B. So, while I understand why the phrase "business as usual" is provocative, Hansen himself did not see Scenario A as the most plausible scenario, as he stated in his 1988 paper and as inferred in his written statement to congress by using Scenario B instead.

My read is that he used A and C as boundary conditions and B as the plausible prediction. Do you not consider this to be a reasonable conclusion based on his 1988 paper, testimony and written statement, as well as his retrospect view of the incident posted on the APS?

[CapelDodger]

All direct quotes (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19131) from Hansen. Want more examples?

If emissions of greenhouse gases continue to increase at the current rate—"business as usual"—then the rate of isotherm movement will double in this century to at least seventy miles per decade. If we continue on this path, a large fraction of the species on Earth, as many as 50 percent or more, may become extinct.

That's from 2006. Michaels lied in '98. A bit after the fact to present as evidence, don't you think?

Since '98 Scenario B has slipped below the outcome, because it didn't predict the rapid and coal-fuelled economic expansion of China and India, which has played havoc with carbon-intensity of global GDP. But then, who did predict that in the 80's? Not me, and I'm never shy about claiming a "Told You So".

[fsol]

All direct quotes (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19131) from Hansen. Want more examples?

If emissions of greenhouse gases continue to increase at the current rate—"business as usual"—then the rate of isotherm movement will double in this century to at least seventy miles per decade. If we continue on this path, a large fraction of the species on Earth, as many as 50 percent or more, may become extinct.

If human beings follow a business-as-usual course, continuing to exploit fossil fuel resources without reducing carbon emissions or capturing and sequestering them before they warm the atmosphere, the eventual effects on climate and life may be comparable to those at the time of mass extinctions

In order to arrive at an effective policy we can project two different scenarios concerning climate change. In the business-as-usual scenario, annual emissions of CO2 continue to increase at the current rate

The business-as-usual scenario yields an increase of about five degrees Fahrenheit of global warming during this century

The business-as-usual scenario, with five degrees Fahrenheit global warming and ten degrees Fahrenheit at the ice sheets, certainly would cause the disintegration of ice sheets. The only question is when the collapse of these sheets would begin. The business-as-usual scenario, which could lead to an eventual sea level rise of eighty feet

If this business-as-usual growth of CFCs had continued just one more decade, the stratospheric ozone layer would have been severely depleted over the entire planet and CFCs themselves would have caused a larger greenhouse effect than CO2.

Scientists present the facts about climate change clinically, failing to stress that business-as-usual will transform the planet. The press and television, despite an overwhelming scientific consensus concerning global warming, give equal time to fringe "contrarians" supported by the fossil fuel industry. Special interest groups mount effective disinformation campaigns to sow doubt about the reality of global warming. The government appears to be strongly influenced by special interests, or otherwise confused and distracted, and it has failed to provide leadership. The public is understandably confused or uninterested.

if we stay on the business-as-usual course, disastrous effects are no further from us than we are from the Elvis era.

continuing with business-as-usual will cause 60 percent to become extinct.

Hansen called out Scenario A as Business As Usual?

Michaels brought this Business As Usual Sliding Ten Year forecast of Doom trip of Hansen to the attention of the Congressional committee?

Hmm....

Got a few of the True Believers a bit perturbed, did he?




It's nice that you ignore the part of my previous post that points out that BAU didn't happen and then post this. It makes it clear that you really aren't interested in a discussion at all.

[a_unique_person]

That's from 2006. Michaels lied in '98. A bit after the fact to present as evidence, don't you think?

Since '98 Scenario B has slipped below the outcome, because it didn't predict the rapid and coal-fuelled economic expansion of China and India, which has played havoc with carbon-intensity of global GDP. But then, who did predict that in the 80's? Not me, and I'm never shy about claiming a "Told You So".

Economists should know, you can't predict human behaviour.

[TrueSceptic]

Oh, you have read the book?

Or are arguing from ignorance?
I am taking your description as true. Of course, this could be a mistake as little you say can be trusted; I made an exception in this case.

[TrueSceptic]

[quote=TrueSceptic;3542585][quote=mhaze;3542368]

Care to think before you post?You discount RR's evidence because the source is Hansen himself.No, I didn't discount RRs links (which were not evidence to the question at hand).Care to provide an impartial source?Okay, since you insist, I'll repeat it a 3rd time. Scenario A was cited by Hansen as "business as usual".

Source, Hansen. Oh wait, I already said that, twice. Hmm, same source as RR.(Ignoring the fact that Hansen made clear what he meant 10 years before Michaels's presentation.)The comments in which Hansens talked about Scenario A being Business as Usual were made 10 years before Michaels presentation. Now the comments you link... when were they made?

Funny, you seem reluctant to directly or at all address my question -

Wait - your sources didn't tell you that(Referring to Hansen calling out Scenario A as being Business As Usual)? I wonder why....
Wow, you really are in a flat spin, aren't you? I was trying to explain for RR's benefit what you were trying to tell him, and which you were frustrated about because he appeared not to understand.

[mhaze]

mhaze has a thing about "Business as usual", but the real tale is told by the middle scenario of only three that were available.

As shown in post 969, it is not I but Hansen who has a thing about Business as Usual. Oh-wait -Sorry, I interrupted while you were making things up.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3543779#post3543779)
I read the book. It reminds me of a childs action cartoon. I could just see Mr Evils son saying "Just let me shoot him, dad". It had everything but the sharks with the frikken laser beams on their heads.


How did you like the outcome for the actor?

NO ANSWER? But you said you read the book...

[mhaze]

It's nice that you ignore the part of my previous post that points out that BAU didn't happen and then post this. It makes it clear that you really aren't interested in a discussion at all.

On the contrary, you had a reasonable point. I simply thought it was relevant to illustrate clearly that "Business as Usual" has specific meanings to Hansen and that it is a phrase that he uses a lot. Otherwise, it could well be argued that the phrase did not have specific meaning relevant to the discussion. But as you can see from my post of "Hansen Sayings", it is a phrase that he holds dear - he believes that if we continue "Business as Usual", we are essentially doomed.

And that's what he told the Senate in 1988.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Here (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf) is Hansen's 1988 paper.

(my emphasis)

My read of this paper is that, while scenario A may represent "business-as-usual" (my first highlight), Hansen did not believe "business-as-usual" to be the most plausible future (my second highlight), and indeed, it was not.


Here is the thing RR:

You said that Hansen said that B is the most probable. That's true. But what really happened is that the growth rate of CO2 corresponded to scenario A. So, given that scenario A (business as usual) has some predictions like 5 c warming, Mhaze is correct clasifiying Hansen as a fringe alarmist with wrong predictions.

AGW'rs would like us to think that Hansen was correct citing scenario B (the most probable by Hansen words) was the one predicted, but it included reductions in CO2 emissions, wich wasn't done. So comparing reality with scenario B is wrong.

Also, there are sources that dispute that even scenario B has happened. Despite Megalodon's pretty graphics, at best the warming rate could correspond to scenario C (draconian cuts) (let's not talk here about the heat urban effect, ocean non warming and satellite measurings). But there wasn't draconian cuts in CO2 emissions. Also, AGWrs seem to think that some of the reduction is explained by Montreal and CFC reduction. If you read the papers about this, you'll find that the claim was that CFCs will have impact for many years, not that they will become irrelevant 15 years after they have been banned.

So, you are correct ... in a phrase Hansen said that scenario B is the most probable. But the CO2 input corresponded to scenario A and the real outcome is closer to scenario C, son Hansen was and is still wrong.

[mhaze]

[quote=mhaze;3543721][quote=TrueSceptic;3542585]
Wow, you really are in a flat spin, aren't you? I was trying to explain for RR's benefit what you were trying to tell him, and which you were frustrated about because he appeared not to understand.

Well, yes, you could say that - in that I really am just saying the same things over and over, and it does seem ridiculous, that one should have to do that due their not being heard or understood.

Of course it's another issue if you say something and people do not believe it, but I didn't have that impression. Anyway, on this issue we are dealing with historical facts. And the striking absence of some of those facts in certain renderings of historical events...such as the "Michaels Lied" smear by Krugman, which has it's little cult following.

[Round Robin]

You said that Hansen said that B is the most probable. That's true. But what really happened is that the growth rate of CO2 corresponded to scenario A. So, given that scenario A (business as usual) has some predictions like 5 c warming, Mhaze is correct clasifiying Hansen as a fringe alarmist with wrong predictions.

The scenarios did not simply vary in CO2 emissions. in addition:

The range of climate forcings covered by the three scenarios is further increased by the fact that scenario A includes the effect of several hypothetical or crudely estimated trace gas trends (ozone, stratospheric water vapor and minor chlorine and fluorine compounds) which are not included in scenarios B and C.

It also didn't include volcano eruptions, which B and C did include:


In scenarios B and C, additional large volcanoes are inserted in the year 1995 (identical in properties to El Chichon), in the year 2015 (identical to Agung), and in the year 2025 (identical to El Chichon), while in scenario A no additional volcanic aerosols are included after those from El Chichon have decayed to the background stratospheric aerosol level. The stratospheric aerosols in scenario A are thus an extreme case, amounting to an assumption that the next few decades will be similar to the few decades before 1963, which were free of any volcanic eruptions creating large stratospheric optical depths. Scenarios B and C in effect use the assumption that the mean stratospheric aerosol optical depth during the next few decades will be comparable to that in the volcanically active period 1958-1985.

Scenario A is demonstrably used to represent an upper bound.

P.S. I hate these older papers that are just scans, so I can't copy/paste! My typing skills are weak! ;)

[Round Robin]

[quote=TrueSceptic;3544795][quote=mhaze;3543721]

Well, yes, you could say that - in that I really am just saying the same things over and over, and it does seem ridiculous, that one should have to do that due their not being heard or understood.


I would caution against making the assumption that, because I (and some others) do not agree with you, you are not being heard or understood.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

So scenario A is MORE complete....it include other GHG. You had your answers in front of you. If up to you giving credit to volcanic eruptions for the fail of Hansens predictions. Also, you don't label your "business as usual" scenario as "Used to represent an upper bound". If Hansen would have said that, then your point would have been made.

[mhaze]

[quote=mhaze;3545383][quote=TrueSceptic;3544795]

I would caution against making the assumption that, because I (and some others) do not agree with you, you are not being heard or understood.

No one said that they did not agree with my statement:

Care to provide an impartial source?

Okay, since you insist, I'll repeat it a 3rd time. Scenario A was cited by Hansen as "business as usual". Source, Hansen. Oh wait, I already said that, twice. Hmm, same source as RR.

[jimbob]

Yes, but in Delphi, the Pythia (priestess) would sit on a stool positioned over a gas vent so that the vapors would make her a bit, uh, loopy. I imagine her riddles were very entertaining!

Way off topic but ... what were those vapours doing to the other people in the room, the ones that weren't used to it? If I was running an Oracle I wouldn't put somebody up-front that was likely to run off at the mouth. You'd want them on-message, and the message would be plausibly deniable. Having witnesses that are slightly smashed at the time is a great help with the deniablity.



Didn't they also have a priest "interpet" what the oracle had actually said?

He would have a clear head.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

The honest response for any AGW believer would be "Hansen was wrong, the climate sensitivity for CO2 was lower, but I still believe that the A component is causing warming, just not as strong as the first models predict".

We just need to find a honest AGW believer :D

[mhaze]

So scenario A is MORE complete....it include other GHG. You had your answers in front of you. If up to you giving credit to volcanic eruptions for the fail of Hansens predictions. Also, you don't label your "business as usual" scenario as "Used to represent an upper bound". If Hansen would have said that, then your point would have been made.

This point should be made. Capeldodger's concepts of A, B, and C being typically high, middle and low are not unreasonable.

They are simply not what Hansen said he did. I for one am not willing to make up stuff and attribute it to Hansen. Well, why bother, with all the true gems of radical environmentalism that he comes up with?

In 1988 Hansen was warning the Senate about what he thought were the serious dangers of "Business as Usual". Business as Usual was the world with no CO2 restrictions. And in his presentation to the Senate, he never mentioned Scenario B until he got to Section 2 of that presentation having to do with Summer heat waves, or some such nonsense. In that section, he mentioned that the "maps" - not charts or graphs - were all from Scenario B.

[David Rodale]

This point should be made. Capeldodger's concepts of A, B, and C being typically high, middle and low are not unreasonable.

They are simply not what Hansen said he did. I for one am not willing to make up stuff and attribute it to Hansen. Well, why bother, with all the true gems of radical environmentalism that he comes up with?

In 1988 Hansen was warning the Senate about what he thought were the serious dangers of "Business as Usual". Business as Usual was the world with no CO2 restrictions. And in his presentation to the Senate, he never mentioned Scenario B until he got to Section 2 of that presentation having to do with Summer heat waves, or some such nonsense. In that section, he mentioned that the "maps" - not charts or graphs - were all from Scenario B.

Isn’t it interesting the Warmologists have resurrected the Hansen debacle, for what reason is puzzling, but what they don’t realize is, concerning the lack of ocean warming and now “slight cooling”, they have unwittingly opened Pandora’s box.

Surprise!!

Aside from the apocalyptic claims from his 2005 (“peer reviewed” PNAS article) prophecies of doom, the end-all, the smoking gun, the “proof” for AGW given by Hansen is the energy imbalance, i.e. ocean warming, and it should be in a continuous upward move. If it does not, then some mechanism is preventing it. What is it?


Now it has been 6 months since the Lyman correction report, and for just for Alric, I searched the archives for an exchange with Megalodon (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3110042&postcount=2188) & co. concerning this very issue. Megalodon became quite irritated he was snookered and hasn’t let it go to this day, which is why I don’t care to argue with stupidity any longer.

[mhaze]

Isn’t it interesting the Warmologists have resurrected the Hansen debacle, for what reason is puzzling, but what they don’t realize is, concerning the lack of ocean warming and now “slight cooling”, they have unwittingly opened Pandora’s box.

Surprise!!

Aside from the apocalyptic claims from his 2005 (“peer reviewed” PNAS article) prophecies of doom, the end-all, the smoking gun, the “proof” for AGW given by Hansen is the energy imbalance, i.e. ocean warming, and it should be in a continuous upward move. If it does not, then some mechanism is preventing it. What is it?


Now it has been 6 months since the Lyman correction report, and for just for Alric, I searched the archives for an exchange with Megalodon (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3110042&postcount=2188) & co. concerning this very issue. Megalodon became quite irritated he was snookered and hasn’t let it go to this day, which is why I don’t care to argue with stupidity any longer.

Yeah, bringing up Hansen 1988 is like shooting fish in a barrel - no, wait it's like breaking hockey sticks beaming them on the head with those sticks - no wait - the hockey sticks are all already broken....

Seriously, I think you brought this excellent article up and I missed it, but it does indeed address the mysterious missing heat.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

Well, now someone will probably complain that's not science, but when I post technie articles, they don't or can't read them, so the complaints are about equal either way, who gives a S***. Now in this NPR article, what I get from it is that some explanation for the non warming oceans is really, really needed.

Denial from the warmers, well, it just isn't an explanation, but they clearly could or maybe should try to come up with some explanation which is in accordance with their current version of AGW theory or modify the AGW theory so that it is in line with reality, but hmm...., maybe that latter alternative is asking too much.

Answers staring people in the face all the time, like a really, really low climate sensitivity, are staring people in the face all the time...... Oops, there I am repeating myself again.

[mhaze]

Didn't they also have a priest "interpet" what the oracle had actually said?

He would have a clear head.

And today we have a priest "internet" what the oracle actually said.

Couldn't resist.:D

[Round Robin]

So scenario A is MORE complete....it include other GHG. You had your answers in front of you. If up to you giving credit to volcanic eruptions for the fail of Hansens predictions. Also, you don't label your "business as usual" scenario as "Used to represent an upper bound". If Hansen would have said that, then your point would have been made.

No, the other GHGs were included in Scenarios B and C:

The range of climate forcings covered by the three scenarios is further increased by the fact that scenario A includes the effect of several hypothetical or crudely estimated trace gas trends (ozone, stratospheric water vapor and minor chlorine and fluorine compounds) which are not included in scenarios B and C. (my emphasis)

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Now you should be wondering what was the real income of the other trace gases. Did they follow the "trend"? If so, then the model is wrong, would you agree?