Polar Bears would self-ignite

[Dancing David]

Mhaze, are you going to fill me in on what I missed in the graph that biocab produced or are you one of the rude post and run types.

I notice you keep referencing the same chart over and over, what would you have to say about this data set here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...anomalies.html

Now a discussion of the shift from rural based stations to urban and airports in reasonable.

But I am very tired of your rather limited sources.

And you took me to task for something in your imagination, are you going to show me the other data sets that support the graph that biocab referenced about the increase in solar radiance, i an open to learning more.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Megalodon

Many words, no substance... I made an analysis of your unreferenced graph,

Originally posted by MegalodonThis image is very interesting. It compares one of the several surface temperature records with the most extreme case of the three presented by Hansen et al 88. Now, considering that the presented as the most likely scenario the scenario B, the one that matches quite closely the observations, and the one the delayers (pronounced the-liars) keep avoiding, the comparison is the same old lie told by Michaels to congress.

Yep, you said the presented chart incorrectly or unfairly compared actual temperature to Hansen's prediction "A", Business as Usual.

Quote:

Look at those goalposts moving! I criticize a source and you offer a new one as a rebuttal of my criticism? Are you daft? If this source is so important, why didn't you bring it up at the same time as the other?

Yep, you said "B" mattered the most, and so, most intelligent people would then expect their mis underestimated opponent to dredge up a chart that showed "B" - So you get a graph with "B". Duh....

Quote:

If this source is so important, why didn't you bring it up at the same time as the other?

Guess away....have fun!!!

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Mhaze, are you going to fill me in on what I missed in the graph that biocab produced or are you one of the rude post and run types.

I notice you keep referencing the same chart over and over, what would you have to say about this data set here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...anomalies.html

Now a discussion of the shift from rural based stations to urban and airports in reasonable.

But I am very tired of your rather limited sources.

And you took me to task for something in your imagination, are you going to show me the other data sets that support the graph that biocab referenced about the increase in solar radiance, i an open to learning more.

You've asked about the four references that Varwoche mentioned, and I reviewed those and have comments on them - guess he isn't going to reply to my question. EG "Deniers of nature or deniers of solar irradiance" --> "are you talking about (denier) 30 years or 150 years"

Regarding Biocab's graph that you mentioned and the issue of extrapolation of data from sunspots only, needing to correlate with isotopes, etc., where exactly is the graph with the extrapolations that interested you? That I never saw and thus don't know how to comment on it.

[Megalodon]

Originally Posted by mhaze

That'd be like stealing his work. (Umm....like Megalodon's reference...) Got it now?

So you didn't get the difference between referencing a work and stealing it, and you want to discuss science? Pathetic...

[Megalodon]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Yep, you said the presented chart incorrectly or unfairly compared actual temperature to Hansen's prediction "A", Business as Usual.

Yep, you said "B" mattered the most, and so, most intelligent people would then expect their mis underestimated opponent to dredge up a chart that showed "B" - So you get a graph with "B". Duh....

So, called on the fact that you are citing trash, you cite more trash... guess what... it only adds to the pile.

[David Rodale]

Originally Posted by Megalodon

So, called on the fact that you are citing trash, you cite more trash... guess what... it only adds to the pile.

Is the statement below true or false in 2008?

Quote:

Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include (i) the expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) the confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) the likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise.

[Megalodon]

Sorry David, I'm not into the psychic business...

As for mhaze's picture, here's what happens when you compare apples with apples:

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by David Rodale

Is the statement below true or false in 2008?

Quote:
Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include (i) the expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) the confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) the likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise.

Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space.

Obviously false. That is a tremendous amount of energy. The following "implications if the premise were true" will not happen at least as a result of this premise.

1. additional global warming of about 0.6°C
2. the confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change
3. acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise

Hansen ignored these inconvenient truths in his recent testimony and press releases.

Warmers are encouraged to develop alternate hypotheses, of course, that still predict doom. Perhaps the Santa Claus of Futurama?

Langmuir's Laws of bad science apply, as noted by Brignell -

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/laws.htm

1 .The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the low level of significance of the results.
3. There are claims of great accuracy.
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to zero.

[biocab]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Mhaze, are you going to fill me in on what I missed in the graph that biocab produced or are you one of the rude post and run types.

I notice you keep referencing the same chart over and over, what would you have to say about this data set here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...anomalies.html

Now a discussion of the shift from rural based stations to urban and airports in reasonable.

But I am very tired of your rather limited sources.

And you took me to task for something in your imagination, are you going to show me the other data sets that support the graph that biocab referenced about the increase in solar radiance, i an open to learning more.

The databases for fluctuations of temperature were provided by the University of Alabama in Huntsville and NASA. The databases of Total Solar Irradiance Cycle 11 yr and Cycle 11 yr + proxies were provided by Dr. Judith Lean. The database of Total Solar Irradiance Cycle 11 yr. sunspots only was provided by Dr. Leif Svalgaard. The database of temperature in the last two millenia was provided by Dr. Craig Loehle. Any question about the reliability of those authors' works?

There is not any projection or extrapolation in the graphs, which were plotted considering only available real data.

[biocab]

Originally Posted by bobdroege7

Here's a napkin, wipe the cherry juice off of your face.

I wrote cooled 0.774 °C, that is -0.774 °C, right? Then I wrote, since the total warming from 1860 has been 0.75 °C, that is a positive amount, correct? Now, continue with the lesson:

-0.774 °C - 0.75 = -1.524 °C... Which is a negative amount, agree? Then, there is not any warming anymore, but a cooling.

So... A napkin for you to wipe the cherry juice off your face

[biocab]

Something useful is to keep in mind that heat is not a substance, but energy in transit from one warm thermodynamic sytem to another cooler thermodynamic system.

For example, the energy absorbed by atmospheric Nitrogen at its current Pp and Pt = 1 atm, is 36.7 W, which causes a fluctuation of temperatue of 0.04 K. Then, N₂ is four times more efficient than CO₂ for absorbing LWIR.

How is it that no AGWer consider the Nitrogen as a greenhouse gass?

The answer is simple, we are not producing Nitrogen so AGWers cannot blame humans on causing any fluctuations of temperature and cannot increase taxes or sell carbon bills to citizens. The same reason applies on not considering water vapor like the main absorber emitter of energy everywhere.

[Megalodon]

Originally Posted by biocab

I wrote cooled 0.774 °C, that is -0.774 °C, right? Then I wrote, since the total warming from 1860 has been 0.75 °C, that is a positive amount, correct? Now, continue with the lesson:

-0.774 °C - 0.75 = -1.524 °C... Which is a negative amount, agree? Then, there is not any warming anymore, but a cooling.

So... A napkin for you to wipe the cherry juice off your face

The napkin comment is a subtle hint to what you did in your post. It's called cherry-picking your data.

A good example is that this morning was 25°C, and now it's 15°C. A drop of 10°C!!! Global warming is certainly false.

Stop lying about being a scientist. If you even have an undergraduate degree, it's a shame on the institution that gave it to you.

[TrueSceptic]

Originally Posted by Megalodon

Many words, no substance... I made an analysis of your unreferenced graph, and that is what you have to offer? Par for the course, I guess.



Look at those goalposts moving! I criticize a source and you offer a new one as a rebuttal of my criticism? Are you daft? If this source is so important, why didn't you bring it up at the same time as the other?

And btw, that source sucks, even by your extremely low standards, but I leave it to you to actually make a point before going at it.



That phrase makes no sense, actually. Care to give it another shot?

as for the "...scaled to make it appear...yadda, yadda", it's standard procedure to occupy the whole space of the graph with the data. Thus, an almost linear positive curve will go from bottom left to top right. It transmits the biggest amount of information in that way, since possible small variations within don't get unnecessarily scaled below resolution. The exception is when you have several plots of the same variable in different situations, in which case you find the best compromise, or alert to the different scales in the legend. It is not the case...

One common way of doing that, given that we are trying to examine correlation, or lack of it, is to normalise each dataset. This deals with the problem of different scales while exactly preserving the shape.

We could do that here, stage by stage, if we can agree on the raw figures. Then no one can argue that any trickery is being used.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Megalodon

Originally Posted by biocab
I wrote cooled 0.774 °C, that is -0.774 °C, right? Then I wrote, since the total warming from 1860 has been 0.75 °C, that is a positive amount, correct? Now, continue with the lesson:
-0.774 °C - 0.75 = -1.524 °C... Which is a negative amount, agree? Then, there is not any warming anymore, but a cooling.
So.. A napkin for you to wipe the cherry juice off your face

Originally Posted by Mealogon
The napkin comment is a subtle hint to what you did in your post. It's called cherry-picking your data.A good example is that this morning was 25°C, and now it's 15°C. A drop of 10°C!!! Global warming is certainly false.
Stop lying about being a scientist. If you even have an undergraduate degree, it's a shame on the institution that gave it to you.

Specifically what is your objection on which you call cherry picking, lying, blah blah blah? The starting point of 1860? The temperature at that time? The ending time? The temperature at that time? Just the fact the numbers are not palatable?

[TrueSceptic]

Originally Posted by biocab

The databases for fluctuations of temperature were provided by the University of Alabama in Huntsville and NASA. The databases of Total Solar Irradiance Cycle 11 yr and Cycle 11 yr + proxies were provided by Dr. Judith Lean. The database of Total Solar Irradiance Cycle 11 yr. sunspots only was provided by Dr. Leif Svalgaard. The database of temperature in the last two millenia was provided by Dr. Craig Loehle. Any question about the reliability of those authors' works?

There is not any projection or extrapolation in the graphs, which were plotted considering only available real data.

Could you provide precise links for those?

Could you also explain how Loehle's database can be real data when accurate thermometers haven't existed for 2,000 years?

[TrueSceptic]

Originally Posted by biocab

I wrote cooled 0.774 °C, that is -0.774 °C, right? Then I wrote, since the total warming from 1860 has been 0.75 °C, that is a positive amount, correct? Now, continue with the lesson:

-0.774 °C - 0.75 = -1.524 °C... Which is a negative amount, agree? Then, there is not any warming anymore, but a cooling.

So... A napkin for you to wipe the cherry juice off your face

So both cooling and warming are given a -ve sign? How does that work? What does your answer of -1.524 represent?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by mhaze

You've asked about the four references that Varwoche mentioned, and I reviewed those and have comments on them - guess he isn't going to reply to my question. EG "Deniers of nature or deniers of solar irradiance" --> "are you talking about (denier) 30 years or 150 years"

Regarding Biocab's graph that you mentioned and the issue of extrapolation of data from sunspots only, needing to correlate with isotopes, etc., where exactly is the graph with the extrapolations that interested you? That I never saw and thus don't know how to comment on it.

Okey dokey, so you took me to task and made up a bunch of stuff without even reading what I talked about ?

What does that say about you and evidence?

I will edit this to add the relevant posts but I am shocked to find out you are just posting whatever crosses your mind, without regard for my actual posts...

Here is biocab's post:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=279

Quote:

I and many other scientists have demonstrated that the amplitude of the solar irradiance has been increasing since 1700 AD.

Here i am being rude to biocab just asserting some bunch of stuff without citation and reference, I was over the top but the 'just trust me' really ticked me off, I was overstrong:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=288

Quote:

Bravo, piu maccismo, dove stato 'the paper'.

Here is biocabs response:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=292

Quote:

Again??? Well, I'll show piety: http://biocab.org/Amplitude_Solar_Irradiance.html

here is my one critique and question about the Lean portion of biocabs reference, i had asked earlier about converging data as well, if I recall correctly, which often i do not:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=297

I was falling asleep and did not run spell check. But from my undertsanding the chart that biocab prresented was based upon the number of sunspots and an assumption about the nature of the sun, which is extrapolation and conjecture.


to which biocab responds:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=303

To which biocab makes a totaly political statement and does not respond to my questioning of thier reasoning, but they admit it is just extrapolation and conjecture:

Quote:

Heh! Have you read the complete Lean's article? I've not extrapolated. The figures from 2001 to 2007 were taken from satellite measurements. The reconstruction is feasible and both reconstructions, Lean's and Svalgaard's, are not guesses, but they are based on observation. One thing you should know is that Lean's reconstructions (they are two) are based also on sunspots... Are you saying that the international observation of sunspots is a guess? Yours is plain antiscience

To which I respond with much attendant rudeness

Quote:

You have made an extrapolation, a conjecture as it were, 30 years of data to extract to the chart that you give as an assumption of what the irradience might have been. And based on 6 years of sattelite data.

Now you assume that i didn't look at Lean's paper, I stated it was based upon sunspot numbers did I not? And you are trying to shift the goal posts, i asked what it was based upon and it tuens out it is a conjectures from 6 years of sattelite data, 30 years of observation and 300-400 years of sunspot numbers,

So you are a true believer out to defend your dogma, I posted a valid critique of that graph and you resort to a soap box rant about science.

You may not be woo but you sure don't know what critical thinking is.

Whatever, you are here to just promote yourself and not to discuss.

So again , I am saying that the increase in soalr radiance seems likely but I see no basis for the way that the chart biocab referenced actualy deliniates the process. It could occured quite differently, feasible as biocab put it does not equate to measured.


I then baited biocab here and presented some more of my argument, which would have benefitted from not baiting.

Biocab never responded.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=367

This is where you enetered the picture and presented some strawman about something i never said in that same little chart you evidently made because you have posted it multiple times.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=372

In which you quote me prior to making some strawman argument but you left out what my argument was
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=367

Quote:

It may be feasible but they are still guesses they are conjectures and extrapolation.

So how is making an extended guess that is based upon sunspot numbers and an overall rise in radiance from the sun supposed to mean anything.

Being feasible is not the same as being supported by converging data.

So now do you want to answer the questions?

[biocab]

Originally Posted by TrueSceptic

So both cooling and warming are given a -ve sign? How does that work? What does your answer of -1.524 represent?

This is the problem when dealing with fluctuations, not with absolute numbers. I will explain it for you can get the fact:

From a negative fluctuation of 0.75 °C to 0 there are 0.75 units, correct? If we continue computing the figures towards the negative quadrant of the database, we find that in the last two years the fluctuation of the temperature goes down to -0.774 °C. We count 0.774 units from zero to -0.774 °C. Now we sum the units and the total is 1.524 units. Since the maximum fluctuation of temperature ocurred before 2007, and the minimum fluctuation occurred after 2007, we know for sure that the Earth is cooling, so that, the totalized units are negative, right? Consequently, the total fluctuation from 1860 to 2008 is -1.524 °C. That cannot mean another thing, but a cooling. It is evidence.

[biocab]

Originally Posted by TrueSceptic

Could you provide precise links for those?

Could you also explain how Loehle's database can be real data when accurate thermometers haven't existed for 2,000 years?

Hi, TrueSceptic... It's me again. The link to Lean's database is:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal...irradiance.txt

I cannot give you a link to Svalgaard's database because he sent his databases to me and I have not his authorization for disclosing it at any blog. Sorry for this.

Regarding your second question on the reliability of Loehle's database, it is real because it coincides with Möeberg's, Yang's, etc. reconstructions based and not based in treerings (except, of course, Mann's pseudoreconstruction which does not coincide even with historical data). The database was reviewed by a good number of scientists working in the field and it was authorized for publication.

[Megalodon]

Originally Posted by biocab

This is the problem when dealing with fluctuations, not with absolute numbers. I will explain it for you can get the fact:

From a negative fluctuation of 0.75 °C to 0 there are 0.75 units, correct? If we continue computing the figures towards the negative quadrant of the database, we find that in the last two years the fluctuation of the temperature goes down to -0.774 °C. We count 0.774 units from zero to -0.774 °C. Now we sum the units and the total is 1.524 units. Since the maximum fluctuation of temperature ocurred before 2007, and the minimum fluctuation occurred after 2007, we know for sure that the Earth is cooling, so that, the totalized units are negative, right? Consequently, the total fluctuation from 1860 to 2008 is -1.524 °C. That cannot mean another thing, but a cooling. It is evidence.

This is, by far, the dumbest thing I have read in a climate thread... and I don't say this lightly, since I've read extremely dumb things in this past year.

You've just managed to fail at arithmetic. Congrats...

[BenBurch]

No, folks, I am here to tell you that I have met some real dolts with advanced degrees, even in what would ordinarily be considered sciences. They usually got where they were by being good personal assistants to some professor or other and so skated through with a minimum of trouble. Others outright plagiarized their work all through school. Still others were from "Christian" universities where woo and shoddiness is an asset rather than a deficit.

[biocab]

Originally Posted by Megalodon

This is, by far, the dumbest thing I have read in a climate thread... and I don't say this lightly, since I've read extremely dumb things in this past year.

You've just managed to fail at arithmetic. Congrats...

Wow! Megalodon has discovered that there are not 1.524 units between -0.774 °C and 0.75 °C... Publish it immediately for that problem of copyrights! Your discovery will revolutionize mathematics field...

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by biocab

The databases for fluctuations of temperature were provided by the University of Alabama in Huntsville and NASA. The databases of Total Solar Irradiance Cycle 11 yr and Cycle 11 yr + proxies were provided by Dr. Judith Lean. The database of Total Solar Irradiance Cycle 11 yr. sunspots only was provided by Dr. Leif Svalgaard. The database of temperature in the last two millenia was provided by Dr. Craig Loehle. Any question about the reliability of those authors' works?

There is not any projection or extrapolation in the graphs, which were plotted considering only available real data.

Okay so where is your link to Loehle's work, you still are avoinding answering the question, you say you have the answer, so please to show me the link to how Loehle did the work.

Blah, blah, blah, always giving uncited and unreferenced material.

And the made up data you extrapolated, what other measure than sunspots numbers did you use to generate the chart of the reconstruction of Leans data?

I am asking again for the other data to support your graph, which you still aren't showing.

So how did you determine the solar radiance from 1750 to 1980?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by biocab

Hi, TrueSceptic... It's me again. The link to Lean's database is:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal...irradiance.txt

I cannot give you a link to Svalgaard's database because he sent his databases to me and I have not his authorization for disclosing it at any blog. Sorry for this.

Regarding your second question on the reliability of Loehle's database, it is real because it coincides with Möeberg's, Yang's, etc. reconstructions based and not based in treerings (except, of course, Mann's pseudoreconstruction which does not coincide even with historical data). The database was reviewed by a good number of scientists working in the field and it was authorized for publication.

That is not an answer as to how Loehle derived the data, sorry, you are getting the same treatment we all receive here.

So what was it based upon and what methods were used?

[Megalodon]

Originally Posted by biocab

Wow! Megalodon has discovered that there are not 1.524 units between -0.774 °C and 0.75 °C... Publish it immediately for that problem of copyrights! Your discovery will revolutionize mathematics field...

No, mr. scientist man, not at all... What you claimed was the equivalent to saying that, if you're at sea level and climb a hill of 750m, and then climb down 774m on the other side, you find yourself at 1542m below sea level.

Just plain stupid.

On the other hand, we wouldn't expect anything else from you...

[mhaze]

Dancing David -
I have read your posts and understood your issues, but where is the chart in question? That was all I was asking. Or were you referring to the three separate charts in the article entitled in part "Solar Irradiance"?

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

That is not an answer as to how Loehle derived the data, sorry, you are getting the same treatment we all receive here.

So what was it based upon and what methods were used?

Huh? Loehle used standard databases which are available to you, me, etc., as Biocab stated. Have you read his paper and the commentaries? That's a big, big detour there. The point of his work was to do a multiple source temperature reconstruction without tree rings.

RE Svaalgard, you can email him or post a request on the Climateaudit blog, he's on his 8th thread on solar I believe, sort of running that discussion.

Lean - Svaalgard - Loehle, all reputable scientists. Loehle may be to Warmologists considered a denier, not the other two.

[bobdroege7]

Originally Posted by biocab

I don't tolerate two things, anti-Semitism and stupidity:

- 0.774 marks below zero + 0.774 marks above zero:

-0.774 | | | | | 0 | | | | 0.75

How many units are between -0.774 ° and 0.75 ° passing above and below zero?

The difference between addition and subtraction is difficult, I know.

Warming of 0.774 from 1860 to whenever followed by cooling of -0.75 from whenever to now results in a warming of +0.024 n'est pas?

[biocab]

Originally Posted by bobdroege7

The difference between addition and subtraction is difficult, I know.

Warming of 0.774 from 1860 to whenever followed by cooling of -0.75 from whenever to now results in a warming of +0.024 n'est pas?

Let's say that the total amount from the peak to the trough is 1.524 °C. This is not the problem; the interpretation is what has been the problem here. As the peak occurs in a period before the trough, then the trajectory of the amplitude has been decreasing from the peak to the trough, that is, from 0.75°C to -0.774 °C, which is a decrease, as of the maximum 0.75 °C, by which, the change is negative. This is verified by the sum of both quantities:

-0.774 (last measurement or trough) - 0.75 (prior measurement or peak) = -1.524. How much the temperature has changed from past to present day? As we are talking of amplitude, the change is negative because the present day change of temperature is lower than the past temperature. This is ∆T or total fluctuation of temperature.

If it was the opposite, that is, if the current change of temperature was 0.774 °C (positive or amplitude above zero) and the change of temperature was -0.75 °C (negative or amplitude below zero), the total fluctuation since 1860 would be 0.774 - (-0.75) = 1.524 °C, a positive fluctuation or a warming.

[bobdroege7]

Who needs peer review when you can get all the science you need from Rolling Stone?

The latest issue has a nice pretty picture comparing the line where the snow and ice melt equals the snow and ice accumulation from 1996 to 2007. It looks pretty bleak for the Greenland ice sheet if that trend continues and so much for the global warming stopped in whenever(insert year of choice here).

They were with Jay Zwally, up on the Greenland Ice sheet, and what does he say?

Originally Posted by Jay Zwally

Interestingly, the last interglacial period was actually warmer than this one, because of differences in the Earth's orbit then. There is good evidence suggesting that much of the Greenland ice sheet melted then. If we do not take action to stop or slow the man-induced warming, we believe that over the next century the Greenland ice sheet will be put on an irreversible path of melting as it seems to have done 120,000 years ago.

http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/director...s/h_zwally.php

Originally Posted by http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/directory/eospso_members/h_zwally.php

Dr. H. Jay Zwally has been extensively involved in glaciology and polar research since 1972. His primary research interests are observing and modeling the dynamics and variability of polar ice, including analysis of long-term sea ice variations, determination of ice sheet mass balance, and studies of atmosphere-ice-ocean processes. At NSF's division of polar programs (1972-1974), he managed initiation of the interdisciplinary Ross Ice Shelf project, the Greenland Ice Sheet Project, improved airborne radar mapping of ice sheet thickness, and planning for west Antarctic ice sheet projects. At NASA, his early research included radiative modeling of microwave emission from snow, development of concepts for remote measurement of accumulation rates and surface melting, and systematic compilation of satellite passive-microwave data sets that led to sea ice atlases and discovery of the Weddell Polynya. He also pioneered the use of ocean radar altimeters for mapping ice sheet topography and studies of mass balance. Since 1979, he has been a leading scientist promoting satellite laser altimetry for ice sheet mass balance studies, leading to the launch of the Ice Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) in 2003. Currently, he is a member of the science teams for the Geoscience Laser Altimeter System (GLAS), the Mars Orbiting Laser Altimeter (MOLA), and ENVISAT and CRYOSAT Calibration/Validation.

Dr. Zwally received a B.S. in mechanical/aeronautical engineering from Drexel University in 1961 and a Ph.D. in physics with a minor in mathematics from the University of Maryland in 1969. He was awarded NASA's outstanding scientific achievement award (1996) and Goddard's exceptional performance award for leadership in establishing a cryospheric research program (1978). He has had over 100 referred publications in glaciology, polar research, climate science, and physics.

I'd post the link to the Rolling Stone article, but you know the bandwith police are lurking and I am currently blocked from that site.

[biocab]

Another equation is adding the change to the absolute temperature:

273.15 + (-0.774) = 272.376 K for the current change, and
273.15 + 0.75 = 273.9 K for the previous maximum change.

Now, let's get the difference. How much the temperature has fluctuated from 1860 to present?

∆T_current - ∆T_{max. in the past} = 272.376 K - 273.9 K = -1.524 K

[bobdroege7]

Originally Posted by biocab

Another equation is adding the change to the absolute temperature:

273.15 + (-0.774) = 272.376 K for the current change, and
273.15 + 0.75 = 273.9 K for the previous maximum change.

Now, let's get the difference. How much the temperature has fluctuated from 1860 to present?

∆T_current - ∆T_{max. in the past} = 272.376 K - 273.9 K = -1.524 K

But the temperature in 1860 wasn't 273.15.

Sorry

Anyway 273.15 + 0.75 = 273.9 and then 273.9 - 0.774 = 273.126 for a cooling of 0.024.

That's how how you laid it out in your previous post.

that's if any of your data is correct, and that's a big if.

[Cuddles]

I've split out a lot of personal attacks, bickering and generally off-topic posts, but I don't have the time or patience to go through all 15 pages of this thread. Stop the personal attacks now, or the thread will be placed on moderated status.

Posted By:Cuddles

[TrueSceptic]

Originally Posted by biocab

This is the problem when dealing with fluctuations, not with absolute numbers. I will explain it for you can get the fact:

From a negative fluctuation of 0.75 °C to 0 there are 0.75 units, correct? If we continue computing the figures towards the negative quadrant of the database, we find that in the last two years the fluctuation of the temperature goes down to -0.774 °C. We count 0.774 units from zero to -0.774 °C. Now we sum the units and the total is 1.524 units. Since the maximum fluctuation of temperature ocurred before 2007, and the minimum fluctuation occurred after 2007, we know for sure that the Earth is cooling, so that, the totalized units are negative, right? Consequently, the total fluctuation from 1860 to 2008 is -1.524 °C. That cannot mean another thing, but a cooling. It is evidence.

We know how arithmetic works. Unfortunately it can't give the right answers if we feed in the wrong numbers or signs.

I'm really at a loss as to how to address such a fundamental misunderstanding of how to use arithmetic. Megalodon used altitude as an example; I shall use something else.

Let's say you open a bank account and deposit $750, i.e. you've added (+) $750. You then withdraw $774, i.e. you subtract (-) $774. What would the balance of your account be?

[TrueSceptic]

Originally Posted by bobdroege7

But the temperature in 1860 wasn't 273.15.

Sorry

Anyway 273.15 + 0.75 = 273.9 and then 273.9 - 0.774 = 273.126 for a cooling of 0.024.

That's how how you laid it out in your previous post.

that's if any of your data is correct, and that's a big if.

I recall that the -0.774 figure came from comparing Jan 07 with May 08. What was the source of those figures?

[bobdroege7]

Post 507 by Biocab source not provided.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Dancing David -
I have read your posts and understood your issues, but where is the chart in question? That was all I was asking. Or were you referring to the three separate charts in the article entitled in part "Solar Irradiance"?

I am reffering to the first chart, especialy since that is the one that is a reconstruction;
http://biocab.org/Amplitude_Solar_Irradiance.html

My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that it is based primarily upon the sunspot number and a very limited set of modern data. Now I could be incorrect in that, but you will nore Biocabs responses to me do not address the issue of what other data converge on the chart,.

From what I understand, and it could be wrong, there is not a method used to directly measure or approximate the solar radiance from 1750-1970, I asked what other methods were used to substantiate that chart.

Again the increase in solar radiation could be gradual and continuous or it could be chaotic and all at once or in peaks, but I did not see any mention of what other than the increase and sunspots was used to generate the numbers.

When Biocab responded it seemed they agreed that it was just based upon the sunspot numbers.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Huh? Loehle used standard databases which are available to you, me, etc., as Biocab stated. Have you read his paper and the commentaries? That's a big, big detour there. The point of his work was to do a multiple source temperature reconstruction without tree rings.

RE Svaalgard, you can email him or post a request on the Climateaudit blog, he's on his 8th thread on solar I believe, sort of running that discussion.

Lean - Svaalgard - Loehle, all reputable scientists. Loehle may be to Warmologists considered a denier, not the other two.

Cool so it is a meta analysis, and all that.

Again I don't care for either position myself, I believe that we are in a warming trend, I am concerned about CO₂ but due to other possible confounding factors I would say that I am concerned but not an alarmist. I believe that we should try to curb emissions.

There are plenty of reasons to curb emissions (especially from burning coal), and the issue to me, as it is to many people on this forum is never the reputation of the people involved, it is the methods, the sampling and the evidence used to obtain the possible conclusions. I have argued against the methodology of many a very 'reputable' scientist, especially when it comes to Halton Arp's use of statistics and the QSO/Redshift anomaly. The reputation the person making a claim means - zilch, niente, nada, nothing- it is the method of the analysis and consideration of confounding factors that matters.

I am biased towards peer reviewed and supported publication, but not always so. The appeal to authority and the problems with peer reviewed material is a common area of discussion on the forum. Currently there are huge amounts of data to consider in the debate, the publication and review process is one that I don't think is perfect but it can tend to sift and sort ideas.

The other issue is very common here, there are always people screaming about how the majority of published material is biased against 'real science'. In some cases it is, but very often it is not. That is why it is important to understand the actual data and methods.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by mhaze

You've asked about the four references that Varwoche mentioned, and I reviewed those and have comments on them - guess he isn't going to reply to my question. EG "Deniers of nature or deniers of solar irradiance" --> "are you talking about (denier) 30 years or 150 years"

Regarding Biocab's graph that you mentioned and the issue of extrapolation of data from sunspots only, needing to correlate with isotopes, etc., where exactly is the graph with the extrapolations that interested you? That I never saw and thus don't know how to comment on it.

I saw you just dismiss the sources the varwoche referenced and not a critique of them, but i could have missed it as this thread has a high post count.

I have answered the rest.

I notice that you didn't respond to my link to the NOAA data, i understand that you don't like Jansen, but there are plenty of other data sources.

[fsol]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Specifically what is your objection on which you call cherry picking, lying, blah blah blah? The starting point of 1860? The temperature at that time? The ending time? The temperature at that time? Just the fact the numbers are not palatable?

Well, do you agree with his numbers yourself then?