Apparently, in an attempt to show "balance" ABC's "the drum" website is going to have a week of contributions from the filth merchant spruiking side of the commentariat. -- people like Switzer, Moran, Jo Nova etc ...
As it happens, public impressions about climate change are not that different from the views of those with professional knowledge on the issue. A poll of 3146 earth scientists at the start of last year found 82 per cent agreed that human activity was a significant contributing factor to changing mean global temperatures. Of the 77 climatologists actively engaged in research, 75 agreed. For any government to ignore these views would not just be courageous, it would be irresponsible. Tackling climate change remains, in the words of Ross Garnaut, a diabolical problem. An international emissions trading system may be the best solution in theory, but such an internationally binding agreement may be unobtainable and the scheme the Rudd government wants to legislate is so compromised as to render it ineffective. There are plenty of other options. Even if they are more expensive, as premiums for risk insurance they are well worth paying.
The ABC must at least allow for the possibility that beliefs are absurd or illusory.
Doubtless they do, but given that they are a publically funded organisation, one does wonder why they are allowing disinformationists like Switzer, Nova and Moran to practise their dark arts with ABC imprimatur.
An informed citizenry, not simply an opinionated one, is a prerequisite for a mature democracy.
Public opinion will decide the outcome of this debate and the politicians will feel the heat. Which is missing in NY at the moment, February 2010 now holds the snowiest record for any single month since March 1896.
Yes Fran, because people like Robyn Williams, Tim Flannery et al have been so spot on with their summations to date it would be sacrilegious to offer a different view. Especially as you say, as a public funded organisation. [horreur]
Says El Gordo "An informed citizenry, not simply an opinionated one, is a prerequisite for a mature democracy."
He then goes on to demonstrate how right that statement is, by suggesting that monthly snowfalls for NYC are some kind of meaningful data-point.
El Gordo, please get it through your head:
- Weather is not climate.
- Snow *in winter* does not mean it's getting colder.
- Everyone who has ever lived in a cold climate will tell you the snowiest days and the coldest days are *different days*.
- Increased snowfall is a predicted condition to occur in warming climate models. Increased heat leads to increased activity in the hydrosphere: more evapouration and precipitation.
- I just had a look at the monthly temps for New York this February. Looks like a normal February for daytime and nighttime temps. I lived there last year and those were the temps we were getting, minus the amazing levels of precipitation.
Interesting enough, New York's *precipitation* this month so far is double the historical average. A result perfectly consistent with predictions of a warmer, wetter climate.
"Apparently, in an attempt to show "balance"... Don'tcha love the "balance" doctrine?"
Almost as much as the one eyed lefty stuff that drips almost exclusively from "our ABC" that costs all Australians around a billion a year.
With the exception of counterpoint [doncha luv that name], an obscure radio program, give me one program that seriously discusses the conservative view.
Weather is micro-climate and if you could just suspend your prejudice for a minute you might get a glimpse of the big picture. Don't take your eyes off the ice core cycles.
Neville Nicholls from Monash has told an online forum that this is the hottest year since 1979, when the first satellite went up. So the Express vilify him for telling the truth, without questioning the discrepancy.
A negative AO is the cause of the coldest winter in the UK since 1979.
spangled drongo ... you are on the money in identifying climate change denialism with the "conservative" political views because it has little to do with science.
>*An informed citizenry, not simply an opinionated one, is a prerequisite for a mature democracy.*
A fine sentiment el gordo. And the best argument against the feeble lack of regulation that have produced the current oligarchical media consolidation.
>*Apparently, in an attempt to show "balance"... Don'tcha love the "balance" doctrine?*
The balance doctrine has been used by consolidated media owners to, a significant degree, sideline debate on any issue they don't want attention on, but throw as much contention as a PR machine can muster at the issues they want to challenge.
Which is why a diverse media (diverse business and funding models) and diverse ownership are vital for democracy.
But those ideologically in love with Bolt only see the ABC as the problem, they are blind to bigger issue.
If Murdoch or his Jacks want to challenge an issue (an issue mind you, that others have sweat blood to bring to public attention), then it gets equal weight under the balance doctrine, never mind matter how unbalance the supporting evidence on either side.
But if Murdoch or his Jacks don't want an issue to gain traction (i.e. Media consolidation and regulation reform), then we hear crickets chirping or should I say we read of a celebrity scandal, or the new weight loss fad sweeping the world.
The FOI2009.zip file contain a number of references to a certain CRU server which is still up and running, and running an old (read: potentially vulnerable) version of a certain Internet service software.
#6 el gordo "Public opinion will decide the outcome of this debate..."
God help us if that is how we move forward with science...cut to the 4th century BC ..hands up who thinks the earth is round... oh well, out voted, looks like its flat after all....
The CRU says the media reporting that the ICO had determined that the CRU had violated the FOIA is apparently untrue.
The publication of these letters follows the University's response to the Select Committee in which it states that 'On 22 January 2010, the Information Commissionerâs Office (ICO) released a statement to a journalist, which was widely misinterpreted in the media as a finding by the ICO that UEA had breached Section 77 of the FOIA by withholding raw data. A subsequent letter to UEA from the ICO (29 January 2010) indicated that no breach of the law has been established; that the evidence the ICO had in mind about whether there was a breach was no more than prima facie; and that the FOI request at issue did not concern raw data but private email exchanges.
They've published correspondence with the ICO at the link given above.
"The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change"
From the Institute of Physics but, hey, what do they know, I mean 'physics' - heh! - they probably all work for Big Oil!
> From the Institute of Physics but, hey, what do they know, I mean 'physics' - heh! - they probably all work for Big Oil!
I suspect you may actually be more correct than you realize, Duff.
You see, usually when an organization calls itself the "Institute of X" or the "X Institute" without actually being a research or teaching institution, I start to get really suspicious. And so I did get really suspicious.
Apparently the IOP has a "Corporate Affiliates Network (CAN)" programme, but somehow its motives of promoting physics are so obviously pure that it simply can't divulge the names of its corporate affiliates.
Welcome to another episode of "The Jakerman Zone", where distortions are used to claim distortion, questions are questioned rather than answered, and mice are used to explain there is no difference when referring to AGW vs GW.....all in one continuous loop.
In today's episode, we continue the loop, recently re-spliced by Jakerman at "The Economists Calls A Lie a Lie" #46.
Here, a previously unanswered question is linked once again, only to be unanswered, once again.
The question:
"What does the article say about areas along the Atlantic....are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?"
Here' The Jakerman Zone's non-answer, a link looping back to the article:
"For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur."
Of course, the real world answer would be "they don't know", but this isn't the real world....this is the Jakerman Zone, and it is a continuous loop.
In this world, assumptions are based on words that aren't written, prizes are given for accomplishments unrelated to the prize, the future is fact, predictions are reality, uncertainty is certain, most-likely is will, answers are questions, cold is a result of warm, distortions are used to prove distortion, openness is closed, bias is a one way street, politics are one sided, the wealthy are evil, a growing population proves endangerment, mistakes are irrelevant, a non scientist is the scienctists mentor, exaggerations are underestimates, arrogance rules, non scientists are part of the consensus of scientists, logic is illogical, flawed data is reliable, lost data is insignificant, exhaling is polluting, straw is everywhere and man made mice are the same as mice.
Stay tuned for the next exiting continuous loop of TheJakermanZoneTheJakermanZoneTheJakermanZoneTheJakerman Zone.....
Er, well, 'E' for Effort, Stepanovich, but what has British Nuclear Fuels being a sponsor of the Institute of Physics have to with its opinion on scientific behaviour at CRU? Without giving the matter too much thought, I would have that that BNF would have been a supporter of AGW attacks on all that nasty CO2.
Indeed. How dare anyone even suggest that wealthy people may be evil! Have you ever wondered about where your weekly or monthly pay cheque comes from? Wealthy people, that's who! Wealthy people! Yet you ungrateful plebs are always trying to bite the hand that feeds you. How dare you! Without wealthy people, you are nothing! Nothing! Do you hear that? Nothing!
Ever wondered how George Washington was able to found a totally new nation? It's because he was wealthy! Do you know why the US was able to win WWII? Yeah, the soldiers sure fought hard, but think about this -- all the courage of the soldiers would be nothing if rich people weren't paying taxes to support the war effort! Therefore, credit for winning WWII must go to the rich people!
Getting so caught up in his lie that Betula began arguing against himself is what has plagued Betula so.
Betula, you really do behave as though you believe confusion is your friend. This suggests you still havn't learned what it was that left you so caught out.
> what has British Nuclear Fuels being a sponsor of the Institute of Physics have to with its opinion on scientific behaviour at CRU?
It's not about BNFL specifically, but the possibility that the IOP may be funded by other sponsors which have a vested interest in pushing this "UEA violated FOI" meme.
So again, given the IOP's professed love of openness and transparency, why aren't they divulging their list of corporate affiliates?
Oh, I see, smear by implication. Yes, very good. Also, of course, it diverts attention away from their statement. A statement made, I gather, on behalf of their 36,000 members. Still, as I say, physicists, not proper scientists like climate scientists.
For the record, I don't particularly agree with trying to discredit IOP as a source based on their associations - I'd rather attack the substance of what they say.
And what they say is somewhat interesting - for starters, you do know that by saying "prima facie" they can completely back away from this stance later once the evidence is actually analysed?
Secondly, they appear to have taken the media line of what the OIC said, in contrast to what the OIC has explicitly stated is their position, namely that the only evidence is "prima facie" at the moment, yet the IOP say:
> The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner.
Which is not true (yet, anyway). Thirdly, the OIC say that any issue concerns *private emails* not *data*. Yet, the IOP say:
> Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.
Given that the IOP has misunderstood these two major points, I think the rest of the statement overreaches in several places. They have explicitly ascribed the withholding of data in contravention of FOI legislation to a desire to prevent their conclusions from being questioned - yet the OIC has only identified emails, not data as being at issue.
I was wondering if someone could provide some info on what seems to be the latest denialist trend -
climate science = post normal science therefore it is not real science at all.
I couldn't find where James Delingpole provides evidence that the climate science is practicing "Post-Normal-Science". The most strikingly post-normal part of the current state of affairs is the post-normal-skeptics. The only advocate for Post-Normal-Science in the story was a bloke [given a platform on WUWT](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/climategate-plausibility-and-the-…)!
>*In the last decade there has been a paradigm shift over AGW. Or rather there would have been, had not a powerful and unscrupulous cabal in the scientific community refused to allow science to progress in the normal way. The theory that man-made carbon-dioxide emissions cause global temperatures inexorably to increase went belly-up in 1998 when, despite all the predictions of the warmistsâ sophisticated computer models, global mean temperatures stubbornly ceased to rise (and havenât risen since).*
Liz,
The concept of "post normal science" was developed by philospher of science Jerome Ravetz. It is essentially a relativist philosphy i.e. truth is in the eye of the beholder. It advocates a risk management approach to science i.e. get all the different views together (as they are all valid) and synthesise a policy approach.
In my opinion there is little merit in Ravetz's "new age" view of the scientific method.
Anthony Watts who runs the denier blog WUWT and is not the sharpest pencil in the pack believed that PNS was advocating giving the deniers a seat at the science table and so ran an article by Ravetz. It was initially well received by the WUWT mob until someone pointed out that Ravetz came from a left-wing family (he was born in 1929) and was shock horror possibly even a Marxist.
Ravetz's views are as far from Marxism as Richard Dawkin's views are from religion but once the denier's identified him as a false friend the dissing started.
Now Delingpole is attempting to associate Ravetz's views with AGW.
The basis for this is a conciliatory article that Mike Hulme from UEA CRU wrote in the Guardian in 2007 in which he invoked PNS suggesting that policy decisions re AGW should include all the stakeholders. Hopefully Hulme now realises that there is no likelihood of compromise with the AGW deniers. They are not skeptical about the science, they deny it altogether.
I posted there for a bit around the topic, broadly about the attempt by its proponents to grab the middle ground in the debate, but gave up when it became clear no one was listening to a word of dissent and that Dennis himself promoted swiftboaters and political idealogues over genuine discussion. I was disappointed, because I had genuine hopes over our early exchanges.
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record.
The tropics and Northern and Southern Hemispheres were all well above normal, especially the tropics where El Nino conditions persist. Note the global-average warmth is approaching the warmth reached during the 1997-98 El Nino, which peaked in February April of 1998.
you can be certain that Delingpole and his fellow deniers are going to be indulging in a lot of misdirection. I am sure that the message has been despatched to the denialosphere - do not mention the temperature record.
There's a lot of us who are sceptical about the science. Dr Graham-Cumming, a mathematician in London, claims the Australian weather data appears to have been misused or discarded. (The story in today's SMH)
One degree difference doesn't seem like much, but this computer geek thinks its a big deal.
On the subject of the IOP submission, which included the help of its Energy Sub-group, there were climate sceptics involved in running this Sub-group in the recent past, and they may well still be involved or influencing this group.
Terri Jackson, who is the founder of the Energy Sub-group has occasionally written sceptic posts in local papers:
If people who regard the NIPCC events as scientific conferences were involved in the writing of this submission then the IoP needs to make a quick retraction.
> Oh, I see, smear by implication. Yes, very good.
Hello? Hello? You started by trying to pull a 'proof by implication', when you said that because the group calls itself the "Institute of Physics" therefore they're obviously reputable and have a point. I'm merely throwing the same type of 'argument' back at yourself.
If you want to pull a 'proof by implication', you can't complain when others pull a 'smear by implication', can you?
(Not that I particularly like to do this; like Dave, I prefer attacking the IOP statement based on its lack of substance. But if you want to play silly games, well then, be careful what you wish for.)
> Dr Graham-Cumming, a mathematician in London, claims the Australian weather data appears to have been misused or discarded. (The story in today's SMH)
Shorter el gordo:
Argument by authority is very wrong, except when the authority agrees with me.
Of course, since you are so impressed by the IOP's take on this because of their sterling credentials, no doubt the list of respected scientific institutions that have affirmed the science of climate change impresses you so much you completely accept their view nowadays.
No? Or like el gordo, is argument from authority only valid if you agree with that authority?
Dr Graham-Cumming was at pains to point out that errors made by the office do not alter the big picture on climate change.
"It does not change the scientific story, and that is that the world is getting hotter" he said.
From the Times Feb 16
When all of the errors identified were corrected, the temperature trend remained well within the 95 per cent confidence range of the original plot, meaning that the difference would not be considered scientifically significant. There was also no suggestion that the errors had led to an exaggeration of the amount of warming
Not quite the situation you attempt to convey el pinocchio.
Dr Graham-Cumming, a mathematician in London, claims the Australian weather data appears to have been misused or discarded.
Surprise - el gordo only tells half the story.
Try reading the full article that el gordo did not link to, which includes:
''What appears to have happened is that the Met Office calculated the averages and then got more data from Oceania and then failed to update the averages,'' Dr Graham-Cumming said.
...
''It does not change the scientific story, and that is that the world is getting hotter,'' he said.
He also says, in a display of deep misunderstanding of the import of the corrections:
Had the error I'd found been more widespread, it could have had a real effect on the overall picture.''
Er, no. People have pointed out that even if (say) a heavy chunk of the US weather stations were influenced by "bad siting" or UHI issues, the necessary correction to the global trend would be tiny.
But at least the story gave el gordo a little thrill.
It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.
This alone blows most denialists' minds. Somehow they think people who think the science is valid want to see serious problems due to global warming.
Then there's the claim that:
China, now the worldâs largest and fastest-growing source of global-warming pollution, had privately signaled early last year that if the United States passed meaningful legislation, it would join in serious efforts to produce an effective treaty.
Interesting, given that a common denialist tactic is to throw up one's hands and declare that nothing can be done because China and India won't join in. It's fate, you see, and there's nothing that can be done - except business as usual.
The author really hits hard on the last page - well worth some contemplation.
But I'm sure none of it is really to be taken seriously, because the author is rotund, or in good Western capitalist tradition is backing his assessment of the state of the world with his money and business (and inconveniently donating his profits from these ventures to certain charitable causes)...
Recent satellite data indicate a spike in temperatures, which is not what I expected. A post by Roy Spencer over at Watts is talking about spurious warming closer to home.
'It is increasingly apparent that we do not even know how much the world has warmed in recent decades, let alone the reason(s) why. It seems to me we are back to square one.'
It is increasingly apparent that we do not even know how much the world has warmed in recent decades, let alone the reason(s) why. It seems to me we are back to square one.
They're half way there. They admit they know nothing.
Maybe they could try asking some climate scientists?
It's official! It can now be scientifically proven that the heavy snow in the Northeast is without doubt caused by Global Warming....
This from Al Gores article linked @53....
"yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere â thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States"
But wait, this just in.... we have another official finding! "We can't control nature"! It's finally been proven
beyond a reasonable doubt....
It's official! It can now be scientifically proven that the heavy snow in the Northeast is without doubt caused by Global Warming....
It's been official for a very long time, Betula. Why don't you know this? I thought you were all about educating yourself? Give Spencer Weart's Discovery of Global Warming a try (online and free).
Funny how we don't hear anything from the 'Prince of Precaution' Tim Flannery these days. Especially about such things he seemed to be championing Ad nauseam like the great crisis of the Murray/Darling River system, as just one example. Word has it that this 'crisis' is averted again - All filling up with 'climate change' water I hear ?! :-)
el gordo:
>An informed citizenry, not simply an opinionated one, is a prerequisite for a mature democracy.
That is fine for determining policy, as long as citizens are informed accurately.
el gordo:
>Public opinion will decide the outcome of this debate and the politicians will feel the heat.
What debate?
They can't decide any scientific debate. There is only one un-debatable answer to the climate issue, the correct one is found through science, that's what the processes are for.
They can decide the policy that comes from the resulting science.
I agree, Paul, but people will vote according to their perceptions. Why do the scientists say this is the hottest year ever when the NH landmass is freezing?
As long as the AO remains negative then this Spring will be backward. The electorate will need a lot of convincing that global warming is real, once the politicians begin stirring the pot.
el gordo, the task should never be to convince the electorate that global warming is real. The science is the science. The task should be to convince the electorate of the appropriate policy response.
Trouble is, the science lacks credibility. The CSIRO and BoM collaborated to find a proven link between rising levels of greenhouse gases and a decline in rainfall.
'In the minds of a lot of people the rainfall we had in the 1950's, 60's and 70's was a benchmark. A lot of our water and agriculture planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.'
Dr Bertrand Timbal Aug 16, 2009
They are wrong, of course, there is no connection.
"It's been official for a very long time, Betula."
Daniel, you're telling me it's been official for a long time that this years snowy winter in the northeast is due to Global Warming, so I have a few questions...
How was it official before all the snow fell?
Exactly when did it become official?
Can you show me a peer reviewed paper showing that the snowy winter in the Northeast is due to Global Warming?
Is the snow an indicater of a changing climate or is it just weather?
If the snow in the Northeast is a direct result of Global Warming, what percent of that warming is due to man?
Was Obama wrong when he said we can't control Nature?
Since less snow in the Northeast would be consistent with Global Warming, is the current heavy snow amount consistent with Global Warming? Example:
Chris 81 (on another thread where I might get censored),
In general, isn't it particularly damning when the data from a peer reviewed study quite clearly contradicts the conclusions of the author?
For all those alarmists who endlessly lie about âunprecedented temperaturesâ, letâs examine some directly cited peer reviewed data published on NOAAâs web site and dropped directly into an Xcel spreadsheet:
1) At Vostok, Atarctica, we see -- just in the last 10,000 years -- 10 periods which were warmer than today. What caused those warming trends?
2) At the GISP2 site on the Greenland ice sheet, we see -- just in the last 10,000 years -- 12 periods which were warmer than today. And, that is based upon the likely FALSE assumption that the MWP was COOLER than today. What caused those warming trends?
Oh, and, referring again to those previous two graphs, how do you account for the on-going uninterrupted 10,000 year cooling trend in both the Arctic and the Antarctic? Donât we CLEARLY see in both of those graphs that there is nothing even remotely unusual about the latest warming?
The citation links and more details are found here and here.
1) In your first point, you appear confused as to whether the GISP2 site lies within the Arctic Circle. Must I educate you on the location of the Arctic Circle and/or the GISP2 site?
2) The GISP2 temperature data presented by NOAA does not define exactly what year âpresentâ refers to. It does, however, make abundantly clear that the most recent temperature data point was about 95.1409 years before âpresentâ.
Since the data were originally published in 1997, one would assume that âpresentâ refers to 1997. That would place the first temperature data point at roughly 1902.
In appending the warming of the last 100 years indicated by Box, et al, I generously assumed the GISP2 site had warmed as much as the Box, et al data indicated. Alarmists have recently claimed that the Arctic is warmer than it has been in 2,000 years. My appended data is in agreement with that assertion.
It appears we do not have temperature records from the GISP2 site from the last 100 years (or even current temperature data). So, as far as I can tell, this is the best approximation available. In so far as we do have current temperature records from Vostok, that chart lacks the small ambiguity of the GISP2 chart.
3) Again, you appear quite confused. Your chart does not present GISP2 global temperature data there is no such thing.
4) In my view, ice core data is -- by far -- the most credible temperature proxy. Your global reconstruction -- using a variety of temperature proxies of varying credibility -- covers only 20% (2,000 years) of the 10,000 year period I requested. That last time I checked 20% was a failing grade even in todayâs universities.
5) Since you and your ilk seem to prefer to cherry pick the last 2,000 years of temperature data, you might find the 2,000 year trend at Vostok just a tad âinconvenientâ.
Click here for direct links to the cited data sources.
Oopsie!!!
Donât you just hate it when the data are made available for public inspection?
NEXT???
P.S.) Between the petulance of our host and this silly rule putting all posts with more than a few links into moderation, I may loose interest at this point. Come to my site. I moderate all comments -- mostly so I can more easily find them and respond to them. I rarely decline to publish comments. The last comment I declined to publish was a two word comment prominently including the âF Wordâ.
His big call is that 10 or 12 times Greenland and Antarctica have been hotter than recent times. The obvious flaw being hes only got two sites which will inevitably have more variance than the variation moderated by the entire planet.
Nothing dramatic there. And the GISP2 data ends 90 years ago so leaves out most of the AGW signal.
Basically both sets of data support global temperature reconstructions on the MWP, being a little warm in places but not globally compared to current global anomallies.
>*Since you and your ilk seem to prefer to cherry pick the last 2,000 years of temperature data, you might find the 2,000 year trend at Vostok just a tad âinconvenientâ.*
Why, there is nothing contradictory in that data? Notice the size of the MWP. Notice how the trends in Vostock and GISP2 are oppsite.
Re you bold claims I assume you are aware that variation is larger in small resolution, compared to the moderation of global variance. Hence comparing the variance at one site to the variance of the globle is not impressive.
In my never-ending efforts to keep Mr. Stepanovich busy squirreling away for mud to sling I offered him (see above -somewhere) The Institute of Physics.
Today I can provide not only The Royal Institute of Chemistry but The Royal Statistical Society for absolutely no extra charge. (I stress the Royal because this is an Aussie site and they're always frightfully impressed with that sort of thing!)
They are both, in their very diffident, British way putting the boot into Dr. Phil "standard practice" Jones. I am just amazed that our pugnacious host, such a stickler for Truth, has not laced up his boots yet!
'What the record shows is that Jones had no standard scientific practice of sharing or not sharing data. He had no consistent practice of abiding by or violating confidentiality agreements. He had his chance to sit before Parliament and come clean about the record. He had an opportunity to explain exactly why he took these various contradictory actions over the course of years. Instead he played with the truth again. Enough.'
SBVOR is clearly not a scientist, and has no pedigree in any of the fields he/she covers. Otherwise this individual would not write such utter balderdash as claiming that the planet is going through a "C02 famine". I cringe when I read this kind of comic-level book analysis. Like other apparently scientific illiterate pundits, SBVOR is unable to think in terms of temporal scales, and can only juxtapose conditions in pre-Mesozoic times with the present day, without alluding to the time lags between causes and effects. In other words, give that the planet's climate control system is largely deterministic, differences in such parameters as ambient C02 concentrations and mean global surface temperatures would naturtally change at rates well exceeding a human generation (more like dozens of generations) unless there was some very profound short-term forcing agent. We are talking about changes in atmospheric C02 that are on temporal scales probably unprecedented in the planet's history. What determines the ability of complex adaptive systems to adapt to changes in the environment is thus largely the property of their evolutionary history. This history is not measured in decades or even centuries but over many thousands of years. A doubling of atmospheric C02, and attendant effects on climate, would greatly disrupt trophic networks, undermining vital ecologicval interactions that maintain the stability of these sytems over various spatial and temporal scales. I am sure that right wing pundits like SBVOR have no clue how complex adaptive systems and their components function, but in promoting their liberatarian/populist views they try to give the impression to the lay readers out there that they have a good grasp of the science. For you readers out there who want to know the basics, take it from a scientist: THEY DO NOT.
As one can see by giving SBVORs website a cursory scan, he/she is just another person twisting science to promote a political agenda on the far right. Clive Hamilton nails the agendas of these people in his recent articles. This is one of the pitfalls of the internet: anyone can set up a webblog site and attempt to convince a general audience that they know the 'facts'. Like many other sites (see SBVORs links as well), they do not have the foggiest idea what they are talking about. They are unable to link climate with landscape level ecological effects. They do not understand the importance of scale. They are driven for the most part, by a populist conservative agenda that wishes to eviscerate the role of the government in the economy in the pursuit of private profit.
"The RSS [Royal Statistical Society] believes that the debate on global warming is best served by having the models used and the data on which they are based in the public domain."
ââ¦the benefits of scientific data being made available and thus open to scrutiny outweigh the perceived risks. To this end, scientific information should be made available on request as outlined in the Freedom of Information Act.â [The Royal Institute of Chemistry]
To this end, scientific information should be made available on request as outlined in the Freedom of Information Act.
Ah, yes, and I suspect most of us agree.
It should be noted that there are a number of valid grounds for which an FOIA request can be denied, and presumably these societies concur.
It is further noted that the ICO has clarified that no breach of the FOI has yet been determined, despite press coverage to the contrary, and that the FOI request of concern was NOT for data but for e-mails.
So we can provisionally conclude that these bodies agree that the FOI data requests were rightfully denied...?
âSBVOR is clearly not a scientist, and has no pedigree in any of the fields he/she covers.â
Actually, I am a scientist. In point of fact, I am a trained Environmental Scientist.
Lambert is the one who -- just like the Chairman of the IPCC -- has zippo academic background in any branch of science (computer science does not count).
And, you -- sir -- are a blatant propagandist, just like Lambert.
For Jakerman and all others making the cherry-picking argument about my Vostok and GISP2 data,
In order to put current temperatures into proper perspective, the MINIMUM time frame to examine is 10,000 years -- roughly the period of the Holocene.
The strongly preferred time frame is 140,000 years -- so as to compare the current interglacial warming period against the previous interglacial warming period.
Better than that is 423,000 to 600,000 years so as to compare at least the last 4 interglacial warming periods against the current interglacial warming period.
I have provided you with the best data I can find which meet these criteria. If you have better data, letâs see it.
Especially if he reckons that he's an environmental scientist, and doesn't know who Jeff Harvey is, or even have the wherewithal to use scientific resources to track Jeff and his publication list down.
Heck, even Google would help him out if he bothered to do some basic searching.
Yeah, "scientist" indeed...
SBVOR, a real "environmental scientist" wouldn't say that they were a "trainedEnvironmental Scientist". That's a blanket term for many different disciplines, and anyone working in an environmental field would be much more specific about what they actually did. They also wouldn't use the stilted, pompous, capitalised phraseology that you used - unless they were a puffed-up numpty techie* with a 1-year certificate in holding surveying staffs or screwing tops on sampling jars.
Oh, and your complete lack of a grasp of science tends to give you away too...
(*Apologies to all hard-working techies who actually are good at their work, and who don't imagine that they're somehow in line for a Nobel for doing their jobs).
1) The musings of Bernard J. | March 2, 2010 5:42 PM & Jeff Harvey | March 2, 2010 5:47 AM strike me as the sort of pettiness which rightly embarrassed the CRU Hockey team when it was made available for all to see.
What is particularly striking is that these two openly and knowingly present their pettiness for the entire world to see.
2) For the record, my university offered a graduate program in Environmental Science. So, if you have a problem with that term, take it up with the university of old.
3) A semi-famous State Climatologist once opined that âthose who have the science on their side argue the science, those who do not have the science on their side attack the messengerâ.
So, gentlemen, shall we argue the science? Or shall we resume the playground antics?
Just for the record, anybody who addresses me by anything other than SBVOR will not likely get a response -- only because, as a time management issue, I search the comments for that moniker and only that moniker.
I did happen to spot Jakerman's latest query (March 2, 2010 6:19 PM) and deemed it unworthy of a response. My post speaks for itself and needs no further explanation.
>SBV I repeat, What exactly do you think this data contradicts in AGW? Isn't that your key claim, that you've smashed AGW with this data? If it is you should be able to explain how.
SBV responds:
>*I [...] deemed [Jakerman's question] unworthy of a response. My post speaks for itself and needs no further explanation.*
To re-cap: SB is flashing charts around claiming they disprove AGW, but when asked directly and simply how they contradict AGW, SB is unwilling to clarify how or why the data do so.
âThe following is a brief summary of the directly cited peer reviewed science which best refutes the hysteria surrounding Man Made Global Warming.â
Quoting the summary contained in my more expansive post (with emphasis added):
âThe climate is changing. It always has and always will. Human activity has probably caused a tiny amount of beneficial warming.
There is nothing even remotely unusual about current temperatures.
Burning hydrocarbons as fuel will never cause catastrophic climate change.
Mother Nature is guaranteed to cause catastrophic climate change.
1,000 foot tall glaciers will probably scrape New York City off the map.
That will happen during the next glaciation -- in about 50,000 years.â
What I refute is AGW hysteria -- including gross exaggerations of likely impacts as well as utterly unsubstantiated claims as to what portion of recent warming is due to AGW -- a position I share with 76% of meteorologists. I do not refute AGW itself.
Future lies -- if any -- from Jakerman will not likely garner a reply. So, fair minded persons will take them with a grain of salt.
>*âthose who have the science on their side argue the science, those who do not have the science on their side attack the messenger **[as unworthy?]**â.*
To these questions I would add that you present your best evidence that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, or if you accept that it is, that its forcing is significantly less than the range given by the IPCC. And if you are going to argue that CO2 is not increasing in the atmosphere, show us your best piece of evidence for this too - and if you're going to claim that humans aren't responsible for any increase... well, once again, give us your best evidence.
And if you fall back to the "OK, it's going to warm after all, but warming's good" fallacy, then please, please entertain the ecologists (and others) here and explain to us, using science, why this is so.
If you are asking me if the climate is changing, my answer is found right here (along with fully substantiated answers to all your other equally grade school level questions).
1) All my comments, regardless of the number of links, are being subjected to moderation. As far as I can tell, nobody else is. Unacceptable!
2) I should know by Wednesday, 3/3/10 whether Lambert has repeatedly censored my fully substantiated and entirely reasonable response to Stu | March 2, 2010 2:58 PM. Utterly intolerable!
If my response to Stu is censored, I may create a post on my blog wherein I offer my response.
What is certain is that I will not continue to participate on this -- by design -- unlevel playing field. Last comment, SBVOR out!
>SBV I repeat, What exactly do you think this data contradicts in AGW? Isn't that your key claim, that you've smashed AGW with this data? If it is you should be able to explain how.
or am I lying for stating:
>SB is flashing charts around claiming they disprove AGW, but when asked directly and simply how they contradict AGW, SB is unwilling to clarify how or why the data do so.
Would you answer my question if I reworded my summary to:
*SB is flashing charts around claiming they disprove **the IPCCs core statements on** AGW, but when asked directly and simply how they contradict the **IPCC's core statements on** AGW, SB is unwilling to clarify how or why the data do so.*
If you think I've been unfair I will make this clarification, but will you back your wild claims with the explanation required. You seem very determined to avoid doing so. Or perhaps you need to clarify your wild claims, maybe you do not dispute the IPCCs core statements and I have completely misinterpreted your wild comments.
Either way your further explanation is need if you are to persist with your current wild claims. Such as this unsupported bunk:
>*âHuman activity has probably caused a tiny amount of beneficial warming. There is nothing even remotely unusual about current temperatures. Burning hydrocarbons as fuel will never cause catastrophic climate change."*
Bernard accurately sums up SBVOR when he says that few, if any credible scientists would refer to themselves as "trained environmental scientists". This suggests that SBVOR went to some second rate college and got a diploma. It does not mean he is a scientist. For the record, SBVOR, could you give me a list of your peer-reviewed publications in the scientific literature. This will tell me how qualified you are, apart from your hollow pontificating.
Further damning evidence comes from the information I provided in my last post, but which SBVOR predictably ignored. Anyone who claims that we are living in a period of C02 famine is metaphorically speaking out of their rear oriface. Such a gormless remark shows a complete inability to understand the importance of scale in biotic and abiotic processes. The planet's recent evolutionary history has been based on certain ambient levels of C02, which are now increasing linearly due the human combustion of fossil fuels. They are increasing at rates exceeding those in perhaps many millions of years, and this will certainly have consequences on the functioning of complex adaptive systems through attendant effects on climate and ecophysiological parameters. Any "trained environmental scientist" would recognize this and would therefore exhibit profound caution as to the outcome of the current human 'experiment'. But not our resident 'trained environmental scientist' SBVOR, who spews gobbeldegook here that is as transparant as glass.
As I said above, SBVOR wears his right wing, liberatarian, anti-government idealogical heart on his sleeve (look at the stuff on his web site to be precise). Most of it is a rant against public health care, Obama and the Democratic Party (which is a joke in my eyes given the fact that the two main parties in the US are almost political clones). Climate change denial fits into SBVORs political compass like a glove. And for him to have the audacity to call me and Tim Lambert 'propagandists'. Oh, the irony.
My questions aren't "grade school level": they are structured simply so that nincompoops such as yourself might understand the gist and respond to the same, without fluff, guff, or garbage.
However, it seems that even this simplicity sailed over your head - the answers that you proffer are themselves certainly grade school, at the most...
Never one to shirk from a challenge, I dared to enter the steaming pile of crap that you call "science" and that you offered as your answer, and I selected a link at random - the one I hit was quaintly titled "Debunking Surface Temperature Measurements": I won't dignify it with a link.
And lo, I saw there a graph titled "Sun and Ocean Cycles Versus Temperatures", and thereupon I saw two fitted "trendlines" of at leastfourth order, and verily, I was visited with a profound understanding of the depth of your Stupid.
Jeff after reading your last post on SBs claimed qualifications I checked out SBs odd little claim that:
>*I refute [...]AGW hysteria -- including gross exaggerations of likely impacts as well as utterly unsubstantiated claims as to what portion of recent warming is due to AGW -- a position I share with 76% of meteorologists.*
Looking at [SB source](http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/90/10/pdf/i1520-0477-90-10-…) shows SBs is actually referring to TV Weather casters like Watts and Coleman. And that SBs 76% is actually 50% who respond negative to the following IPCC conclusion: *âMost of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.â* I assume SB gets his 76% by adding the 25% who respond neutral and throwing in one for rounding.
My local weather caster is Jane. Jane started out on 'Fat Cat and Friends' when I was a wee kiddy. I wonder what she thinks? On the other hand my local Senior Meteorologist at the BOM raised my awareness as to the importance of the high risk of AGW.
It seems that one of your little hobby-horses is the relationship between increasing atmospheric CO2 and increasing global temperature. Or rather, that it is the fact that said relationship does not exhibit an R2 value of 1.00: apparently (according to your imputation) the increase in temperature must follow the same pattern of increase as atmospheric CO2, and the fact that it doesn't repudiates anthropogenic global warming.
Fine. Then answer me this...
Assume for a moment that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as science (you know, that thing that you claim to be trained in) has repeatedly and absolutely consistently shown for well over a hundred years. That means that it will affect the temperature of the planet as its atmospheric concentration increases. Hang on, hang on - bear with me for a moment...
Assume too that the climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 is as the IPCC indicates. Assume also that the physics of heat capacities operates as science predicts, and that liquid water moves in currents according to the best understanding of oceanography.
Let's assume also that the output of the sun has an impact upon the temperature of the planet. Yes, I know that's a radical idea, but humour me. Oh, and whilst we're making so many assumptions, let's throw in orbital wobbles, tilts, cycles, and other things Milankovitch.
Aw heck, as we're making assumptions left, right, and centre, how about we revisit that little one about ocean currents and mix it up a bit with wind and stuff, and include El Niño, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and sundry other such cycles.
But why stop there? Let's go the whole hog and throw in aerosols, whether volcanic, or from incomplete biomass and fossil fuel combustion.
You enjoy cosmic rays in your stew? Well, I'm not so sure that I do, but hey, we'll add it to the pot.
What else is on the shelf? Some nice changement d'albedo? A sprinkle of multiple feedings-back? A dash of non-water thermal inertia - it does have a different zest compared with the oceanic heat capacities that we added from the packet of physical oceanography that we opened earlier.
I'm sure that there are other ingredients that we could add, but we can always season to taste later...
So, with all of this bubbling in the pot, can you explain in straightforward, science-based terms, how closely global temperature should follow the trajectory of atmospheric CO2, and how much wiggleroom one would expect, when all of these other ingredients are simmering in the same temperature stew?
And how does your answer compare with the actual signal seen in the contemporary planetary record - when all factors affecting temperature are taken into consideration?
You say "... there is no new science 'refuting' what is stated in the IPCC AR4, Garnaut or Stern reports ..."
That's the most mendacious claim I have seen here in a long time.
1 - papers have been published that refute the IPCC's "science"; I know because my peer-reviewed paper was published last year.
2 - The IPCC's evidence for man-made warming is flimsy. It reduces down to "because my inaccurate computer software told me so", so why should anyone accept nonsense like that. Garnaut and Stern just sai dthe science was too difficult for them and said they believed the IPCC.
Why would a person remain anonymous if they had a peer reviewed paper that refuted the IPCC's science? Why not provide a reference? Sheesh - you can't even get half-realistic sock puppets these days ...
Dave55, there were some beauties buried in that thread. I have been commenting on the others instead, but was sorely tempted to respond to the reply to a comment about Dawkins talking about evolution. It's too good to excerpt, so I quote in entirety.
Swallow anything you're in the process of drinking NOW.
Oh please Dave! you are kidding aren't you? Dawkins an expert? I think you'll find many of his colleagues won't privately share that opinion. The climate change debate has finally highlighted the other great deception of Science, macro evolution i.e. one species evolving into an entirely different species. Not natural selection mind you, but the big brother that nobody has actually met, but of course exists, he's just down the shop getting...something! For decades any Scientist who questions the evolutionary paradigm and/or even suggests intelligent design in any living thing is treated exactly the same way the climategate scientists treated their colleagues. There are two major organizations in Australia filled with Scientists who daily, comprehensively and emphatically pull evolutionary theory apart plank by plank. These are Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International, now before we have all the sniggers and clever comments, how about some of you actually read their scientific material. For this very reason it is Dawkins and his ilk who are refusing to publicly debate them, not the other way round. If ABC was not biased they would have put Dawkins on head to head with Dr. Jonathan Sarfati.
Jo Nova's article said towards the end we must not ignore the empirical evidence...and then made a set of empirical claims refuting AGW unsupported by any references. They've been added now - Lindzen 2009, Spencer 2007 and something from Spencer in 2008.
Pointing out to various denialists that they are ignoring the empirical evidence in violation of Ms Nova's instructions is ... interesting.
Yeah I saw that - it was in response to my comment!. Wasn't sure how I would respond thou - LMFAO, FMD and other abbreviations came to mind. Rational argument with someone like that is just a waste of time.
Couldn't be bothered reading Jo Nova's piece. The drivel in the responses to Jonathon Holmes' piece got me too frustrated and I probably would have gone Postal if I'd read the stuff that would have flocked to Nova's piece.
One thing I always find amazing is how the the 'sceptics' are sceptical of any papers which support CC theory but are blindingly accepting of tripe like that dished up by Lindzen et al. This blind faith in anything but CC is why deniers is the most appropriate term for them, simply because they deny what is supported by empirical evidence.
Jo Nova is now really pushing "there's no hotspot in the radiosonde data", which to some of her followers "a la Popper" refutes the whole AGW enchilada (or at least makes climate sensitivity really low), or something along those lines. I remember looking at that a couple of years ago but I've forgotten everything I knew about that at one time.
I have no insight on why no-one takes Spencer's negative feedback from clouds seriously either, but Nova seems to think it also proves low climate sensitivity.
SBVOR, you say you're a trained environmental scientist.
What do you study for a living?
Because you certainly aren't a climatologist if you're that dense about statistics and about basic climate science - for one, warming trends differ around the world, but the global warming trend adds up to warming.
"Evidence from a respected scientific body to a parliamentary inquiry examining the behaviour of climate-change scientists, was drawn from an energy industry consultant who argues that global warming is a religion, the Guardian can reveal...
"The Guardian has established that the institute prepared its evidence, which was highly critical of the CRU scientists, after inviting views from Peter Gill, an IOP official who is head of a company in Surrey called Crestport Services."
According to Pinker (2005), surface solar irradiance increased by 0.16 W/m^2/year over the 18 year period 1983 â 2001 or 2.88 W/m^2 over the entire period. This was a period of claimed significant anthropogenic global warming.
This change in surface solar irradiance over 1983 - 2001 is almost exactly 1.2% of the mean total surface solar irradiance of recent decades of 238.9 W/m^2 (K, T & F, 2009).
According to NASA, mean global cloud cover declined from about 0.677 (67.7%) in 1983 to about 0.644 (64.4%) in 2001 or a decline of 0.033 (3.3%). The 27 year mean global cloud cover 1983 â 2008 is about 0.664 (66.4%) (all NASA data)
The average Bond Albedo (A) of recent decades has been almost exactly 0.300, hence 1 â A = 0.700
It is possible to estimate the relationship between albedo and total cloud cover about the average global cloud cover and it is described by the simple relationship:
Albedo (A) = 0.250C + 0.134 where C = cloud cover. The 0.134 term presumably represents the surface SW reflection.
For example; A = 0.300 = 0.25 x 0.664 + 0.134
This means that in 1983; A = 0.25 x 0.677 + 0.134 = 0.303
and
in 2001; A = 0.25 x 0.644 + 0.134 = 0.295
Thus in 1983; 1 â A = 1 â 0.303 = 0.697
and in 2001; 1 â A = 1 â 0.295 = 0.705
Therefore, between 1983 and 2001, the known reduction in the Earthâs albedo A as measured by NASA would have increased solar irradiance by 200 x [(0.705 â 0.697)/(0.705 + 0.695)]% = 200 x (0.008/1.402)% = 1.1%
This estimate of 1.1% increase in solar irradiance from cloud cover reduction over the 18 year period 1983 â 2001 is very close to the 1.2% increase in solar irradiance measured by Pinker for the same period.
Within the precision of the available data and this exercise, it may therefore be concluded that it is highly likely that Pinkerâs finding was due to an almost exactly functionally equivalent decrease in Earthâs Bond albedo over the same period resulting from global cloud cover reduction.
Hence surface warming over that period may be reasonably attributed to that effect.
>*We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year; this change is a combination of a decrease until about 1990, followed by a sustained increase.*
>*The decadal changes in SSR found in the dimming/brightening literature are at first sight often unrealistically large from a radiative forcing viewpoint, as, e.g., presented by IPCC [2007]. Therein, radiative forcings altering solar radiation between preindustrial (year 1750) and present day are on the order of minus 1-2 W mâ2 on a global average, while some of the surface-based estimates show similar or larger changes already within a decade [...]*
> *Indeed, under the assumption of a climate sensitivity of 0.5-1°C per W mâ2 radiative forcing as suggested by current climate models, a change of several W mâ2 decadeâ1 as inferred from surface observations would imply enormous decadal variations in surface temperature which are not observed. However, one should be aware that **the radiative forcing concept as used in the IPCC reports applies to changes at the tropopause, which cannot be directly compared to changes at the surface**.*
Why? Because:
>*Scattering and absorbing processes in the atmosphere are additive with respect to their effects on SSR at the surface, but may be opposed at the tropopause. Scattering aerosols enhance the reflectance of solar radiation back to space and reduce the solar flux to the surface. Absorbing aerosols also reduce the solar flux to the surface, but at the same time may reduce the reflectance back to space, opposed to the effects from scattering aerosols at the tropopause.*
>*Therefore, surface changes can expected to be larger than tropopause changes, and consequently are also not necessarily representative for (tropopause) radiative forcing estimates (this would only be valid in a purely scattering atmosphere). SSR change estimates based on surface observations should therefore not be used to challenge the IPCC radiative forcings [Liepert et al., 2007], even if these SSR changes would be free of biases from upscaling the surface point observations to global numbers.*
I never said they did and don't believe it myself. That is simplistic straw man nonsense. One of your specialities?
However, I certainly don't deny that as SH increases the transmission of LW IR BOA => TOA decreases (i.e. LW IR tau increases). Even most AGW wallies should know that -it is a fundamental of their raison d'etre.
It just so happens that under those circumstances cloud cover also broadly increases - especially low cloud.
As you live in Sydney you are presumably sweltering in the high humidity under a dense late summer cloud cover right now!
It is also possible to use cloud cover as a crude proxy for SH in simple 1-D models.
Not that it debunks steve short, but I note he has received an email from the Lord Monckton thanking him for his valuable contribution. From Jo Nova's site "âDear Dr. Short, â Many thanks for your very kind and helpful analysis. I am copying it to my co-author Dr. Joseph Boston, who is at present finalizing what we hope will be a robust determination of the change in surface radiative flux attributable to the decline in cloud cover from 1983-2001. â Monckton of Brenchleyâ"
>*"clouds don't block long wave radiation". Eh? Could you elaborate?*
Steve Short:
>*This estimate of 1.1% increase in solar irradiance from cloud cover reduction over the 18 year period 1983 â 2001 is very close to the 1.2% increase in solar irradiance measured by Pinker for the same period.*
>*[...]it may therefore be concluded that it is highly likely that Pinkerâs finding was due to an almost exactly functionally equivalent decrease in Earthâs Bond albedo over the same period resulting from global cloud cover reduction.*
>*Hence surface warming over that period may be reasonably attributed to that effect.*
Shorter short:
SW forcing at the **surface** equals **Net** forcing at the the **tropopause**.
This is not very helpful; as Steve observed Pinker found a decrease in the rate of SW at TOA which was almost identical to the rate of increase in SW at the surface; this has nothing to do with the Wild paper; the extra SW at TOA had to go somewhere; it wasn't scattered or reflected by aerosols because the rate of decrease in SW at TOA, which is the difference between the incoming/outgoing SW, was matched by the SW at BOA [in the tropics, Fig 4]; that is, it went to the surface; the mechanism for this is most likely the decrease in cloud cover. As my aide says: "SW forcing at the surface equals Net forcing at the the tropopause." The net forcing for SW at TOA was at a rate of 0.17W/m2 for the Pinker period in the tropics.
Not that SW (and LW) cloud-related radiative forcing at various altitudes is not a very fascinating subject. It sure is!
Strange isn't it how we KEEP hearing about how the 'science is settled' and there is a 'consensus' and all the denialist scumbags should just go away and die when the LEVEL OF RESEARCH TO FIND OUT WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING HAS NEVER BEEN SO HIGH:
Shorter cohnite: *Clouds do block longwave I must ask short to include that in his calculations.*
Another shorter cohnite: *TOA tropics (20N- 20S) equals TOA global (90N- 90S).*
Short Short: You are knocking over a straw man by to pointing out the many errors and fallacies in my claims that "*Hence surface warming over that period may be reasonably attributed to that effect [change is surface SW].*
Shorter shorter Short: **Short's claim that** "*Hence surface warming over that period may be reasonably attributed to that effect [change is surface SW]* **is a strawman**.
>Short's claims that: *Hence surface warming over that period may be reasonably attributed to that effect [change is surface SW].*
Made by Short failure to calculate tropospheric forcing; has nothting to do with Wild's statement that:
>*the radiative forcing concept as used in the IPCC reports applies to changes at the tropopause, which cannot be directly compared to changes at the surface.*
MattB this afternoon on Jo Nova thread 'Lambert, victim of his own spin?':
"Yes Steve I wish I had an email from the good Lord showing how smart I am."
My reply:
We can very easily fix that problem. I hereby issue you with a technical challenge which I will also post on Deltoid for you (or any of the other AGW wallies) to take me up on.
I propose to set you two, highly relevant test problems and then to provide the answers for each, without revealing the working of my calculations.
It is up to you to solve the same problems (mathematically), provide your answers and thus verify/state that I am right or I am wrong. If you verify my answer you do not need to reveal the logic of your calculation.
If you donât verify my answer then we both have to reveal/justify our method of calculation. Fair enough?
Problem #1: If we were to agree that the best estimate of the global mean Bond albedo of the last decade is 0.298 as stated by Trenberth, Fasulo and Kiehl, 2009, then what would be the mean global surface temperature change for an upwards shift in global mean Bond albedo to (say) 0.302?
I assert the surface temperature change would be -0.20±0.01 K (error at ~± 1 s.d.)
Problem #2: If we were to agree that the best estimate of the global mean cloud cover over the last 27 years is 66.38% as stated by NASA, 2010, then what would be the mean global surface temperature change for a shift in mean global mean cloud cover to (say) 67.38%?
I assert the surface temperature change would be -0.13±0.02 K (error at ~± 1 s.d.)
OK MattB wimps out after lecturing the mob at Jo Nova for many days and nights - now we find out he can't do any math - or basic French either - it's dommage not domage m'sieur.
Still, he will be eternally remembered for coining that delightful new word: DILLUSIONAL.
Anyone else wanna have crack. Inco? True Septic? Tim Tam? Bernaaaard?
I'll express it more simply so the proposed problems are very easy to understand:
(1) What would be the predicted mean global surface temperature change (+ or -, take your pick) for an upwards shift in global mean Bond albedo from (say) 0.298 to (say) 0.302?
(2)What would be the predicted mean global surface temperature change (+ or -, take your pick) for an upwards shift in global mean total cloud cover from (say) 66.38% to (say) 67.38?
Surely somewhere in this collection of self-proclaimed experts there is at least someone who can solve these simple tasks (without resort to dissembling)?
BTW Steve over at Nova I've been hounding regarding the absurd interpretation of Pinker's comments to Deltoid that "it can pass" relates to Monckton's overall "work" regarding cloud forcing. Simple English language comprehension stuff. Your response is smoke and mirrors random maths/physics questions that are by the by. I'll consider your questions when you concede some English comprehension. Nova makes a big point defending Monckton, has it pointed out clearly that that position is indefensible, and the response from the flying monkeys is to back up the clearly incorrect interpretation, claim "it doesn't matter", is "nitpicky" or to confuse things with random maths questions (incidentally you can hardly groan after introducing a whole post to correct a typo in a foreign language I studied 21 years ago).
The claim it is nitpicky may or may not be true, but Nova thought it important enough to defend Monckton so my reading of that is it is important to her at least.
1) the fact that most of the last 50 years has experienced global dimming (Romanou et al 2007) and that recent reversal (1990 to 2000) of that trend is unmasking suppressed GHG forcing ([Wild 2007](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028031.shtml))
>*solar dimming was effective in masking greenhouse warming, but only up to the 1980s, when dimming gradually transformed into brightening. Since then, the uncovered greenhouse effect has revealed its full dimension, as manifested in a rapid temperature rise (+0.38°C/decade over land since mid-1980s). Recent solar brightening cannot supersede the greenhouse effect as main cause of global warming, since land temperatures increased by 0.8°C from 1960 to 2000, even though solar brightening did not fully outweigh solar dimming within this period.*
2) *In the global mean sense the surface adjusts to changes in downward solar flux instantaneously by reducing [or conversely increasing] the upward fluxes of longwave.* (Romanou et al 2007)
>*While there is a large increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing greenhouse gases and water vapor (as a feedback), this is offset to a large degree by a decreasing greenhouse effect from reducing cloud cover and increasing radiative emissions from higher temperatures.* (Trenberth and Fasullo 2009)
3) However the modeled trend is for decreasing clouds as a positive feedback. The follow extracts from (Trenberth and Fasullo 2009):
>fewer clouds [...] allow more radiation to escape from lower and warmer parts of the atmosphere and surface. Decreasing cloud amount also increases absorbed solar radiation (ASR) [...]. **These changes represent a feedback and not a forcing, however.***
>*In most models, the late 21st century planetary imbalance is not dominated by the ice-albedo effect, but rather stems from changes in clouds and aerosols. From 1950 to 2000, increases in sulfate aerosols decrease the ASR by increasing reflected solar radiation (RSR), and this is slightly offset by a modest decrease in clouds. In regions of decreasing sea ice, clouds tend to increase, partially offsetting the surface albedo change.*
>*integrated all sky ASR anomalies become positive by 2040 owing mainly to decreasing cloud amount and this continues throughout the 21st century [...] The net effect is a huge change in LW CRF [Cloud Radiative Forcing], but a modest change in OLR [Outgoing Longwave Radition] [...] There is substantial SW CRF although the increase in SW heating is bigger, and ASR dominates Rt* [Rt= Net Radition = ASR-OLR]
So after a century of growing enhanced greenhouse forcing I hope that cloud feedback are not about to kick in a big way.
It is so, so very easy to harvest and quote shitloads of stuff off the Net.
Sure some of it is relevant. But I don't really give a double damn how much wriggling around, sophistry, smoke blowing out your asses etc you might want to indulge yourself in.
This is not a forum for lawyers.....(;-)
I spent 11 years in an an Oz Federal Govt. research agency and 3 years in a Swiss one; ~100 peer reviewed papers and book chapters. So I know what it is to do pure science research and crack my nuts over empirical or theoretical problems. Some times your math (!) skills are up to it, sometimes not. Yet it's always fun BTW.
Humility is good. Hubris is bad (and there is shitloads here BTW)
So, basically, in a nutshell, seems I can pose two very simple questions here and none of you can do the calcs to provide an answer you are prepared to defend (within reasonable errors for the exercise) on the basis of your understanding - even of say mainstream stuff like Trenberth et al etc., etc.
How many of your peer-reviewed publications were in the field of climate science?
As someone with about the same number of publications as you, working in the field of population ecology, I was wondering how much of your intellectual pontificating is backed up in the relevant journals? Or are you restricted to web sites to dish out your so-called expertise? By the way, while we are at the level of comparing academic credentials, how many citations does your work have on the WOS?
You see, the data trails for the sceptics goes quickly quite cold. Sure, they strut their stuff on their web logs, but this is not the same thing.
Contrary to the irony of my previous comment, I actually trawled through my memory and recalled an equation I used several years ago. Using a black body assumption of unitary emissivity, a value of 5778 K for Ts, 696300000 m for R, 149600000000 m for D, and your Bond albedo values, I came up with -0.36 K where you "assert" -0.20 K.
Now, I am a biologist and not a physicist, so my recollection of the equation that I used may be wanting, and my knowledge of modifiers is definitely limited, but neither is the point.
The point is that I did not rely on your 'code' to arrive at my figure. I used my own equations, subject to several assumptions, and I found the data to input. In this manner I truly, if incorrectly, replicated your process of calculation, rather than screaming for the information so that I could duplicate it.
So now we have a circumstance where we have a difference in a number. At this point we should compare notes, discuss differences in procedure, and resolve the discrepancy.
Just as the many serial pests who have dogged Jones, and many other climatologists, should have done in the first place - had they actually bothered to replicate the work that they so freely criticised.
Of course, if you're really just trying to get you own "email from the good Lord showing how smart [you are]", as [your response to MattB](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_43.php#comment-2331…) seems to indicate, then this little exercise in who can pick the best equation and drop in a few numbers for a bit of primary school arithmetic is simply an exercise in juvenile pants-dropping.
And if perchance you are actually trying to make a point about arcane nuances in radiative physics, then why the fÊck ([h/t Chris O'Neill](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…)) are you asking people who had nothing to do with your original exchange at Nova's? I like to ask questions of people myself, but I don't go around telling random people, who have not been involved in the subject matter that I am raising, that they can't get it up. I have never claimed expertise in radiation physics, so why did you [bother to drag me](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_43.php#comment-2331…) into your little piss-on-the-fence-post exercise in the first place? I haven't even commented on your particular posts, here on Deltoid, as far as I know, so what's your deal?
I have of course made general disparaging remarks about the poor standard of scientific understanding at the New Bog, but if this is your way of exacting retribution it is a bizarre non sequitur strategy for putting whatever your point is, across.
Happy to note that my publications were not in the field of climate science but in isotope geochemistry and hydrogeology. I never claimed they were. My point was that I know what it is to struggle with solving scientific problems with mathematical modeling etc. BTW I also have two patents - one a nice little earner. But that's all.
So have you too come along just to blow smoke out your ass and indulge in a bit of recreational ad hom-ing?
Bernard I think I was annoying Steve at Nova's, and he thought he could come her and expose me for my lack of radiative physics knowledge at my fingertips... thinking that I somehow would be aghast at being exposed in front of my mates at Deltoid. But sadly for Steve I rarely post here and tend to fully acknowledge that I have no particular technical expertise to boast of.. certainly not so an extent that showing i couldn't work through some random calc would cause me any concern at all.
I apologised a week or so ago for causing you to visit that site... now I must apologise for bringing it here:)
My main point stands though - being how do Steve's two questions fit in to a debate about deliberate misinterpretation of Pinker's words "it can pass". Answer- they don't.
You might want to check your keyboard - your 'a' button appears to be sticky.
Either that or you're a 12 year old school boy...
I've already given you my 'raw data'. If you can't figure out which equation I chose to use, I'm happy to tell you that too, but really, what is your point? I care bugger all for your interest in albedo - why did you bring me into this in the first place?
If you have an issue with another poster(s) here, why are you not taking it up with them?
Is his maths correct? Quite probably, otherwise he'd not have entered into this little game he's trying to play. Yes, these may be interesting undergrad questions on application of basic formulas in some meteorology or climate science course, but in reality, even if the figures are mathematically correct, what do the answers prove? Not a lot in the great scheme of things AGW. And certainly not something that is unknown by workers in this field.
Steve Short's repeated questions, which in fact were identical to his original questions, still made no reference to Tim's point about his question 1. Steve Short's questions also take no cognisance of the fact that though albedo changes due to cloud cover changes may (or may not exclusively) be going in one direction, albedo changes due to, for example, snow and ice cover changes (in all its forms) are going in the other direction.
Steve Short's question 2 makes no allowance for the fact that clouds can lead to both negative and positive effects on temperature. And depending on what types of cloud are formed, and when (e.g. day versus night), then the effects could well cancel over, say, a diurnal period (thus possibly ameliorating slightly any long-term effect based purely on the quoted percentage increase). Moreover, increased cloud cover goes hand in hand with increased relative humidity (t'other way around more likely), which, as pseudosceptics are wont often to relate, means the increased presence of that most potent GHG H2O vapour*. Also, whilst cloud cover may well have increased and its negative effect on radiative forcing marginally been more negative, the opposite will be true for, for example, CO2 and CH4 changes in the interim. And the increased presence of contrails, that human "manufactured" cloud form, from increased air traffic volumes will have what effect on radiative forcing? Minimal but positive wasn't it, someone?
(*Notwithstanding that small changes in relative humidity in dry areas could lead to increased cloud cover in those areas and ameliorate the increasing CO2 effect. Again known/appreciated by workers in the field.)
I am not a mathematician, nor am I a climate scientist. But if your expertise is all that it is cracked up to be, why aren't you publishing your stuff where it counts - on the pages of PNAS, Science, Nature, any number of climate-related journals etc.? Your problem is that you act as if you are some kind of expert in the field, but there is little, apart from your own pontificating here and on a few contrarian blogs, to prove it.
I found the web site of your employer anyway, and there appears to be little in the way to indicate that your calculations are going to change the course of science.
P. Lewis nails it above. I think most of us here know the game that you are trying to play - much the same as was Ian Plimer's game with George Monbiot. What is your grander point? Do you not think that climate scientists - you know, the one's doing the research the last time I looked - have not spent considerable time calculating the net effects of cloud cover on the planet's albedo? Has this not been factored into the climate models with respect to negative and positive feedbacks?
If you want to play the intellectual snob game then that is fine by me; I can give you all kinds of biologiucal indicators showing that the world is warming and warming very rapidly.
Lastly, I could find only 22 articles by you on the WOS with a grand total of 441 citations in your name. Where are the rest?
Steve short:
>*So, basically, in a nutshell, seems I can pose two very simple questions*
*If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.*â Thomas Pynchon (Gravity's Rainbow)
Short continues:
>*Sure some of it is relevant. But I don't really give a double damn how much wriggling around, sophistry, smoke blowing out your asses etc you might want to indulge yourself in.*
Steve you will of course now explain which is relevant and which is the other, or like the lawyer traits you dislike will you simply leave it as a general smear over everything and nothing in particular?
I notice you have [finished your mowing](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_takes_back_nice_wo…) but not yet rebutted Wild. Rather than addressing the implications of Wild you instead chose to hide your working calcs. Dear me, what would Climate Audit say? Answer: Probably nothing.
So go on Steve, ignore the problems with your question, you go on and publish your calcs and claims, we'll be here to read them.
Very good jakerman; raising the tone and injecting layers of irony into this 'debate'; GV is of course the definitive statement of meaningless erudition and consequent paranoic dread, a fitting metaphor for either the modern condition or AGW theory or both since AGW aims to supplant all other value.
As I said earlier Wild does not answer Pinker; the increase in SW at BOA is a fact and must have come from somewhere and, once and for all, fig 4 dealing with equivalent TOA decline and BOA increase in SW flux is not misleading because it deals with just the tropics; the tropics are where most of the energy comes and leaves the Earth; it is also where the mythical, lamented THS is predicted but declines to be; that there is an equivalence in TOA rate of decline of outgoing SW and BOA increasing SW seems, when matched with the indisputable decline in clouds, to provide a good explanation for temperature increases over the period. As for your observation that the period of 1983-2001 featured a small decrease in Surface SW between 1983-1993 and therefore a temperature signature cannot be correlated with SW; in fact the temp increase between 1983-1993 is 0.12C and between 1983-2001, 0.26C.
>Let me practice the lawyer sophistry that Steve Short claims to detest; let me prentend Wild's point was inconsistent with Pinker's. This of course will aide distraction from fact that the point highlighted from both Pinker and Wild is their agreement that it is an error to conflate Surface SSR with the (topropheric) forcing employed by the IPCC.
Another shorter cohers:
>*Let me show you how I calculate the warming from unmaking surpressed GHG forcing (from previous dimming). Confounding variables? What confounding variables?*
Another shorter cohers:
>*1993 = 1990 if it gives prefered results.*
Another shorter cohnite:
>*change in TOA global = change in TOA tropics*
Another cohers:
>*GV is of course the definitive statement of meaningless erudition and consequent paranoic dread, a fitting metaphor for the modern condition* of sophistry and bluster exemplyfied by excessive use and **abuse of acronyms.**
I wish my aide would read the Pinker paper and Monckton clarification; in the latter Pinker quotes the IPCC report:
"In addition, the satelliteobserved
increase in surface radiation noted by Pinker et al. (2005) occured primarily over
ocean, whereas the increase observed by Wild et al. (2005) was restricted to land stations"
In fact Pinker found that 'S' over land was decreasing at the same time it was increasing over the oceans; there was no land based increase in 'S' found by Pinker, a notable and profound difference with Wild. Pinker also says this:
"The CO2 âradiative forcingâ value that Mr. Christopher Monckton is quoting
refers to the impact on the Earthâs Radiative balance as described above. The numbers
that we quote in our paper represent the change in surface SW due to changes in the
atmosphere (clouds, water vapor, aerosols). These two numbers cannot be compared at
their face value. To the best of my understanding this is the source of the
misunderstanding."
In fact Monckton was not mixing and matching TOA and BOA flux but erroneously described cloud forcing as being only the top of cloud reflection of SW whereas, as Pinker later explains, it is Fnet (cloud) = FSW (cloud) + FLW (cloud). So there are 2 concepts running around here; TOA/BOA flux and cloud forcing; cloud forcing is negative as Steve has noted and this shows;
The relevance of TOA flux to BOA flux was dealt with by Pinker in the tropics [ and I have argued the pertinence of that above] and she correlated this with earthshine measurements for the SW period which showed "A steady decrease in Earth's reflectance from 1984 to 2000 was shown, with a strong drop during the 1990's. During 2001 to 2003...[there was] a reversal of the decline." Since, unlike Wild, Pinker found a strong 'S' increase over ocean with a small decline over land the aerosol dimming contribution must be smaller than the cloud contribution; that being the case the TOA/BOA flux connection is determined by cloud cover; as Pinker observes; "clouds are the major modulators of the solar radiation that reaches the surface."
>*In fact Pinker found that 'S' over land was decreasing at the same time it was increasing over the oceans; there was no land based increase in 'S' found by Pinker, a notable and profound difference with Wild.*
In the Wild quote he was summarising dozens of studies including Pinkerâs, you raise a red herring claim to distract from Monckton's error.
Ready for cohenite's next trick, here it is:
>*In fact Monckton was not mixing and matching TOA and BOA flux*
Is that so Cohenite?
Monckton:
>*I had kindly done the calculation on the basis that the change in surface radiance mentioned in the Pinker paper would be the same at top of atmosphere, from which a climate-sensitivity calculation using the UN's method follows. However, since Pinker insists that it is the surface radiance that her paper addresses, one must of course use the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation to evaluate the temperature change*
Anthony Cox and his Lawyer's sophistry.
Pinker points out that Monckton was conflating Surface Solar Radiation (S or SSR) with the IPCC measures of forcing, which are net change in forcing at the tropospuase. Pinker called Monckton on it and Wild's paper details the reasons this is in error.
Verballed; I specifically distinguished TOA/BOA and the cloud forcing mistake by Monckton; and I was talking about Pinker and Wild the dozens of other "summarised papers"; as to sophistry, the recognition of traits in others is most expertly done by those possessing those traits and the degree of recognition is in proportion to the degree of the trait possessed.
>*In fact Monckton was not mixing and matching TOA and BOA flux [coher's misrepresention [as demonstrated](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_43.php#comment-2333…)] but erroneously described cloud forcing as being only the top of cloud reflection of SW whereas, as Pinker later explains, it is Fnet (cloud) = FSW (cloud) + FLW (cloud).*
Cohers, offering up one error is not excuse for denying another of Monckton's errors.
>*the recognition of traits in others is most expertly done by those possessing those traits and the degree of recognition is in proportion to the degree of the trait possessed.*
You're now verballing Steve Short. But this is only half the story. Dealing with the cohers types who indulge in sophistry gives one experience in spotting it.
Cohers writes:
>*I was talking about Pinker and Wild the dozens of other "summarised papers"*
You might have been, but if you were, you were doing so to change the subject and distract from the Monckton errors. Cohers you pretened that Wild needed to answer Pinker yet the quotes re Monckton were in agreement. One pointed out Monckton's error (conflating Surface Solar Radiation with the IPCC measures of forcing) and Wild's quote details the reasons why that conflation is an error.
>*There you have it; the Pinker paper does not support the Wild conclusion about TOA/BOA flux incompatibility; imo.*
There you have "it", that is if "it" is empty unsupported opinion as a distraction, yes. And not a defense of Monckton's error, as called by Pinker (and Pinkers call explained by Wild). Yes that is what was thrown up by Cohenite in his screen of sophistry.
How well supported is cohenite's opinion? Well the Wild quotes don't even make a conclusion nor even a statement about "*TOA/BOA flux incompatibility*".
Pinker and Wild both point out the error in the BOA/Tropopause flux conflation.
Cohenite, an apt representative of Moncktion, seems immune to understanding the the points he and Monckton get wrong.
In fact Monckton was not mixing and matching TOA and BOA flux but erroneously described cloud forcing as being only the top of cloud reflection of SW whereas, as Pinker later explains, it is Fnet (cloud) = FSW (cloud) + FLW (cloud).
The paragraph immediately prior to this in your comment either refutes the claim that Monckton was referring to Fnet(cloud) as defined by Pinker or shows it to STILL be a serious error. If you don't see why, then perhaps you should consider giving up lawyering. If you *already* know why but said it anyway...well, I'll leave that up to individual readers to determine.
I'm flying in and out of remote mine sites in another country at present so am having great difficulty accessing the Net but here is a reply I've just sent off to a polite person who sent me a personal email (noting I don't hide behind an avatar name and my email address, web site and academic qualifications are freely accessible as Katherine pointed-out).
Dear Steve
I very much appreciated your analysis comparing surface solar irradiance with cloud cover over the period 1983-2001. I was trying to double-check your calculation, but haven't been able to locate all of the data and formulae you used. I'd be very grateful if you would find a few moments to point me in the right direction.
[2] I haven't been able to locate the source for the NASA cloud cover data you mention. Do you have a URL for this data?
[3] I also haven't located the source for the albedo formula, A = 0.250C + 0.134. Could you suggest a reference for this as well?
I hope you don't mind me quizzing you like this, and thank you very much in advance for your help.
Kindest regards,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Dear XXXXXXXXXXXX
To answer your questions:
(1) Yes I do mean Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl, 2009: Earths Global Energy Budget. As Iâm sure you know, total surface solar irradiance is quoted therein (Table 2b and Figure 1) as = net surface solar 161.2 + surface reflected 23.1 = 184.3 (noting the surface reflected will be included in the albedo-reflected). I had mistakenly quoted the average (238.9) of the Absorbed Solar Radiation (ASR; 239.4) and Outwards Longwave Radiation (238.5) i.e. 238.9 rather than the net surface solar. I will probably issue a correction to Benny when I can find a moment although this doesnât alter the overall gist of my argument at all as I was trying to show that the % change in total surface solar irradiancewhich Pinker measured more or less matched the change in % (1 â Albedo).
Note the long term mean cloud cover given therein is 66.38%
(3) The albedo stuff is very interesting. Here you will find data for albedo over the ISCCP-FD data period March 2000 â May 2004 which Trenberth et al., 2009 referred-to: http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
This shows that ISCCP-FD got albedos between around 99.6% and 100.0% of the long term average albedo over that period (but note the error bars). If the average albedo in this period is 0.2986 (=101.9/341.3) as Trenberth et al claim then the long term average albedo is about 0.2986/0.998 = 0.2992.
We can easily check the range of mean global cloud covers which applied over that March 2000 â March 2004. I blew up the plot at the NASA web page a bit and got about 65.1% around March 2000 and about 66.1 around May 2004. For a nominal long term albedo of 0.299 this enabled me to make a rough estimate of how one could vary albedo with cloud cover over relatively small variations in albedo and cloud cover.
Thus was derived the simple algorithm I used. It does not appear in the literature.
But I might add that provided one is dealing with small variations about the mean long term albedo of 0.299 and mean long term cloud cover of 66.38% it really doesnât matter much what simple algorithm one may come up with to fit those small variations.
In retrospect I possibly should have fixed the constant term (0.134) to 0.067 which Trenberth et al. identify as the surface component of SW albedo i.e. 23.1/341.3 = 0.067. Then the algorithm should have been Albedo (A) = 0.35C + 0.067 where C = cloud cover.
So let's do that and find out what happens.
For example, this would mean that in 1983; 1-A = 0.35x0.677+0.067 = 0.304 and
in 2001; 1-A = 0.35x0.644+0.067 = 0.292
Thus in 1983; 1 â A = 1 â 0.304 = 0.696
and in 2001; 1 â A = 1 â 0.292 = 0.708
Therefore, between 1983 and 2001, the known reduction in the Earthâs albedo A as measured by NASA would have increased effective surface solar irradiance (which partially warms the surface) by 200 x [(0.708 â 0.696)/(0.708 + 0.696)]% = 200 x (0.012/1.404)% = 1.7%
Note that there is only ~161 W/m^2 of SW heating the surface rather than the ~184 W/m^2 (23 W/m^2 being reflected) then 0.017 x 161 = 2.7 W/m^2 is actually the effective warming the surface. However 2.7 W/m^ = 1.5% of the 184 W/m^2 which is still very close to Pinkerâs 1.2%.
Apparently, in an attempt to show "balance" ABC's "the drum" website is going to have a week of contributions from the filth merchant spruiking side of the commentariat. -- people like Switzer, Moran, Jo Nova etc ...
On your marks ... flex those Deltoids ...
The ABC must at least allow for the possibility that beliefs are absurd or illusory.
Must it? Are we getting Why Creationism Is Real Week next?
From today's Australia:
Doubtless they do, but given that they are a publically funded organisation, one does wonder why they are allowing disinformationists like Switzer, Nova and Moran to practise their dark arts with ABC imprimatur.
An informed citizenry, not simply an opinionated one, is a prerequisite for a mature democracy.
Public opinion will decide the outcome of this debate and the politicians will feel the heat. Which is missing in NY at the moment, February 2010 now holds the snowiest record for any single month since March 1896.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/27/2832030.htm
Yes Fran, because people like Robyn Williams, Tim Flannery et al have been so spot on with their summations to date it would be sacrilegious to offer a different view. Especially as you say, as a public funded organisation. [horreur]
Says El Gordo "An informed citizenry, not simply an opinionated one, is a prerequisite for a mature democracy."
He then goes on to demonstrate how right that statement is, by suggesting that monthly snowfalls for NYC are some kind of meaningful data-point.
El Gordo, please get it through your head:
- Weather is not climate.
- Snow *in winter* does not mean it's getting colder.
- Everyone who has ever lived in a cold climate will tell you the snowiest days and the coldest days are *different days*.
- Increased snowfall is a predicted condition to occur in warming climate models. Increased heat leads to increased activity in the hydrosphere: more evapouration and precipitation.
- I just had a look at the monthly temps for New York this February. Looks like a normal February for daytime and nighttime temps. I lived there last year and those were the temps we were getting, minus the amazing levels of precipitation.
Interesting enough, New York's *precipitation* this month so far is double the historical average. A result perfectly consistent with predictions of a warmer, wetter climate.
Apparently, in an attempt to show "balance"...
Don'tcha love the "balance" doctrine?
They have to balance truth with lies, sense with nonsense, fact with fiction, science with psuedoscience.
Great!
You realise, Mercurius, that any attempt to communicate with el gordo can be rendered thusly:
"Apparently, in an attempt to show "balance"... Don'tcha love the "balance" doctrine?"
Almost as much as the one eyed lefty stuff that drips almost exclusively from "our ABC" that costs all Australians around a billion a year.
With the exception of counterpoint [doncha luv that name], an obscure radio program, give me one program that seriously discusses the conservative view.
It's affirmative action for the irrational.
Weather is micro-climate and if you could just suspend your prejudice for a minute you might get a glimpse of the big picture. Don't take your eyes off the ice core cycles.
Neville Nicholls from Monash has told an online forum that this is the hottest year since 1979, when the first satellite went up. So the Express vilify him for telling the truth, without questioning the discrepancy.
A negative AO is the cause of the coldest winter in the UK since 1979.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index…
This has been Scotland's coldest winter on record and the storms resemble those taking a similar southern track that are affecting the eastern US.
So the logical contradictions, demonstrable ignorance, inconsistencies, fantasies, lies and deception will have to be teased out to find the truth.
spangled drongo ... you are on the money in identifying climate change denialism with the "conservative" political views because it has little to do with science.
Why do the denialists persist with their belief that AGW precludes weather.
MikeH,
Calling conservatives climate change deniers is standard pathetic lefty delusion. Are you saying that alarmist "Hockey Stick Science" is more valid?
In case you are so naive you don't see it there are two sides to this debate and "Our Beaut ABC" only puts out one of them.
>*An informed citizenry, not simply an opinionated one, is a prerequisite for a mature democracy.*
A fine sentiment el gordo. And the best argument against the feeble lack of regulation that have produced the current oligarchical media consolidation.
Democracy indeed needs nurturing and protection.
>*Apparently, in an attempt to show "balance"... Don'tcha love the "balance" doctrine?*
The balance doctrine has been used by consolidated media owners to, a significant degree, sideline debate on any issue they don't want attention on, but throw as much contention as a PR machine can muster at the issues they want to challenge.
Which is why a diverse media (diverse business and funding models) and diverse ownership are vital for democracy.
But those ideologically in love with Bolt only see the ABC as the problem, they are blind to bigger issue.
>*They have to balance truth with lies, sense with nonsense, fact with fiction, science with psuedoscience.*
That combined with my [last post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_43.php#comment-2307…), is damning of reliance on this doctrine for fairness.
If Murdoch or his Jacks want to challenge an issue (an issue mind you, that others have sweat blood to bring to public attention), then it gets equal weight under the balance doctrine, never mind matter how unbalance the supporting evidence on either side.
But if Murdoch or his Jacks don't want an issue to gain traction (i.e. Media consolidation and regulation reform), then we hear crickets chirping or should I say we read of a celebrity scandal, or the new weight loss fad sweeping the world.
More SwiftHack (sort-of-)news:
The FOI2009.zip file contain a number of references to a certain CRU server which is still up and running, and running an old (read: potentially vulnerable) version of a certain Internet service software.
#6 el gordo "Public opinion will decide the outcome of this debate..."
God help us if that is how we move forward with science...cut to the 4th century BC ..hands up who thinks the earth is round... oh well, out voted, looks like its flat after all....
El Gordo #13
'Weather is micro-climate...'
And with that one clause you have demonstrated from whence all your misconceptions come.
Weather is the result of micro-climate as we in the UK know only too well.
There is a common saying over here, 'we don't have a climate we have weather'.
Can you explain why that statement has a grain of truth?
"Weather is micro-climate"
and a single number is micro-statistics!
The CRU says the media reporting that the ICO had determined that the CRU had violated the FOIA is apparently untrue.
They've published correspondence with the ICO at the link given above.
Oh dear!
"The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change"
From the Institute of Physics but, hey, what do they know, I mean 'physics' - heh! - they probably all work for Big Oil!
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/mem…
Physics. Duh(ff).
Uh, [no](http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/ICOcorresponden…). But nice work on knowing physics. Thumbs up!
David Duff:
> From the Institute of Physics but, hey, what do they know, I mean 'physics' - heh! - they probably all work for Big Oil!
I suspect you may actually be more correct than you realize, Duff.
You see, usually when an organization calls itself the "Institute of X" or the "X Institute" without actually being a research or teaching institution, I start to get really suspicious. And so I did get really suspicious.
Apparently the IOP has a "Corporate Affiliates Network (CAN)" programme, but somehow its motives of promoting physics are so obviously pure that it simply can't divulge the names of its corporate affiliates.
Given the IOP's love of openness and transparency and all things holy, I wonder what exactly they're trying to hide? :)
It's affirmative action for the irrational.
You officially win the Internet.
Welcome to another episode of "The Jakerman Zone", where distortions are used to claim distortion, questions are questioned rather than answered, and mice are used to explain there is no difference when referring to AGW vs GW.....all in one continuous loop.
First things first....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y
In today's episode, we continue the loop, recently re-spliced by Jakerman at "The Economists Calls A Lie a Lie" #46.
Here, a previously unanswered question is linked once again, only to be unanswered, once again.
The question:
"What does the article say about areas along the Atlantic....are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?"
Here' The Jakerman Zone's non-answer, a link looping back to the article:
"For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur."
Of course, the real world answer would be "they don't know", but this isn't the real world....this is the Jakerman Zone, and it is a continuous loop.
In this world, assumptions are based on words that aren't written, prizes are given for accomplishments unrelated to the prize, the future is fact, predictions are reality, uncertainty is certain, most-likely is will, answers are questions, cold is a result of warm, distortions are used to prove distortion, openness is closed, bias is a one way street, politics are one sided, the wealthy are evil, a growing population proves endangerment, mistakes are irrelevant, a non scientist is the scienctists mentor, exaggerations are underestimates, arrogance rules, non scientists are part of the consensus of scientists, logic is illogical, flawed data is reliable, lost data is insignificant, exhaling is polluting, straw is everywhere and man made mice are the same as mice.
Stay tuned for the next exiting continuous loop of TheJakermanZoneTheJakermanZoneTheJakermanZoneTheJakerman Zone.....
"Public opinion will decide the outcome of this debate..."
"Down with astronomical orthodoxy! Give us Hörbiger!"
Er, well, 'E' for Effort, Stepanovich, but what has British Nuclear Fuels being a sponsor of the Institute of Physics have to with its opinion on scientific behaviour at CRU? Without giving the matter too much thought, I would have that that BNF would have been a supporter of AGW attacks on all that nasty CO2.
Shorter Betula:
> the wealthy are evil,
Indeed. How dare anyone even suggest that wealthy people may be evil! Have you ever wondered about where your weekly or monthly pay cheque comes from? Wealthy people, that's who! Wealthy people! Yet you ungrateful plebs are always trying to bite the hand that feeds you. How dare you! Without wealthy people, you are nothing! Nothing! Do you hear that? Nothing!
Ever wondered how George Washington was able to found a totally new nation? It's because he was wealthy! Do you know why the US was able to win WWII? Yeah, the soldiers sure fought hard, but think about this -- all the courage of the soldiers would be nothing if rich people weren't paying taxes to support the war effort! Therefore, credit for winning WWII must go to the rich people!
Whoopsy Betula,
You again attempt to hide the meaning of your self projected "Jakerman Zone" behind a word salad. I can once again help [provide the clarity from which you try to hide](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2277…).
Getting so caught up in his lie that Betula began arguing against himself is what has plagued Betula so.
Betula, you really do behave as though you believe confusion is your friend. This suggests you still havn't learned what it was that left you so caught out.
David Duff:
> what has British Nuclear Fuels being a sponsor of the Institute of Physics have to with its opinion on scientific behaviour at CRU?
It's not about BNFL specifically, but the possibility that the IOP may be funded by other sponsors which have a vested interest in pushing this "UEA violated FOI" meme.
So again, given the IOP's professed love of openness and transparency, why aren't they divulging their list of corporate affiliates?
Oh, I see, smear by implication. Yes, very good. Also, of course, it diverts attention away from their statement. A statement made, I gather, on behalf of their 36,000 members. Still, as I say, physicists, not proper scientists like climate scientists.
@David Duff
For the record, I don't particularly agree with trying to discredit IOP as a source based on their associations - I'd rather attack the substance of what they say.
And what they say is somewhat interesting - for starters, you do know that by saying "prima facie" they can completely back away from this stance later once the evidence is actually analysed?
Secondly, they appear to have taken the media line of what the OIC said, in contrast to what the OIC has explicitly stated is their position, namely that the only evidence is "prima facie" at the moment, yet the IOP say:
> The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner.
Which is not true (yet, anyway). Thirdly, the OIC say that any issue concerns *private emails* not *data*. Yet, the IOP say:
> Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.
Given that the IOP has misunderstood these two major points, I think the rest of the statement overreaches in several places. They have explicitly ascribed the withholding of data in contravention of FOI legislation to a desire to prevent their conclusions from being questioned - yet the OIC has only identified emails, not data as being at issue.
Help!!!
I was wondering if someone could provide some info on what seems to be the latest denialist trend -
climate science = post normal science therefore it is not real science at all.
this is propogated by none other than Delingpole...(http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100027748/the-real-re…)
it is getting quite a bit of tweet traction today...
thanks in advance
Liz
You don't seem to have read the comment immediately before yours which is at odds with most of what is claimed by the IOP.
I couldn't find where James Delingpole provides evidence that the climate science is practicing "Post-Normal-Science". The most strikingly post-normal part of the current state of affairs is the post-normal-skeptics. The only advocate for Post-Normal-Science in the story was a bloke [given a platform on WUWT](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/climategate-plausibility-and-the-…)!
I reckon James Delingpole was showing us some Post-Normal-Skepticism [with this](http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100027748/the-real-re…):
>*In the last decade there has been a paradigm shift over AGW. Or rather there would have been, had not a powerful and unscrupulous cabal in the scientific community refused to allow science to progress in the normal way. The theory that man-made carbon-dioxide emissions cause global temperatures inexorably to increase went belly-up in 1998 when, despite all the predictions of the warmistsâ sophisticated computer models, global mean temperatures stubbornly ceased to rise (and havenât risen since).*
Surreal.
Jakerman, what I think we're dealing with here is Post Reality Science.
I think the real problem may be Post-Normal-journalism and Post-Normal-commentary by those with a Post-Normal-understanding of science.
Liz,
The concept of "post normal science" was developed by philospher of science Jerome Ravetz. It is essentially a relativist philosphy i.e. truth is in the eye of the beholder. It advocates a risk management approach to science i.e. get all the different views together (as they are all valid) and synthesise a policy approach.
In my opinion there is little merit in Ravetz's "new age" view of the scientific method.
Anthony Watts who runs the denier blog WUWT and is not the sharpest pencil in the pack believed that PNS was advocating giving the deniers a seat at the science table and so ran an article by Ravetz. It was initially well received by the WUWT mob until someone pointed out that Ravetz came from a left-wing family (he was born in 1929) and was shock horror possibly even a Marxist.
Ravetz's views are as far from Marxism as Richard Dawkin's views are from religion but once the denier's identified him as a false friend the dissing started.
Now Delingpole is attempting to associate Ravetz's views with AGW.
The basis for this is a conciliatory article that Mike Hulme from UEA CRU wrote in the Guardian in 2007 in which he invoked PNS suggesting that policy decisions re AGW should include all the stakeholders. Hopefully Hulme now realises that there is no likelihood of compromise with the AGW deniers. They are not skeptical about the science, they deny it altogether.
The post-normal science thing has been heavily plugged on Paul Dennis' new blog, [harmonic oscillator](http://harmonicoscillator.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/jerome-ravetz-and-po…).
I posted there for a bit around the topic, broadly about the attempt by its proponents to grab the middle ground in the debate, but gave up when it became clear no one was listening to a word of dissent and that Dennis himself promoted swiftboaters and political idealogues over genuine discussion. I was disappointed, because I had genuine hopes over our early exchanges.
When [Roy Spencer](http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/january-2010-uah-global-temperature…) reports
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record.
The tropics and Northern and Southern Hemispheres were all well above normal, especially the tropics where El Nino conditions persist. Note the global-average warmth is approaching the warmth reached during the 1997-98 El Nino, which peaked in February April of 1998.
you can be certain that Delingpole and his fellow deniers are going to be indulging in a lot of misdirection. I am sure that the message has been despatched to the denialosphere - do not mention the temperature record.
There's a lot of us who are sceptical about the science. Dr Graham-Cumming, a mathematician in London, claims the Australian weather data appears to have been misused or discarded. (The story in today's SMH)
One degree difference doesn't seem like much, but this computer geek thinks its a big deal.
On the subject of the IOP submission, which included the help of its Energy Sub-group, there were climate sceptics involved in running this Sub-group in the recent past, and they may well still be involved or influencing this group.
Terri Jackson, who is the founder of the Energy Sub-group has occasionally written sceptic posts in local papers:
[Global Cooling Article](http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/pouring-cold-water-o…)
[It's the Sun Letter]
(http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/climate-change-debate…)
[Man is not Responsible for Global Warming](http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/sammyrsquos-right-man…)
[Signs of Global Cooling Letter](http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/scientists-see-signs-…)
Note in the last post Peter F. Gill shows up to support Terri Jackson's view. Peter F. Gill is a former chairman of the IOP Energy Sub-group.
More evidence of their views can be found in the comments thread of this story in the [Times Higher Education Supplement](http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=407763)
If people who regard the NIPCC events as scientific conferences were involved in the writing of this submission then the IoP needs to make a quick retraction.
David Duff:
> Oh, I see, smear by implication. Yes, very good.
Hello? Hello? You started by trying to pull a 'proof by implication', when you said that because the group calls itself the "Institute of Physics" therefore they're obviously reputable and have a point. I'm merely throwing the same type of 'argument' back at yourself.
If you want to pull a 'proof by implication', you can't complain when others pull a 'smear by implication', can you?
(Not that I particularly like to do this; like Dave, I prefer attacking the IOP statement based on its lack of substance. But if you want to play silly games, well then, be careful what you wish for.)
el gordo:
> Dr Graham-Cumming, a mathematician in London, claims the Australian weather data appears to have been misused or discarded. (The story in today's SMH)
Shorter el gordo:
Argument by authority is very wrong, except when the authority agrees with me.
@David Duff
Of course, since you are so impressed by the IOP's take on this because of their sterling credentials, no doubt the list of respected scientific institutions that have affirmed the science of climate change impresses you so much you completely accept their view nowadays.
No? Or like el gordo, is argument from authority only valid if you agree with that authority?
Of course not.
An entity may ONLY be an authority if they are in agreement in the first place!
;-)
From the SMH today
Dr Graham-Cumming was at pains to point out that errors made by the office do not alter the big picture on climate change.
"It does not change the scientific story, and that is that the world is getting hotter" he said.
From the Times Feb 16
When all of the errors identified were corrected, the temperature trend remained well within the 95 per cent confidence range of the original plot, meaning that the difference would not be considered scientifically significant. There was also no suggestion that the errors had led to an exaggeration of the amount of warming
Not quite the situation you attempt to convey el pinocchio.
Surprise - el gordo only tells half the story.
Try reading the full article that el gordo did not link to, which includes:
He also says, in a display of deep misunderstanding of the import of the corrections:
Er, no. People have pointed out that even if (say) a heavy chunk of the US weather stations were influenced by "bad siting" or UHI issues, the necessary correction to the global trend would be tiny.
But at least the story gave el gordo a little thrill.
Excellent Op Ed in the NYT.
Note the opening:
This alone blows most denialists' minds. Somehow they think people who think the science is valid want to see serious problems due to global warming.
Then there's the claim that:
Interesting, given that a common denialist tactic is to throw up one's hands and declare that nothing can be done because China and India won't join in. It's fate, you see, and there's nothing that can be done - except business as usual.
The author really hits hard on the last page - well worth some contemplation.
But I'm sure none of it is really to be taken seriously, because the author is rotund, or in good Western capitalist tradition is backing his assessment of the state of the world with his money and business (and inconveniently donating his profits from these ventures to certain charitable causes)...
Recent satellite data indicate a spike in temperatures, which is not what I expected. A post by Roy Spencer over at Watts is talking about spurious warming closer to home.
'It is increasingly apparent that we do not even know how much the world has warmed in recent decades, let alone the reason(s) why. It seems to me we are back to square one.'
Lotharsson #53 that Al Gore article in the NYT is so well written it'll be causing conniptions everywhere amongst the delusionals. Nice work Mr Gore.
They're half way there. They admit they know nothing.
Maybe they could try asking some climate scientists?
It's official! It can now be scientifically proven that the heavy snow in the Northeast is without doubt caused by Global Warming....
This from Al Gores article linked @53....
"yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere â thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States"
But wait, this just in.... we have another official finding! "We can't control nature"! It's finally been proven
beyond a reasonable doubt....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsc8pZu0-qQ&feature=player_embedded
Well, the Energy subgroup at IoP apparently had a seminar with Zbigniew Jaworowski in Oct 2008.
And here is Lindzen in June 2007.
They don't seem to have been very active in 2009.
It's been official for a very long time, Betula. Why don't you know this? I thought you were all about educating yourself? Give Spencer Weart's Discovery of Global Warming a try (online and free).
P.S. and you might learn why saying "proven scientifically" marks you as scientifically illiterate too.
@Lars Karlsson:
And Piers Corbyn in 2005: [http://www.iop.org/activity/groups/subject/Energy/Group_events/page_693…]
And in this newsletter, Peter Gill has some odd comments (parroting Jaworowski):
[http://www.iop.org/activity/groups/subject/Energy/Newsletter/file_26513…]
But later on giving a quite reasonable review of a Jim Hansen talk.
Darn, f'ed up the first link. Trying again:
Spot on Spangled Drongo (#7).
Funny how we don't hear anything from the 'Prince of Precaution' Tim Flannery these days. Especially about such things he seemed to be championing Ad nauseam like the great crisis of the Murray/Darling River system, as just one example. Word has it that this 'crisis' is averted again - All filling up with 'climate change' water I hear ?! :-)
el gordo:
>An informed citizenry, not simply an opinionated one, is a prerequisite for a mature democracy.
That is fine for determining policy, as long as citizens are informed accurately.
el gordo:
>Public opinion will decide the outcome of this debate and the politicians will feel the heat.
What debate?
They can't decide any scientific debate. There is only one un-debatable answer to the climate issue, the correct one is found through science, that's what the processes are for.
They can decide the policy that comes from the resulting science.
I agree, Paul, but people will vote according to their perceptions. Why do the scientists say this is the hottest year ever when the NH landmass is freezing?
As long as the AO remains negative then this Spring will be backward. The electorate will need a lot of convincing that global warming is real, once the politicians begin stirring the pot.
el gordo, the task should never be to convince the electorate that global warming is real. The science is the science. The task should be to convince the electorate of the appropriate policy response.
Andrew
Trouble is, the science lacks credibility. The CSIRO and BoM collaborated to find a proven link between rising levels of greenhouse gases and a decline in rainfall.
'In the minds of a lot of people the rainfall we had in the 1950's, 60's and 70's was a benchmark. A lot of our water and agriculture planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.'
Dr Bertrand Timbal Aug 16, 2009
They are wrong, of course, there is no connection.
More taking the piss Gordo?
Sadly, no.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/study-links-drought-wi…
I am interested in Neville Nicholls' comment on the subtropical ridge becoming more intense and moving south.
Daniel Andrews....
"It's been official for a very long time, Betula."
Daniel, you're telling me it's been official for a long time that this years snowy winter in the northeast is due to Global Warming, so I have a few questions...
How was it official before all the snow fell?
Exactly when did it become official?
Can you show me a peer reviewed paper showing that the snowy winter in the Northeast is due to Global Warming?
Is the snow an indicater of a changing climate or is it just weather?
If the snow in the Northeast is a direct result of Global Warming, what percent of that warming is due to man?
Was Obama wrong when he said we can't control Nature?
Since less snow in the Northeast would be consistent with Global Warming, is the current heavy snow amount consistent with Global Warming? Example:
"Records show that spring is arriving sooner,
summers are growing hotter, and winters are becoming warmer and less snowy. These changes are consistent with global warming."
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/The-Changing-Nort…
Here in the Northeast, should we prepare for a warmer climate, or a colder climate?
If you owned a ski area, would you sell now while the getting is good, or hang on for good times ahead?
Willis Eschenbach estimates climate sensitivity over at Watts Up
He comes up with a sensitivity of 0.05 deg C
This is a pretty horrible analysis, even for E.
Man made CO2 induced global warming is a crock.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ScreenShotLindzen1.jpg
Chris 81 (on another thread where I might get censored),
In general, isn't it particularly damning when the data from a peer reviewed study quite clearly contradicts the conclusions of the author?
For all those alarmists who endlessly lie about âunprecedented temperaturesâ, letâs examine some directly cited peer reviewed data published on NOAAâs web site and dropped directly into an Xcel spreadsheet:
1) At Vostok, Atarctica, we see -- just in the last 10,000 years -- 10 periods which were warmer than today. What caused those warming trends?
2) At the GISP2 site on the Greenland ice sheet, we see -- just in the last 10,000 years -- 12 periods which were warmer than today. And, that is based upon the likely FALSE assumption that the MWP was COOLER than today. What caused those warming trends?
Oh, and, referring again to those previous two graphs, how do you account for the on-going uninterrupted 10,000 year cooling trend in both the Arctic and the Antarctic? Donât we CLEARLY see in both of those graphs that there is nothing even remotely unusual about the latest warming?
The citation links and more details are found here and here.
jakerman | March 1, 2010 9:04 PM,
Since our ungracious host deleted -- without warning -- my previous comment in the thread linked to in the salutation, I will repost it here:
jakerman | March 1, 2010 7:52 PM,
1) In your first point, you appear confused as to whether the GISP2 site lies within the Arctic Circle. Must I educate you on the location of the Arctic Circle and/or the GISP2 site?
2) The GISP2 temperature data presented by NOAA does not define exactly what year âpresentâ refers to. It does, however, make abundantly clear that the most recent temperature data point was about 95.1409 years before âpresentâ.
Since the data were originally published in 1997, one would assume that âpresentâ refers to 1997. That would place the first temperature data point at roughly 1902.
In appending the warming of the last 100 years indicated by Box, et al, I generously assumed the GISP2 site had warmed as much as the Box, et al data indicated. Alarmists have recently claimed that the Arctic is warmer than it has been in 2,000 years. My appended data is in agreement with that assertion.
It appears we do not have temperature records from the GISP2 site from the last 100 years (or even current temperature data). So, as far as I can tell, this is the best approximation available. In so far as we do have current temperature records from Vostok, that chart lacks the small ambiguity of the GISP2 chart.
3) Again, you appear quite confused. Your chart does not present GISP2 global temperature data there is no such thing.
4) In my view, ice core data is -- by far -- the most credible temperature proxy. Your global reconstruction -- using a variety of temperature proxies of varying credibility -- covers only 20% (2,000 years) of the 10,000 year period I requested. That last time I checked 20% was a failing grade even in todayâs universities.
5) Since you and your ilk seem to prefer to cherry pick the last 2,000 years of temperature data, you might find the 2,000 year trend at Vostok just a tad âinconvenientâ.
Click here for direct links to the cited data sources.
Oopsie!!!
Donât you just hate it when the data are made available for public inspection?
NEXT???
P.S.) Between the petulance of our host and this silly rule putting all posts with more than a few links into moderation, I may loose interest at this point. Come to my site. I moderate all comments -- mostly so I can more easily find them and respond to them. I rarely decline to publish comments. The last comment I declined to publish was a two word comment prominently including the âF Wordâ.
SBVOR zooms in on [this data](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html) from Richard Alley, and reckon's he's debunked AGW.
His big call is that 10 or 12 times Greenland and Antarctica have been hotter than recent times. The obvious flaw being hes only got two sites which will inevitably have more variance than the variation moderated by the entire planet.
Compare [Alley's GISP2](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif) data [with Vostok](http://i47.tinypic.com/4rx8pc.jpg). I've marked the MWP and LIA.
Nothing dramatic there. And the GISP2 data ends 90 years ago so leaves out most of the AGW signal.
Basically both sets of data support global temperature reconstructions on the MWP, being a little warm in places but not globally compared to current global anomallies.
The Eemian was sharper and hotter. Any chance of seeing further back?
>*Since you and your ilk seem to prefer to cherry pick the last 2,000 years of temperature data, you might find the 2,000 year trend at Vostok just a tad âinconvenientâ.*
Why, there is nothing contradictory in that data? Notice the size of the MWP. Notice how the trends in Vostock and GISP2 are oppsite.
Re you bold claims I assume you are aware that variation is larger in small resolution, compared to the moderation of global variance. Hence comparing the variance at one site to the variance of the globle is not impressive.
What exactly do you think this data contradicts?
SB may perfer [this resolution](http://i47.tinypic.com/50nzt4.jpg) an clarify why he beleives it contradicts AGW.
In my never-ending efforts to keep Mr. Stepanovich busy squirreling away for mud to sling I offered him (see above -somewhere) The Institute of Physics.
Today I can provide not only The Royal Institute of Chemistry but The Royal Statistical Society for absolutely no extra charge. (I stress the Royal because this is an Aussie site and they're always frightfully impressed with that sort of thing!)
They are both, in their very diffident, British way putting the boot into Dr. Phil "standard practice" Jones. I am just amazed that our pugnacious host, such a stickler for Truth, has not laced up his boots yet!
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/mem…
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/mem…
Over at Watts - Mosher is taking the gloves off.
'What the record shows is that Jones had no standard scientific practice of sharing or not sharing data. He had no consistent practice of abiding by or violating confidentiality agreements. He had his chance to sit before Parliament and come clean about the record. He had an opportunity to explain exactly why he took these various contradictory actions over the course of years. Instead he played with the truth again. Enough.'
David Duff#79 ... Sorry but what's your point from this link?
Several points:
SBVOR is clearly not a scientist, and has no pedigree in any of the fields he/she covers. Otherwise this individual would not write such utter balderdash as claiming that the planet is going through a "C02 famine". I cringe when I read this kind of comic-level book analysis. Like other apparently scientific illiterate pundits, SBVOR is unable to think in terms of temporal scales, and can only juxtapose conditions in pre-Mesozoic times with the present day, without alluding to the time lags between causes and effects. In other words, give that the planet's climate control system is largely deterministic, differences in such parameters as ambient C02 concentrations and mean global surface temperatures would naturtally change at rates well exceeding a human generation (more like dozens of generations) unless there was some very profound short-term forcing agent. We are talking about changes in atmospheric C02 that are on temporal scales probably unprecedented in the planet's history. What determines the ability of complex adaptive systems to adapt to changes in the environment is thus largely the property of their evolutionary history. This history is not measured in decades or even centuries but over many thousands of years. A doubling of atmospheric C02, and attendant effects on climate, would greatly disrupt trophic networks, undermining vital ecologicval interactions that maintain the stability of these sytems over various spatial and temporal scales. I am sure that right wing pundits like SBVOR have no clue how complex adaptive systems and their components function, but in promoting their liberatarian/populist views they try to give the impression to the lay readers out there that they have a good grasp of the science. For you readers out there who want to know the basics, take it from a scientist: THEY DO NOT.
As one can see by giving SBVORs website a cursory scan, he/she is just another person twisting science to promote a political agenda on the far right. Clive Hamilton nails the agendas of these people in his recent articles. This is one of the pitfalls of the internet: anyone can set up a webblog site and attempt to convince a general audience that they know the 'facts'. Like many other sites (see SBVORs links as well), they do not have the foggiest idea what they are talking about. They are unable to link climate with landscape level ecological effects. They do not understand the importance of scale. They are driven for the most part, by a populist conservative agenda that wishes to eviscerate the role of the government in the economy in the pursuit of private profit.
Andrew @81:
"The RSS [Royal Statistical Society] believes that the debate on global warming is best served by having the models used and the data on which they are based in the public domain."
ââ¦the benefits of scientific data being made available and thus open to scrutiny outweigh the perceived risks. To this end, scientific information should be made available on request as outlined in the Freedom of Information Act.â [The Royal Institute of Chemistry]
Ah, yes, and I suspect most of us agree.
It should be noted that there are a number of valid grounds for which an FOIA request can be denied, and presumably these societies concur.
It is further noted that the ICO has clarified that no breach of the FOI has yet been determined, despite press coverage to the contrary, and that the FOI request of concern was NOT for data but for e-mails.
So we can provisionally conclude that these bodies agree that the FOI data requests were rightfully denied...?
Jeff Harvey | March 2, 2010 5:47 AM sez:
âSBVOR is clearly not a scientist, and has no pedigree in any of the fields he/she covers.â
Actually, I am a scientist. In point of fact, I am a trained Environmental Scientist.
Lambert is the one who -- just like the Chairman of the IPCC -- has zippo academic background in any branch of science (computer science does not count).
And, you -- sir -- are a blatant propagandist, just like Lambert.
Click here for some basic climate change science.
For Jakerman and all others making the cherry-picking argument about my Vostok and GISP2 data,
In order to put current temperatures into proper perspective, the MINIMUM time frame to examine is 10,000 years -- roughly the period of the Holocene.
The strongly preferred time frame is 140,000 years -- so as to compare the current interglacial warming period against the previous interglacial warming period.
Better than that is 423,000 to 600,000 years so as to compare at least the last 4 interglacial warming periods against the current interglacial warming period.
I have provided you with the best data I can find which meet these criteria. If you have better data, letâs see it.
In short:
Put up or shut up!
SBVOR,
what do you think of EG Beck's work on chemical-method measured CO2, and its implications for climate science? An example is found on this page:
Yep... I'm calling bullshit on this one.
Especially if he reckons that he's an environmental scientist, and doesn't know who Jeff Harvey is, or even have the wherewithal to use scientific resources to track Jeff and his publication list down.
Heck, even Google would help him out if he bothered to do some basic searching.
Yeah, "scientist" indeed...
SBVOR, a real "environmental scientist" wouldn't say that they were a "trained Environmental Scientist". That's a blanket term for many different disciplines, and anyone working in an environmental field would be much more specific about what they actually did. They also wouldn't use the stilted, pompous, capitalised phraseology that you used - unless they were a puffed-up numpty techie* with a 1-year certificate in holding surveying staffs or screwing tops on sampling jars.
Oh, and your complete lack of a grasp of science tends to give you away too...
(*Apologies to all hard-working techies who actually are good at their work, and who don't imagine that they're somehow in line for a Nobel for doing their jobs).
SBV I repeat,
What exactly do you think this data contradicts in AGW?
Isn't that your key claim, that you've smashed AGW with this data? If it is you should be able to explain how.
1) The musings of Bernard J. | March 2, 2010 5:42 PM & Jeff Harvey | March 2, 2010 5:47 AM strike me as the sort of pettiness which rightly embarrassed the CRU Hockey team when it was made available for all to see.
What is particularly striking is that these two openly and knowingly present their pettiness for the entire world to see.
2) For the record, my university offered a graduate program in Environmental Science. So, if you have a problem with that term, take it up with the university of old.
3) A semi-famous State Climatologist once opined that âthose who have the science on their side argue the science, those who do not have the science on their side attack the messengerâ.
So, gentlemen, shall we argue the science? Or shall we resume the playground antics?
Just for the record, anybody who addresses me by anything other than SBVOR will not likely get a response -- only because, as a time management issue, I search the comments for that moniker and only that moniker.
I did happen to spot Jakerman's latest query (March 2, 2010 6:19 PM) and deemed it unworthy of a response. My post speaks for itself and needs no further explanation.
>SBV I repeat, What exactly do you think this data contradicts in AGW? Isn't that your key claim, that you've smashed AGW with this data? If it is you should be able to explain how.
SBV responds:
>*I [...] deemed [Jakerman's question] unworthy of a response. My post speaks for itself and needs no further explanation.*
To re-cap: SB is flashing charts around claiming they disprove AGW, but when asked directly and simply how they contradict AGW, SB is unwilling to clarify how or why the data do so.
Quiet Jakerman, you have been deemed unworthy!
On rare occasions, when a troll lies, I will respond to the troll. Such is the case with Jakerman.
Jakerman lies when he asserts that âSB is flashing charts around claiming they disprove AGWâ
Quoting my summary (with emphasis added):
âThe following is a brief summary of the directly cited peer reviewed science which best refutes the hysteria surrounding Man Made Global Warming.â
Quoting the summary contained in my more expansive post (with emphasis added):
âThe climate is changing. It always has and always will.
Human activity has probably caused a tiny amount of beneficial warming.
There is nothing even remotely unusual about current temperatures.
Burning hydrocarbons as fuel will never cause catastrophic climate change.
Mother Nature is guaranteed to cause catastrophic climate change.
1,000 foot tall glaciers will probably scrape New York City off the map.
That will happen during the next glaciation -- in about 50,000 years.â
What I refute is AGW hysteria -- including gross exaggerations of likely impacts as well as utterly unsubstantiated claims as to what portion of recent warming is due to AGW -- a position I share with 76% of meteorologists. I do not refute AGW itself.
Future lies -- if any -- from Jakerman will not likely garner a reply. So, fair minded persons will take them with a grain of salt.
SBVOR:
WTF is the university of "old"?
BTW, SBVOR sounds like some sort of disease organism.
>*âthose who have the science on their side argue the science, those who do not have the science on their side attack the messenger **[as unworthy?]**â.*
Let's.
You can [start here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame…), and answer the questions that no other denialist infesting Deltoid has been able to, using science.
To these questions I would add that you present your best evidence that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, or if you accept that it is, that its forcing is significantly less than the range given by the IPCC. And if you are going to argue that CO2 is not increasing in the atmosphere, show us your best piece of evidence for this too - and if you're going to claim that humans aren't responsible for any increase... well, once again, give us your best evidence.
And if you fall back to the "OK, it's going to warm after all, but warming's good" fallacy, then please, please entertain the ecologists (and others) here and explain to us, using science, why this is so.
Yes. Let's argue the science.
Bernard J. | March 2, 2010 10:10 PM,
If you are asking me if the climate is changing, my answer is found right here (along with fully substantiated answers to all your other equally grade school level questions).
Lambert & sycophants,
I grow weary of playing Lambertâs childish games.
1) All my comments, regardless of the number of links, are being subjected to moderation. As far as I can tell, nobody else is. Unacceptable!
2) I should know by Wednesday, 3/3/10 whether Lambert has repeatedly censored my fully substantiated and entirely reasonable response to Stu | March 2, 2010 2:58 PM. Utterly intolerable!
If my response to Stu is censored, I may create a post on my blog wherein I offer my response.
What is certain is that I will not continue to participate on this -- by design -- unlevel playing field. Last comment, SBVOR out!
Let the propaganda resume.
Chip Knappenberger's thinks only a third of the warming in the 20th Century was due to human GHG emissions.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
SBVOR:
SBV,
Am I [a troll](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_43.php#comment-2317…) in your eyes for [asking you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_43.php#comment-2317…):
>SBV I repeat, What exactly do you think this data contradicts in AGW? Isn't that your key claim, that you've smashed AGW with this data? If it is you should be able to explain how.
or am I lying for stating:
>SB is flashing charts around claiming they disprove AGW, but when asked directly and simply how they contradict AGW, SB is unwilling to clarify how or why the data do so.
Would you answer my question if I reworded my summary to:
*SB is flashing charts around claiming they disprove **the IPCCs core statements on** AGW, but when asked directly and simply how they contradict the **IPCC's core statements on** AGW, SB is unwilling to clarify how or why the data do so.*
If you think I've been unfair I will make this clarification, but will you back your wild claims with the explanation required. You seem very determined to avoid doing so. Or perhaps you need to clarify your wild claims, maybe you do not dispute the IPCCs core statements and I have completely misinterpreted your wild comments.
Either way your further explanation is need if you are to persist with your current wild claims. Such as this unsupported bunk:
>*âHuman activity has probably caused a tiny amount of beneficial warming. There is nothing even remotely unusual about current temperatures. Burning hydrocarbons as fuel will never cause catastrophic climate change."*
Bernard accurately sums up SBVOR when he says that few, if any credible scientists would refer to themselves as "trained environmental scientists". This suggests that SBVOR went to some second rate college and got a diploma. It does not mean he is a scientist. For the record, SBVOR, could you give me a list of your peer-reviewed publications in the scientific literature. This will tell me how qualified you are, apart from your hollow pontificating.
Further damning evidence comes from the information I provided in my last post, but which SBVOR predictably ignored. Anyone who claims that we are living in a period of C02 famine is metaphorically speaking out of their rear oriface. Such a gormless remark shows a complete inability to understand the importance of scale in biotic and abiotic processes. The planet's recent evolutionary history has been based on certain ambient levels of C02, which are now increasing linearly due the human combustion of fossil fuels. They are increasing at rates exceeding those in perhaps many millions of years, and this will certainly have consequences on the functioning of complex adaptive systems through attendant effects on climate and ecophysiological parameters. Any "trained environmental scientist" would recognize this and would therefore exhibit profound caution as to the outcome of the current human 'experiment'. But not our resident 'trained environmental scientist' SBVOR, who spews gobbeldegook here that is as transparant as glass.
As I said above, SBVOR wears his right wing, liberatarian, anti-government idealogical heart on his sleeve (look at the stuff on his web site to be precise). Most of it is a rant against public health care, Obama and the Democratic Party (which is a joke in my eyes given the fact that the two main parties in the US are almost political clones). Climate change denial fits into SBVORs political compass like a glove. And for him to have the audacity to call me and Tim Lambert 'propagandists'. Oh, the irony.
So [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_43.php#comment-2317…) is your response?! Seriously?!
My questions aren't "grade school level": they are structured simply so that nincompoops such as yourself might understand the gist and respond to the same, without fluff, guff, or garbage.
However, it seems that even this simplicity sailed over your head - the answers that you proffer are themselves certainly grade school, at the most...
Never one to shirk from a challenge, I dared to enter the steaming pile of crap that you call "science" and that you offered as your answer, and I selected a link at random - the one I hit was quaintly titled "Debunking Surface Temperature Measurements": I won't dignify it with a link.
And lo, I saw there a graph titled "Sun and Ocean Cycles Versus Temperatures", and thereupon I saw two fitted "trendlines" of at least fourth order, and verily, I was visited with a profound understanding of the depth of your Stupid.
After all, the mathematical inappropriateness of trend-fitting -mangling -misrepresentation using high order polynomials has been [well](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/the_australians_war_on_science_…) and [truly](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/sixth-degree_polynomial_fits_j…) dissected and refuted previously on Deltoid. The fact that you roll up many months later using such rubbish, and pretending that you are capable of basic analysis, is in itself an instant disqualification of your putative capacity to engage in any scientific discourse.
The rest of your crap is just as ridiculously unsupported, but seriously, if you truly believe in it, provide a précis of your answers to [my questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_43.php#comment-2317…) and we'll tease them apart in detail - and you'll be given references to real peer-reviewed, properly conducted, scientific work.
Come on you great big trained Environmental Scientist - show us what you have.
Jeff after reading your last post on SBs claimed qualifications I checked out SBs odd little claim that:
>*I refute [...]AGW hysteria -- including gross exaggerations of likely impacts as well as utterly unsubstantiated claims as to what portion of recent warming is due to AGW -- a position I share with 76% of meteorologists.*
Looking at [SB source](http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/90/10/pdf/i1520-0477-90-10-…) shows SBs is actually referring to TV Weather casters like Watts and Coleman. And that SBs 76% is actually 50% who respond negative to the following IPCC conclusion: *âMost of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.â* I assume SB gets his 76% by adding the 25% who respond neutral and throwing in one for rounding.
My local weather caster is Jane. Jane started out on 'Fat Cat and Friends' when I was a wee kiddy. I wonder what she thinks? On the other hand my local Senior Meteorologist at the BOM raised my awareness as to the importance of the high risk of AGW.
sbvor.
It seems that one of your little hobby-horses is the relationship between increasing atmospheric CO2 and increasing global temperature. Or rather, that it is the fact that said relationship does not exhibit an R2 value of 1.00: apparently (according to your imputation) the increase in temperature must follow the same pattern of increase as atmospheric CO2, and the fact that it doesn't repudiates anthropogenic global warming.
Fine. Then answer me this...
Assume for a moment that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as science (you know, that thing that you claim to be trained in) has repeatedly and absolutely consistently shown for well over a hundred years. That means that it will affect the temperature of the planet as its atmospheric concentration increases. Hang on, hang on - bear with me for a moment...
Assume too that the climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 is as the IPCC indicates. Assume also that the physics of heat capacities operates as science predicts, and that liquid water moves in currents according to the best understanding of oceanography.
Let's assume also that the output of the sun has an impact upon the temperature of the planet. Yes, I know that's a radical idea, but humour me. Oh, and whilst we're making so many assumptions, let's throw in orbital wobbles, tilts, cycles, and other things Milankovitch.
Aw heck, as we're making assumptions left, right, and centre, how about we revisit that little one about ocean currents and mix it up a bit with wind and stuff, and include El Niño, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and sundry other such cycles.
But why stop there? Let's go the whole hog and throw in aerosols, whether volcanic, or from incomplete biomass and fossil fuel combustion.
You enjoy cosmic rays in your stew? Well, I'm not so sure that I do, but hey, we'll add it to the pot.
What else is on the shelf? Some nice changement d'albedo? A sprinkle of multiple feedings-back? A dash of non-water thermal inertia - it does have a different zest compared with the oceanic heat capacities that we added from the packet of physical oceanography that we opened earlier.
I'm sure that there are other ingredients that we could add, but we can always season to taste later...
So, with all of this bubbling in the pot, can you explain in straightforward, science-based terms, how closely global temperature should follow the trajectory of atmospheric CO2, and how much wiggleroom one would expect, when all of these other ingredients are simmering in the same temperature stew?
And how does your answer compare with the actual signal seen in the contemporary planetary record - when all factors affecting temperature are taken into consideration?
To reuse SBV fine little quote:
>*âthose who have the science on their side argue the science, those who do not have the science on their side attack the messenger [[calling them names as a transparent tactic to avoid answering questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_43.php#comment-2318…)]â.*
[Transcript](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/uc3…) of evidence given to the Parliamentary sub-committe on Science & Technology on the CRU email theft.
Love how Nigel Lawson gets to call the hockey stick fraudulent unchallenged...
Fred Pearce does another [hatchet job on Phil Jones](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-…). It's starting to look personal.
Decided to post a comment on the Jonathon Holmes piece over at The Drum:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/04/2835977.htm?site=thedrum
Got this reply from a "JohnM" which I thought was interesting:
Why would a person remain anonymous if they had a peer reviewed paper that refuted the IPCC's science? Why not provide a reference? Sheesh - you can't even get half-realistic sock puppets these days ...
Dave55, there were some beauties buried in that thread. I have been commenting on the others instead, but was sorely tempted to respond to the reply to a comment about Dawkins talking about evolution. It's too good to excerpt, so I quote in entirety.
Swallow anything you're in the process of drinking NOW.
Jo Nova's article said towards the end we must not ignore the empirical evidence...and then made a set of empirical claims refuting AGW unsupported by any references. They've been added now - Lindzen 2009, Spencer 2007 and something from Spencer in 2008.
Pointing out to various denialists that they are ignoring the empirical evidence in violation of Ms Nova's instructions is ... interesting.
Lotharsson
Yeah I saw that - it was in response to my comment!. Wasn't sure how I would respond thou - LMFAO, FMD and other abbreviations came to mind. Rational argument with someone like that is just a waste of time.
Couldn't be bothered reading Jo Nova's piece. The drivel in the responses to Jonathon Holmes' piece got me too frustrated and I probably would have gone Postal if I'd read the stuff that would have flocked to Nova's piece.
One thing I always find amazing is how the the 'sceptics' are sceptical of any papers which support CC theory but are blindingly accepting of tripe like that dished up by Lindzen et al. This blind faith in anything but CC is why deniers is the most appropriate term for them, simply because they deny what is supported by empirical evidence.
To avoid FOI requests the MOD has begun destroying all new UFO reports within a month of getting them.
http://newslite.tv/2010/03/02/mod-will-start-destroying-all.html
Ah, they've caught up to commercial practices that have been standard for over a decade.
So this is becoming standard practice?
Pity, it's a low probability, high impact event.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-NTUAtupYk&NR=1
Jo Nova is now really pushing "there's no hotspot in the radiosonde data", which to some of her followers "a la Popper" refutes the whole AGW enchilada (or at least makes climate sensitivity really low), or something along those lines. I remember looking at that a couple of years ago but I've forgotten everything I knew about that at one time.
I have no insight on why no-one takes Spencer's negative feedback from clouds seriously either, but Nova seems to think it also proves low climate sensitivity.
el gordo relates this :"Chip Knappenberger's thinks only a third of the warming in the 20th Century was due to human GHG emissions. "
Is that from his advocacy science theory or free-market energy theory?
Hmm.
SBVOR, you say you're a trained environmental scientist.
What do you study for a living?
Because you certainly aren't a climatologist if you're that dense about statistics and about basic climate science - for one, warming trends differ around the world, but the global warming trend adds up to warming.
At least some reporters in the Grauniad are doing their job right:
"Evidence from a respected scientific body to a parliamentary inquiry examining the behaviour of climate-change scientists, was drawn from an energy industry consultant who argues that global warming is a religion, the Guardian can reveal...
"The Guardian has established that the institute prepared its evidence, which was highly critical of the CRU scientists, after inviting views from Peter Gill, an IOP official who is head of a company in Surrey called Crestport Services."
According to Pinker (2005), surface solar irradiance increased by 0.16 W/m^2/year over the 18 year period 1983 â 2001 or 2.88 W/m^2 over the entire period. This was a period of claimed significant anthropogenic global warming.
This change in surface solar irradiance over 1983 - 2001 is almost exactly 1.2% of the mean total surface solar irradiance of recent decades of 238.9 W/m^2 (K, T & F, 2009).
According to NASA, mean global cloud cover declined from about 0.677 (67.7%) in 1983 to about 0.644 (64.4%) in 2001 or a decline of 0.033 (3.3%). The 27 year mean global cloud cover 1983 â 2008 is about 0.664 (66.4%) (all NASA data)
The average Bond Albedo (A) of recent decades has been almost exactly 0.300, hence 1 â A = 0.700
It is possible to estimate the relationship between albedo and total cloud cover about the average global cloud cover and it is described by the simple relationship:
Albedo (A) = 0.250C + 0.134 where C = cloud cover. The 0.134 term presumably represents the surface SW reflection.
For example; A = 0.300 = 0.25 x 0.664 + 0.134
This means that in 1983; A = 0.25 x 0.677 + 0.134 = 0.303
and
in 2001; A = 0.25 x 0.644 + 0.134 = 0.295
Thus in 1983; 1 â A = 1 â 0.303 = 0.697
and in 2001; 1 â A = 1 â 0.295 = 0.705
Therefore, between 1983 and 2001, the known reduction in the Earthâs albedo A as measured by NASA would have increased solar irradiance by 200 x [(0.705 â 0.697)/(0.705 + 0.695)]% = 200 x (0.008/1.402)% = 1.1%
This estimate of 1.1% increase in solar irradiance from cloud cover reduction over the 18 year period 1983 â 2001 is very close to the 1.2% increase in solar irradiance measured by Pinker for the same period.
Within the precision of the available data and this exercise, it may therefore be concluded that it is highly likely that Pinkerâs finding was due to an almost exactly functionally equivalent decrease in Earthâs Bond albedo over the same period resulting from global cloud cover reduction.
Hence surface warming over that period may be reasonably attributed to that effect.
[Pinker found](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5723/850) a downward trend is surface solar irradience from start point 1983 to 1990, then a stronger upward trend to 2001.
>*We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year; this change is a combination of a decrease until about 1990, followed by a sustained increase.*
What was the temperature [signal response](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2004/plot/gistemp…) to this so switch? [Not so much](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2004/plot/uah/from:19…), and that is despite a super El Nino in 1998 to push up the trend.
And solar driven forcing would produce more warming in days than nights. And solar forcing would not produce produce stratospheric cooling.
Remember that Pinker tried to correct Monckton's conflation of surface radiation with radiative forcing at the tropopause. Wild ([cited by Lambert](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_takes_back_nice_wo…)) explains why:
>*The decadal changes in SSR found in the dimming/brightening literature are at first sight often unrealistically large from a radiative forcing viewpoint, as, e.g., presented by IPCC [2007]. Therein, radiative forcings altering solar radiation between preindustrial (year 1750) and present day are on the order of minus 1-2 W mâ2 on a global average, while some of the surface-based estimates show similar or larger changes already within a decade [...]*
> *Indeed, under the assumption of a climate sensitivity of 0.5-1°C per W mâ2 radiative forcing as suggested by current climate models, a change of several W mâ2 decadeâ1 as inferred from surface observations would imply enormous decadal variations in surface temperature which are not observed. However, one should be aware that **the radiative forcing concept as used in the IPCC reports applies to changes at the tropopause, which cannot be directly compared to changes at the surface**.*
Why? Because:
>*Scattering and absorbing processes in the atmosphere are additive with respect to their effects on SSR at the surface, but may be opposed at the tropopause. Scattering aerosols enhance the reflectance of solar radiation back to space and reduce the solar flux to the surface. Absorbing aerosols also reduce the solar flux to the surface, but at the same time may reduce the reflectance back to space, opposed to the effects from scattering aerosols at the tropopause.*
>*Therefore, surface changes can expected to be larger than tropopause changes, and consequently are also not necessarily representative for (tropopause) radiative forcing estimates (this would only be valid in a purely scattering atmosphere). SSR change estimates based on surface observations should therefore not be used to challenge the IPCC radiative forcings [Liepert et al., 2007], even if these SSR changes would be free of biases from upscaling the surface point observations to global numbers.*
Yeah, .....Wild .... and extreme woolly.
Shorter Steve Short: clouds don't block long wave radiation.
106 Bernard,
As close to perfect as you can get! :-)
Tim Tambert
I never said they did and don't believe it myself. That is simplistic straw man nonsense. One of your specialities?
However, I certainly don't deny that as SH increases the transmission of LW IR BOA => TOA decreases (i.e. LW IR tau increases). Even most AGW wallies should know that -it is a fundamental of their raison d'etre.
It just so happens that under those circumstances cloud cover also broadly increases - especially low cloud.
As you live in Sydney you are presumably sweltering in the high humidity under a dense late summer cloud cover right now!
It is also possible to use cloud cover as a crude proxy for SH in simple 1-D models.
"clouds don't block long wave radiation". Eh? Could you elaborate?
I presume that's what the longer Steve Sort was.
Not that it debunks steve short, but I note he has received an email from the Lord Monckton thanking him for his valuable contribution. From Jo Nova's site "âDear Dr. Short, â Many thanks for your very kind and helpful analysis. I am copying it to my co-author Dr. Joseph Boston, who is at present finalizing what we hope will be a robust determination of the change in surface radiative flux attributable to the decline in cloud cover from 1983-2001. â Monckton of Brenchleyâ"
cohnite:
>*"clouds don't block long wave radiation". Eh? Could you elaborate?*
Steve Short:
>*This estimate of 1.1% increase in solar irradiance from cloud cover reduction over the 18 year period 1983 â 2001 is very close to the 1.2% increase in solar irradiance measured by Pinker for the same period.*
>*[...]it may therefore be concluded that it is highly likely that Pinkerâs finding was due to an almost exactly functionally equivalent decrease in Earthâs Bond albedo over the same period resulting from global cloud cover reduction.*
>*Hence surface warming over that period may be reasonably attributed to that effect.*
Shorter short:
SW forcing at the **surface** equals **Net** forcing at the the **tropopause**.
This is not very helpful; as Steve observed Pinker found a decrease in the rate of SW at TOA which was almost identical to the rate of increase in SW at the surface; this has nothing to do with the Wild paper; the extra SW at TOA had to go somewhere; it wasn't scattered or reflected by aerosols because the rate of decrease in SW at TOA, which is the difference between the incoming/outgoing SW, was matched by the SW at BOA [in the tropics, Fig 4]; that is, it went to the surface; the mechanism for this is most likely the decrease in cloud cover. As my aide says: "SW forcing at the surface equals Net forcing at the the tropopause." The net forcing for SW at TOA was at a rate of 0.17W/m2 for the Pinker period in the tropics.
Clouds do block longwave;
http://www.applet-magic.com/cloudblanket.htm
How else could cloud forcing be calculated, as Pinker noted?
No, SW forcing at the surface dominates net forcing at the surface.
It is well known that:
(surface) SW CRF at BOA ~ -0.8 - -1.0 W/m^2/% cloud
and
surface LW CRF at BOA ~+0.6 W/m^2/% cloud cover
Therefore net SW forcing at BOA ~ -0.2 - -0.4 W/m^/% cloud cover
End of story.
Another straw man by a silly Lambertian acolyte. Yawn.
Not that SW (and LW) cloud-related radiative forcing at various altitudes is not a very fascinating subject. It sure is!
Strange isn't it how we KEEP hearing about how the 'science is settled' and there is a 'consensus' and all the denialist scumbags should just go away and die when the LEVEL OF RESEARCH TO FIND OUT WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING HAS NEVER BEEN SO HIGH:
http://stm.arm.gov/2008/presentations/0310/7_Dupont.pdf
Shorter cohnite: *Clouds do block longwave I must ask short to include that in his calculations.*
Another shorter cohnite: *TOA tropics (20N- 20S) equals TOA global (90N- 90S).*
Short Short: You are knocking over a straw man by to pointing out the many errors and fallacies in my claims that "*Hence surface warming over that period may be reasonably attributed to that effect [change is surface SW].*
Shorter shorter Short: **Short's claim that** "*Hence surface warming over that period may be reasonably attributed to that effect [change is surface SW]* **is a strawman**.
Incohers aide
Shorter cohenite:
>Short's claims that: *Hence surface warming over that period may be reasonably attributed to that effect [change is surface SW].*
Made by Short failure to calculate tropospheric forcing; has nothting to do with Wild's statement that:
>*the radiative forcing concept as used in the IPCC reports applies to changes at the tropopause, which cannot be directly compared to changes at the surface.*
MattB this afternoon on Jo Nova thread 'Lambert, victim of his own spin?':
"Yes Steve I wish I had an email from the good Lord showing how smart I am."
My reply:
We can very easily fix that problem. I hereby issue you with a technical challenge which I will also post on Deltoid for you (or any of the other AGW wallies) to take me up on.
I propose to set you two, highly relevant test problems and then to provide the answers for each, without revealing the working of my calculations.
It is up to you to solve the same problems (mathematically), provide your answers and thus verify/state that I am right or I am wrong. If you verify my answer you do not need to reveal the logic of your calculation.
If you donât verify my answer then we both have to reveal/justify our method of calculation. Fair enough?
Problem #1: If we were to agree that the best estimate of the global mean Bond albedo of the last decade is 0.298 as stated by Trenberth, Fasulo and Kiehl, 2009, then what would be the mean global surface temperature change for an upwards shift in global mean Bond albedo to (say) 0.302?
I assert the surface temperature change would be -0.20±0.01 K (error at ~± 1 s.d.)
Problem #2: If we were to agree that the best estimate of the global mean cloud cover over the last 27 years is 66.38% as stated by NASA, 2010, then what would be the mean global surface temperature change for a shift in mean global mean cloud cover to (say) 67.38%?
I assert the surface temperature change would be -0.13±0.02 K (error at ~± 1 s.d.)
Ballâs in your court, Mr. Smartguy.
Steve is actually progressing into fairytale trolldom now.
"Answer me these questions three and you may cross the bridge!"
The 1st who can't get it up boldly squeaks...
John, since I have young kids I know that the fairytale would be:
"Answer me these questions three and across the bridge you soon shall be!"
Well then, clearly MattB can can get it up! Nothing stopping him now....
OK MattB wimps out after lecturing the mob at Jo Nova for many days and nights - now we find out he can't do any math - or basic French either - it's dommage not domage m'sieur.
Still, he will be eternally remembered for coining that delightful new word: DILLUSIONAL.
Anyone else wanna have crack. Inco? True Septic? Tim Tam? Bernaaaard?
Steve, your questions are confused.
Number 1 Ignores the effect of clouds on long wave radiation as multiple people have pointed out to you now.
Number 2: Ignores the fact that cloud forcing can be positive or negative depending on the clouds.
I'll express it more simply so the proposed problems are very easy to understand:
(1) What would be the predicted mean global surface temperature change (+ or -, take your pick) for an upwards shift in global mean Bond albedo from (say) 0.298 to (say) 0.302?
(2)What would be the predicted mean global surface temperature change (+ or -, take your pick) for an upwards shift in global mean total cloud cover from (say) 66.38% to (say) 67.38?
Surely somewhere in this collection of self-proclaimed experts there is at least someone who can solve these simple tasks (without resort to dissembling)?
Steve - its maths not math.
Groan
BTW Steve over at Nova I've been hounding regarding the absurd interpretation of Pinker's comments to Deltoid that "it can pass" relates to Monckton's overall "work" regarding cloud forcing. Simple English language comprehension stuff. Your response is smoke and mirrors random maths/physics questions that are by the by. I'll consider your questions when you concede some English comprehension. Nova makes a big point defending Monckton, has it pointed out clearly that that position is indefensible, and the response from the flying monkeys is to back up the clearly incorrect interpretation, claim "it doesn't matter", is "nitpicky" or to confuse things with random maths questions (incidentally you can hardly groan after introducing a whole post to correct a typo in a foreign language I studied 21 years ago).
The claim it is nitpicky may or may not be true, but Nova thought it important enough to defend Monckton so my reading of that is it is important to her at least.
The questions also ignores:
1) the fact that most of the last 50 years has experienced global dimming (Romanou et al 2007) and that recent reversal (1990 to 2000) of that trend is unmasking suppressed GHG forcing ([Wild 2007](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028031.shtml))
>*solar dimming was effective in masking greenhouse warming, but only up to the 1980s, when dimming gradually transformed into brightening. Since then, the uncovered greenhouse effect has revealed its full dimension, as manifested in a rapid temperature rise (+0.38°C/decade over land since mid-1980s). Recent solar brightening cannot supersede the greenhouse effect as main cause of global warming, since land temperatures increased by 0.8°C from 1960 to 2000, even though solar brightening did not fully outweigh solar dimming within this period.*
[Diurnal Temp Range AR4](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-3-2.html)
2) *In the global mean sense the surface adjusts to changes in downward solar flux instantaneously by reducing [or conversely increasing] the upward fluxes of longwave.* (Romanou et al 2007)
>*While there is a large increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing greenhouse gases and water vapor (as a feedback), this is offset to a large degree by a decreasing greenhouse effect from reducing cloud cover and increasing radiative emissions from higher temperatures.* (Trenberth and Fasullo 2009)
3) However the modeled trend is for decreasing clouds as a positive feedback. The follow extracts from (Trenberth and Fasullo 2009):
>fewer clouds [...] allow more radiation to escape from lower and warmer parts of the atmosphere and surface. Decreasing cloud amount also increases absorbed solar radiation (ASR) [...]. **These changes represent a feedback and not a forcing, however.***
>*In most models, the late 21st century planetary imbalance is not dominated by the ice-albedo effect, but rather stems from changes in clouds and aerosols. From 1950 to 2000, increases in sulfate aerosols decrease the ASR by increasing reflected solar radiation (RSR), and this is slightly offset by a modest decrease in clouds. In regions of decreasing sea ice, clouds tend to increase, partially offsetting the surface albedo change.*
>*integrated all sky ASR anomalies become positive by 2040 owing mainly to decreasing cloud amount and this continues throughout the 21st century [...] The net effect is a huge change in LW CRF [Cloud Radiative Forcing], but a modest change in OLR [Outgoing Longwave Radition] [...] There is substantial SW CRF although the increase in SW heating is bigger, and ASR dominates Rt* [Rt= Net Radition = ASR-OLR]
So after a century of growing enhanced greenhouse forcing I hope that cloud feedback are not about to kick in a big way.
It is so, so very easy to harvest and quote shitloads of stuff off the Net.
Sure some of it is relevant. But I don't really give a double damn how much wriggling around, sophistry, smoke blowing out your asses etc you might want to indulge yourself in.
This is not a forum for lawyers.....(;-)
I spent 11 years in an an Oz Federal Govt. research agency and 3 years in a Swiss one; ~100 peer reviewed papers and book chapters. So I know what it is to do pure science research and crack my nuts over empirical or theoretical problems. Some times your math (!) skills are up to it, sometimes not. Yet it's always fun BTW.
Humility is good. Hubris is bad (and there is shitloads here BTW)
So, basically, in a nutshell, seems I can pose two very simple questions here and none of you can do the calcs to provide an answer you are prepared to defend (within reasonable errors for the exercise) on the basis of your understanding - even of say mainstream stuff like Trenberth et al etc., etc.
Right? Right?
Anyone here not actually a science loser?
[Steve Short](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_43.php#comment-2331…).
I demand that you release your code and all of your emails, so that I can 'replicate' your calculations.
You show me yours and I'll show you mine, Bernaaaard.
Steve Short,
How many of your peer-reviewed publications were in the field of climate science?
As someone with about the same number of publications as you, working in the field of population ecology, I was wondering how much of your intellectual pontificating is backed up in the relevant journals? Or are you restricted to web sites to dish out your so-called expertise? By the way, while we are at the level of comparing academic credentials, how many citations does your work have on the WOS?
You see, the data trails for the sceptics goes quickly quite cold. Sure, they strut their stuff on their web logs, but this is not the same thing.
Steve Short.
Contrary to the irony of my previous comment, I actually trawled through my memory and recalled an equation I used several years ago. Using a black body assumption of unitary emissivity, a value of 5778 K for Ts, 696300000 m for R, 149600000000 m for D, and your Bond albedo values, I came up with -0.36 K where you "assert" -0.20 K.
Now, I am a biologist and not a physicist, so my recollection of the equation that I used may be wanting, and my knowledge of modifiers is definitely limited, but neither is the point.
The point is that I did not rely on your 'code' to arrive at my figure. I used my own equations, subject to several assumptions, and I found the data to input. In this manner I truly, if incorrectly, replicated your process of calculation, rather than screaming for the information so that I could duplicate it.
So now we have a circumstance where we have a difference in a number. At this point we should compare notes, discuss differences in procedure, and resolve the discrepancy.
Just as the many serial pests who have dogged Jones, and many other climatologists, should have done in the first place - had they actually bothered to replicate the work that they so freely criticised.
Of course, if you're really just trying to get you own "email from the good Lord showing how smart [you are]", as [your response to MattB](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_43.php#comment-2331…) seems to indicate, then this little exercise in who can pick the best equation and drop in a few numbers for a bit of primary school arithmetic is simply an exercise in juvenile pants-dropping.
And if perchance you are actually trying to make a point about arcane nuances in radiative physics, then why the fÊck ([h/t Chris O'Neill](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…)) are you asking people who had nothing to do with your original exchange at Nova's? I like to ask questions of people myself, but I don't go around telling random people, who have not been involved in the subject matter that I am raising, that they can't get it up. I have never claimed expertise in radiation physics, so why did you [bother to drag me](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_43.php#comment-2331…) into your little piss-on-the-fence-post exercise in the first place? I haven't even commented on your particular posts, here on Deltoid, as far as I know, so what's your deal?
I have of course made general disparaging remarks about the poor standard of scientific understanding at the New Bog, but if this is your way of exacting retribution it is a bizarre non sequitur strategy for putting whatever your point is, across.
Happy to note that my publications were not in the field of climate science but in isotope geochemistry and hydrogeology. I never claimed they were. My point was that I know what it is to struggle with solving scientific problems with mathematical modeling etc. BTW I also have two patents - one a nice little earner. But that's all.
So have you too come along just to blow smoke out your ass and indulge in a bit of recreational ad hom-ing?
No cojones?
Bernard I think I was annoying Steve at Nova's, and he thought he could come her and expose me for my lack of radiative physics knowledge at my fingertips... thinking that I somehow would be aghast at being exposed in front of my mates at Deltoid. But sadly for Steve I rarely post here and tend to fully acknowledge that I have no particular technical expertise to boast of.. certainly not so an extent that showing i couldn't work through some random calc would cause me any concern at all.
I apologised a week or so ago for causing you to visit that site... now I must apologise for bringing it here:)
My main point stands though - being how do Steve's two questions fit in to a debate about deliberate misinterpretation of Pinker's words "it can pass". Answer- they don't.
Steve Short.
You might want to check your keyboard - your 'a' button appears to be sticky.
Either that or you're a 12 year old school boy...
I've already given you my 'raw data'. If you can't figure out which equation I chose to use, I'm happy to tell you that too, but really, what is your point? I care bugger all for your interest in albedo - why did you bring me into this in the first place?
If you have an issue with another poster(s) here, why are you not taking it up with them?
Oh, and Steve Short...
You really need to see someone about your unhealthy fixation with other people's reproductive organs.
Re Steve Short's questions.
Is his maths correct? Quite probably, otherwise he'd not have entered into this little game he's trying to play. Yes, these may be interesting undergrad questions on application of basic formulas in some meteorology or climate science course, but in reality, even if the figures are mathematically correct, what do the answers prove? Not a lot in the great scheme of things AGW. And certainly not something that is unknown by workers in this field.
Steve Short's repeated questions, which in fact were identical to his original questions, still made no reference to Tim's point about his question 1. Steve Short's questions also take no cognisance of the fact that though albedo changes due to cloud cover changes may (or may not exclusively) be going in one direction, albedo changes due to, for example, snow and ice cover changes (in all its forms) are going in the other direction.
Steve Short's question 2 makes no allowance for the fact that clouds can lead to both negative and positive effects on temperature. And depending on what types of cloud are formed, and when (e.g. day versus night), then the effects could well cancel over, say, a diurnal period (thus possibly ameliorating slightly any long-term effect based purely on the quoted percentage increase). Moreover, increased cloud cover goes hand in hand with increased relative humidity (t'other way around more likely), which, as pseudosceptics are wont often to relate, means the increased presence of that most potent GHG H2O vapour*. Also, whilst cloud cover may well have increased and its negative effect on radiative forcing marginally been more negative, the opposite will be true for, for example, CO2 and CH4 changes in the interim. And the increased presence of contrails, that human "manufactured" cloud form, from increased air traffic volumes will have what effect on radiative forcing? Minimal but positive wasn't it, someone?
(*Notwithstanding that small changes in relative humidity in dry areas could lead to increased cloud cover in those areas and ameliorate the increasing CO2 effect. Again known/appreciated by workers in the field.)
Mr. Short:
Which agency, and what did you do?
Also, you need science to understand this, which makes you the loser and just as bad as, say, creobots.
Steve Short,
I am not a mathematician, nor am I a climate scientist. But if your expertise is all that it is cracked up to be, why aren't you publishing your stuff where it counts - on the pages of PNAS, Science, Nature, any number of climate-related journals etc.? Your problem is that you act as if you are some kind of expert in the field, but there is little, apart from your own pontificating here and on a few contrarian blogs, to prove it.
I found the web site of your employer anyway, and there appears to be little in the way to indicate that your calculations are going to change the course of science.
P. Lewis nails it above. I think most of us here know the game that you are trying to play - much the same as was Ian Plimer's game with George Monbiot. What is your grander point? Do you not think that climate scientists - you know, the one's doing the research the last time I looked - have not spent considerable time calculating the net effects of cloud cover on the planet's albedo? Has this not been factored into the climate models with respect to negative and positive feedbacks?
If you want to play the intellectual snob game then that is fine by me; I can give you all kinds of biologiucal indicators showing that the world is warming and warming very rapidly.
Lastly, I could find only 22 articles by you on the WOS with a grand total of 441 citations in your name. Where are the rest?
Katharine @ #160, Steve Short is here. No great secret: he linked himself earlier in this thread.
Steve short:
>*So, basically, in a nutshell, seems I can pose two very simple questions*
*If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.*â Thomas Pynchon (Gravity's Rainbow)
Short continues:
>*Sure some of it is relevant. But I don't really give a double damn how much wriggling around, sophistry, smoke blowing out your asses etc you might want to indulge yourself in.*
Steve you will of course now explain which is relevant and which is the other, or like the lawyer traits you dislike will you simply leave it as a general smear over everything and nothing in particular?
I notice you have [finished your mowing](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_takes_back_nice_wo…) but not yet rebutted Wild. Rather than addressing the implications of Wild you instead chose to hide your working calcs. Dear me, what would Climate Audit say? Answer: Probably nothing.
So go on Steve, ignore the problems with your question, you go on and publish your calcs and claims, we'll be here to read them.
Very good jakerman; raising the tone and injecting layers of irony into this 'debate'; GV is of course the definitive statement of meaningless erudition and consequent paranoic dread, a fitting metaphor for either the modern condition or AGW theory or both since AGW aims to supplant all other value.
As I said earlier Wild does not answer Pinker; the increase in SW at BOA is a fact and must have come from somewhere and, once and for all, fig 4 dealing with equivalent TOA decline and BOA increase in SW flux is not misleading because it deals with just the tropics; the tropics are where most of the energy comes and leaves the Earth; it is also where the mythical, lamented THS is predicted but declines to be; that there is an equivalence in TOA rate of decline of outgoing SW and BOA increasing SW seems, when matched with the indisputable decline in clouds, to provide a good explanation for temperature increases over the period. As for your observation that the period of 1983-2001 featured a small decrease in Surface SW between 1983-1993 and therefore a temperature signature cannot be correlated with SW; in fact the temp increase between 1983-1993 is 0.12C and between 1983-2001, 0.26C.
shorter cohers:
>Let me practice the lawyer sophistry that Steve Short claims to detest; let me prentend Wild's point was inconsistent with Pinker's. This of course will aide distraction from fact that the point highlighted from both Pinker and Wild is their agreement that it is an error to conflate Surface SSR with the (topropheric) forcing employed by the IPCC.
Another shorter cohers:
>*Let me show you how I calculate the warming from unmaking surpressed GHG forcing (from previous dimming). Confounding variables? What confounding variables?*
Another shorter cohers:
>*1993 = 1990 if it gives prefered results.*
Another shorter cohnite:
>*change in TOA global = change in TOA tropics*
Another cohers:
>*GV is of course the definitive statement of meaningless erudition and consequent paranoic dread, a fitting metaphor for the modern condition* of sophistry and bluster exemplyfied by excessive use and **abuse of acronyms.**
I wish my aide would read the Pinker paper and Monckton clarification; in the latter Pinker quotes the IPCC report:
"In addition, the satelliteobserved
increase in surface radiation noted by Pinker et al. (2005) occured primarily over
ocean, whereas the increase observed by Wild et al. (2005) was restricted to land stations"
In fact Pinker found that 'S' over land was decreasing at the same time it was increasing over the oceans; there was no land based increase in 'S' found by Pinker, a notable and profound difference with Wild. Pinker also says this:
"The CO2 âradiative forcingâ value that Mr. Christopher Monckton is quoting
refers to the impact on the Earthâs Radiative balance as described above. The numbers
that we quote in our paper represent the change in surface SW due to changes in the
atmosphere (clouds, water vapor, aerosols). These two numbers cannot be compared at
their face value. To the best of my understanding this is the source of the
misunderstanding."
In fact Monckton was not mixing and matching TOA and BOA flux but erroneously described cloud forcing as being only the top of cloud reflection of SW whereas, as Pinker later explains, it is Fnet (cloud) = FSW (cloud) + FLW (cloud). So there are 2 concepts running around here; TOA/BOA flux and cloud forcing; cloud forcing is negative as Steve has noted and this shows;
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17842824
The relevance of TOA flux to BOA flux was dealt with by Pinker in the tropics [ and I have argued the pertinence of that above] and she correlated this with earthshine measurements for the SW period which showed "A steady decrease in Earth's reflectance from 1984 to 2000 was shown, with a strong drop during the 1990's. During 2001 to 2003...[there was] a reversal of the decline." Since, unlike Wild, Pinker found a strong 'S' increase over ocean with a small decline over land the aerosol dimming contribution must be smaller than the cloud contribution; that being the case the TOA/BOA flux connection is determined by cloud cover; as Pinker observes; "clouds are the major modulators of the solar radiation that reaches the surface."
>*In fact Pinker found that 'S' over land was decreasing at the same time it was increasing over the oceans; there was no land based increase in 'S' found by Pinker, a notable and profound difference with Wild.*
In the Wild quote he was summarising dozens of studies including Pinkerâs, you raise a red herring claim to distract from Monckton's error.
Ready for cohenite's next trick, here it is:
>*In fact Monckton was not mixing and matching TOA and BOA flux*
Is that so Cohenite?
Monckton:
>*I had kindly done the calculation on the basis that the change in surface radiance mentioned in the Pinker paper would be the same at top of atmosphere, from which a climate-sensitivity calculation using the UN's method follows. However, since Pinker insists that it is the surface radiance that her paper addresses, one must of course use the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation to evaluate the temperature change*
Anthony Cox and his Lawyer's sophistry.
Pinker points out that Monckton was conflating Surface Solar Radiation (S or SSR) with the IPCC measures of forcing, which are net change in forcing at the tropospuase. Pinker called Monckton on it and Wild's paper details the reasons this is in error.
Verballed; I specifically distinguished TOA/BOA and the cloud forcing mistake by Monckton; and I was talking about Pinker and Wild the dozens of other "summarised papers"; as to sophistry, the recognition of traits in others is most expertly done by those possessing those traits and the degree of recognition is in proportion to the degree of the trait possessed.
Cohers you verbal yourself:
>*In fact Monckton was not mixing and matching TOA and BOA flux [coher's misrepresention [as demonstrated](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_43.php#comment-2333…)] but erroneously described cloud forcing as being only the top of cloud reflection of SW whereas, as Pinker later explains, it is Fnet (cloud) = FSW (cloud) + FLW (cloud).*
Cohers, offering up one error is not excuse for denying another of Monckton's errors.
>*the recognition of traits in others is most expertly done by those possessing those traits and the degree of recognition is in proportion to the degree of the trait possessed.*
You're now verballing Steve Short. But this is only half the story. Dealing with the cohers types who indulge in sophistry gives one experience in spotting it.
Cohers writes:
>*I was talking about Pinker and Wild the dozens of other "summarised papers"*
You might have been, but if you were, you were doing so to change the subject and distract from the Monckton errors. Cohers you pretened that Wild needed to answer Pinker yet the quotes re Monckton were in agreement. One pointed out Monckton's error (conflating Surface Solar Radiation with the IPCC measures of forcing) and Wild's quote details the reasons why that conflation is an error.
There you have it; the Pinker paper does not support the Wild conclusion about TOA/BOA flux incompatibility; imo.
Cohenite:
>*There you have it; the Pinker paper does not support the Wild conclusion about TOA/BOA flux incompatibility; imo.*
There you have "it", that is if "it" is empty unsupported opinion as a distraction, yes. And not a defense of Monckton's error, as called by Pinker (and Pinkers call explained by Wild). Yes that is what was thrown up by Cohenite in his screen of sophistry.
How well supported is cohenite's opinion? Well the Wild quotes don't even make a conclusion nor even a statement about "*TOA/BOA flux incompatibility*".
Pinker and Wild both point out the error in the BOA/Tropopause flux conflation.
Cohenite, an apt representative of Moncktion, seems immune to understanding the the points he and Monckton get wrong.
The paragraph immediately prior to this in your comment either refutes the claim that Monckton was referring to Fnet(cloud) as defined by Pinker or shows it to STILL be a serious error. If you don't see why, then perhaps you should consider giving up lawyering. If you *already* know why but said it anyway...well, I'll leave that up to individual readers to determine.
I'm flying in and out of remote mine sites in another country at present so am having great difficulty accessing the Net but here is a reply I've just sent off to a polite person who sent me a personal email (noting I don't hide behind an avatar name and my email address, web site and academic qualifications are freely accessible as Katherine pointed-out).
Dear Steve
I very much appreciated your analysis comparing surface solar irradiance with cloud cover over the period 1983-2001. I was trying to double-check your calculation, but haven't been able to locate all of the data and formulae you used. I'd be very grateful if you would find a few moments to point me in the right direction.
[1] When you mention K, T and F 2009, I assume you mean http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/90/3/pdf/i1520-0477-90-3-31…. Is this right? If so, how have you extracted the total surface solar irradiance from here?
[2] I haven't been able to locate the source for the NASA cloud cover data you mention. Do you have a URL for this data?
[3] I also haven't located the source for the albedo formula, A = 0.250C + 0.134. Could you suggest a reference for this as well?
I hope you don't mind me quizzing you like this, and thank you very much in advance for your help.
Kindest regards,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Dear XXXXXXXXXXXX
To answer your questions:
(1) Yes I do mean Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl, 2009: Earths Global Energy Budget. As Iâm sure you know, total surface solar irradiance is quoted therein (Table 2b and Figure 1) as = net surface solar 161.2 + surface reflected 23.1 = 184.3 (noting the surface reflected will be included in the albedo-reflected). I had mistakenly quoted the average (238.9) of the Absorbed Solar Radiation (ASR; 239.4) and Outwards Longwave Radiation (238.5) i.e. 238.9 rather than the net surface solar. I will probably issue a correction to Benny when I can find a moment although this doesnât alter the overall gist of my argument at all as I was trying to show that the % change in total surface solar irradiancewhich Pinker measured more or less matched the change in % (1 â Albedo).
(2) URL for the NASA cloud data is http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/climanal1.html
Note the long term mean cloud cover given therein is 66.38%
(3) The albedo stuff is very interesting. Here you will find data for albedo over the ISCCP-FD data period March 2000 â May 2004 which Trenberth et al., 2009 referred-to: http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
This shows that ISCCP-FD got albedos between around 99.6% and 100.0% of the long term average albedo over that period (but note the error bars). If the average albedo in this period is 0.2986 (=101.9/341.3) as Trenberth et al claim then the long term average albedo is about 0.2986/0.998 = 0.2992.
We can easily check the range of mean global cloud covers which applied over that March 2000 â March 2004. I blew up the plot at the NASA web page a bit and got about 65.1% around March 2000 and about 66.1 around May 2004. For a nominal long term albedo of 0.299 this enabled me to make a rough estimate of how one could vary albedo with cloud cover over relatively small variations in albedo and cloud cover.
Thus was derived the simple algorithm I used. It does not appear in the literature.
But I might add that provided one is dealing with small variations about the mean long term albedo of 0.299 and mean long term cloud cover of 66.38% it really doesnât matter much what simple algorithm one may come up with to fit those small variations.
In retrospect I possibly should have fixed the constant term (0.134) to 0.067 which Trenberth et al. identify as the surface component of SW albedo i.e. 23.1/341.3 = 0.067. Then the algorithm should have been Albedo (A) = 0.35C + 0.067 where C = cloud cover.
So let's do that and find out what happens.
For example, this would mean that in 1983; 1-A = 0.35x0.677+0.067 = 0.304 and
in 2001; 1-A = 0.35x0.644+0.067 = 0.292
Thus in 1983; 1 â A = 1 â 0.304 = 0.696
and in 2001; 1 â A = 1 â 0.292 = 0.708
Therefore, between 1983 and 2001, the known reduction in the Earthâs albedo A as measured by NASA would have increased effective surface solar irradiance (which partially warms the surface) by 200 x [(0.708 â 0.696)/(0.708 + 0.696)]% = 200 x (0.012/1.404)% = 1.7%
Note that there is only ~161 W/m^2 of SW heating the surface rather than the ~184 W/m^2 (23 W/m^2 being reflected) then 0.017 x 161 = 2.7 W/m^2 is actually the effective warming the surface. However 2.7 W/m^ = 1.5% of the 184 W/m^2 which is still very close to Pinkerâs 1.2%.
I hope this is an adequate response.
Best regards
Steve