Since Tilo Reber's comments always seem to take discussion off topic, all further comments from Tilo should be posted to this thread as well as any replies to any comment by Tilo.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Last year Steve McIntyre insinuated that Gavin Schmidt was dishonest after one of McIntyre's comments was held up in moderation: (link in quote is mine)
Posting at realclimate is a little thing. I was once involved in trying to detect a business fraud many years ago. A friend told me that to look…
Over at Cosmic Variance, Sean is pondering comment policies:
So the question is: how can the comment sections be better? To decode this for our more innocent readers: how can we increase the signal-to-noise ratio? Increasing the signal is one obvious way, but that's hard. The real question that I'…
Thanks to everyone who participated in the unscientific survey on commenting. The results are back, and I'd like to share them with you.
As many of you have noticed, we've been talking about comments a lot here lately, both at BioE and on Sb in general. There's also a big session on online civility…
Nature has started a new blog, http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/. So far so good, I wish them well, and it will be interesting to see how it goes on.
The fun aspect of all this is the fight for readers and commentors; a blog with no comments is hardly a blog at all. RP Jr has a post up that…
Now Tim, don't feed the trolls!
Seconding Chad's call.
Is there a way to write up shareholder proposals for Deltoid?
Recently I mentioned that Tim is the Good Host. How nice of him to give Tilo has own mini-blog with a link from this site.
Hey Tim, after a few months in solitary confinement, will you let Tilo post in this forum if he promises to mind his manners and not to violate the terms of his probation?
Um, actually I have some fatigue duty which I'd like Tilo Reber to do.
Harold, is Naomi Oreskes fat?
We're not really feeding the trolls, even though they're eating here at the kid's table.
Anyway, thank you Tim.
Best,
D
So far it's the everyone except Tilo Reber thread.
Hmmmm...
Thank you Tim. I can appreciate that the inmates wouldn't want to be distracted from the main function of the blog - making snarkey remarks about climate skeptics. Drifting off into areas where the quality of the work of the AGW proponents is put to question can really put a damper on their day. Better to have a harmonious choir with no dissenters and no signs of individual thought.
As I get time I will try to respond to the remaining posts on the Exxon thread, and then I will try to get back to questions that came up regarding the quality of peer reviewed work such as that of Michael Mann's.
Tilo.
You denying strawman using troll.
The catastrophes are coming whether you like it or not....the earth is continuing to warm even if it hasn't ......and will continue to warm even if it doesn't.
Why do you insist on ignoring the empirical data formed by the emperialist scientist and trendy trends that undeniably show that you are an evil C02 emitting denying denier?
It is denying trendy trolls like you that caused Katrina and flooding in Bangladesh with your computer using and selfish air conditioner enjoying habits........
If you don't accept the coming doom, you will soon face imprisonment,sterilization, and rehabilitation until we can be sure you are "most likely" cured using a 95 percent confidence interval with t Tests and regression lines and other reliable statistical methods that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you "probably" won't do it again.
At that point you will be released on probation and your temperature will be monitored for the next 30 years to determine your health trend.
Respectfully,
The Alarmists.
P.S. DENIER!
Actually, accepting comments from people like Tilo is a good move for Tim (from his perspective). If "denialists" are represented by people like Tilo, "alarmists" can continue thinking that he represents the contrary opinion and dismiss it.
Tushara
"I am not claiming that I am making any scientific research on a blog,"
Exactly what do you claim to be doing on this blog?
"I just claim that the scientific peer review process is robust and if you have any evidence to counter anthropogenic climate change, then go through the peer review process."
I could give you a good refutation of your claim, but since your whole "peer review" thing is simply a distraction from my point about Mann's work, I'm going to skip it for now. The peer review discussion will have to wait until after the discussion that claims that only AGW warming proponents should be getting funding.
""Why do I need peer reviewed science to ask why Mann didn't update his data? "
"Sure you can ask questions, that is also the scientific way, but don't claim that the scientific PEER REVIEW evidence is wrong without providing any peer reviewed evidence,""
So are you telling me that I need a peer reviewed paper to demonstrate that Michael Mann never updated his bristlecone tree ring series?
Are you telling me that I need a peer reviewed paper to demonstrate that Michael Mann never corrected his most heavily weighted data series when Linah Ababneh's doctoral dissertation showed that it was wrong?
Dear Tim,
Was she assigned to you? Who pays her, and is she paid by the post, or the column-inch? Is there a deduction in that fee for mere repackaging and repetition of the same points?
Just curious.
bi
"By the way, what's the latest version of the conspiracy theory anyway? I forgot."
What conspiracy theory are you refering to bi? Do you have a conspiracy theory?
Tilo Reber:
Not much needs to be said about Tilo Reber other than that he is a blatant liar (such as the above for example). However I will also mention that when he feels the heat he avoids scrutiny by being deliberately dense and misunderstanding the point e.g.:
He very conveniently misunderstood that a lower rate of cooling in the past than the future forecast had nothing to do with a bet based on the future forecast. Part of his strategy is to use misunderstandings as an excuse to avoid scrutiny. Since he's still avoiding it and this is the Tilo Reber Thread, the rest of some scrutiny should be repeated here:
I'm not. Stop lying.
Yet another moron who doesn't realize the difference between weather and climate.
I didn't say there was no reason. I admit I can't explain 10 years of weather.
You still don't get it:
In other news: 10 YEARS -- UNEXPLAINED NATURAL COOLING -- PROOF THAT CLIMATE SENSITIVITY IS LOWER THAN IPCC'S RANGE
When are you going to get the simple concept that a change in trend for a ten year period, even if you can't explain the natural weather processes that caused it, is not significant to climate sensitivity. You don't seem to realize that "doubt" is part of the confidence interval for climate sensitivity. There IS a 5% doubt that climate sensitivity is outside the IPCC range and 10 years of flat trend MAKES INSIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE TO THAT DOUBT.
Anyone with at least half a brain would realize that if "the expected growth in forcing over the next 30 years is more than the growth over the last 30" then the expected growth in temperature over the next 30 years is more than the growth in temperature over the last 30, i.e. as far as I'm aware, the IPCC did not expect temperatures to rise 0.2 deg C/decade over the LAST 30 years. 0.2 deg C/decade is the expectation for the NEXT 30 years.
Chris:
"When are you going to get the simple concept that a change in trend for a ten year period, even if you can't explain the natural weather processes that caused it, is not significant to climate sensitivity. "
Of course it is microbrain. If you can't explain it then you don't understand natural climate causes. If you don't understand natural climate causes, then you cannot know what portion of the climate change that we have seen to attribute to natural causes and what part to attribute to AGW.
And I could care less if you call it climate or weather. It's a ten year flat period, and if you don't know what caused it then you don't have enough knowledge to determine the size of climate sensitivity.
Shiny, you are such a lame ass coward. You can't handle a little bit of pressure on your "AGW..the End is Nigh" shit. Be a man FFS rather than falsely accusing people of being trolls etc.
Well done Tilo keep up the pressure on the alarmists.
depp=true
notiz=[I suppose it was inevitable that someone would try to derail Tilo's thread -Tim]
TR really has a way with the "microbrain"- why not nano, or pico, or femto? Dial it up, munchloaf!
Hi all
10 year warming = climate trend.
10 years cooling = weather.
I would love to know why it has not warmed for 5 years now, (Based on GisTemp, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt) but the only answer I get is denier, denier, denier.....
In NZ we have the Swindle Doc on this weekend and the Green Party are most upset:(.
Regards from a soon to be free from Socialism New Zealand
Peter Bickle
PS Tilo, keep up the good work. These fundamental alarmists are so hard to educate.
Tim look what you've done!
We've got all the dodos here in one place. Tilo, Betula, Peter "New Zealand isn't warming" Bickle, even Harold Pierce has chosen to grace us with his presence...talk about waving a red flag at the proverbial bull.
Well...the cumulative IQ of this lot must reach somewhere near the second or third Mersenne prime. But no, someone with a 5th grade education is going to teach these hoity-toity scienticians a thing or two!
Well, if it's any consolation to Tilo and co, their ridiculous arguments are nothing more than or source of mirth for me... I do enjoy seeing the depths of stupidity plumbed every now and then.
Hi all
ChrisC, what is your IQ, mine is 140. So I am quite intelligent. What do you do for a living? I am a Sales Manager for a chemical company. Answer this, why has the temperture not increased for 5 years, this will be a good test of your IQ.
Regards from a cool New Zealand
Peter Bickle
> What conspiracy theory are you refering to bi? Do you have a conspiracy theory?
Hahaha, that's a new one. (Well, not so new... Pielke Jr. tried to pull a similar one a while back.)
Psst... OK... while they're busy here, we back quietly out of the room.....
Wow! Think of it! A SALESPERSON is overturning science done by the likes of NASA, and has positively refuted the NAS and every other major science organization in the world.
Wow! I'd buy a used car from this salesman any day of the week! Forsooth, he tells truth!
(cough cough)
"Regards from a cool New Zealand Peter Bickle"
That is so sad, but least we know that you are a salesman's, not a world leading climate scientist. But I am sure you will learn a lot from Swindle... but wait, no one else in NZ will be watching Prime on a long weekend... so I guess the laugh will be on you and prime.
It's a laugh that, even with all the holes in that movie, you still seem to except it.
Peter Bickle:
Sigh...why do I bother. (The short answer is because it's fun!)
"ChrisC, what is your IQ, mine is 140. So I am quite intelligent. "
I'll be honest Peter and tell you that I don't know what my IQ. You see, I gave up using silly metrics to try to prove to others that I'm intelligent back in kindergarten. Unlike you, I am able to let my ideas stand or fall on their merit. People will judge my intelligence accordingly. I don't feel the need to brandish around numbers to make myself feel able to play in the sand pit with the big kids.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume that your IQ is greater than mine. You're still a tool and you're still wrong.
"What do you do for a living? "
Why is this relevant? Why do you care? Okay, I'll play along. I'm a research meteorologist, working in private industry. My research is in the field of turbulence prediction... in particular, the development of numerical models for the prediction of turbulence in boundary layer flows over topography. I also dabble in radar meteorology, convective processes and numerical mathematics. In the past I've been a meteorologist and a process engineer in mining infrastructure and water treatment.
Do I win? Why is this important?
"Answer this, why has the temperture not increased for 5 years, "
Many, many others have answered your question right here on this blog. Aware that I may as well speak to a tree stump, I'll have one last crack at answering your question.
1) Your question, as stated, is wrong. Global temperatures HAVE increased over the last five years. Linear regression analysis on GISS data will give you a temperature rise of 0.028 +/- 0.019 deg.C/yr, whilst HADCRU data gives a rise of 0.018 +/- 0.016 deg.C/yr.
2) Standard climatological practice requires 30 years of observations to determine a trend. This is because climate data is very noisy, and subject to many internal and external factors. ENSO, SAM, NAO, IOD, solar peaks and troughs ect... In a commercial environment, where for obvious reasons we can't take 30 years of data at our own sites, we generally try for 10 plus correlation to a longer term site.
5 years simply isn't enough data to determine a trend. To suggest otherwise is to admit to statistical illiteracy.
3) None of your bumbling changes basic radiative transfer physics. Unless you have a particular ability to overturn more than 100 years of science, going back to the time of Fourier, why do you think that increasing the opacity of the atmosphere to outgoing longwave radiation will not effect the radiative balence of the plant?
Oh and by the way...New Zealand is warming:
http://www.niwa.cri.nz/ncc/clivar/pastclimate
Disregards from ChrisC
ENSO and the solar cycle explain it quite well actually.
I find that people who talk about how high their IQ is are rally quite dumb--or at least dumb enough to think nobody will know they're lying about their IQ.
ATTN: Peter!
GO: http://www.John-Daly.com, scroll down, click on "Station Temperature Data", then find Ms Alice Springs' chart. She is one very healthly lady. Hasn't had a fever since 1879!
ATTN Tim, Don't even think about whacking this post.
I think I'm starting to believe that Harold Pierce may be a shill funded by John Daly's ghost.
Hello Bernard!
I ain't no shill. I have in preparation an op-ed article entiled "The Late John Daly and Alice Springs" which I'm going to send to your favorite newspaper "The Australian", after I have it checked out by all of those friendly folks over at the NZCC and a few other fellows like Roy and John, Richard, Bob and Roger.
Stay tuned!
PS: Go to GISTEMP and check out the plots for Tombstone and Yuma AZ, and Dodge City KA and compare these plots to Alice Springs and Death Valley.
Harold,go to Alice Springs Airport and compare the thirty-year mean maximum temperature 1941-1970 with the mean for 1971-2000...
> I ain't no shill.
Hahahahahahaha... well, you sure tried very hard to sound like one. I don't know why, because for all I know, John Daly is still dead.
> PS:
Maybe you can change that to "And now, a word from our sponsors:"
...and then end it with "I'm John Daly, and I would've approved this message were I alive."
> I have in preparation an op-ed article entiled "The Late John Daly and Alice Springs"
Thanks for telling us. Maybe someone can write a pre-emptive op-ed warning about a moronic upcoming op-ed by someone who called Al Gore fat.
And I'm not Bernard. Unless you're referring to your St. Bernard, whom for all we know may be part of the Great Warmist Conspiracy. As McCarthy said, "there is a red under the bed."
Tilo Reber:
No-one can explain why the weather was tbe way it was in the last year. According to Mr. Blatant "there is no emperical evidence to support the IPCC climate sensitivity number" Liar, that means you don't understand the climate. I should point out, as Annan does, that modern temperature observations are ONLY ONE source of SEVERAL for empirical information for deriving climate sensitivity. Even then, the last 10 years are only 10 years out of more than 100 that can be used for this single source out of several for empirical information.
The blatant liar is still avoiding scrutiny, so for his convenience I'll write again the points that the deliberately dense blatant liar is still ignoring:
He very conveniently misunderstood that a lower rate of cooling in the past than the future forecast had nothing to do with a bet based on the future forecast. Part of his strategy is to use misunderstandings as an excuse to avoid scrutiny. Since he's still avoiding it and this is the Tilo Reber Thread, the rest of some scrutiny should be repeated here:
I'm not. Stop lying.
July 1992-June 2002 0.40 deg c/decade. 0.4 is less than 0.17 is it?
Any other shit you want to feed us?"
Anyone with at least half a brain would realize that if "the expected growth in forcing over the next 30 years is more than the growth over the last 30" then the expected growth in temperature over the next 30 years is more than the growth in temperature over the last 30, i.e. as far as I'm aware, the IPCC did not expect temperatures to rise 0.2 deg C/decade over the LAST 30 years. 0.2 deg C/decade is the expectation for the NEXT 30 years.
dhogaza:
"Wow! Think of it! A SALESPERSON is overturning science done by the likes of NASA,"
So NASA physicist Dr. David Hathaway is now on his fourth guess as to when solar minimum will occur. We are already more than 2 years past his first guess. I'm thinking that the average salesperson could probably do better.
Chris C:
1) Your question, as stated, is wrong. Global temperatures HAVE increased over the last five years. Linear regression analysis on GISS data will give you a temperature rise of 0.028 +/- 0.019 deg.C/yr, whilst HADCRU data gives a rise of 0.018 +/- 0.016 deg.C/yr.
BBWWWAAAHHHHAAAAAHHHHHAAAA
What orifice did you pull that information out of? It's not even close. Here is the chart for the last 5 years of HadCrut3 data.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/05/hadcrut3-five-year-temp-a…
But who really cares about the last 5 years, since we have had no warming for the last 11 years.
"I think I'm starting to believe that Harold Pierce may be a shill funded by John Daly's ghost."
Ah, now I know what conspiracy theory you are talking about!
Chris C:
"Oh and by the way...New Zealand is warming:"
Thanks for the chart. Looks like they have had much warmer periods than today.
This is a very interesting chart. It shows the Arctic sea ice area. If you look at the beginning of the anomoly line you can see that we are now entering the yearly period where we had a large crash in the sea ice area last year. The largest since we have had sattellite records.
The ice area recovered nicely in November, but the pundits at Real Climate have been telling us that this ice is non perennial and paper thin and will therefore disappear very quickly this summer.
Since last years crash interval is just beginning, I thought it would be interesting to see if our so called climate scientists have this correct. This is a prediction that we can check out over the next three month. I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know how it will go. But I will be watching.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
By the way, for those of you who only watch the Arctic, the global sea ice level is very close to normal at the moment. It has been above normal most of 08.
Oh, I get it! It's an Irrellavant Troll Roast!
...no wait! Forget I said that!
Tilo Reber:
But who really cares about the last 11 years, since we have had warming for the last 30 years, 50 years, 100 years.
BTW, who really cares what a blatant liar says.
Boris:
ENSO and the solar cycle explain it quite well actually.
No, ENSO doesn't seem to have had anything to do with it.
I would be willing to accept solar, since we are near a solar minimum and have been at a very low level of solar activity for a couple of years. But the guys at Real Climate claim that the effect of solar variation is very weak. Not that I respect the hacks at RC, but Leif Svalgaard seems to have the same opinion, and I do respect him as a solar physisics.
Sorry Boris, the 11 years of no warming are unexplained by natural causes, and they therefore cast doubt upon the IPCC climate sensitivity number.
"But who really cares about the last 11 years"
Only the people who care why all of the CO2 that has been added during that period hasn't manifesting itself in temperature rise, while at the same time there are no natural causes that can account for the overriding of the CO2 forcing effect that the AGW cult tells us is there.
But we all understand that you don't care. And of course I could give a rats behind about what you care or don't care about.
How is it remotely possible that you can talk about a five year trend with any degree of seriousness when you also have this on your site? http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/05/hadcrut3-30-year-trend.ht…
I am irrevocably led to the conclusion that you are just screwing with us.
"there are no natural causes"
Prove it blatant liar. Just because you can't predict the weather more than some number of days ahead doesn't mean various weather can't happen over the next 11 years.
11 years of data overturns more than 100 years of previous data, as well as several other types of data.
Sure, blatant liar.
"Prove it blatant liar."
Really now - you are about 10 years old, right?
"11 years of data overturns more than 100 years of previous data"
Falsification of a theory only takes one example. One period of time during which the predictions of the theory break down and for which there is no explanation for the prediction of the theory to have broken down is all that it takes.
"How is it remotely possible that you can talk about a five year trend with any degree of seriousness when you also have this on your site?"
The only reason that I put the 5 year trend up is because Chris C. claimed that it was still positive. Clearly he was lying.
The thirty year trend is there because bi claimed that it was .2C per decade. Clearly it is not.
Your question, then, is with regards to the substantial positive slope of the 30 year trend. Sure, I know what it is. My argument is that it isn't necessarily meaningful. You can draw trend lines through 30 year periods in the historical record and they will be all over the place. Having captured a 30 year trend is not any indicator that you have captured some underlying forcing effect that will continue indefinitely. Thirty year trends change their slope as easily as ten year trends. Thirty years does not remove all of the natural elements of variability and leave you with some kind of discovered truth. The trend that you are looking at has happened before and it has changed before. The other problem is that if you draw a linear regression trend line through any data, it will give you a straight line through that data, but it will not indicate if any recent changes are happening.
Here is a fourth order polynomial trend line drawn through all of the available RSS data. Notice that it is a little better at capturing change.
"http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/03/bob-carter-reproduction.h…"
The blatant liar forgot to mention:
BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THE COOLING CYCLES ARE NOT ENOUGH TO OPPOSE CO2 WARMING OVER 11 YEARS.
I'd rather be 10 years old than a blatant liar.
So you've falsified IPCC's climate sensitivity range? The theory doesn't say there should be no 10 year periods of zero trend or lower. The lies become more blatant.
Yet somehow a 10 year trend is.
Yet another bullshit assertion. The bullshit and lies never stop from the blatant liar.
RE # 28
You can't use data from any airport for studies of global warming and climate studies. These are excluded. Usually the meterologial instruments are located close to or between runways so that windspeed can be measured accurately as this info is important to pilots.
Meterological data is used by air traffic control to advise pilots on weather conditions so that they can operate their planes safely. This is most important when pilots are landing their planes.
Thirty year trends change their slope as easily as ten year trends.
this is false. neither do they chaneg from a positive direction to a negative one as often, nor are changes from year to year as wild as they are in 10 year trends.
Atmoz has written a very nice post on this topic:
http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/01/29/on-the-insignificance-of-a-5-year-temp…
notice how 13 years trend show a positive slope more often, than 30 years trends. if we would use the same misleading definitions as the denialists, we would have changed the significant timeinterval needed to 13 years some time ago. we didn t.
instead we stick to the NORMAL definition of a reasonable timeframe when talking about climate (aka 30 years).
Since last years crash interval is just beginning, I thought it would be interesting to see if our so called climate scientists have this correct. This is a prediction that we can check out over the next three month. I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know how it will go. But I will be watching.
you have this story backwards, again. the current arctic seaice area is BELOW the same level last year. and this is AFTER THE "SPECIAL" WINTER (JANUARY!!!!) and under LA NINA conditions!
denialists were celebrating this winter recovery as a change in trend and the beginning of a new ice age. that the sea ice area fell below last years numbers so fast, actually DOES PROOF already, what peple told you about thin ice.
whether we will see a new low is still unclear. but it is obvious that the extra ice is gone already.
that the ice is thin is NOT a wild claim, btw! thickness of ice can be MEASURED! try some scientific literature, FOR ONCE!
RE #33
Those numbers don't mean anything. Where do you people get the notion that temperatures are measured to +/-0.001 deg with good accuracy and precision? In the US temperatures are measured and reported to +/- 1 deg F (ca 0.5 deg C and usually to +/- 0.5 deg C in the rest of the world). You can't pour raw data into the hopper of a statistical meat grinder and expect to get filet mignon. You are obligated to round the result to the accuracy of the measuring instrument. If this were done, global warming is not occuring.
Harold writes:
Harold, the accuracy of one instrument is not the same as the accuracy of several instruments. If you don't understand this, you really should not be writing about it. Study a subject before you make pronouncements about it.
RE#48:
Really,Harold? Alice Springs Airport is one of Australia's Reference Climate Network sites....
Tilo, I salute your stamina and I salute Tim for giving you your own space. He must be wavering.
Sod, This years Arctic sea ice area is about the same as last year, not less as you state. What is more interesting is how much ahead of last year the Antarctic sea ice coverage is.
People who talk about "thin" sea ice tend to focus on the melting of the ice instead of the cooling of the sea water. Since water is 800 times as dense as air, most of the melting is a result of the cooling of the sea water.
This years Arctic sea ice was thicker than normal by about 10-20 CM. This on a natural freeze depth of 1-2 meters.
Personally I expect to see a minimum level of sea ice that is above last year, but I also expect a further cooling of the arctic sea water becaluse open water radiates more energy than multi-year sea ice....When the sun is down or when the sun is at a low angle, which is most of the year.
Harold writes:
In Australia the Bureau of Meteorology reports temperature to 0.1 deg C. So I guess the US must be one of those primitive countries that doesn't report temperature as accurately.
kent, kent, kent....
says:
"I also expect a further cooling of the arctic sea water becaluse open water radiates more energy than multi-year sea ice....When the sun is down or when the sun is at a low angle, which is most of the year."
But kent, when the sun is down or at a low angle, the arctic freezes over. Remember? It's one of the favorite talking points of you guys, the 'record' recovery of ice cover this last winter.
There is a positive feedback with increased summer icemelt - colder part of the year, the ice forms, inhibits cooling of the water. More or less the same as its been, in the winter. In the summer, the less cold part of the year, the ice melts, the sun is at higher angle, the water warms more than it previously has in summer because there is less ice to inhibit warming. Net result, a POSITIVE feedback for water heat content.
Sod, This years Arctic sea ice area is about the same as last year, not less as you state.
currently it is slightly less, which is the important point in this. not much, so if you prefer to call it similar, i will agree. major point: the extra ice is GONE.
. What is more interesting is how much ahead of last year the Antarctic sea ice coverage is.
no. actually antarctic sea ice area is completely irrelvant. there is a major diffenerence between the two:
arctic sea ice area is showing a long term downward TREND. anarctic area is showing WILD fluctuations and no trend at all.
People who talk about "thin" sea ice tend to focus on the melting of the ice instead of the cooling of the sea water. Since water is 800 times as dense as air, most of the melting is a result of the cooling of the sea water.
funny one. the real scientists speak of a POSITIVE sea ice albedo feedback.
http://tiny.cc/uO0ML
and actually sea temperature in the arctic has INCREASED by 2°C over the last 30 years, while sea ice was shrinking...
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=56
This years Arctic sea ice was thicker than normal by about 10-20 CM.
if by NORMAL you mean a long term average, then this is a completely FALSE claim. i would love to see your sources for it!
but i guess that this was the source of your absurd claim:
The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that's a significant increase," he said.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html
Personally I expect to see a minimum level of sea ice that is above last year
actually i expect that as well. but this is not god news, because last year was an EXTREME event.
but I also expect a further cooling of the arctic sea water becaluse open water radiates more energy than multi-year sea ice....When the sun is down or when the sun is at a low angle, which is most of the year.
i am looking forward to some sources of your "colder arctic sea".
tilo says:
"Here is a fourth order polynomial trend line drawn through all of the available RSS data. Notice that it is a little better at capturing change."
Please excuse me while I recover from laughing hysterically.
Why not a 5th order polynomial, tilo? 6th? 7th? They would be even better at "capturing change."
What in earth is your physical or analytical justification for picking a 'fourth order polynomial?" Have you never taken a data analysis class?
and this one is a beaut, too:
"the 11 years of no warming are unexplained by natural causes,"
Well, the first year of that 11 years is an extraordinarily strong El Nino, and the end of the 11 years contains a strong La Nina. I guess Tilo doesn't consider El Nino and La Nina to be natural?
This is an assertion with no analysis. What method did you use to subtract ENSO from the trend? What published estimate of the effect of the solar cycle did you use in your analysis?
Here is a beautiful shot of today's stage of the Giro d'Italia that I though you might all like.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2008/giro08/index.php?id=/photos/2008…
Chris:
"BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THE COOLING CYCLES ARE NOT ENOUGH TO OPPOSE CO2 WARMING OVER 11 YEARS."
Of course they are enough. I have told you that a dozen time. But those cooling cycles of the past also had a reason - whereas the reasons for having an 11 year flat cycle are not there.
sod:
"you have this story backwards, again. the current arctic seaice area is BELOW the same level last year. "
If it is, your eyeball is calibrated to the pixel.
"that the ice is thin is NOT a wild claim, btw!"
Where did I say that it was?
Tilo, stop being a perversely dense asshole.
"whereas the reasons for having an 11 year flat cycle are not there."
ENSO. Look at it. Its been named to yo over and over, and you are simply behaving as if those posts do not exist. You are making a claim with no analytical basis, and repeating that claim when that lack being pointed out to you and the analytical substrates are being spoon fed to you.
"Tilo, stop being a perversely dense asshole."
Let me suggest that you are the perversely dense asshole. Let me suggest that you are the one making a claim with no analytical basis.
"when that lack being pointed out to you and the analytical substrates are being spoon fed to you."
So you consider a bunch of morons on this forum asserting that it is ENSO as an "analytical substrate". Maybe you can get your head out of your butt for three seconds and realize that there is zero evidence that it is ENSO. Much less a fricken "analytical substrate"
At least I made the effort to quantize the trending effects of the El Nino and La Nina cycles over that period. What have you done but shoot off your mouth.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/05/ten-year-hadcrut3-enso-ef…
"This is an assertion with no analysis. What method did you use to subtract ENSO from the trend? "
You mean that you haven't seen this either Boris.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/05/ten-year-hadcrut3-enso-ef…
As far as published effect of solar cycles, I think there are numerous ones out there. I'll let you find one for yourself. If you find one that claims that solar cycles are strong enough to do that, please let me know, because then they may also be strong enough to give us the warming that we previously had.
"I guess Tilo doesn't consider El Nino and La Nina to be natural?"
I guess that you are too ignorant to know that there were 7 El Nino/La Nina cyles during that period, and that they all effected the slope of the trend.
Everyone, please, go look at that 'analysis' of ENSO effects that Tilo Reber linked. This is even funnier than his 'fourth order polynomial' fit above.
"Your question, then, is with regards to the substantial positive slope of the 30 year trend"
Not exactly; my question is, after you've published a 30 year graph in which it is immediately obvious that you can find essentially any five year trend you wish, positive or negative, and therefore clear than any five year trend is essentially uncorrelated with the thirty year trend, you can then post a five year trend to convince us that the long term trend has changed?
"Thirty year trends change their slope as easily as ten year trends"
Oh Lord. What does this even mean? A single thirty year trend covers 25 5 year trends. therefore you have 25 different slopes for each 30 year slope. if you are trying to compare a single 5 year trend with a single 30 year trend, how do you choose a single 5 year trend to compare with your thirty year trend?
"This is even funnier than his 'fourth order polynomial' fit above."
So show me how you came to the conclusion that the 11 flat period is caused by ENSO, brick brain.
This is Lee talking: "Duuhh it had an El Nino at du beginning and a La Nina at du end. Duuhh - ders yer proof!"
"if you are trying to compare a single 5 year trend with a single 30 year trend, how do you choose a single 5 year trend to compare with your thirty year trend?"
You are completely missing the point. I'm not trying to compare 5 year trends to thirty year trends. What I'm saying is that a 5 year trend is simply 5 years with a trend line drawn through it. A thirty year trend is simply 30 years with a trend line drawn through it. Beyond that, it means absolutley nothing. It is history. It has no predictive value. It uncovers no magical truth. If you look at the long term record, there have been thirty year trends that have flipped in all directions, and they have had no predictive value. There have been 100 200 and 300 year warming trends in the past that have had multiple positive 30 year trends in them. But it didn't mean that the 30 year trend would go on forever. And again, your 30 year trend is a thirty year trend only because you have force fit a straight line through it. What your current thirty year trend really is, is a strong 20 year warming trend and a 10 year flat trend.
The idea that a 30 year trend will somehow remove the noise and leave you with something that is pure, built in, and continuing is pure bunk. Elements of natural variation come in all kinds of time period. They may overlap. You may get one that trends in a certain direction followed by another that trends in the same direction. You may get opposing elements that cancel each other out. Thirty years does not remove these signals. If you want to know what is going on you have to understand what signals you had in effect, what their magnitude and duration was, and then you have to remove them to find any underlying trend that may not be cyclic. Simply cherry picking 30 years because it suits the needs of the alarmist cult will not do the trick.
Look at this chart.
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ts.gif
Look at the dominance of El Nino from 1978 to 1998. Now look at the dominance of La Nina from 1950 to 1978. That represents roughly a 48 year cycle that would not be removed by a 30 year chart. With that El Nino La Nina pattern, where you take your 30 years will strongly effect the trend that you get. There are other, longer cycles that also effect any 30 year trend line that you want to choose.
My point here is not that an 10 year flat trend is an indication of climate to come, but rather that a 30 year trend line isn't either. It only has meaning if you completely understand all of the elements of variability and if you can remove them. And if you can do that, then both a 30 year or a 10 year trend can yield useful information.
Hmm, I see that my attempted link to today's Giro d'Italia stage didn't work. I'll try once more.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2008/giro08/index.php?id=/photos/2008…
Isn't it wonderful that Nature has figured out in 2008 what Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit figured out in 2005.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/full/nature06982.html
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3114
Really. Where were they demonstrated? Where is the proof that "there are no natural causes that can account for the overriding of the CO2 forcing effect" in the last 10 years while at the same time there is proof that there were natural causes for past 10 year cooling periods? Empty rhetoric, as you have provided so far, is proof that you are lying.
You're tripping over you're own rhetoric. You might have been able to say something about the effect of ONE weather variable on the last 10 years but you haven't even demonstrated the effect of that single variable on the last 11 years.
Sod,
your links are not worth discussing but your question about "colder Arctic sea" is what I have been asking. All I get is surface temperature, which is only a small part of the story. Sunlight only penetrates 10 meters or so, but cold water sinks down hundreds of meters, warm water rises and cold sinks. Sea ice does not form immediately when the sun goes down. ( which is what the warmists have been saying all along). The whole water column has to cool to minus 1.6- 1.8 C before ice forms. Even when sea ice forms, the thinner it is the faster it cools the water below it. You say there is not a trend in the Antarctic. If you actually look at the annual sea ice coverage you will see that for the last five years the area has been increasing. This year's maximum in the Arctic is the highest in the last five years, (including this year).
":What I'm saying is that a 5 year trend is simply 5 years with a trend line drawn through it. A thirty year trend is simply 30 years with a trend line drawn through it. Beyond that, it means absolutely nothing. It is history. It has no predictive value. It uncovers no magical truth."
On the other hand, when you have two trends which march along with a good degree of correlation and you have a chain of cause/effect which defines a plausible mechanism, you'd be kind of a fool to suggest that pushing on that pedal in the car has nothing to do with making it go faster or slower, because there are so many things that affect a car's speed and you don't know them all.
RE: #52 You are just flat out wrong. If you have a set of digital thermometers that measure temperature to +/- 1 deg, you cannot report data as if it were measured to +/-0.001 deg. You would never get that nonsense by a honest ref for a peer-reviewed journal and certaintly not by me.
BTW: Don't tell Dr. Pierce want he can and cannot do. Go write some fairy tales for children about the Kingdom of the Warmers!
RE: #53 Yes, I know that. It is poor site if you are interested in using the data for climate studies. I wouldn't use it. As I mentioned the instruments are there for air flight operations not for scientists. And what is modern aiport: One huge slab of steel-reinforced concrete about 5-6 ft thick.
RE #55 We like to play horse shoes. +/- 1 deg F is good enough!
Sod, your links are not worth discussing
hm. my links did destroy your argument. i understand, that you don t like them.
it is good practise in discussions, to admit having been wrong, when it is clearly demonstrated.
as was your claim about arctic sea ice haveing been thicker than normal:
The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that's a significant increase," he said.
you do understand that thicker than last year is not the same as thicker than normal, when last year was massively BELOW normal?!?
All I get is surface temperature, which is only a small part of the story. ... The whole water column has to cool to minus 1.6- 1.8 C before ice forms.
another statement that is blatantly false. are you going for a new record?
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/np-ocean.gif
You say there is not a trend in the Antarctic. If you actually look at the annual sea ice coverage you will see that for the last five years the area has been increasing.
repeat after me: 5 years is NOT a trend in climate!!!
This year's maximum in the Arctic is the highest in the last five years, (including this year).
repeat after me: 5 years is NOT a trend in climate!!!
notice, how it still was BELOW the long term average!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseri…
If the work coming out of the world's leading climate research institutions is dismissed out of hand, you are left able to believe anything you like about climate and human influences on it. But Tilo, you expect to be thought not only credible but as having superior insight into these matters - an overly extravagant expectation I think.
I will go on believing that the understanding of Earth's climate system and mankind's place in it, as it's come out of these institutions, is vastly superior to yours. So is this a matter of faith? I suppose, since I am incapable of seriously critiquing the nuts and bolts of the scientific work done, that there is an element of faith. But then, I'm inclined to trust that mechanics know more about cars, doctors more about medicine, and so on, than I do. I also think you are actually no more expert than I am, so if I accept what you say as true, that would be a matter of faith. I actually think your position is more faith based than mine - you believe the sources you are informed by are both correct and superior, in the face of experts saying otherwise. That's a stronger faith than mine, which would be easily undermined should the world's experts views so strongly diverge from my own.
Science has self correction built into it's process, and if AGW was so clearly and demonstrably so wrong, it would have seen a lots of good arguments presented(as in scientific papers presented to peer reviewed science journals) that clearly show that. Fame and glory in plenty. This would have happened a long time before now, and there are plenty of self interested, powerful people and orgs to make sure they weren't brushed aside. That hasn't happened.
Claims the vast majority of climate scientists are innately biased are just fantasy. AGW science is an Ecofascist fraud? Pure fantasy.
Tilo,
I appreciate that you attempted an analysis, a lot of skeptics don't even bother. However, your method is not appropriate. Adding the El Nino and La Nina events for the entire period won't tell you much about the trend (Imagine a 3 deg La Nina in the second year and a three degree El Nino in the final year. They even out, but the trend would be strongly positive over the time period.)
I believe Trenberth had an analysis of ENSO effects in the latter part of the twentieth century. Perhaps you could use his method?
z:
"On the other hand, when you have two trends which march along with a good degree of correlation"
There are many times in the temperature record when the same trend existed and when there was no CO2 rise.
Boris:
"They even out, but the trend would be strongly positive over the time period."
That's true. But I positioned the ENSO periods where they actually happened. Which is the right comparison to make when you are talking about how the trend line was effected overall by the ENSOs. What you are talking about is the total contribution to warming or cooling over that time period by those ENSOs. I wasn't trying to get that out of the analysis. I was only trying to get the trend line effect.
Of course my analyis is based on the assumption that there is no long term bias for ENSO trends. I'm not completely sure that is true. If anyone is aware of a long term bias, I would like to hear about it.
This chart seems to show periods of La Nina dominance and periods of El Nino dominance.
"http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ts.gif"
Sod:
"repeat after me: 5 years is NOT a trend in climate!!! notice, how it still was BELOW the long term average!"
Sod, Kent was talking about a 5 year trend in the Antarctic. Your chart is of the Arctic.
The chart you want is this one.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
And as you can see here, Antarctic sea ice is almost a million sq km above the long term average.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
But what really counts is the global sea ice area. And as you can see, if there is a downward trend, it is less than 10 years long. Which according to you "is not a trend in climate".
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.wi…
And note that we have been above the long term average for most of 08.
ATTN: Tilo!
RE: The Big Chill Is In!
Now, I'm just going to make your day! Here are the latest and really cool results from the Pierce Pacific Climate Research Center, located in super-natural beautiful British Columbia, the Best Place on Earth.
Here are some results for Sept 21 from the Quatsino BC weather station (Elev., 7 m) I decide to analyze the records for this particular day since the photoperiod is 12L:12D and any effects of the ENSO are minimal. Clouds with or with rain are most likely the important factor that causes variation in temperature.
Year Tmax Tmin.
1990 25.0 10.0.
1991 19.5 07.0.
1992 18.0 12.5.
1993 17.5 06.0
1994 24.5 10.0.
1995 21.5 11.5.
1996 14.5 06.5.
1997 18.5 08.5.
1998 20.5 10.5.
1999 19.5 08.5.
2000 19.5 09.5.
Mean 20.0 09.0.
2001 14.5 11.5.
2002 14.3 10.0.
2003 15.0 09.0.
2004 15.5 11.5.
2005 14.5 10.0.
2006 14.0. 10.0.
2007 14.0 09.0.
Mean 14.5 10.0.
Chng -5.5 +1.0. From 1990-99 means to 2001-07 means.
WOW! Has not the PDO kicked-in big time or what? Tmax is a measure of the sea breeze coming-in from the vast Pacific Ocean whereas Tmin is a measure of the "forest breeze" that comes down and out the of the old-growth temporate rainforest that is on the steep slopes of the land that rises up abruptly from ocean. The canopy the forest is closed and about at least 100 feet above the land. This is why Tmin is cool and constant.
These data confirm Roger Sr view that the annual mean temperature is a worthless metric for assesement of any global warming.
The 1990-2000 was the hottest at this site in Sept. since 1895. My son Owen mentioned to me that it was probably due to oil wells that Saddam set on fire. Hmmm!
The decline in Tmax and Tmin at the lightstation (Elev., 21 m) were -4.9 and -1.9 deg C., resp.
Here are some results for Sept 21 from the Quatsino BC weather station (Elev., 7 m) I decide to analyze the records for this particular day since the photoperiod is 12L:12D and any effects of the ENSO are minimal. Clouds with or with rain are most likely the important factor that causes variation in temperature.
harold, you are insane.
the data of a SINGLE station on a SINGLE day each year over 10 years has absolutely ZERO value for a climate analyis.
it rained on 4 of my last 5 birthdays, while the sun was shining on 4 of the 5 before that! EARTH IS COOLIG!
again: you are insane.
85's a joke right?
Re:#78 "Yes ,I know that." You do now. Harold, at least 45 airport or aerodrome weather stations are part of Australia's Reference Climate Network. Out of a total of 103...
Shorter Harold: And now, a word from our sponsors...
SOD.... look up the word trend. Climate trend is made up of just two points.
As to your weak links destroying my argument? Not even close. They were, as I stated not worth commenting on.
The graph you pointed out proves my point. The water column is at -1.6 C. I guess I should have been more specific as to the water column starting at the surface and decending to the thermocline. Sorry, I assumed you could read between the lines. Most of the figures you use are years old. This seems to be a problem with many supporters of warming. Using the past data as if it was current data is not conducive to figuring out what is going on.
While I check sea surface area daily I don't see it as being gospel. The area bounces back and forth like waves on the beach. This brings into question what is really being measured. Are we seeing wind induced expansion and contraction of ice area or are we seeing melting and freezing? Remember that minimum last year? Was it ice melt or ice compression?
Another problem with data is using summer data because winter data is harder to get. Yet another inconvenient truth?
RE: #86.
What I did is quite valid. I have the data since 1895. I only posted the 1900-2000 and the 2001-2007 intervals which show the really interesting stuff.
If you want to see the rest of the data, I have it in a txt file and I wiil post if you want to check it out.
Now let us suppose we do this for everyday of the year since 1895. You construct a big spread sheet with 365 columns subdivided for Tmax and Tmin and with the rows for the the years of the station record. Then, you fill in all cells with the data and take a look-see.
Andrew Marterman did this for the entire CET record for each month but he only used monthly mean. GO:
http://www.usefulinfo.co.uk/
climate_ change_ global_ warming.php
NB: remove space after underscores then append after"/".
Roger Sr says the best metric to use Tmax and do not use Tmean.
For the last twenty years the salmon runs have been declining here in the lower north Pacific. As you know the PDO is detected by fish guys trying to determine the cause of the great variability of the salmon run populations. If the PDO is going into a cool phase, then the salmon runs should improve.
RE #88
I sure do. I sent an e-mail to ABM inquiring about access to temp records and in particular that from the Old Post Office which start in 1873. I get a reply from customer service rep Cathy, and she informed me that I have to pay $30 to get access to one temp data file. What a rip! But the ABM is customer friendly. They take Visa, MasterCard, postal mo, bank draft and cert. personal cheque.
Grrr. In Can., I can download indiv. stations records for free. However, my HP DeskJet really drinks the ink. I'm thinking about sending it to rehab (aka recycle bin).
RE: #85
These data are straight off the station records. There is no joke here.
I tell you there is very ominous chill in the air coming from the northwest. It is not like anything I have ever experienced in the last 40 years in Metro Vancouver. There is something happeing out there in the north Pacific. And it is not good.
Tilo posts:
Sample aize and representatitiveness mean nothing, folks. Remember, you heard it here first. Take that, Karl Pearson!
Harold Pearce posts:
Let's hear it for that old militant ignorance.
Harold, the error for more than one measurement is not the same as the error for one measurement. No matter how strongly you insist that it is, you're still wrong.
kent posts:
No, kent, it is not. In statistics, a trend is found by doing a linear regression of a series against time. You have to use all the points.
RE: #96
Sorry I'm right and you are super flat-out wrong!
If you have a common hand-held digital temperature measuring instrument, it has two buttons for two levels of accuracy +/- 1 deg and +/- 0.1 deg. If you measure room temperature to +/- 1 deg, the display will show, for example, 20 deg not 20.000 deg.
Google "Cole Porter" and go look up the specs for their instruments.
For accurate temperature measurement, you have to calibate the instrument with a secondary ref standard. These are special thermometers that you purchase and send to the gov agency that offers this calibration service.
These therometers are expensive. You treat and handle them with great care and store them in special case lined with real nice velvet.
BTW: The temp data that comes from UAH is probably phony balony. I don't buy it.
Barton:
"Sample aize and representatitiveness mean nothing, folks."
Sometimes you can take something out of context and still have your criticism make sense. But in this case, taking it out of context is a deliberate attempt to mislead on your part.
Barton:
"In statistics, a trend is found by doing a linear regression of a series against time."
We know that Barton. What Kent means is that the resulting trend line can be represented as a straight line between two points.
"located in super-natural beautiful British Columbia, the Best Place on Earth."
Been there. It is beautiful. If it wasn't in a socialist country I would probably like living there.
"The canopy the forest is closed and about at least 100 feet above the land."
How true. When I was a young lad I did my military basic training at Ft. Lewis Washington. When we went hiking in the woods, the only visible sky was a thin strip above the road. When the sun went down it was so dark in there that I found my tent by falling over it.
Bi:
"And now, a word from our sponsors..."
Hey Bi, did you ever figure out who else Exxon was funding on that thread. I know it was very important to you to get to the bottom of that - to the exclusion of anything else. So who else is Exxon funding?
Canada ain't no more "socialist" than the US. Tax Freedom Day is July 1 in BC which about the same in the US. BTW I wouldn't call Alberta "socialist" Most of the local wear boots and drive PU trucks with gunracks!
Well, Harold continues to insist that the error for one measurement is the same as the error for many measurements. I wonder is it only on this blog that the deniers want to completely redefine statistics in order to protect their talking points, or are they doing it elsewhere? I wonder what Steve McIntyre or someone like that -- i.e., someone who actually has some education in statistics -- would say to Harold or Tilo? Might be fun to find out.
I wonder what Steve McIntyre or someone like that -- i.e., someone who actually has some education in statistics -- would say to Harold or Tilo?
I suspect that he might say something like, "Statistics behave very much like computer programs - Garbage in garbage out."
RE: #103
It is if you use the same instrument for all measurements. And you take due care to ensure the instrument is properly calibrated and maintained. All calibrated instruments will yield the same data if used properly and frequently calibrated against a secondary ref standard.
End of Argument.
Harold Pierce posts:
No, Harold, even using the exact same instrument, multiple measurements have a lower mean squared error than one measurement.
Will you for God's sake crack an introductory statistics test? A good one is Brase and Brase 1995 (1978): Understandable Statistics. Lexington, MA: DC Heath.
It is if you use the same instrument for all measurements.
it isn t.
you don t understand what an error range is.
if you repeat a measurement that is complex enough with the same instrument, you will get different results that fall inside the error range.
Re; #93
Harold, I agree with you about something happening in the North Pacific. The Anomaly caught my eye some time ago and it seems to be getting bigger. While the anomaly of the PDO in it's southern horseshoe arm seems to be abateing, the northern part from Japan to Russia to Alaska has been increasing.
Just out of curiosity Harold, but do you have any affiliation with U.B.C.?
1. There is a new (2006) study, a doctoral dissertation, by Linah Ababneh of the University of Arizona that created a new bristlecone tree ring series at Sheep Mountain California. This series is important for three reasons. It reproduces much of the proxy series that was created by D. Graybill and S. Idso at the same location. And the Graybill series was heavily used by Mann and other members of the hockey team. It was Mann's most heavily weighted series for MBH98 (390 times as heavily as the lightest weighted series), and it continued to be used by Mann, Jones, Crowley, Lowery, Osborn, Briffa, Hagerl, Rutherford, Wahl, Ammann, and the IPCC. In fact, it is this series that gives Mann's reconstruction its particular hockey stick shape. Mann's reconstruction does not differ significantly from the series. The Ababneh series, like the Graybill series, makes the MWP and the LIA disappear. But unlike the Graybill series, it also makes the majority of 19th and 20th century warming disappear. In those two centuries it diverges radically from the Graybill series. Linah Ababneh and the University of Arizona have not released the raw data for this study. It is important that they do.
2. The bristlecone series produced by Graybill and Idso from the Almagre Colorado site contained 41 tagged trees. But only 16 of these were ever archived. It is known that at least some of the trees that were tagged but not archived had core samples removed from them. Graybill's study involved proving the effect of CO2 on bristlecone growth. Is it possible that Graybill cherry picked his samples to get his hockey stick results - and that subsequently Mann and others used these cherry picked series as the backbone of their temperature reconstructions? Additionally, Steve McIntyre visited the same Almagre site and took a small sample of cores (8) from the Graybill trees. These showed no 19th and 20th century trends.
3. We need an independent study of the Mann bristlecones, possibly reproducing the collection of samples at all of the sites. It is, after all, the Mann reconstructions, as well as all of the other reconstructions that are based upon Graybill data, that allow for the supposed consensus that the warming of the 20th Century is unprecedented in the last 1000 years.
4. The value of bristlecones as temperature proxies may in fact be completely worthless. These trees grow at high altitudes in very dry conditions - around 12 inches of precipitation per year. They are much more moisture limited than they are temperature limited. In fact, cooler years when the snow cover has a slow melting period, thereby supplying a steadier and longer flow of moisture to the trees, may actually be better for the trees. So it is possible, that at least part of the time, the bristlecone tree rings can be negatively correlated to temperature. Until the disparity between Ababneh, and McIntyre on the one hand, and Graybill on the other, can be resolved, the bristlecone series should be thrown out. This will take Mann's temperature reconstruction from being just somewhat flawed to being a complete waste of effort. The temperature reconstructions that we should count on today are the one done by Moberg et al. and the one done by Loehle and McCulloch(2008). And both of these state in their abstract that there is nothing extraordinary about 20th Century climate.
Looks like we had a cold May. Looking at the ENSO charts, it looks like La Nina is pretty much over. Although we could get about 4 month of residual effects.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/uah_may_08.png
If we go down any further at all in June, we will be looking back to 93 for the last time we had such a cold month.
We now have a variation in a thirteen month period that is equal to the entire trend change for the last 157 years.
The temperature reconstructions that we should count on today are the one done by Moberg et al. and the one done by Loehle and McCulloch(2008). And both of these state in their abstract that there is nothing extraordinary about 20th Century climate.
yes, and in the Loehle paper, this is FALSE information!
because after being forced to correct his paper (several of his proxies were timed 50 years too late..), his study ends at the BEGINNING of the 20th century:
Because the number of available series drops abruptly from 11 to 8 in 1935, i.e. to less than half the maximum number of series, the reconstruction was terminated in 1935.
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/SupplementaryInfo.pdf
Loehle did neither change the title, nor the abstract, nor wild conclusions that he is making about the 20th century, from data that ends in 1935. (nineteen thirty five!)
Having problems with the links.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/uah_may_08.png
If that doesn't work. Try this:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/
RE: #106 and 107
I know that stuff and I don't want get into analytical chemistry 101 or analytical anything 101. I'm saying that if you measure temp to +/- 1 deg F, you cannot report a mean as xy.abc +/- 0.cdf. That's nuts!
As I said, "I like to play horse shoes. +/- 1 deg C is close and good enough." So I'm not worrying about any error.
The climate guys really believe changes of a few 0.1 or even 0.001 deg as meaningful. I don't and Mother Nature probably could care less.
I used one of those gadgets for years and would check its calibration by putting the probe in a Dewar filled with an ice-water slush. If I selected the 1 deg C level, it would always read "0". If I selected the 0.1 deg C level, the display would fluctuate initially, but would become quite constant as long as you didn't bother it.
Then one day it didn't read "0". So I pulled out the plug of the probe, and the blades showed some tarnish. So I cleaned these off with the rubber eraser of pencil, plugged the probe it back into the unit, and it went back to functioning normally. Until I dropped it on the concrete! It never worked quite right after that.
Harold, if you used your thermometer in you room with the 1 deg scale; and if you measured 16C on the left side of your room and 17C on the right side of your room, what temperature could you report as the closest estimate of the temperature in your room?
RE: 108
I worked at SFU from 1972-2002 mostly in Prof John H. Borden's insect pheromone group. He is forest entomologist and the world's expert on mountain pine beetles. He is also former US marine and was a real grad student butt kicker.
I watching the PDO graph also. It is really chilly up there.
Today in Burnaby it was 12 deg C at high noon in my car port. I have not seen temps this low since about the early '70's before the PDO went into warm cycle in '75.
The Big Chill is for real, and the strawberry harvest down in Surrey is running about 2 weeks late. It is going to be rainy and cold until at least Sat. Brrrrr!
Sod:
"his study ends at the BEGINNING of the 20th century:"
Don't care Sod. The MWP and LIA were long before that, and 1935 is late enough to link his chart into the instrument data. He only needs to be able to show what the magnitude of the MWP and LIA were in his study. A comparison can then be made to 20th Century temps based upon the instrument data.
Tilo, that's the underscore trap bothering your links. See the line above the Comment box? the link for "markdown" says how to force a literal symbol. I usually forget it too.
Thanks Hank. I figured out that it was the underscore that caused the problem. Until now I didn't know the remedy it.
'Google "Cole Porter" and go look up the specs for their instruments. '
Mostly piano, wasn't it? ^_^
We have had an ongoing debate on this forum about the significance of 10 years of climate data. The local cultists have insisted that unless you have at least 30 years, you've got nothing. So I ran into this interesting paper done in 05 by Hansen, Schmidt, and others. The first part of the abstract goes like this:
"Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse
gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 T 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years."
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005\_Hansen\_etal\_1.pdf
So I guess that one of the significant features of statistics is that it can yield meaningful information for warming cultists in only 10 years. But for skeptics, 30 years of data is required. Aren't statistics wonderful!
Don't care Sod. The MWP and LIA were long before that, and 1935 is late enough to link his chart into the instrument data. He only needs to be able to show what the magnitude of the MWP and LIA were in his study. A comparison can then be made to 20th Century temps based upon the instrument data.
it is absolutely impossible to take a study seriously, that makes claims about tempearture at the END of the 20th century and has ZERO data beyond 1935.
splicing the instrumental temperature record on the Loehle data, has several major problems:
1. he did NOT do that. if he wants to make claims about the end of the 20th century (as he did) or the 20th century in general, he should have done it.
2. the method was MASSIVELY critized by denialists, when used on the hockeystick. it is rather funny to see, how it is acceptable for Loehle to do it. without actually doing it. (so no serious method used at all!!!)
3. but the main problem is: if you add the temperature increase since 1935 (about 0.5°C) to the end of the Loehle graph (a very simplicistic method, compared to what Mann did with the hockey stick...) you will see, that current tempearture is HIGHER than it was in the "MWP". and the error of the MWP actually is MUCH bigger, than it is in current measurement....
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/loehle_fig3.JPG
http://bruderheim-rea.ca/images/GISS_global_surface_temps.gif
Tilo Reber, true to form, posts:
Yes, and yesterday, from 6:30 AM to 9:30 AM, we had an episode of heating that exceeded the whole global trend for the past 1,000 years!
You'll never get the sample-size thing, will you?
Tilo the Magnificent posts:
Did it ever occur to you (he asked, already knowing the answer), that two different phenomena were being discussed, and that the time scale for one might not be the same as the time scale for the other?
RE: #119
That was a test to see if anybody actually had enough curiosity to check out these instruments and their specs.
Clearly the curiosity index for this crowd is about zero!
The company Is Cole-Palmer. Cole Porter is the famous songwriter. I am quite surprised your the only one that picked up on this. Then again I'm not.
Tilo Reber:
Absolute garbage. The most heavily weighted series in the 1400 network is the "treeline 11" series.
The hockey stick shape exists from AD 1450 to AD 1980 without using any bristlecones.
Yet another strawman.
Tilo Reber is full of shit.
Harold:
You're absolutely right. The curiosity index in your ramblings is about zero.
Barton:
"Did it ever occur to you (he asked, already knowing the answer), that two different phenomena were being discussed, and that the time scale for one might not be the same as the time scale for the other?"
I thought climate was being discussed and that both ocean heating and surface temperature were part of that whole.
But Barton, wasn't it you that told me that it's all about statistics and that 10 data points are not enough to determine a trend?
Sod:
"he did NOT do that. if he wants to make claims about the end of the 20th century (as he did) or the 20th century in general, he should have done it."
Just went back to his report, and you are right. I know that I saw a GISS temp record spliced to his chart. I can only think that someone at CA must have done it. In any case, he did do the ananlysis. Read page 17 of the report. The last paragraph will tell you why you are wrong. The paragraph extends to 18.
"the method was MASSIVELY critized by denialists, when used on the hockeystick."
I think that such criticism would be warranted if the accuracy of the proxies was a serious issue as it is with some of Mann's series.
"but the main problem is: if you add the temperature increase since 1935 (about 0.5°C) to the end of the Loehle graph (a very simplicistic method, compared to what Mann did with the hockey stick...) you will see, that current tempearture is HIGHER than it was in the "MWP". and the error of the MWP actually is MUCH bigger, than it is in current measurement...."
Loehle did this, and it is explained in the paragraph that I gave you above. And it shows that you are wrong.
Also remember two more things. We are not in a horse race here, where winning only means that you have to win by a nose. We are dealing with the statement that 20 century climate is unprecedented. Mann's chart showed that there was nothing even in the ballpark of what we have today. Loehle, Moberg and others have shown two important things that Mann tried to hide. One, there was a very significant MWP and LIA. Two, that the warming difference between the MWP and today is insignificant.
Sod:
Hank just got me straightened out on screwed up links. Try putting a backslash in front of the characters that are getting corrupted.
I think that we need a version of environmental 'myth buster's' to counter all of the myths being spun by the aforementioned TR on his own personal thread.
For starters: "What is clear, both from the temperature reconstructions and from independent evidence - such as the extent of the recent melting of mountain glaciers - is that the planet has been warmer in the past few decades than at any time during the medieval period. In fact, the world may not have been so warm for 6000 or even 125,000 years."
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11644
What strikes me is how much the die-hard denialists need to keep spreading every myth - e.g. clutch at every short straw - they can. Sadly, as I said in another thread, these people continue to fiddle while Rome continues to burn.
I realize this is only 1 month, but still, it must be very disheartening for many people.......
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/uah-global-temperature-…
I hope this doesn't continue so we can have some better spirits around here.
"Sadly, as I said in another thread, these people continue to fiddle while Rome continues to burn."
It depends on which Rome you are referring to.
http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,1433,00.html#13_275
Jeff:
"What is clear, "
Unfortunately Jeff, the only thing that is clear is that you do not know how to read your data and you are unaware of the history behind your chart. So let me give you some of the problems.
1. Look at the chart. Go to the place where the reconstructions end. Do you notice anything unusual? Here is a hint. None of the proxy reconstructions agree with instrumentation record. Out of 11 proxies, only Crowley's makes it past 0. The instrumentation record shows an anomoly of .69. Ten out of 11 of your proxies never get past zero. Look at where the instrumentation record starts to race up. The proxies that go past that point in time do not race up with the instrumentation record. A few of the proxy reconstructions have had their data seperately updated, and they also did not show anything remotely close to temp rise of the instrumentation record. Most of these proxies are tree ring proxies. You can go to the exact same trees, take a core, and get them updated to the last year. Some of that has been done, and the proxies do not show the same warming as the instrument record. So one of two things is wrong. Either the instrument records are way overcooked to show warming, or the proxies are incapable of reflecting warming that actually exists. If the proxies do not show warming that exists, then they will certainly not show the extend of MWP warming.
Problem 2 is that the majority of the people on the graph are a part of Mann's hockey team. They are either former Mann students or people that have previously collaborated with Mann. They use the same methods, and they use many of the same data series as Mann does. Most of them, for example, use the Graybill Idso tree ring series. This is a series that has been shown by Linah Ababneh to contain virtually no temperature data.
Problem 3 - one of the few independent reconstructions in the group is that of Anders Moberg. Let's see what he says in his abstract for his paper:
"According to our reconstruction, high temperatures - similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990- occurred around AD 1000 to 1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7K below the average of 1961-90 occurred around AD 1600. This large natural variability in the past suggests an important role of natural multicentennial variability that is likely to continue. "
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html
Problem 4 - Craig Loehle used 18 different proxy reconstructions from around the world, none of them tree ring, to also show that the MWP was as warm, if not warmer, than the present.
Problem 5 - Going back just a little further, we know that the Holocene Optimum was wamer than today and stayed that way for over a century. Most likely the Arctic ice all melted during the Holocene Optimum, and the cute little polar bears survived just fine.
Hey Betula:
You at least need to get to Italy, otherwise your photo has no statistical significance. ;) Here is one that was taken from sunny Italy on 31 May of this year. It's the Giro d'Italia.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2008/giro08/index.php?id=/photos/2008…\_0028064\_1\_full
As you can see, we will all be toast by next Friday!
Read page 17 of the report. The last paragraph will tell you why you are wrong. The paragraph extends to 18.
Loehle is playing a cheap trick here. he can claim the two to be similar, by applying a 29 year smooth to modern temperature.
of course he doesnt arrive at the end of the 20th century that way, but can only go up to 1992. even the "reworked" paper is NOT the 2000 year reconstruction that he promises in the title.
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
(funny, he left the misleading abstract on that page, but changed the download...)
I think that such criticism would be warranted if the accuracy of the proxies was a serious issue as it is with some of Mann's series.
no. the critisism was with the method of splicing modern data to proxy one. exactly what loehle does. only that Mann used some real method...
Also remember two more things. We are not in a horse race here, where winning only means that you have to win by a nose. We are dealing with the statement that 20 century climate is unprecedented.
20th century temperature IS unprecedented in the last 2000 years, even when using the Loehle data! the only way that Loehle can make them look similar, is by NOT looking at the real temperature development, but only at a 29 year smooth.
and he is comparing extremely accurate data with extremely unrelyable one!
"According to our reconstruction, high temperatures - similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990- occurred around AD 1000 to 1100,
this is the major problem, that i ve bee pointing out for quite a while now: Loehle places the MWP between 800 and 1000. Moberg has it between 1000 and 1100.
do you notice the problem?
"So I guess that one of the significant features of statistics is that it can yield meaningful information for warming cultists in only 10 years. But for skeptics, 30 years of data is required. Aren't statistics wonderful!"
Can't speak for every place on earth, but every place where I've lived, the temperature range has been about a hundred degrees F. I'm pretty sure the range of temps for the ocean is a bit less. This requires less smoothing, you see.
Alternative explanation for melting of glaciers and ice caps
I'll bet they didn't check to see if the melting point for H2O didn't change. Instead they jump to this unlikely global warming myth.
z:
"This requires less smoothing, you see."
Eh, no I don't. The kind of variation that you are talking about is well smoothed by the 365 samples (minimum) that you get in a year.
Then we have the other question. If ten years is meaningful in the oceans, then is the four years of no warming that we have had for the oceans also meaningful. Or is this another case where only the time interval that has been cherry picked by the warmers is meaningful?
z:
"Alternative explanation for melting of glaciers and ice caps"
Big deal. Glaciers have advanced before and they have retracted before. All within the scope of natural variability. No CO2 explanation is necessary.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02EEDF163BF93BA35756C0…
Big deal. Glaciers have advanced before and they have retracted before. All within the scope of natural variability. No CO2 explanation is necessary.
there are even andvancing glaciers today! just only very very few of them.
it is rather funny: people who are "sceptic" of thousands of scientific papers published today, consider vague stories about the vikings in greenland as conclusive evidence!
on a related sidenote, arctic sea ice level is still below last year!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
(below the 10 mio mark, while it was quite above it the same day last year...)
Tilo, still not getting it, posts:
No, it usually is not. What makes you think the paper under discussion used only ten data points?
Again -- please try to understand this -- things happen at different time scales. If you're plotting the growth of a baby, one year is a long time, and you can take readings one or two weeks apart and get statistical significance. If you're plotting the growth of world temperature, 30 years is a long time. You can't take out ten years and say it's significant, because the time scale is wrong. It would be like taking four months (near the end of the period) out of the baby's life and saying it's significant. And if you're quoting the growth of, say, body mass in fossil horses, ten million years is a long time, and three million years might be too short.
Characteristic time scales. They're not hard to understand.
Tilo Reber posts:
Wow, and he managed to hide it so well that fourteen similar studies got essentially the same answer. Maybe they're all in on the conspiracy?
Everyone wins, Tilo.
If we read/post here, we're EXPECTING to have our time wasted by your bullshit. So we won't complain.
It's not the trolling, it's the biting.
They were interviewing a farmer on MSNBC today, and he told them that the cool wet weather is going to cause corn shortages this year. Corn has already gone up 74% this year. Harvests will be late and small. While the warming cult is constantly trumpeting the dangers of warming, they seem to be blind to the dangers of cooling.
I guess that Tim thinks it's the "Denial Industrial Complex" and it's "War on Science" that is giving us the cooling, the 11 year flat temperature trend, and the poor corn crops. Apparently the flattening of the trend line beginning in 98 corresponds to the beginning of the evil denialist plot designed to prevent the socialists from building their perfect society.
"Maybe they're all in on the conspiracy?"
Not quite a conspiracy, but most of those people were student and previous co-authors of Mann. Most of them used the same series and the same methods as Mann. Most of them use the same Graybill and Idso data that has no temperature information.
Barton:
"No, it usually is not. What makes you think the paper under discussion used only ten data points?"
Because it only covers ten years. But if you are saying that we can use a higher sampling rate, like monthy data, then we can do that with global temp data as well. Of course you told me before that that wouldn't work. Are you actually going to stand behind something or are you just going to slither around according to the situation?
"things happen at different time scales."
Yeap, but in this case we are still talking about climate. Now you are moving off the "It's all about statistics" position and going to a "you have to understand the thing you are dealing with" position. It's the same thing that I have been telling you all along. The 30 year number is based upon certain assumptions - not just statistics. And it is those assumptions that I'm questioning. So shut up about statistics telling you that you need 30 years for something to be significant. It's not statistic. It's the nature of the thing that you are studying that is important in determining the time period. And there is no reason to believe that 30 years is in any way the magic number for climate.
"people who are "sceptic" of thousands of scientific papers published today, consider vague stories about the vikings in greenland as conclusive evidence!"
Thousands of speculative papers versus real Viking settlements uncovered by retreating glaciers, I'll take the real evidence.
"on a related sidenote, arctic sea ice level is still below last year!"
You are leading the race in the Arctic, Sod; but remember we have another 4 months. It looks good for you. The ENSO chart shows a lot of warm water in the North Atlantic. The North Pacific doesn't look as warm, however.
Tilo Reber said: "real Viking settlements uncovered by retreating glaciers, I'll take the real evidence".
There is absolutely no evidence that the Viking farms were ever covered by glaciers then uncovered when they "retreated".
You are spouting utter nonsense. Your comments just show that you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about. You are a complete moron in your ideas on AGW.
"real Viking settlements uncovered by retreating glaciers, I'll take the real evidence".
Gee, up in the canadian shield, the glaciers scoured all the way down to the bedrock, thus the ease of mining up there. good builders the vikings.
Ian:
"Your comments just show that you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about."
"At Nipaatsoq, blowing glacial sands covered the farm in the early 1400's, sealing it until 1990, when two hunters reported seeing ancient wood protruding from an eroded stream bank."
"At the Viking site near here, artifacts were locked in permafrost and buried under several feet of sand."
"What does seem to have contributed to the abandonment of the Western Settlements, archaeologists said, is climate change. The onset of a ''little ice age'' made living halfway up Greenland's coast untenable in the mid-1300's, argues Dr. Charles Schweger, an archaeology professor at the University of Alberta,"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02EEDF163BF93BA35756C0…
Now take your brain out and play with it Ian. That will be putting it to much better use.
Thanks for proving that my comment "you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about" is correct.
For your information, glaciers are formed from very hard packed and ancient ice, not sand. How come you didn't know such a simple fact?
And your rude personal comment shows that you are just not ignorant but have serious mental problems.
"blowing glacial sands covered the farm in the early 1400's, sealing it until 1990, when two hunters reported seeing ancient wood protruding from an eroded stream bank."
Tilo Reber -
How in the name of holy hell do you get from that phrase to "real Viking settlements uncovered by retreating glaciers"
An eroding stream bank is not a retreating glacier. The farm was not covered by a glacier. Permafrost is not a glacier.
Many of the viking farm sites are actively farmed today. They are starting to be able to grow crops never grown before in Greenland. Grass farmers are reporting that they are able to get 2 hay crops a year, where that was not possible before. And there is NO evidence,none,nada, zip of farms being uncovered by retreating glaciers - that is a pernicious and utterly false lie often promulgated by denialist sites. That you repeat it says a lot about where you get your 'information' and the filters you apply to it - and what it says isnt good.
I'm afraid that you are taking "uncovered by retreating glaciers" too literally. First read this from the article.
"Dr. Schweger said the Norse were no match for cooling temperatures, which caused a glacier several miles up a valley to expand. As this glacier grew, it also released more water every summer into the valley, causing turbidity in drinking water and raging floods that blanketed meadows with sand and gravel. Today the edge of Greenland's ice cap is only six miles from the old farm site. But in the mid-14th century, it probably was far closer."
Obviously it was the sand and gravel from the advancing glacier that buried the farm. And the water from that glacier that turned the farm into permafrost. It was the more recent retreat of that glacier that allowed things to dry up. And it was the warming that allowed the permafrost to melt and the glacier sand to blow away.
But this is all silly bickering of the kind that the cultist love. The point is that there was active farming going on half way up Greenland's western coast. I am unable to find any information of any farming going on there now. There is a small amount of farming going on in southern Greenland. But the fact that an active farm halfway up the Greenland coast went from being able to sustain Vikings to turning into a popsicle should tell you that the area underwent far more of a climate change than the trivial .2C that Mann claims.
Lee:
"Grass farmers are reporting that they are able to get 2 hay crops a year, where that was not possible before."
Can I have a link for that? And do you have any evidence that they are able to farm anywhere other than southern Greenland.
"That you repeat it says a lot about where you get your 'information'"
Don't be a moron! I gave you the link where I got the information. Call the NY Times and tell them they are lying.
"And your rude personal comment shows that you are just not ignorant but have serious mental problems."
I couldn't have near the mental problems of a twit like you that makes rude personal comments and then complains about others returning the favor.
Sod:
"Loehle is playing a cheap trick here. he can claim the two to be similar, by applying a 29 year smooth to modern temperature. "
Seems very fair to me. He applies the same smoothing to his own data, thereby removing higher highs and lower lows from it as well.
"no. the critisism was with the method of splicing modern data to proxy one. exactly what loehle does. only that Mann used some real method..."
If Mann used "some real method", the why do his modern proxies not show near the temp rise of the modern instrument records. Give it up Sod. We now know that those tree ring series, when updated, do not reflect the scope of modern warming. So what makes you think that they can reflect past warming?
"the only way that Loehle can make them look similar, is by NOT looking at the real temperature development, but only at a 29 year smooth."
Again you people are trying to eat your cake and have it too. You are the ones that keep claiming that it takes 30 years to make a trend. So why not use a 29 year smoothing for long periods. Loehle's data gets the same trimming as the instrument data.
"this is the major problem, that i ve bee pointing out for quite a while now: Loehle places the MWP between 800 and 1000. Moberg has it between 1000 and 1100."
Don't know the answer to that one Sod. Except that tree ring data does have the advantage of accurate time stamping. Loehle excluded all tree ring data, and the price may be very poor time resolution. Of course the problem with tree ring data is that the growth limiting factor for many tree types in many areas is not temperature. Haken Grudd's Scandinavian tree ring series had the MWP cover a 200 year period for about 900 to about 1100. And of course he also had the MWP as being warmer than today.
If Mann used "some real method", the why do his modern proxies not show near the temp rise of the modern instrument records. Give it up Sod. We now know that those tree ring series, when updated, do not reflect the scope of modern warming. So what makes you think that they can reflect past warming?
again:
i am talking about the splicing. mann was attacked for doing it. he was calibrating the splice by a period of overlap. Loehle just adds the splice to the last datapoint. obviously at best a simplicistic method.
Mann gets attacked, Loehle praised. you don t have the impression that this is because you guys like his result?
Again you people are trying to eat your cake and have it too. You are the ones that keep claiming that it takes 30 years to make a trend. So why not use a 29 year smoothing for long periods. Loehle's data gets the same trimming as the instrument data.
yes. the obvious difference is, that the HIGH FREQUENCY proxies NEED this smooth!
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/loehle8.gif
can you spot the difference to modern instrument data?
it doesn t make the slightest sense to use a 29 years smooth on 70 years of data. it is cutting of the end, while Loehle still claims, he is doing a 2000 years analysis.it s an artificial result.
Don't know the answer to that one Sod. Except that tree ring data does have the advantage of accurate time stamping. Loehle excluded all tree ring data, and the price may be very poor time resolution. Of course the problem with tree ring data is that the growth limiting factor for many tree types in many areas is not temperature. Haken Grudd's Scandinavian tree ring series had the MWP cover a 200 year period for about 900 to about 1100. And of course he also had the MWP as being warmer than today.
Tilo, you still haven t figured out the difference between local and global data. and if you assume the data has a 100 years x-axis error, you can as well throw it away!
and just by chance, you picked a treering proxy, that happens to diverge.
why not chose one of the Büntgen Alps series?
it is rather interesting to watch the denialist community triumph by pointing out the diverceny, while REAL SCIENTISTS are working to figure out the problem.
an obvious first step is to focus on treering proxies that don t show the problem!
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/all%20pdfs/Wilsonetal2007b.pdf
you of course prefer those that do. (and fit into your denialist theories...)
Tilo, if it gets colder and glaciers expand then there is less water flowing out of them.
But I wouldn't expect a moron like you to understand that.
Also I wouldn't put too much faith in that NY times article since they mix up two different farms. Again, I wouldn't expect you to look up the actual data to find that error.
"They are starting to be able to grow crops never grown before in Greenland. Grass farmers are reporting that they are able to get 2 hay crops a year, where that was not possible before."
So the grass farmers appreciate AGW? I thought AGW didn't have any benefits? Interesting.
So the grass farmers appreciate AGW? I thought AGW didn't have any benefits? Interesting.
another post by betula, another strawman.
why don t you point out a scientific article that made that claim?
Betula says:
"So the grass farmers appreciate AGW? I thought AGW didn't have any benefits?"
Betula, you 'think' a lot of things that simply aren't true. This is just one more example.
Tilo Reber posts, in another unintentionally hilarious moment:
You don't understand the difference between a mean and a smoothing, do you? Or a trend and a smoothing.
Crack a BOOK, for Christ's sake.
the existence of a mwp and/or a little ice age rests on there being synchronous temperature change; it's not clear that there was synchronous temperature change around the north Atlantic, let alone global. just dumping all the dates into "the middle ages" which appear quite compact from this distant perspective doesn't do the job. if Scandinavia were warming when Greenland was cooling and/or vice versa, not to mention the Norse settlements in America, that's not global warming, that's just that good old north Atlantic oscillation, isn't it?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/box64.png
Sod:
"Loehle just adds the splice to the last datapoint. obviously at best a simplicistic method."
But not necessarily any less accurate.
"yes. the obvious difference is, that the HIGH FREQUENCY proxies NEED this smooth!"
I don't follow your argument. Even using a lower frequency proxy, you could be getting outliers.
"can you spot the difference to modern instrument data?"
With that many proxies on one page it's difficult to get your point. But smoothing seems to be called for. And by your own claims of anything less that 30 years being weather, modern instrument data would need smooting as well.
"Tilo, you still haven t figured out the difference between local and global data. "
Of course I have. What you haven't figured out is that if you get enough local data from enough places around the globe, then you have global data. You know Mann's "global" reconstruction has very very little from the southern hemisphere. When Imhofe asked Mann about this, Mann claimed that it didn't matter because the temperature effects would not stay local for more than a couple of decades.
"and if you assume the data has a 100 years x-axis error, you can as well throw it away!"
Looking at a compilation of tree ring reconstructions I can see 20 to 30 years of non-correlation at times. And tree rings should be almost 100 percent accurate on dating.
"and just by chance, you picked a treering proxy, that happens to diverge."
I like to think of it as a proxy that doesn't belong to the hockey team. And mainly I mentioned it for dating purposes. My own opinion is that trees are probably better rain gauges than they are thermometers. Especially trees from dry areas.
"while REAL SCIENTISTS are working to figure out the problem."
I would say that your supposed "REAL SCIENTISTS" are working very hard to create a problem that doesn't exist just to keep their funding flowing. I saw an estimate today of the cost of stopping CO2 growth by 2050. I was on the order of 41 Trillion dollars.
"an obvious first step is to focus on treering proxies that don t show the problem!"
Ouch. It looks like you zapped yourself with that one Sod. First, the paper clearly admits the problem that I have been pointing out - namely all of these tree ring series that flatten out past climate, but that also don't show modern warming. Then they go on to say, "Hey we can cherry pick some trees that show the local warming trend and that also "almost" follow the magnitude of the rise in the local instrument record." That only leaves you with four problems.
1. How much of the rise is due to CO2 feeding. Remeber this is what Graybill was actually trying to prove when he collected Mann's favorite series.
2. These trees are obviously cherry picked, because the authors are admitting to the problem that they were trying to solve in their abstract.
3. Even using cherry picked trees they couldn't get all of the temp rise - indicating that the instrument record is probably overcooked.
4. Their data only goes back to 1750. So we cannot tell if these same trees wouldn't also show a very warm MWP. Using one set of trees to affirm 20th century warming and a completely different set to deny MWP warming seems to me to be the most egregious kind of goal oriented science that I can think of.
Ian:
"Tilo, if it gets colder and glaciers expand then there is less water flowing out of them."
Ian, could you just stop running off at the mouth for a moment and actually try to read and comprehend the article. And don't tell me about the NY Times. This information comes from the scientists that are studying the site. Take special note of the following.
"As this glacier grew, it also released more water every summer into the valley, causing turbidity in drinking water and raging floods that blanketed meadows with sand and gravel."
"You don't understand the difference between a mean and a smoothing, do you?"
I understand it very well Barton. But the same principle applies. If you cannot have a meaningful trend line with less than 30 years of data because of the natural variation, then it also makes sense to use a 30 smoothing period in order to smooth out that same natural variation. You keep talking about definitions and statistics Barton, but you seem to have the common sense and real understanding of a pet rock.
Sod:
"why don t you point out a scientific article that made that claim?"
Actually, it was Lee that made the claim. Betula simply assumed that Lee was telling the truth. I asked Lee to provide the source of the claim, and so far he hasn't done so. I suspect that the claim comes from the Climate Audit discussion on the Greenland farms. In that thread someone mentioned that Canada was now able to harvest two grass crops a year. I suspect that the transition to Greenland occured at some point in Lee's feeble mind.
z:
"if Scandinavia were warming when Greenland was cooling and/or vice versa, not to mention the Norse settlements in America, that's not global warming, that's just that good old north Atlantic oscillation, isn't it? "
If you take one place that is warming and another that is cooling at the same time and you put them together in a combined chart, you will have a chart that is flattened.
Loehle's chart combines 18 proxies from around the world, and it is not flat. It still has an MWP that is warmer than today.
Looks like Boxer's climate tax bill has fallen flat on it's face. Bad news for the warmers. The longer it takes to get the suffocating legislation that the warmers are demanding, the longer the world will have to see that it is all a hoax. That, of course, is why they are in such a hurry.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressRelease…\_id=5e344862-802a-23ad-41a5-8a26bdedff66
No, Tilo, I did not claim that AGW has no benefits. Betula made that claim.
Once again, Tilo Reber speaks authoritatively, from ignorance:
"The point is that there was active farming going on half way up Greenland's western coast. I am unable to find any information of any farming going on there now. There is a small amount of farming going on in southern Greenland."
That "half way up Greenland's western coast' was at the western settlement, substantially less than half way up the coast. That collection of farms was very near Nuuk. This is what the CSM has to say about modern farming at Nuuk:
In the capital, Nuuk, 200 miles north, potato farming is a new thing. Price disputes between local farmers and retailers have even been front-page news. "If somebody had proposed potatoes for the front page 15 years ago, everyone would have thought it was a hilarious joke," says Nuuk native Minik Rosing, one of Greenland's most renowned scientists. "There's a whole new world opening up."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1001/p01s02-wogn.html
This stuff isn't hard to find, Tilo, for those who aren't refusing to look - or willing to argue that a farm eroding out from under sand is being uncovered by retreating glaciers.
Tilo also attempts an uninformed insult:
"In that thread someone mentioned that Canada was now able to harvest two grass crops a year. I suspect that the transition to Greenland occured at some point in Lee's feeble mind."
The following is from a WSJ article, behind a paywall, but reproduced here:
http://deciph.com/pipermail/lccss_deciph.com/2006-July/000403.html
Excerpt, with lots more about modern Greenland farming in the article:
"Some farmers are trying new types of produce, such as broccoli,
cauliflower and Chinese cabbage. Most are getting more from their old
crops. "Usually we only have one cut of hay," says Kenneth Hoegh, a
farming consultant for Greenland's Department of Agriculture. "But
because it is getting warmer -- it is definitely getting warmer --
more and more farmers are getting two cuts of hay."
Those higher yields are rippling through the agriculture chain. Over
the past five years, a doubled hay crop has helped sheep farmer Erik
Rode Frederiksen. "
Tilo might spend less time making confident and absurdly uninformed statements, and more time informing himself.
Tilo Reber posts:
Yes, that's definitely the kind of thing you would say.
Find the gross world product and find how much of it is spent on energy infrastructure every year. Then assume a 3% real growth rate and project from 2008 to 2050. The 42 (not 41) trillion dollars isn't coming out of nowhere and is not new government spending. The report simply said that the investment had to be in renewable (and nuclear) energy sources and not in fossil fuels.
Tilo Reber posts:
And then immediately follows that up with:
From Tilo:
"I would say that your supposed "REAL SCIENTISTS" are working very hard to create a problem that doesn't exist just to keep their funding flowing."
Alex, I'll take "What type of crankery does Tilo Reber believe?" for $500.
Tilo, it seems odd to me that all the national academies identify GW as a major concern, when they didn't do the same for other funding issues, such as complementary medicine, cold fusion, UFO's, ESP, and other great funding opportunities. Seeing as science budgets are constrained, and a dollar for climate research will come out of the same pot that funds me and others, I'd say that it must be a sincere concern.
Barton:
"Your "then" is a non sequitur, Tilo."
If you assert it, it must be true. Yawn.
If you cannot have a meaningful trend line with less than 30 years of data because of the natural variation, then it also makes sense to use a 30 smoothing period in order to smooth out that same natural variation.
a 30 years smooth on 30 years of data makes no sense at all.
i am sorry, but it is very obvious that you don t have the slightest understanding of this subject!
Barton:
Actually it's 45 trillion. And it looks like that sum is above and beyond what we are spending on the energy infrastructure currently. That sum is 3 times the entire US economy. Once we begin implementing carbon taxation and regulation, the 3% growth rate will probably not happen. More likely, growth will go negative. Costs are also likely to go up, and like every government directed project, the 45 trillion will probably turn into 90 trillion. Of course if it hadn't been for the green nutcases much more of the world would already be on nuclear energy.
Lee says...
"No, Tilo, I did not claim that AGW has no benefits. Betula made that claim"
Lee, I was simply stating that I didn't think there were any benefits, at least none that are supposed to be discussed. I learned that on this blog.
For example, in a previous post, I asked this question..
"Betula asks: "Second, what will be the benefits, if any,of future warming?".
This was my response from Jeff Harvey...
"Go on Betula keep on asking inane questions like this. You might as well ask what the benefits are of clear cutting the world's remaining wet tropical forests, or of draining most of America's remaining wetlands. Theyb all fall into much of the same category."
JH then continued....
"To argue, as you appear to be, that AGW has benefits in light of the fact that its a part of a huge, global experiment with potentially disastrous consequences for nature and for man is the sprint of folly"
So Lee, for you to point out that some grass farmers have benefited from AGW, I can't help but think of you as a Denialist Twit.
You see, I'm learning........thank you.
Sod:
"a 30 years smooth on 30 years of data makes no sense at all."
My god you people are ignorant. I never said anything about smoothing 30 years of data. Where the hell do you get that? I said that it makes sense to use 30 year smoothing when longer periods were involved. Look at #155.
"i am sorry, but it is very obvious that you don t have the slightest understanding of this subject!"
I'm sorry, but it is very obvious that you don't have the slightest understanding of what you read!"
Betula, you are (intentionally?) confusing arguments about net effect, with examples of individual cost and benefit.
Go read those articles about Greenland farming, and you see some of the farmers talking about the global cost of losing all that ice into the world ocean.
They are local beneficiaries of a change with global negative effect. This is simple - even for you.
"it seems odd to me that all the national academies identify GW as a major concern,"
Most of the members of these national academies do not study climate science. They simply take the word of what they believe to be the majority of climate scientists. And the climate scientists have followed in the footsteps of such nut cases as James Hansen and Michael Mann without making any serious attempts to find the flaws in their work. The governments love the idea of having another excuse for increasing taxes and diminishing freedom, and they will throw billions at the climate scietists that will give them the information they need to make it happen.
The culture of greenie wannbe's have found their new god and their new cause. They can now strut around telling people how they should live, feeding their own egos, feeling that their empty lives are now meaningful and elevating their self importance in their own eyes. The socialists can use AGW as a tool for increasing the socialization of governments and societies. There is a lot of payoff for a lot of people in propogating the AGW hoax.
"They are local beneficiaries of a change with global negative effect. This is simple - even for you."
If you read his explanation it should have been obvious to you that he was debating agaist the argument that there are no positive effects to AGW. He was not debating the global effects. But outside of your mistaken impression of what he was talking about, I don't think that we have a very clear picture at this time of the actual global effects. Most of the work in that area has been done using draconian scenarios that will probably never happen, and very little was done to count up the positive side of the equation.
oh good god almighty!!!!
"he was debating against the argument that there are no positive effects to AGW."
Right. Which was a straw man, which we pointed out. And he then confused local with global arguments in deflecting from this point, and this was pointed out. Now you repeat the straw man we originally pointed out.
Rinse and repeat.
My god you people are ignorant. I never said anything about smoothing 30 years of data. Where the hell do you get that? I said that it makes sense to use 30 year smoothing when longer periods were involved. Look at #155.
you made an "IF...THEN..." clause. i gave you a counterexample. case closed.
Looks like we have another error in the instrument record. And it means that we will probably have to readjust the warming trend - down - again.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/full/nature06982.html
Sod:
"you made an "IF...THEN..." clause. "
With regard to the sensibility of using a 30 year smoothing period. Not with regard to using a 30 year smoothing period on 30 years of data.
Check out cryosphere today Sod. Looks like it's close to a dead heat and we are at the point where the Arctic sea ice area anomoly increased by one million square kilometers in three weeks last year. Will we follow it this year?
Hansen's GISS garbage is delivered. It's at .36 - down .05. This means that the divergence with the satellites will get even larger. What is interesting is the March number. In April it came out as .67. In May it was revised to .60. Now it has been revised to .58. When the number in April came out it was being trumpeted as the second warmest March on record. After getting the publicity, Hansen began to drop the number. March was another one of those beautiful examples of alarmists hypocrisy where they use weather as though it were climate, while at the same time reminding AGW skeptics about not doing the same themselves.
"http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt"
"And he then confused local with global arguments in deflecting from this point, and this was pointed out."
Lee, I guess I am confused because I don't recall ever using the words "local" or "global" in my questions. You do have a knack for making something confusing.
I was just surprised to hear that the grass farmers were doing so well.
It is seldom, if ever, that we hear of any possible benefits of AGW, particularly on this site where it is considered taboo.
Lee....I believe you are well aware, that the mere mentioning of any AGW benefits at all, puts you in the denialist camp with the rest of the twits.
Let's just pretend it never happened and continue to hope for the worst.
Tilo, do you bother to read even the articles you link? Tilo says:
"Looks like we have another error in the instrument record. And it means that we will probably have to readjust the warming trend - down - again."
But the abstract of that article concludes:
"Corrections for the discontinuity are expected to alter the character of mid-twentieth century temperature variability but not estimates of the century-long trend in global-mean temperatures."
The discontinuity is an 0.3C DROP in temps at 1945. Removing the discontinuity means either adjusting post 1945 temps UP by 0.3C, or pre-1945 temps DOWN by 0.3C. Either adjustment means that there is an 0.3C POSITIVE adjustment in temp trend at 1945.
Betula, when people say there will be wines and loser in AGW, what the hell do you think they are talking about?
Stop being a dishonest prick, Betula.
uhhhh... "winners and loses," not "wines and loses."
Lee:
"do you bother to read even the articles you link?"
Better than you - as usual.
Go to the IPCC AR4 chapter 3.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1\_Print\_Ch03.pdf
Now go to page 253.
Note the orange 50 year trend line. If the correction in the paper I linked is done, the start of that 50 year trend line will be raised. Raising the beginning of that trend line will decrease the trend. Depending on the stopping point for the adjustment, there may be a small amount of upward correction for the 25 year trend. But of course 25 years is weather according to Barton, so I have no idea why the IPCC even bothered to include such a short trend line. In any case, the bottom line is this - since the IPCC used the near term trends in determining future trends, then those trends will be reduced if the temperature of their starting point is raised. And that appears to be the case with this correction.
Now, notice at the bottom of the page how the IPCC attributed the cooling for the period in question to industrial pollution. But if the cooling for the period is removed, then the IPCC attribution turns into just so much bullshit. In other words, the IPCC made it up because they though it fit the data - not because they had any real evidence of the cause. This is another indication of the slopiness and guesswork involved in the report.
Nice cherry pick, Tilo. Subtle, which makes it even nicer. Almost a thing of beauty.
"Betula, when people say there will be wines and loser in AGW, what the hell do you think they are talking about?"
Grass farmers in Greenland and cannibals in the U.S.?
"The impact on crop yields
The results give little support to the optimists. Globally, the overall impact of baseline global warming by the 2080s is a reduction in agricultural productivity (output per hectare) of 16 percent without carbon fertilization, and a reduction of 3 percent should carbon fertilization benefits actually materialize--when results are weighted by output (see Table 1, bottom panel). The losses are greater when weighted by population or country.
The sharp concentration of losses is in the developing countries. Whereas the industrial countries experience outcomes ranging from 6 percent losses without carbon fertilization to 8 percent gains with it, developing country regions suffer losses of about 25 percent without carbon fertilization and 10-15 percent if carbon fertilization is included. For developing countries, the median loss would be 15-26 percent, and the output-weighted average loss, 9-21 percent. Losses could reach devastating levels in some of the poorest countries (greater than 50 percent in Senegal and Sudan)."
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2008/03/cline.htm
Tilo Reber posts:
Yeah, that must be why countries that don't permit dissent by environmentalists get most of their power from nuclear. Like Cuba and North Korea and the PRC.
Oh, wait. They don't. Maybe there are other reasons why nuclear might not have prospered. Can you say "incredibly high capital investment costs?" I knew you could!
Barton:
"Maybe there are other reasons why nuclear might not have prospered. Can you say "incredibly high capital investment costs?""
If the French can afford them we can afford them. The only reason that we haven't built any in the past 25 years is left wing and the green nutcases. Barton strikes out again.
z:
""The impact on crop yields"
Could also be called "pulling it out of your backside".
First, it goes on the assumption that climate sensitivity is 3.3. There is no emperical evidence of any kind to support such a number. Then it claims more that 5C by 2080 for land areas. Nothing could be more absurd. Even if we have the claimed .2C per decade trend, that would only give us an additional 1.4C by 2080. And so far, we don't even have the emperical evidence to support a .2C per decade trend.
Then it tries to tell us, that based upon temperature alone, without CO2 feeding, that Russia and Cananda would produce less food. You would have to be a complete raving idiot to believe such a thing. For Russia and Cananda new land, never before used for farming, would open up; and the farm land that is there would be more productive, because currently the growing season is very short for both places.
This is a fine example of the kind of garbage that the UN loves and that governments will pay huge money for, when it is nothing more that a tool of AGW propaganda.
Lee:
"Nice cherry pick, Tilo."
Thanks, Lee. I always thought that IPCC AR4 was a cherry pick. I'm glad that we agree.
"the assumption that climate sensitivity is 3.3. There is no empirical evidence of any kind to support such a number."
Bzzzzztttt!! Wrong!! Do you not know of the empirical sensitivity studies, Tilo?
"it claims more that 5C by 2080 for land areas." Wrong again. It claims 'nearly' 5C, with about 4.4C weighted for farm area - a little nit, but indicative of your care, Tilo.
It uses this based on a business as usual scenario with an unlimited shift to coal, and 735ppm CO2 by 2085, and it says so. Under taht unlimited Carbon usage scenario, that number is compatible with IPCC projections.
AND the time frame isn't critical - it just moves the impacts sooner or later, and for the 'carbon is good for agriculture' argument, that doesn't matter.
"For Russia and Cananda new land, never before used for farming, would open up; and the farm land that is there would be more productive, because currently the growing season is very short for both places."
Speaking of statements with no support... The article outlined the models and analysis they used - you have just tyor naked statement that it was wrong. Bzzzztttt..
Another Tilo absurdity:
"since the IPCC used the near term trends in determining future trends, then those trends will be reduced if the temperature of their starting point is raised."
No Tilo, IPCC projections are NOT based on "near term trends." Where do you get this stuff?
Tilo Reber, simultaneously responding to my post and completely ignoring what it said, posts:
Repeating the crucial point I made, which Tilo doesn't even mention: Why aren't the Cubans, North Koreans and Chinese getting most of their power from nuclear, Tilo? The left wing and green nutcases? Remember, you said we'd be getting most of our power from nuclear if not from them.
Do you understand what a counterexample is?
Tilo posts:
Gilliland, Ronald L. and Schneider, Stephen H. 1984. "Volcanic, CO2 and solar forcing of Northern and Southern Hemisphere surface air temperatures." Nature 310, 38-41.
Hansen, James, Lacis A., Rind D., Russel G., Stone P., Fung I., Ruedy R., Lerner J. 1984. "Climate Sensitivity: Analysis of Feedback Mechanisms." Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, Geophys. Mono. 29, 130-163. Am. Geophys. Union.
Hegerl, G. C., K. Hasselmann, U. Cubasch, J. F. B. Mitchell, E. Roeckner, R. Voss, and J. Waszkewitz 1997. "Multi-fingerprint detection and attribution analysis of greenhouse gas-plus-aerosol and solar forced climate change." Climate Dynamics 13, 613-634.
Hegerl Gabriele C., Crowley Thomas J., Hyde William T., Frame David J. 2006. "Climate Sensitivity Constrained by Temperature Reconstructions over the Past Seven Centuries." Nature 440, 1029-1032 (letter).
Hoffert, Martin I., Covey, Curt 1992. "Deriving Global Climate Sensitivity from Palaeoclimate Reconstructions." Nature 360, 573-576.
"Repeating the crucial point I made, which Tilo doesn't even mention:"
Do I have to push your nose into everthing Barton. China currently has 11 reactors in operation and 6 reactors under construction. And China has only had an economy that could support this for a short time. The US hasn't built a reactor in 25 years. North Korea would like to build reactors but the world discourages it. Only Cuba is too poor to build them. But it's a stupid point Barton. We are the richest country in the world by far. If a relatively poor country like France can afford to build them and get most of their energy from them, then so can we. Back to the point. It's the nutcase environmentalists that prevent us from building them.
Lee:
"No Tilo, IPCC projections are NOT based on "near term trends.""
Look at the long term trends. 100 year - .074C per decade. 150 year - .045C per decade.
If you don't use the short term trends, then you can't even get close to your .2C per decade unless you hang everything on the climate sensitivity number. And the climate sensitivity number is all over the place. Some people, like Stephen Shwartz, have it at 1.1C. So if you don't use the short term trend, then people can correctly say, "why haven't we seen this kind of climate sensitivity for the last 50 years?" As it is, the current 50 year trend doesn't support the climate sensitivity number. With the adjustment, it will do so even less. In the long term, the .8C gain that we have had as a result of almost 40% of a CO2 doubling certainly does not support the IPCC climate sensitivity number.
Lee:
"Do you not know of the empirical sensitivity studies, Tilo?"
Yes. They are all over the place, and they are mostly based upon models with very little in the way of Emperical evidence.
"this based on a business as usual scenario with an unlimited shift to coal,"
In other words, a completely absurd and unrealistic scenario.
"and 735ppm CO2 by 2085,"
ROFLMAO.
"Speaking of statements with no support... The article outlined the models and analysis they used"
I don't care if they stood on their heads and spun like a top. Any set of assumtions that they hacked together to get those results are clearly idiotic. Agriculture diminishes in Canada and Russia due to 5C in warming? Get a life! They should be jailed for abuse of science.
Tilo, stop being willfully and stupidly ignorant.
IPCC projections are not based on past trends, near term or long term. They are not extrapolations. You are saying things that are simply not true. They aren't based on climate sensitivity number either, although they are consistent with a climate sensitivity of about 3C.
Schwartz's empirical climate sensitivity is an outlier, and is deeply flawed. He looks at short-term perturbations in the global system, and from that calculates a single climate time constant of 5 years. Problem is, his methodology excludes form the analysis any slow time constants, so his value is a bottom limit, at best. He then applies that time constant to the entire planet, for long term changes, and derives a sensitivity of 1.1C.
Problem is, we know that the global climate system is multiple systems, each with their own time constants. At least one major, highly important system, heat mixing into the ocean, almost certainly has a time constant on the order of decades, perhaps centuries, and Schwartz's analysis entirely misses that process.
At best. Schwartz's 1.1C sensitivity is a bottom limit, not a usable value.
A climate sensitivity of 1.1C is not sufficient to explain transitions into and out of glaciations from the TSI changes due to Milankovich cycles. The range from empirical observatins converges on 3C. Deal with it.
Tilo posts:
I'm sure the French would be surprised to hear that they're a "relatively poor country." Is there GDP smaller than that of the US? Sure. Per capita? Sure. Does that make them a poor country? No. France has a modern industrial and services economy and a very high standard of living.
No matter how many times you say this, it still won't be true.
Tilo posts:
*sigh*
He was talking about studies that are EMPIRICAL because they DON'T depend on computer models. And they are not "all over the place," they all come up with climate sensitivities around 3 K per doubling of CO2.
Once again:
Gilliland, Ronald L. and Schneider, Stephen H. 1984. "Volcanic, CO2 and solar forcing of Northern and Southern Hemisphere surface air temperatures." Nature 310, 38-41.
Hansen, James, Lacis A., Rind D., Russel G., Stone P., Fung I., Ruedy R., Lerner J. 1984. "Climate Sensitivity: Analysis of Feedback Mechanisms." Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, Geophys. Mono. 29, 130-163. Am. Geophys. Union.
Hegerl, G. C., K. Hasselmann, U. Cubasch, J. F. B. Mitchell, E. Roeckner, R. Voss, and J. Waszkewitz 1997. "Multi-fingerprint detection and attribution analysis of greenhouse gas-plus-aerosol and solar forced climate change." Climate Dynamics 13, 613-634.
Hegerl Gabriele C., Crowley Thomas J., Hyde William T., Frame David J. 2006. "Climate Sensitivity Constrained by Temperature Reconstructions over the Past Seven Centuries." Nature 440, 1029-1032 (letter).
Hoffert, Martin I., Covey, Curt 1992. "Deriving Global Climate Sensitivity from Palaeoclimate Reconstructions." Nature 360, 573-576.
Go to Google scholar and read the articles, or if they're behind a paywall, read the abstracts. But get off your lazy butt and do some actual research into what real climate scientists are saying. Stop pontificating about a subject you've clearly never studied.
"IPCC projections are not based on past trends, near term or long term. They are not extrapolations. You are saying things that are simply not true. They aren't based on climate sensitivity number either, although they are consistent with a climate sensitivity of about 3C."
So, you claim that they are not based upon past trends and they are not based upon climate sensitivity, then what are they based upon.
"Schwartz's empirical climate sensitivity is an outlier, and is deeply flawed. "
Just because a paper has been through the Real Climate agenda mill does not mean that it is deeply flawed.
"At least one major, highly important system, heat mixing into the ocean, almost certainly has a time constant on the order of decades, perhaps centuries,"
Perhaps decades, perhaps centuries - sounds like it is very well understood and a good reason to dismiss Schwartz - lol.
Also from Roy Spencer we have:
"If everything else in the climate system remained the same, a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (probably late in this century) would cause little more than 1 deg. F of surface warming."
Barton:
"I'm sure the French would be surprised to hear that they're a "relatively poor country.""
France has a GDP of about 1.6 trillion. The US has a GDP of about 13 trillion. If they can afford to build nuclear reactors, so can we. End of that stupid discussion.
In China, where there is no protest against nuclear, they currently have 6 reactors under construction. We have none. End of that stupid discussion.
What a fool. He's not like Tilo Reber who can talk climate science shit without damaging his career.
Barton:
Okay, let's look at one of your shill pieces. From Hegerl, Crowley, Hyde and Frame - 2006
"Prior work15,19,20,25 has established that various reconstructions
of hemispheric temperature consistently show influence from volcanism
and greenhouse gas variations, and less consistently from
variations in solar radiation. We force the EBM simulations with a
combination of solar, volcanic, greenhouse gas and tropospheric
aerosol forcing to simulate hemispheric temperature change over the
past millennium (Fig. 2). Greenhouse gas forcing is based on changes
in trace gases from ice-core data, combined with IPCC estimates of
radiative forcing for well-mixed greenhouse gases in the twentieth
century. The estimate of solar forcing is based on 14C data26, scaled to
the solar irradiance reconstruction of ref. 27 after reducing its
amplitude by 20% to accommodate recent conclusions that the
former estimate may have been large28. For volcanism, we use an
update of a global reconstruction20 based on ice-core data from
Greenland and Antarctica. We account for the considerable uncertainty
in solar and volcanic forcing by varying the total amplitude of
each forcing time-series around its central estimate. We use Monte
Carlo simulations based on a 50% standard deviation for solar
forcing, and a 35% standard deviation for volcanic forcing (excluding
the unphysical case of net negative forcing). The uncertainty in
our results due to random errors in the magnitude of individual
volcanic eruptions was estimated by sensitivity tests, indicating that
errors in the magnitude of individual eruptions can cause a modest
widening of the tail of the distribution (Supplementary Fig. 2; see
Supplementary Information for more detail on forcings and their
uncertainty)."
As you can see, their study is full of unconfirmed assumptions. They forced a model based upon those assumption to produce an output that fit a climate reconstruction. And whose climate reconstruction was used? They talk about a C-H blend, so I suspect that it is a Crowley Hegerel combination. Meaning it is a hockey team reconstruction and that the reconstruction therefore has all of the problems that come from using proxies that are rain gauges and not thermometers. So:
1. They modeled against a bad temperature reconstruction.
2. They used a degree of aerosol forcing that may have to be greatly reduced now that we have figured out that the post 1940 cooling trend was due to a change in the methods of measuring sea water temperature and not to industrial pollution.
3. They included volcanoes in their study, but they neglected a much longer and possibly stronger influence, the PDO cycles.
4. They came up with an answer of 1.5 to 6.2. That is not an answer of 3.0.
So again we have a study that is based upon modeling and producing a CO2 forcing number that is based upon other assumed forcings. Then they come up with a result that kind of, sort of, looks like a bad temp reconstruction. We also know that it is possible to tweak modeling variables in such a way that you get the right answer, even if you have the wrong assumptions. Get enough variables to tweak, use enough runs, and eventually you will get the output that looks like what you want.
So, I return to my original statement. There is no emperical evidence that supports 3C per CO2 doubling as being the correct number.
So, having seen Eli's attempt at humor, it's time to look at how AGW skeptics identify AGW cultists.
Thanks to Bob B. from Solar Cycle 24.
#
Never acknowledges the indispensable role of fossil fuels in alleviating hunger and poverty, extending human life spans, and democratizing consumer goods, literacy, leisure, and personal mobility.
#
Never acknowledges the environmental, health, and economic benefits of climatic warmth and the ongoing rise in the air's carbon dioxide (CO2) content.
#
Never acknowledges the major role of natural variability in shrinking the snows of Kilimanjaro and other mountain glaciers.
#
Never mentions the 1976 regime shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a natural ocean cycle, which is a major cause of recent climate change in Alaska.
#
Presents a graph tracking CO2 levels and global temperatures during the past 650,000 years, but never mentions the most significant point: Global temperatures were warmer than the present during each of the past four interglacial periods, even though CO2 levels were lower.
#
Never confronts a key implication of its assumption that climate is highly sensitive to CO2 emissions - that absent said emissions, global climate would be rapidly deteriorating into another ice age.
#
Neglects to mention that, due to the growth of urban heat islands, U.S. cities and towns will continually break temperature records, with or without help from global warming.
#
Neglects to mention that global warming could reduce the severity of winter storms - also called frontal storms because their energy comes from colliding air masses (fronts) - by decreasing the temperature differential between colliding air masses.
#
Highlights London's construction of the Thames River flood barrier as evidence of global warming-induced sea-level rise, but does not mention that London is sinking two to six times faster than global sea levels are rising.
#
Ignores the large role of natural variability in Arctic climate, never mentioning either that Arctic temperatures during the 1930s equaled or exceeded those of the late 20th century, or that the Arctic during the early- to mid-Holocene was significantly warmer than it is today.
#
Cites a study that found that the number of recorded wildfires in North America has increased in recent decades, but not the same study's finding that the total area burned decreased by 90 percent since the 1930s.
#
Fosters the impression that global warming can only be good for bad things (algae, ticks) and bad for good things (polar bears, migratory birds) - depicting nature as a morality play.
#
Cites a study by Isabella Velicogna and John Wahr, of the University of Colorado, that found an overall loss in Antarctic ice mass during 2002-2005, but ignores a study by University of Missouri professor Curt Davis and colleagues that found an overall ice mass gain during 1992-2003. Three years worth of data is too short to tell anything about a trend in a system as vast and complex as Antarctica.
#
Cites a recent study by John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey that found a 0.5#65456; Celsius (C) to 0.7#65456;C per decade wintertime warming trend in the mid-troposphere above Antarctica, as measured by weather balloons, but fails to mention that the same study found much less warming - about 0.15#65456;C per decade - at the Antarctic surface, or that NASA satellites, which also measure troposphere temperatures, show an Antarctic cooling trend of 0.12#65456;C per decade since November 1978.
#
Misanthropically sees "success" not in the fossil fuel energy-based civilization that has enabled mankind to increase its numbers more than six-fold since the dawn of the industrial revolution, but in the recent reduction of global population growth rates.
#
Compares Haiti - which suffers from deforestation - unfavorably with neighboring Dominican Republic - which enjoys lush forest cover - to illustrate the impact of politics on the environment, but ignores another key implication of the comparison: Poverty is the environment's number one enemy.
#
Notes that "much forest destruction" and "almost 30%" of annual CO2 emissions come from "the burning of brushland for subsistence agriculture and wood fires used for cooking," but never considers whether fossil fuel energy restrictions would set back developing countries both economically and environmentally, by leading to more such burning.
#
Neglects to mention the circumstances that make it reasonable rather than blameworthy for America to be the biggest CO2 emitter: the world's largest economy, high per capita incomes, abundant energy resources, markets integrated across continental distances, and the world's most mobile population.
#
Impugns the motives of so-called global warming skeptics but never acknowledges the special-interest motivations of those whose research grants, direct-mail income, industrial policy privileges, regulatory power, prosecutorial plunder, or political careers depend on keeping the public in a state of fear about global warming.
#
Castigates former White House official Phil Cooney for editing U.S. government climate change policy documents, without ever considering the scientific merit of Cooney's decisions to delete certain passages as "speculative."
#
Waxes enthusiastic about cellulosic ethanol, a product with no commercial application despite 30 years of government-funded research, and neglects to mention that corn-based ethanol, a product in commercial use for a century, is still more costly than regular gasoline despite oil prices exceeding $70 a barrel.
#
Misrepresents the major auto companies' position in their lawsuit to overturn California's CO2 emissions law by neglecting to mention that CO2 standards are de facto fuel economy standards and that federal law prohibits states from regulating fuel economy.
#
Blames Detroit's financial troubles on the Big Three's high-volume production of sport utility vehicles, even though U.S. automakers probably would not exist today had they been "ahead of their time" and pushed hybrids during the 1990s, contrary to consumer demand. AIT says nothing about the biggest cause of Detroit's falling capitalization - unaffordable payments for employee benefit packages negotiated decades ago.
#
Touts Denmark's wind farms without mentioning any of the well-known drawbacks of wind power: cost, intermittency, avian mortality, site depletion, and scenic degradation.
#
Never addresses the obvious criticism that the Kyoto Protocol is all pain for no gain and that any policies far-reaching enough to noticeably slow warming would be a "cure" worse than the alleged disease.
#
Claims a study by Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala of Princeton University shows that "affordable" technologies could reduce U.S. carbon emissions below 1970 levels even though the authors specifically note that their study does not estimate costs. AIT also neglects to mention that Socolow and Pacala's study is a response to a 2002 study by Martin Hoffert of New York University and 17 other energy experts who concluded that, "CO2 is a combustion product vital to how civilization is powered; it cannot be regulated away."
Coal
MISLEADING
#
Implies that a two-page photograph of Perito Moreno Glacier in Argentina shows that the glacier is melting away, even though the glacier's terminal boundary has not changed in 90 years.
#
Implies that, during the past 650,000 years, changes in carbon dioxide levels preceded and largely caused changes in global temperature, whereas the causality mostly runs the other way, with CO2 changes trailing global temperature changes by hundreds to thousands of years.
#
Belittles as ideologically motivated the painstaking and now widely-accepted methodological critiques by Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph in Ontario and Steve McIntyre of the Hockey Stick reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere climate history.
#
Cites increases in insurance payments to victims of hurricanes, floods, drought, tornadoes, wildfires, and other natural disasters as evidence of a global warming-ravaged planet, even though the increases are chiefly due to socioeconomic factors such as population growth and development in high-risk coastal areas and cities.
#
Distracts readers from the main hurricane problem facing the United States: the ever-growing concentration of population and wealth in vulnerable coastal regions, which is partly a consequence of federal flood insurance and other political subsidies.
#
Ignores the societal factors - such as poverty - that typically overwhelm climatic factors in determining people's risk of damage or death from hurricanes, floods, drought, tornadoes, wildfires, and disease.
#
Implies that the 2006 tropical cyclone season in Australia was unusually active and, thus, symptomatic of global warming. In contrast, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) describes the season as "near average."
#
Re-labels as "major floods," a category defined by physical magnitude, a chart of "damaging floods," a category defined by socioeconomic and political criteria.
#
Re-labels as "major wildfires," a category defined by physical magnitude, a chart of "recorded wildfires," a category reflecting changes in data collection and reporting, such as increases in the frequency and scope of satellite monitoring.
#
Conflates the Thermohaline Circulation (THC), a convective system primarily driven by differences in salinity and sea temperatures, with the Gulf Stream, a wind-driven system energized primarily by the Earth's spin and the lunar tides, exaggerating the risk of a big chill in Europe from a weakening of the THC.
#
Presents a graph showing the number of annual closings of the Thames River tidal barriers from 1930 to the present, even though the modern barrier system was completed in 1982 and became operational in 1984. This apples-to-oranges comparison conveys the false impression that London faced no serious flood risk until recent decades.
#
Blames global warming for the decline "since the 1960s" of the emperor penguin population in Antarctica, implying that the penguins are in peril, their numbers dwindling as the world warms. In fact, the population declined in the 1970s and has been stable since the late 1980s.
#
Implies that a study finding that none of 928 science articles - actually abstracts - denied a CO2-global warming link, shows that Gore's apocalyptic view of global warming is the "consensus" view among scientists.
#
Reports that 48 Nobel Prize-winning scientists accused President Bush of distorting science, without mentioning that the scientists acted as members of a "527" political advocacy group set up to promote John Kerry's 2004 campaign for president.
#
Implies that the United States is an environmental laggard because China has adopted more stringent fuel economy standards, glossing over China's horrendous air quality problems.
Northern Ice 2005 (blue area)
EXAGGERATED
#
Exaggerates the certainty and hypes the importance of the alleged link between global warming and the frequency and severity of tropical storms.
#
Hypes the importance of NOAA running out of names (21 per year) for Atlantic hurricanes in 2005, and the fact that some storms continued into December. The practice of naming storms only goes back to 1953, and hurricane detection capabilities have improved dramatically since the 1950s, so the "record" number of named storms in 2005 may be an artifact of the resulting data. Also, Atlantic hurricanes continued into December in several previous years including 1878, 1887, and 1888.
#
Never explains why anyone should be alarmed about the current Arctic warming, considering that our stone-age ancestors survived - and likely benefited from - the much stronger and longer Arctic warming known as the Holocene Climate Optimum.
#
Portrays the cracking of the Ward Hunt ice shelf in 2002 as a portent of doom, even though the shelf was merely a remnant of a much larger Arctic ice formation that had already lost 90 percent of its area during 1906-1982.
#
Claims that polar bears "have been drowning in significant numbers," but this is based on a single report that found four drowned polar bears in one month in one year, following an abrupt storm.
#
Claims that global warming is creating "ecological niches" for "invasive alien species," never mentioning other, more important factors such as increases in trade, tourism, and urban heat islands. For example, due to population growth, Berlin warmed twice as much during 1886-1898 as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates the entire world warmed during the 20th century.
#
Blames global warming for pine beetle infestations that likely have more to do with increased forest density and plain old mismanagement.
#
Presents a graph suggesting that China's new fuel economy standards are almost 30 percent more stringent than the current U.S. standards. In fact, the Chinese standards are only about 5 percent more stringent.
Northern Ice 2030 (blue area)
SPECULATIVE
#
Warns of impending water shortages in Asia due to global warming but does not check whether there is any correlation between global warming and Eurasian snow cover (there isn't). If Tibetan glaciers were to melt, that should increase water availability in the coming decades.
#
Claims that CO2 concentrations in the Holocene never rose above 300 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times, and that the current level - 380 ppm - is "way above" the range of natural variability. Proxy data (leaf stoma frequency) indicate that, in the early Holocene, CO2 levels exceeded 330 ppm for centuries and reached 348 ppm.
#
Claims that a Scripps Oceanography Institute study shows that ocean temperatures during the past 40 years are "way above the range of natural variability." Proxy data indicate that the Atlantic Ocean off the West Coast of Africa was warmer than present during the Medieval Warm Period.
#
Blames global warming for the record number of typhoons hitting Japan in 2004. Local meteorological conditions, not average global temperatures, determine the trajectory of particular storms, and data going back to 1950 show no correlation between North Pacific storm activity and global temperatures.
#
Blames global warming for the record-breaking 37-inch downpour in Mumbai, India on July 26, 2005, even though there has been no trend in Mumbai rainfall for the month of July in 45 years.
#
Blames global warming for recent floods in China's Sichuan and Shandong provinces, even though far more damaging floods struck those areas in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
#
Blames global warming for the disappearance of Lake Chad, a phenomenon more likely stemming from a combination of regional climate variability and societal factors like population increase and overgrazing.
#
Claims that global warming is drying out soils all over the world, whereas pan evaporation studies (which measure the rate of evaporation from open pans of water) indicate that, in general, the Earth's surface is becoming wetter.
#
Presents one climate model's projection of increased U.S. drought as authoritative even though another leading model forecasts increased wetness. Climate model hydrology forecasts on regional scales are notoriously unreliable. Most of the United States, outside the Southwest, became wetter during 1925-2003.
#
Blames global warming for the severe drought that hit the Amazon in 2005. However, RealClimate.Org, a web site set up to debunk global warming "skeptics," concluded that it is not possible to link the drought to global warming.
#
Warns of a positive feedback whereby carbon-induced warming melts tundra, releasing more CO2 locked up in frozen soils. An alternative scenario is also plausible: The range of carbon-storing vegetation expands as tundra thaws.
#
Claims that global warming endangers polar bears even though polar bear populations are increasing in Arctic areas where it is warming and declining in Arctic areas where it is cooling.
#
Blames global warming for Alaska's "drunken trees" - trees rooted in previously frozen tundra, which sway in all directions as the ice melts - ignoring the possibly large role of the 1976 PDO shift.
#
Blames rising CO2 levels for recent declines in Arctic sea ice, ignoring the potentially large role of natural variability. AIT never mentions that wind pattern shifts may account for much of the observed changes in sea ice, or that the Canadian Arctic Archipelago had considerably less sea ice during the early Holocene.
#
Warns that meltwater from Greenland could disrupt the Atlantic thermohaline circulation based on research indicating that a major disruption occurred 8,200 years ago when a giant ice dam burst in North America, allowing two lakes to drain rapidly into the sea. AIT does not mention that the lakes injected more than 100,000 cubic kilometers of freshwater into the sea, whereas Greenland ice melt contributes only a few hundred cubic kilometers a year.
#
Warns that global warming is destroying coral reefs, even though today's main reef builders evolved and thrived during periods substantially warmer than the present.
#
Warns that a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels to 560 ppm will so acidify seawater that all optimal areas for coral reef construction will disappear by 2050. This is not plausible. Coral calcification rates have increased as ocean temperatures and CO2 levels have risen, and today's main reef builders evolved and thrived during the Mesozoic Period, when atmospheric CO2 levels hovered above 1,000 ppm for 150 million years and exceeded 2,000 ppm for several million years.
#
Links global warming to toxic algae bloom outbreaks in the Baltic Sea that can be entirely explained by record-high phosphorus levels, record-low nitrogen-to-phosphorus levels, and local meteorological conditions.
#
Asserts without evidence that global warming is causing more tick-borne disease (TBD). A 2004 study by Oxford University professor Sarah Randolph found no relationship between climate change and TBD in Europe.
#
Blames global warming for the resurgence of malaria in Kenya, even though several studies have found no climate link and attribute the problem to decreased spraying of homes with DDT, anti-malarial drug resistance, and incompetent public health programs.
#
Insinuates that global warming is a factor in the emergence of some 30 "new" diseases over the last three decades, but cites no supporting research or evidence.
#
Blames global warming for the decline "since the 1960s" of the emperor penguin population in Antarctica based on a speculative assessment by two researchers that warm sea temperatures in the 1970s reduced the birds' main food source. An equally plausible explanation is that Antarctic ecotourism, which became popular in the 1970s, disturbed the rookeries.
#
Warns of "significant and alarming structural changes" in the submarine base of West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), but does not tell us what those changes are or why they are "significant and alarming." The melting and retreat of the WAIS "grounding line" has been going on since the early Holocene. At the rate of retreat observed in the late 1990s, the WAIS should disappear in about 7,000 years.
#
Warns that vertical water tunnels ("moulins") are lubricating the Greenland Ice Sheet, increasing the risk that it will "slide" into the sea. Summertime glacier flow acceleration associated with moulins is tiny. Moulins in numbers equal to or surpassing those observed today probably occurred in the first half of the 20th century, when Greenland was as warm as or warmer than the past decade, with no major loss of grounded ice.
#
Presents 10 pages of before-and-after "photographs" showing what 20 feet of sea level rise would do to the world's major coastal communities. There is no credible evidence of an impending collapse of the great ice sheets. We do have fairly good data on ice mass balance changes and their effects on sea level. NASA scientist Jay Zwally and colleagues found a combined Greenland/Antarctica ice-loss-sea-level-rise equivalent of 0.05 mm per year during 1992-2002. At that rate, it would take a full millennium to raise sea level by just 5 cm.
#
Forecasts an increase in U.S. renewable energy production during 1990-2030 more than twice that projected by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Northern Ice 2095 (none left)
WRONG
#
Claims that glaciologist Lonnie Thompson's reconstruction of climate history proves the Medieval Warm Period was "tiny" compared to the warming observed in recent decades. It doesn't. Four of Thompson's six ice cores indicate the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as or warmer than any recent decade.
#
Calls carbon dioxide the "most important greenhouse gas." Water vapor is the leading contributor to the greenhouse effect.
#
Claims that Venus is too hot and Mars too cold to support life due to differences in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (they are nearly identical), rather than differences in atmospheric densities and distances from the Sun (both huge).
#
Claims that scientists have validated the "hockey stick" reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature history, according to which the 1990s were likely the warmest decade of the past millennium and 1998 the warmest year. It is now widely acknowledged that the hockey stick was built on a flawed methodology and inappropriate data. Scientists continue to debate whether the Medieval Warm period was warmer than recent decades.
#
Assumes that CO2 levels are increasing at roughly 1 percent annually. The actual rate is half that.
#
Assumes a linear relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures, whereas the actual CO2-warming effect is logarithmic, meaning that the next 100-ppm increase in CO2 levels adds only half as much heat as the previous 100-ppm increase.
#
Claims that the rate of global warming is accelerating, whereas the rate has been constant for the past 30 years - roughly 0.17#65456;C per decade.
#
Blames global warming for Europe's killer heat wave of 2003 - an event caused by an atmospheric circulation anomaly.
#
Blames global warming for Hurricane Catarina, the first South Atlantic hurricane on record, which struck Brazil in 2004. Catarina formed not because the South Atlantic was unusually warm (sea temperatures were cooler than normal), but because the air was so much colder it produced the same kind of heat flux from the ocean that fuels hurricanes in warmer waters.
#
Claims that 2004 set an all-time record for the number of tornadoes in the United States. Tornado frequency has not increased; rather, the detection of smaller tornadoes has increased. If we consider the tornadoes that have been detectable for many decades (category F-3 or greater), there actually has been a downward trend since 1950.
#
Blames global warming for a "mass extinction crisis" that is not, in fact, occurring.
#
Blames global warming for the rapid coast-to-coast spread of the West Nile virus. North America contains nearly all the climate types in the world - from hot, dry deserts to boreal forests to frigid tundra - a range that dwarfs any small alteration in temperature or precipitation that may be related to atmospheric CO2 levels. The virus could not have spread so far so fast if it were climate-sensitive.
#
Cites Tuvalu, Polynesia, as a place where rising sea levels force residents to evacuate their homes. In reality, sea levels at Tuvalu fell during the latter half of the 20th century and even during the 1990s, allegedly the warmest decade of the millennium.
#
Claims that sea level rise could be many times larger and more rapid "depending on the choices we make or do not make now" concerning global warming. Not so. The most aggressive choice America could make now would be to join Europe in implementing the Kyoto Protocol. Assuming the science underpinning Kyoto is correct, the treaty would avert only 1 cm of sea level rise by 2050 and 2.5 cm by 2100.
#
Accuses ExxonMobil of running a "disinformation campaign" designed to "reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact," even though two clicks of the mouse reveal that ExxonMobil acknowledges global warming as a fact.
#
Claims that President Bush hired Phil Cooney to "be in charge" of White House environmental policy. This must be a surprise to White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chairman James Connaughton, who hired Cooney and was his boss at the CEQ.
#
Claims that the European Union's emission trading system (ETS) is working "effectively." In fact, the ETS is not reducing emissions, will transfer an estimated #65443;1.5 billion from British firms to competitors in countries with weaker controls, has enabled oil companies to profit at the expense of hospitals and schools, and has been an administrative nightmare for small firms.
#
Claims U.S. firms won't be able to sell American-made cars in China because Chinese fuel-economy standards are stricter, even though many U.S.-made cars meet the Chinese standards.
More Tilo absurdity:
"So, you claim that they [IPCC projections] are not based upon past trends and they are not based upon climate sensitivity, then what are they based upon."
You don't know, Tilo? Then what the f**k are you doing pontificating on the subject?
"Just because a paper has been through the Real Climate agenda mill does not mean that it is deeply flawed."
Actually, I laid out the serious flaws, specifically.
"Perhaps decades, perhaps centuries - sounds like it is very well understood and a good reason to dismiss Schwartz - lol."
It is understood well enough to know that the time constant is an order of magnitue longer than Schwartz could detect - and longer time constants cause the Schwartz climate sensitivity to get alrger. Yeah, that's a flaw.
Also from Roy Spencer we have: "If everything else in the climate system remained the same, a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (probably late in this century) would cause little more than 1 deg. F of surface warming."
Spencer and nearly every climate scientist around. 1.1C actually. The sensitivity to CO2 alone, in the absence of any feedbacks is 1.1C. So?
Lee:
"You don't know, Tilo? Then what the f**k are you doing pontificating on the subject?"
I know that it is based upon past trends and estimates of climate sensitivity. Apparently you don't know and you are trying to fake your way out of it.
"It is understood well enough to know that the time constant is an order of magnitue longer than Schwartz could detect "
When you knowledge consists of - maybe decades, maybe centuries, you are in fact clueless as to how long it is.
"Spencer and nearly every climate scientist around. 1.1C actually. The sensitivity to CO2 alone, in the absence of any feedbacks is 1.1C. So?"
Ever hear of negative feedback Lee?
No, Tilo, the projections are based on modeling the system. Climate sensitivity numbers fall out of the models,and those value are consistent with values derived from empirical studies. But no, the projections are not based on extrapolation of past trends, and they are not based on simply applying the sensitivity value to the CO2 increase. And you simply do not know what you are talking about here.
"When you knowledge consists of - maybe decades, maybe centuries, you are in fact clueless as to how long it is."
No, Tilo, when we know that it is decades or centuries, we know that it is NOT 5 years. I know that it is much longer than 5 years.. And I know that an empirical derivation of sensitivity that as designed can not detect time constants longer than a few years, simply arent realistic. ESPECIALLY when the low value they get is dependent on the time constant being short.
Care to explain how yo get glaciations from Milankovich cycles if there is net negative or neutral feedback, Tilo?
Lee:
"No, Tilo, the projections are based on modeling the system."
Bwwwhhhaaahhhaaa.
Do you think that modeling systems create things out of thin air? Their projections are based upon assumptions about climate forcing agents which includes CO2 sensitivity.
It works something like this. First you input what you consider to be known elements, such as solar, volcanoes, aerosols, etc. Then you compare the curve that is produced with a temperature reconstruction of some type. You assume that the difference is due to CO2 climate sensitivity. So you plug in a sensitivity number and see if it matches your historical temperature reconstruction. After you get a climate sensitivity number that gives you the right historical temperature curve, you then use that sensitivity number in your prediction.
Or alternately, you run your model using someone else's climate sensitivity number plus your assumptions about other influencing factors.
Either way, you don't get away from the climate sensitivity number and you cannot do without past trends, even if they are used indirectly to get your climate sensitivity number.
"I know that it is much longer than 5 years."
I keep hearing you make the claim. But that is all.
"Care to explain how yo get glaciations from Milankovich cycles if there is net negative or neutral feedback, Tilo?"
I don't recall saying anything about the feedback of Milankovich cycles.
I would laugh, but I am choking is stunned amazement at the extraordinary stupidity of Tilo's description of climate modeling.
OK, everyone - I hereby nominate Tilo's description of the modeling process as the most sadly humorous thing posted on the internets this month. Seconds?
Tilo, you simply don't have the first fucking clue about what climate modeling is or what climate modelers do.
# Waxes enthusiastic about cellulosic ethanol, a product with no commercial application despite 30 years of government-funded research, and neglects to mention that corn-based ethanol, a product in commercial use for a century, is still more costly than regular gasoline despite oil prices exceeding $70 a barrel.
Tilo, you should at least READ what you post...
Tilo Reber says: "Waxes enthusiastic about cellulosic ethanol, a product with no commercial application."
You do realize that celluosic ethanol, starch based ethanol even ethanol derived from ethylene are all the same chemical, don't you, or are you so stupid that you think they are all different products?
Try doing some reading so that you understand the difference between "product" and "process". Every time you add an additional post it shows that you are even more stupid than we first thought (hard as that may seem).
Sod:
Tilo, you should at least READ what you post...
Where is the fun in that? Actually, I was watching the business news earlier and they were talking about the huge jump in price that corn was making. So the relationship stays the same. 70 wasn't that long ago. When are you cultists going to let us drill Anwar and use shale oil so that we can get those prices down?
Ian:
"You do realize that celluosic ethanol, starch based ethanol even ethanol derived from ethylene are all the same chemical, don't you,"
Who cares, and what does it have to do with any discussion?
Where is the fun in that? Actually, I was watching the business news earlier and they were talking about the huge jump in price that corn was making. So the relationship stays the same. 70 wasn't that long ago. When are you cultists going to let us drill Anwar and use shale oil so that we can get those prices down?
again: READ what you posted:
Waxes enthusiastic about cellulosic ethanol, a product with no commercial application despite 30 years of government-funded research, and neglects to mention that corn-based ethanol, a product in commercial use for a century, is still more costly than regular gasoline despite oil prices exceeding $70 a barrel.
so by how much did the price of Corn stover increase recently?
"I would laugh,"
Lee's last post is a classic example of "The sound and the fury that signify nothing."
"so by how much did the price of Corn stover increase recently?"
So you want to move on to the economics of Corn stover. The cost is still very high. Here is a guy that ran some numbers on it.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/11/cellulosic-ethanol-reality-chec…
Tilo Reber said: "Who cares, and what does it have to do with any discussion?"
Just letting the people who read this blog know that you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about since you don't know the difference between "product" and "process".
Why not find something better to do with your time?
Do you take your Ritalin before or after you read this thread?
Ian:
"Just letting the people who read this blog know that you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about since you don't know the difference between "product" and "process"."
No, you are just showing how desperate you are to score points, since nothing I said in any way relates to product versus process. In fact, you are so desperate that you didn't even bother to find the source of the quote that Sod put up.
"You assume that the difference is due to CO2 climate sensitivity. So you plug in a sensitivity number and see if it matches your historical temperature reconstruction. After you get a climate sensitivity number that gives you the right historical temperature curve, you then use that sensitivity number in your prediction."
An interesting description. Of course, anyone discussing climate modeling is familiar with the
CGCM1 by now, combining the ancient AGCM2 atmosphere model with GFDL
MOM1.1 ocean modeling.
As I'm sure everyone knows by now, the CGCM2 was similar to the CGCM1,
but with ocean mixing parametrization changed from horizontal/
vertical diffusion to isopycnal/eddy stirring parametrization, and
the inclusion of sea ice dynamics, as well as some technical
modifications in the ocean spin-up and flux adjustment procedure.
The AGCM3 atmosphere model, on the other hand, updates the AGCM2 model
with higher horizontal and vertical resolution and greater vertical
depth, as well as substituting a model of 3 soil layers, a possible
snow layer, and a vegetation canopy for the simplistic soil treatment
of the AGCM2; including parameters for liquid and frozen soil
moisture, as well as surface roughness, albedos, etc. Turbulent
transfer within the planetary boundary layer has an added direct non-
local mixing of heat and moisture where the surface buoyancy flux is
upward, assuming that the boundary layer will become well mixed to a
depth such that the virtual potential temperature of the mixed layer
does not exceed that of the layer above. In place of the moist
convective adjustment algorithm, the cumulus parametrization is now a
bulk mass flux scheme which represents convective scale updrafts and
downdrafts, giving a more physically realistic picture of penetrative
convection. Solar radiative heating is now calculated using four
visible and near infrared wavebands, cloud cover as a function of
local relative humidity, and liquid water content of the clouds
proportional to the adiabatic value obtained by lifting a parcel
through a specified depth; optical properties of the clouds are
parametrized in terms of the liquid water/ice content. Treatment of
terrestrial radiation has improved handling of broad band emissivities
and the water vapour continuum.
And of course as I'm sure you already know, the CGCM3 uses the ocean
component of the CGCM2, but with the atmospheric component updated to
that in the AGCM3; the sea ice component retains the mean thickness
and concentration model with cavitating fluid dynamics and
thermodynamics from CGCM1 and CGCM2, but adds a prognostic for ice
concentration. The T47 version has roughly 3.75 degrees of latitude/
longitude resolution and 31 levels of vertical resolution, while the
ocean grid has four ocean grid cells underlying every atmospheric grid
cell with an ocean resolution of roughly 1.85 degrees and 29 levels of
vertical resolution; while the T63 version has roughly 2.8 degrees of
latitude/longitude resolution, and 6 ocean grids underlying every
atmospheric grid cell, therefore providing approximately 1.4 degrees
resolution in longitude and 0.94 degrees in latitude (of course;
forgive me for stating the obvious!).
Of course, at this point you're no doubt asking: has this model done
anything about the negative values of spectral transport of specific
humidity? And you will be happy to know that the answer is yes;
although the spectral transport algorithm is the same, the Boer (1995)
hybrid moisture variable eliminates this problem. A semi-Lagrangian
transport algorithm is also an option for moisture or other
components.
Anyway, perhaps you could indicate to us more specifically where in this process do you get to play fudge factor with the CO2 sensitivity? thanks
Tilo Reber said: "In fact, you are so desperate that you didn't even bother to find the source of the quote that Sod put up."
Once again Tilo Reber shows just how stupid he is. He accuses me of not supplying a cite for my quote "Waxes enthusiastic about cellulosic ethanol, a product with no commercial application" which he mistakenly thinks was made by sod.
Well Tilo Reber, check out your post #214. You are the one who introduced this erroneous statement into this thread. If you are as smart as you say you would have realized that it was full of junk and edited it accordingly.
The fact that you posted it without change shows that you must agree with it and in so doing it shows to everyone that you do not know the difference between a "product" and a "process".
Why did you skip your schooling? You would be much smarter if you had stayed in class after Grade one and learned some simple facts.
For those of you who cannot get enough skiing, you might want of go do a little of it in Aspen this weekend, since the world will surely burn up next weekend.
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=93380&catid=188
Tilo Reber's frantic collection of strawmen in his endless blather at post #214 would surely provide enough stock to drop the price of ethanol, whether corn-based or cellulosic, so that it would be competitive with oil, even if oil were $70/barrel...
I would second your motion, Lee, but I suggest that it be broadened to encompass more than just Tilo's take on climate modelling.
Tilo, I think that it is really time that you explain to the world where ecologists have it wrong, in addition to the climate modellers whom you so enthusiastically disparage.
Please detail the extent to which ecosystem processes are independent of the direct and indirect impacts of humans (nota bene, you may need to address and contradict the whole of the discipline of ecology to do this effectively).
Please explain what phenology is, and how little it is dependent upon human impacts.
You wriggled out of this question a few weeks back, but surely by now you have taught yourself all about this subject - after all, you are not a climate scientist either, but you can now demolish the work of thousands of such experts in this field. It is time that you hammer the lids on the coffins of ecologists and population biologists around the world. You have made a number of ecological assertions in #214 that should be vigorously defended if you are claiming that this list is completely true.
Come on matey - put your evidence where your wind is and drive a stake through all of our loathsome, greenie, eco-idiotic hearts.
"which he mistakenly thinks was made by sod."
No you moron, I know it was posted by me and that it was a part of a collection from someone else. Where the hell do you get the idiotic idea that I thought it came from Sod. Look at the # at the beginning when Sod first posted it. All of them were tagged that way.
"You are the one who introduced this erroneous statement into this thread. "
What is erroneous about the statement microbrain? 70 dollar oil? Who cares. The point is the same.
"it shows to everyone that you do not know the difference between a "product" and a "process"."
Like I told you before, there is nothing in that quote that has anything to do with product versus process.
The whole purpose of 214 was as a dig in response to Ely's pitiful attempt at a joke. And you go off on a brain dead rant about product and process.
Sorry Ian, you are just too dumb to waste any more of my time with.
First a little bit about the variable climate sensitivity of the climate models.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/shields/posters/ccppsensitivity.pdf
ABSTRACT
Climate sensitivity is investigated for 10 models that are participating in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. We consider the temporal evolution of climate sensitivity
and we analyze the transient climate sensitivity from fully coupled simulations with a 1% per year increase in CO2 in terms of the all sky, clear sky and cloudy sky components. We find the following results: 1) there is nearly a factor of two spread in the transient climate response (1.39 to 2.66 °C) among the 10 models, 2) there is little over a factor of two spread in climate sensitivity, 3) there is nearly a factor of two spread in the ocean heat uptake efficiency among the models. In the past, much of the difference in climate sensitivity has been ascribed to clouds. However, we find that there is also a significant range of uncertainty in the clear sky
sensitivity, where the longwave clearsky sensitivity varies by a factor of ~60% and the shortwave clearsky sensitivity varies by a factor of ~4. We also find poor correlation between the transient climate response and the equilibrium climate sensitivity, which calls into to question the relevance of equilibrium sensitivity in defining probability density functions for climate change research.
Climate Change Prediction Program
Inter-model climate sensitivity
J. T. Kiehl and C. A. Shields
NCAR
Bernard:
"Come on matey - put your evidence where your wind is and drive a stake through all of our loathsome, greenie, eco-idiotic hearts."
Look, Bernard, I really am sorry that you cannot find someone to play with, but my response is the same as before - one subject at a time.
See Tilo squirm:
"First a little bit about the variable climate sensitivity of the climate models."
Desperately searching for a cite that shows an input of climate sensitivity to a modern model, Tilo? How exactly is that cite supposed to support your utterly absurd claim?
z:
Anyway, perhaps you could indicate to us more specifically where in this process do you get to play fudge factor with the CO2 sensitivity? thanks
Notice I said:
"First you input what you consider to be known elements, such as solar, volcanoes, aerosols, etc. Then you compare the curve that is produced with a temperature reconstruction of some type. You assume that the difference is due to CO2 climate sensitivity."
A completed model may have a fixed climate sensitivity. But the question is, how did it get that sensitivity. You can see from the wide variations that the models use that they did not simply grab the IPCC number and plug it in. Model development preceeds using the models for predicting future climate. Part of that development process is finding out what climate sensitivity works best for a model. Before you use the model to predict the future you use it to model the past, meaning the known temperature record. When you are doing this you tune the assumptions about aerosol forcing, volcanoes, solar, albedo, possibly ENSO and PDO, clouds, as well as CO2 forcing. Your list of model features is all rather pointless when it comes to determining how the model models things correctly. That must be done by tuning all of those seperate components, including climate sensitivity. You can say that the climate sensitivity "falls out" in the sense of it being what is left between the observed record and the modeled record, but before you make predictions with the model you have to use a number for climate sensitivity.
"This is a reassuring conclusion -- practising tuning is necessary for achieving agreement with observations in key parameters, and possible since there are parameters that are still not well restricted by measurements."
"and the equilibrium climate sensitivity ( T2ÃCO2 ) is found to be 2.50 K for the ERBE-tuned model and 2.26 K for the CERES-tuned model."
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/3/1/014001/erl8_1_014001.pdf?re…
Lee:
"Desperately searching for a cite that shows an input of climate sensitivity to a modern model, Tilo?"
You don't have to have an "input" to vary the sensitivity. You can simply have a definition in a header file that you change while the model is under development. Your objective for the model may not be to have people use it to search for a climate sensitivity number - in which case you would not likely have an input for sensitivity. Do you think you can understand the difference between model development and the usage of a model?
Now remember your previous statements:
"They aren't based on climate sensitivity number either, although they are consistent with a climate sensitivity of about 3C."
Obviously not true.
and
"No, Tilo, the projections are based on modeling the system."
Here you are going in a cirle. When you are making projections, you cannot do it without having a climate sensitivity number in your model. It doesn't fall out when making projections. If you want it to fall out, you have to model everything you can, compare it to a historical record and derive it based upon the difference. If you don't do it that way, you have to guess at a number, run it against historical record, and then tune it. If you have another method, then explain it.
Another screwed up link on #239. Try this.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/3/1/014001/erl8\_1\_014001.pdf?request-id=5050d842-c10a-4d68-917c-c4bcb2f69458
Tilo, what is your issue? You go around in circles. Aren't you embarrassed to be you? What will you do in 50 years when AGW hits the earth hard? Why don't you stop hiding behind a fake name and tell everyone who you are. In 50 years time you can try defend yourself and what an idiot you real are.
Tilo, the quote you present says that the equilibrium sensitivity is "found to be..." not that it is "input as."
There is nowhere in the CGCM models that constitutes an input of a climate sensitivity number. None. They don't work that way.. They aren't curve fits.
"Tunng" is done by varying parameters for physical processes, such as cloud nucleation and so on, within limits corresponding to what we know of the actual physical processes. Hindcasting is used to see if those parameteizations match what was observed, NOT to find a climate sensitivity number to plug in. The models are not line fits, and climate sensitivity is not a modeled physical process.
Once a model is developed, equilibrium climate sensitivity is determined approximately by altering CO2, running the model to equilibrium, and seeing how much warmer the model gets. NOT by looking at hindcasting. Your "climate sensitivity is input in a header file" nonsense is a further indictment of your knowledge in this area, and you continue to embarass yourself really, really badly on this,Tilo.
"GPP is Gross Primary Production, a measure of the daily output of the global biosphere -- the amount of new plant matter on land. NPP is Net Primary Production, an annual tally of the globe's production. Biomass is booming. The planet is the greenest it's been in decades, perhaps in centuries."
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=569586
You are simply not getting it Lee. Let's start simpler. Look at the predictive output of the models. They have rising temperature in the future. What in the model makes that temperature rise in the future? Why does one model show more rise in the future than another?
"Once a model is developed, equilibrium climate sensitivity is determined approximately by altering CO2, running the model to equilibrium, and seeing how much warmer the model gets."
Again, let's take it very simply. What difference would altering CO2 make. You have to put in the changes in the radiative properties of the atmosphere you expect to get from the CO2 and the model has to contain assumptions about how that will effect the feedback mechanisms of the atmosphere.
Let's go one step further. You say that you add CO2, run the model to equilibrium and see how much warmer it gets. How do you know that the amount warmer that it got is reasonable? In other words, how do you check if your model is functioning correctly? And if it isn't, how do you make it function correctly?
"What will you do in 50 years when AGW hits the earth hard?"
I don't know what Tilo will do, but I will be wondering why we didn't shut down the wasteful industries when we had a chance.
I will be wondering why we were allowed to have theme parks and carnivals and places like Disney World. I will be wondering why we didn't darken the lights on Broadway, why we didn't shut down NASCAR and all other fuel induced entertainment like airshows and snowmobiles and boating.
Why o why did we allow ouselves to use computers and other forms of electronic entertainment....
What fools we were to use heaters and air conditioners.
How selfish of us to live and breath.
Why o why didn't I just listen john and live like he did.....john, who seldom used anything that burned fossil fuels.....john, who kept accurate records and bought carbon credits for all his sins.....john, who never traveled or had any self serving interests or hobbies that helped caused this mess.
If only we could have stopped that evil Tilo.....it was Tilo who brought this mess upon us just by thinking differently, it was Tilo who emmitted all that C02 by thought, it was Tilo who didn't sign those laws, it was Tilo who caused the flooding in Bangladesh, it was Tilo who visited Disney and supported that car race just by watching it, it was Tilo who went to that sporting event.
Im with john on this one Tilo.
If you are alive in 50 years, perhaps living as a cannibal, I hope you can live with your shame......
John:
"What will you do in 50 years when AGW hits the earth hard?"
It won't.
"Why don't you stop hiding behind a fake name"
Where did you get the idiotic idea that my name is fake?
"Im with john on this one Tilo."
You've got me all wrong Betula. I watch Formula 1 not NASCAR.
Tilo, who just said a half dozen posts ago:
"Look, Bernard, I really am sorry that you cannot find someone to play with, but my response is the same as before - one subject at a time."
suddenly changes the topic to primary production.
Gee...
Lee:
Here is a quote from James Annan on his blog. This is with regard to the post 1940s temperature record change.
"It seems like it won't make much difference to climate predictions, although maybe one should expect it to reduce our estimates of both aerosol cooling and climate sensitivity marginally (I haven't read that linked commentary yet, so don't know how much detail they go into). It will also make it easier for the models to simulate the observed climate history. In fact one could almost portray this as another victory for modelling over observations, since the models have always struggled to reproduce this rather surprising dip in temperatures (eg SPM Fig 4). I've asked people about this problem myself in various seminars, and never got much of an answer. It's pretty shocking that such a problem could have been overlooked for so long."
No, Spencer is doing his best to trash his credibility with this and some very complicated graph-fudging. Of course, unlike Tilo Reber, he can't go around serving up piles of climate science shit without adversely affecting his professional credibility.
"suddenly changes the topic to primary production."
I believe z did that around #195.
"What in the model makes that temperature rise in the future? Why does one model show more rise in the future than another?"
It is not a climate sensitivity valeu in the model, as you have claimed. In fact, ow fast a model rises is to an extent independent of the equilibrium sensitivity of that model.
"You have to put in the changes in the radiative properties of the atmosphere you expect to get from the CO2 and the model has to contain assumptions about how that will effect the feedback mechanisms of the atmosphere."
Bullpucky. The models CALCULATE the radiative properties of the atmosphere, based on its composition and basic radiative transfer physics. The CGCMs CALCULATE the energy transfer within the system. There isn't an input for an assumption of the positive feedback effect of water vapor - there are calculations of the dynamics of water vapor change and calculatins of the effect of this on radiative transfer in teh atmosphere, and then after the model is run, an observation of what that did to the overall model output.
Yo claimed a direct input of climate sensitivity to the model. Yo said it could be in a file header. You are absurdly wrong, Tilo.
Model tuning and verification by hindcasting does not even necessarily change the sensitivity. If there is a difference between observations and the model results in hindcast, that difference is NOT interpreted as the 'sensitivity' as you claimed outright. Tuning of parameters can cause changes that result in different time constants with the same equilibrium sensitivity in the final model output, for example.
Yo claimed that a sensitivity value is input to or contained in the models - it is not. You claimed that the sensitivity that is used is determined by simply subtracting the model hindcast results from the observations, and then putting that sensitivity value into the model for forecasting. Absurdly wrong. Now you are squirming. Stop it.
Chris, I don't trust Spencer either. But this number is correct. If nothing else changes, then the sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is about 1.1C. That falls right out of the radiative transfer calculations.
Where Spencer (et al) fall down, is in insisting that the "if nothing else changes" part of that statement reflects reality somehow.
Lee:
Here is an interesting piece relating to our discussion. Go to section 7 on page 111 and read it. If you want to limit your reading a little you can get by with the sections called Model parameters and the section called Tuning.
Also notice how they ran their model with three different climate sensitivity values.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=iHE9AAAAIAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA111…\_pqoGV4kQvvW9l5Puv3rBnFsk#PPA111,M1
If hyperbole had a climate forcing value, Betula could possibly single-handedly warm the planet all by his lonesome.
Perhaps his heated moral outrage at the propaganda of the warmists will do so anyway, irrespective of the heavy addition of his hybperbolic preoccupations to the atmosphere.
Betula, mainstream 'warmists' are not advocating a return to the stone-age - it is the extremists and/or the uninformed who push the nut-barrow. You must know about extremism: there are one or two examples on the denialist side... Of course, if one were not able to perceive such, perhaps that says something in and of itself.
Leave Disneyland alone, Betula, and homophagy; forget about the tree that fell on the polar bear, and don't lather yourself so much about "fuel induced entertainment like airshows and snowmobiles and boating". It's about more than just some exaggerated examples.
Of course, the concept of reconsidering the wanton and profligate use of energy is entirely valid however, but the nub of the matter is the 'considered' part of any such reconsideration. However you slice and dice it Betula we are spending, in several centuries, 200 million years of energy captured and banked by the biosphere. That sort of retail therapy comes at its own price, and it seems that you can't face this without pressing your self-denial button first.
Unless of course you truly believe that humanity can live as it does in perpetuity, with the US standard of living being translated in the process to the billions of the planet's other human inhabitants. I am curious about this idea, and those who subscribe to it, especially because I would like to see the energy budgeting and waste-disposal accounting that such a stance requires.
Betula, it really seems that you cannot see the forest for a few bear-snuffing trees.
The double standard in the global warming debate:
"Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions."
"And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
"the Clinton/Gore administration knew that I was skeptical that mankind's CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming. I was even told not to give my views during congressional testimony, and so I purposely dodged a question, under oath, when it arose.
But I didn't complain about it like Hansen has. NASA is an executive branch agency and the President was, ultimately, my boss (and is, ultimately, Hansen's boss). So, because of the restrictions on what I could and couldn't do or say, I finally just resigned from NASA and went to work for the university here in Huntsville."
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/1287/225/
Yes I know that number is correct but the point was what Spencer said which was:
"If everything else in the climate system remained the same, a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (probably late in this century) would cause little more than 1 deg. F of surface warming."
That's from Spencer's professional credibility self-destruction, something that shit-peddlars like Tilo Reber don't need to worry about.
Tilo, your citation is from a book published in 19-fricking-93. It is 15 years out of date.
The model they are talking about is a box model, not a cGCM. It is obsolete. It is not in the class of models being used to make IPCC projections. And you still don't have the first fucking clue what you are talking abut.
Spencer has also expressed, as a professional scientist, that he feels that intelligent design is as valid and scientific a theory s evolution. not stated that he believes in it, which is immune to debate; belief is, like love, in the eye of the individual. but that it's as scientific a theory?
Tilo Reber posts:
You don't know what a confidence level is, do you?
Tilo Reber posts:
If you do the matrix math that predicts Milankovic cycles, you find that the next ice age would be due at one of two coming troughs -- 20,000 years from now, and a stronger one at 50,000 years from now. How is this "rapid?"
Tilo posts:
Tilo, you said that cellulosic ethanol had absolutely no industrial applications. You clearly had the idea that cellulosic ethanol was somehow different from corn or sugarcane ethanol. That's what Ian was talking about.
Tilo posts:
Tilo, repeat after me --
Climate sensitivity is not an input to climate models.
Climate sensitivity is not an input to climate models.
Climate sensitivity is not an input to climate models.
So they can't do anything about finding "what climate sensitivity works best for a model." Climate sensitivity isn't something that goes into the model beforehand. See above.
Tilo posts:
You "hindcast" using the solar illuminance, CO2 level, albedo, etc. of past years and see if the sequence of temperatures you come up with looks like the real sequence.
Check the program for bugs. Find out if there's a better way to represent the physics.
An example would be in the first radiative-convective models. In 1964 Manabe and Strickler modeled the atmosphere assuming fixed relative humidity with altitude, and got a profile that looked fairly like the real Earth atmosphere. In 1967 Manabe and Wetherall tried holding the relative humidity constant instead, and got a still better fit. Empirical data since then confirms the idea that relative humidity tends to stay about the same with altitude. They didn't use any climate data for the change; they simply used a better representation of the physics. Climate modelers have been doing this kind of thing for 50 years.
Betula posts:
You know, reading your endless straw-man sarcasm is getting really, really boring. I'm getting to the point where I'm just skimming your posts, thinking, "Yep, that's Betula again." If you're hoping to influence anybody, you're massively failing. If you want to change people's minds, drop the sarcasm and try a logical argument.
Tilo posts:
A lot of climate dissenters have been confronted by mysterious "men in black" who intimidate them into not making any statements. Thus, standing up against the warmist alarmists is not just good science, it is extremely courageous.
# Waxes enthusiastic about cellulosic ethanol, a product with no commercial application despite 30 years of government-funded research,
Tilo you are talking and quoting complete rubbish. all of the points you make, fall apart as soon as someone takes a second look. your tactic is to keep stuff vague and to post so much new bullshit, that people have a hard time keeping up with it!
the technology for cellulosic ethanol is ready for commercial size use. several big demonstration plants are currently planned or underconstruction.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=46921
30 years of funding isn t very special either.
it took nuclear power from 1934 to 1956/57 to take of. i wonder: what was the equivalent of the MANHATTAN PROJECT in government support for cellulosic ethanol?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Early_years
and then there is this final nugget: the first commercial cellulosic ethanol plants were run during world war 1 (one!!!)
e first attempt at commercializing a process for ethanol from wood was done in Germany in 1898. It involved the use of dilute acid to hydrolyze the cellulose to glucose, and was able to produce 7.6 liters of ethanol per 100 kg of wood waste (18 gal per ton). The Germans soon developed an industrial process optimized for yields of around 50 gallons per ton of biomass. This process soon found its way to the United States, culminating in two commercial plants operating in the southeast during World War I.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
Tilo, I like the stuff about all scientists being corrupt - so why do you even bother to cite scientific studies, given that they're all works of fiction? You might as well give Crichton as your sole reference. As for the Lindzen op-ed in the WSJ, there are some dissenting opinions on his piece. And I see Alfonso Sutera i still doing good, basic research in climate modeling and mechanisms - that must make him one of your bad guys (and it's a long way since 1991)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/open-thread-on-li…
"If you want to change people's minds, drop the sarcasm and try a logical argument."
BPL,
You don't honestly think I'm going to change anybodies mind on this site with logic do you? I certainly don't.
You don't like my comment about being selfish with living and breathing? Sure, it's sarcastic, but it mirrors everything said on this site......so if it sounds ridiculous, open your ears instead of opening your mouth and inserting your carbon footprint.
Isn't it because the rich nations are using all their technology and luxuries that increased C02 is causing flooding and increased storms throughout the world? Shouldn't rich nations be held accountable for disasters that occur in poor nations? Of course! It's been documented over and over again.
So aren't we being selfish and non-caring by causing the intensity of these events? Shouldn't we be held legally liable? Yes!
The breathing part was added for effect, however there is even some truth to it.....for example, we do exhale C02, but more importantly, just by being born into a rich nation, that is, just by living and breathing in a rich nation....we are automatically guilty and should be held accountable.
This logic can't be disputed.....a lead author of the IPCC said this himself.....therefore it is a fact....and an extremely logical argument.
So, Betula, what do you think that Western societies should do about it?
Mock hysteria aside, that is.
"Tilo you are talking and quoting complete rubbish."
No Sod, you are talking and quoting complete rubbish. This is just another of your endless parade of strawmen. No one said that Cellulosic Ethanol couldn't be produced. The question is can it be produced economically. And your links don't even bother to address that question. If the state of NY want's to subsidize an experiment that is their business. The fact that the Germans used it means zero since they had no choice but to produce other fuel sources.
And if we look at the alternatives, we can produce shale oil for between $15 and $30 per barrel. That technology is already developed. Can Cellulosic Ethanol beat that? Between Colorado, Utah and Wyoming we have more shale oil than Saudi Arabia has oil.
Barton:
"Tilo, you said that cellulosic ethanol had absolutely no industrial applications. You clearly had the idea that cellulosic ethanol was somehow different from corn or sugarcane ethanol. That's what Ian was talking about."
Kind of a dumb response, all in all. The fact that the final product is the same is irrelevant. Where you get it from, how cheap it is to make, and how much is available will determine if you use it industrially. So again, Ian's response remains worthless.
stewart:
"Tilo, I like the stuff about all scientists being corrupt"
You'll have to remind me were I said that stewart.
I don't take reference links to Real Climate stewart. Their agenda and biases are far too blatant. I also don't take AGW links to Wiki, since their Global Warming editor, William Connolley, is an honorary hockey team member and since he ran for office from the green party.
Sorry.
Tilo Reber said: "So again, Ian's response remains worthless".
Yes, worthless to some one as stupid as you are. If I had cellulose derived ethanol that I was willing to sell there would be a large market for it.
It is not the fact that it is derived from cellulose that means there is no market for it is the fact that the process is more expensive than producing it from corn and other starch substrates. That is the point that you, because of your innate stupidity, cannot see.
As for this comment: "we can produce shale oil for between $15 and $30 per barrel." Just where do you get this nonsense from? If that was the price there would be no mountains left in shale bearing areas. It will be even more expensive to produce than tar-sands oil and that is expensive, both from an economical point of view and an environmental view point.
You are so stupid, did they kick you out of school or did you leave voluntarily because you were too stupid to learn anything?
"You don't know what a confidence level is, do you?"
Yes, I do. And the answer is still not 3.0. The answer is anything from 1.5 to 6.0. You will find out that if the answer turns out to be 1.6, they will still claim that they were correct.
"That is the point that you, because of your innate stupidity, cannot see."
No moron, that is not the point that I cannot see, that is the point that I was making.
"Just where do you get this nonsense from?"
From reality Ian. A place that you should occasionally visit.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635180294,00.html
http://www.oil-techinc.com/profile.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5424033
"If that was the price there would be no mountains left in shale bearing areas. "
The only thing that is standing between us and energy independence are left wing legislators like Ken Salazar.
http://www.examiner.com/a-1389682~Salazar_sponsors_bill_to_slow_down_oi…
Here is that link again.
http://www.examiner.com/a-1389682~Salazar\_sponsors\_bill\_to\_slow\_down\_oil\_shale\_development.html
Keep it up Tilo Reber, you continue to show how stupid you are.
I like Tim's idea of putting fools like you in your own thread. It reminds me of the middle ages when they put fools and petty criminals in the stocks so people could make fun of them and throw rotten fruits and veggies at them. It was a good way for mothers to scold their children and say "behave yourself or you will be made to look like a fool, just like that fellow Tilo Reber who they have put in the stocks for his stupidity."
"Air. A requirement for life or a terrifying lung parasite with a colossal PR campaign? Science has not yet determined which of these two so-called "theories" is correct."
"So, Betula, what do you think that Western societies should do about it?"
I suppose one answer would be to renounce the western lifestyle and reduce ourselves to zero.......not that there is anything wrong with that.
Keep up the good work Tilo, ignore those who insult you, for they know not what they do and are not worthy of your concern.
The warmists have only one thing going for them, and that is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Aside from that, they have nothing. Realists such as yourself have all the the rest of science behind you.
The number of people who support AGW is declining everyday and the number who oppose it is increasing. The tipping point was passed some time ago but warmist have yet to acknowledge it. Admitting you have been conned is very hard for humans to admit.
So Kent, you believe that lies, distortion, cherry picking, misinterpretation and stupidity are normal and acceptable character flaws? Your support for Tilo Reber's nonsense doesn't put you in the ranks of intelligent people but shows that you are just as stupid as he is.
Tilo Reber.
I am curious.
In your world, when all of the coal, the tar sands, the shale oil and the available biomass has been burned to fuel humanity's insatiable requirement for energy, what then?
Just how much CO2 do you think that this will have released? At whatever forcing you are prepared to acknowledge, what will the asymptotic temperature increase be?
Just how much environmental damage will have been caused by the extraction processes, and how many species will be driven to extinction as a direct result?
What will be the consequence, to future humanity, of the warming that you are prepared to acknowledge will occur when all of the fossil fuels, that you are so enamoured of, are burned?
What will future humanity do for energy after all the fossil fuels are burned?
In a philosophic vein, why should future humanity bear the cost of the environmental damage that would accrue, rather than present humanity bearing at least some of it to develop the alternatives that would come sooner or later anyway.
Oh, and do you understand how much of the biospheric resource base would be driven to the wall if we maxed out the fossil energy credit card as hard and as fast as we could?
kent:
Yes kent, you're a very good example.
Obviously.
And they are not claiming the answer is 3.0, Mr. strawman.
They will have been correct so your point is?
Bernard:
"I am curious.
In your world, when all of the coal, the tar sands, the shale oil and the available biomass has been burned to fuel humanity's insatiable requirement for energy, what then?"
Nuclear.
"Just how much CO2 do you think that this will have released? "
I think we'll be fine until we get to six or seven hundred PPM. If we begin a sane and steady program of building nuclear reactors now, we will never have to go beyond that.
"Just how much environmental damage will have been caused by the extraction processes".
Virtually none. The shale oil is in especially desolate areas. And we should require that the area be replanted after the shale has been extracted.
"What will be the consequence, to future humanity"
Plants seem to love CO2. Future humanity will have a more comfortable planet with more plants than ever.
"In a philosophic vein, why should future humanity bear the cost of the environmental damage that would accrue"
What environmental damage?
Next time you are in the bookstore check out a book called Colorado 1870 - 2000. William Henry Jackson was a nature photographer that took shots of his favorite places all over Colorado in the 1870s. John Fielder is another Colorado nature photographer that used Jacksons shots, went to exactly the same places and shot exactly the same frames in 2000. These are not shots of protected parks, but a rather a variety taken from all over, including some cities. This will give you a good opportunity to witness the destruction that mankind has visited on the earth in the 130 year interval.
Hint: You will see that Colorado is more beautiful and it's plant life is more robust than it was in 1870.
"The tipping point was passed some time ago but warmist have yet to acknowledge it."
I think that the only tipping point that we need to worry about is when James Hansen tips into alcoholism as none of his predictions come true and all 1400 interviews that he has given come back to accuse him of fraud.
Tilo posts:
Yeah, they're actual climatologists. They have a bias toward scientific accuracy.
Betula posts:
This is a constant, constant propaganda line of the denialists. "Climate alarmists want us to abandon all technology and live in mud huts." No, Betula, climate "alarmists" want you to switch to renewable power sources and insulate your home. The Luddism is all on the other side; it's the proponents of fossil fuels who don't want technological advance.
kent writes:
And the fact that it's increasing, and the fact that the increase comes from human technology, and the fact that the world is warming in response, and the fact that AGW will cause serious problems. Which of those do you dispute?
I haven't the least intention of reading this thread but I'd like to thank Barton, Ian Forrester and others. The more time Tilo (and to a lesser extent Betula) spend here, the less time they have to pollute other threads with their nonsense.
a drive by posting, but I note that Tilo seems to have abandoned the 'inputing sensitivity to climate models' tripe.
"Realists such as yourself have all the the rest of science behind you. " ... You are joking right? You mean the rest of science that is wrong and has no evidence behind it.
"Admitting you have been conned is very hard for humans to admit." It seems so... maybe you deniers will admit it soon.
Barton:
"Which of those do you dispute?"
The last!
BPL Posts......
"This is a constant, constant propaganda line of the denialists. "Climate alarmists want us to abandon all technology and live in mud huts"
Regarding this....
"I suppose one answer would be to renounce the western lifestyle and reduce ourselves to zero.......not that there is anything wrong with that."
Actually BPL, the answer I gave is not one I believe, I just said it was one answer. It happens to be the answer that Gandhi believed......
"Gandhi earnestly believed that a person involved in social service should lead a simple life which he thought could lead to Brahmacharya. His simplicity began by renouncing the western lifestyle he was leading in South Africa. He called it "reducing himself to zero"
Anyways, I threw it out there wondering if Gandhi would also be considered a denialist twit....and I got my answer.....Thanks.
Lee:
"but I note that Tilo seems to have abandoned the 'inputing sensitivity to climate models' tripe."
I gave you a case of a model that did vary the climate sensitivity. However, you have convinced me that most models probably don't do that.
With that established let's go back an see where we are with the discussion that brought up that subject in the first place.
Me:
"Looks like we have another error in the instrument record. And it means that we will probably have to readjust the warming trend - down - again."
Lee:
"The discontinuity is an 0.3C DROP in temps at 1945. Removing the discontinuity means either adjusting post 1945 temps UP by 0.3C, or pre-1945 temps DOWN by 0.3C. Either adjustment means that there is an 0.3C POSITIVE adjustment in temp trend at 1945."
So Lee got that wrong.
Lee:
"IPCC projections are not based on past trends, near term or long term."
As we have now found, model parameter are in fact tuned so that they will reflect the historical record. This mean that when we change the historical record, we will need to retune the model parameters. When we retune the model parameters we will get a different projection and a different climate sensitivity.
And with regards to the instrument record correction, James Annan from Lee's side of the fence puts it like this:
"It seems like it won't make much difference to climate predictions, although maybe one should expect it to reduce our estimates of both aerosol cooling and climate sensitivity marginally"
Annan thinks that the reduction in climate sensitivity will be small. Others think it will be significant. We will have to wait and see how they change the instrument record to know.
Lee:
"They aren't based on climate sensitivity number either, although they are consistent with a climate sensitivity of about 3C."
Barton:
"And they are not "all over the place," they all come up with climate sensitivities around 3 K per doubling of CO2."
Lee and Barton were both wrong about this and I proved it with this link and this abstract:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/shields/posters/ccppsensitivity.pdf
"ABSTRACT Climate sensitivity is investigated for 10 models that are participating in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. We consider the temporal evolution of climate sensitivity and we analyze the transient climate sensitivity from fully coupled simulations with a 1% per year increase in CO2 in terms of the all sky, clear sky and cloudy sky components. We find the following results: 1) there is nearly a factor of two spread in the transient climate response (1.39 to 2.66 °C) among the 10 models, 2) there is little over a factor of two spread in climate sensitivity, 3) there is nearly a factor of two spread in the ocean heat uptake efficiency among the models."
Me:
"Do you think that modeling systems create things out of thin air? Their projections are based upon assumptions about climate forcing agents which includes CO2 sensitivity."
So, while CO2 sensitity may not be parameterized for most models, most of the other things that I mentioned are.
Lee:
"There is nowhere in the CGCM models that constitutes an input of a climate sensitivity number. None. They don't work that way.. They aren't curve fits."
And while the first part of this statement is true for most models, overall, a curve fitting exercise seems to be exactly what these models are. Which is probably why Lindzen said it. And then no less a giant than Barton Paul Levenson backed him up when he said:
"You "hindcast" using the solar illuminance, CO2 level, albedo, etc. of past years and see if the sequence of temperatures you come up with looks like the real sequence.
Check the program for bugs. Find out if there's a better way to represent the physics."
In other words, tweak it until you get the right answer.
This, by the way, is another reason that a change in the temperature record will change the models.
Barton The world is not warming you have got your facts wrong... yes you have not only been conned but have become a con artist yourself. AGW will not cause serious problems because it is so miniscule. You have been conned as have most on this site.
I have never believed in AGW because it did not ring true. When I say that I am saying that I have a powerful bullshit detector and when I read about AGW, fre flags shot up all over the place.
Chris, as for suggesting I am stupid? That just shows a lack of character. Tilo has shown more than just a few times that he is not only worthy of my respect but a straight shooter. Where as many who disagree with him are light weights incapable of not only beating their way out of a paper bag but of hitting abouve their weight class.
As for the tipping point, once the lawyers start to get their teeth into Al Gore and company over the fraudulent missrepresentation of the scientific facts, whatever is left of the radical left wing global warming crowd will shrink very fast.
Interesting that the Tilo Reber thread has more comments than any of the other threads by a big factor. Tilo must be doing something right and I salut Tim for giving him the space he diserves. I just hope Tim opens up another Tilo thread when this one drops off the page.
Oh, almost forgot... happy fathers day to you all.
Well if Kent says it's so, then it must be... his so-called 'bullshit detector' versus scientific evidence. Man, this is the most convincing thing I have ever read
Tilo Reber.
I have to say that I expected a better reply to my questions than the one you supplied at #288.
Your one word, "nuclear", is hardly an answer. Perhaps you can précis the cost of establishing a reactor, supplying it, and decommissioning it, for every country that would take advantage of this wonderful alternative? If you believe in this solution so whole-heartedly, then you must have an understanding of the viability of the economic inputs.
Upon what data do you base your statement that the biosphere will function without perturbation in ecosystems, to "six or seven hundred PPM"?
I am especially curious about your claim of "[v]irtually none" for the environmental damage that will have been caused by the extraction processes for shale oil and tar sands. Obviously you have the data to support this. Please enlighten us with a précis of these data too. Oh, and I would especially like to see the data that shows the success of replanting, and how ecosystem structures are retained during and after extraction and replanting.
"Plants seem to love CO2".
Interesting. Although by saying "seem", you don't appear to be convinced...
Or maybe you really are convinced. In that case, you obviously have data that I am not privy to - can you show the literature review that supports the intent behind your rather slippery comment?
I really do look forward to your supporting data because I have encountered, in my biological work, many reports that contradict your stance. This hoary old chestnut seems to pop up with regularity, and the people who promote the idea seem to ignore much of the contradicting evidence. Tim Curtin was particularly fond of pressing this point, although should I note that when at the beginning of May I challenged him on it (see the end of the May post here), he slithered away rather quickly and quietly. Perhaps you can more robustly defend your stance than Tim Curtin was able to or prepared to?
"Future humanity will have a more comfortable planet with more plants than ever."
Hmmm. Evidence that supports this? Especially evidence that indicates that these plants are a part of functioning ecosystems?
And you were surely jesting when you said "What environmental damage?". Your example to support your claim was quaint, but I rather suspect that the bulk of examples of human activity around the globe will be followed by somewhat less-than-wonderful instances of environmental impacts. Do you really need a list of such? Perhaps I and others on this thread could start throwing some examples at you, and you could explain to us how we have it all wrong?
I am sure though that you were not serious. No-one is that misinformed.
And Betula - at #271 I asked you a specific question:
and you replied at #282:
This apparently was a trick reply to flush out folk who disagree with Gandhi, which I find a bizarre way to answer my question. Perhaps you would care to actually lay your beliefs about what we should be 'doing about it' on the line, once and for all, so that we understand where you are coming from, and what you stand for. Your sniping over the months has very largely been done without any clear indication of why you say what you do.
Put up or shut up.
Kent.
Have you ever wondered if your "powerful bullshit detector" is blaring its klaxons as loudly as you claim it is, because you are standing so close to it?
Betula:
"It happens to be the answer that Gandhi believed......"
While I would support Gandhi's and anyone else's right to live as simple a lifestype as they choose, I would deny anyone's right to force others to live the lifestyle that they choose for themselves.
In regards to having Gandhi connect simplicity to Brahmacharya, I think this is a common theme among mystics. When Christ said something to the effect that a rich man has as much chance of entering the kindom of heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle, he was making the same point. It was not that non-simplicity or wealth where evil, but rather that they were distractions and that the owner was also owned. Insofar as the warmers are trying to make a "save the world" mission as their own means to meaning and redemption, they are as lost as the rich man. It reminds me of something that Laozi was suppose to have said to Confucius. It went something like, "Why these flags of benevolence and righteousness so bravely upraised, as though you were beating a drum in search of a fugitive. You will bring confusion to the nature of man."
But we are getting just a tad off topic.
"I have to say that I expected a better reply to my questions than the one you supplied at #288."
I'm sure that you would have liked an answer more in keeping with your prejudices. Sorry I can't help you.
"Perhaps you can précis the cost of establishing a reactor, supplying it, and decommissioning it, for every country that would take advantage of this wonderful alternative?"
Perhaps you can do that for yourself. And while you are at it, give us the cost of establishing solar and wind energy, maintaining it, and decommissioning it, for every country that would take advantage of this wonderful alternative.
Speaking of models and assumptions, here is a good read.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003165.html
Hey Tilo, you loser, how much you get paid trolling around climate change web sites?
Apparently there are a couple of guys named Svensmark and Friis-Christensen that believe there is an inverse correlation between sunspots and cosmic rays. And then there is a correlation between cosmic rays and clouds.
Less sunspots, more cosmic rays. More cosmic rays, more clouds. More clouds, more cooling. In other words, the situation we are in now.
While few climate scientists give this theory credence, apparently many physicisist think that it is possible. So CERN will run a cloud chamber experiment in 2010 to see what the effects of cosmic rays is on clouds. This should be fun, and could end up changing our views about what the total effects of the sun are on climate.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/09/cern-to-create-cloud-with-cosmic-rays…
So Tilo Reber, your short answer is that you have lots of opinions to contradict a large body of understanding, understanding derived from several disciplines of science, but no scientific evidence yourself with which to substantiate these perceptions?
And for what it's worth, I actually have some concerns about the economics of current alternatives as they stand, especially with the existence of the economic welfare that is afforded the entrenched vested interests of the large fossil fuel industry.
In fact, I am yet to be convinced that there is any workable economic solution to the combination of 1) human population growth, 2) of the tendency for a greater proportion of this growing population to move to a Western 'progressing lifestyle', 3) of the ever-increasing energetic requirement for fuelling the previous two points, 4) of resource depletion, 5) of damage to and marginalisation of the non-human biosphere, and 6) of the underlying change to the climate that we are putting in train at whatever sensitivity we care to argue about.
But this thread is not about my concerns as an ecologist that the thermodynamics of human economy/activity vs the biosphere do not add up. Nor is it about my prejudices, because I do my best to keep them at home, and only bring perceptions (as objectively based upon science as I am able) to discussions such as these.
This thread is about the fact that you deny that there is a problem with climate change, with environmental damage and with other threats to global ecological function. It's about the fact that you have been making hefty claims that we can safely continue with business as usual, oh, and with nuclear thrown in. It is, after all, the Tilo Reber thread.
It's about the fact that you say that you have the answers as to why climate science is wrong, and (seemingly) why ecology is irrelevant to future progess.
I ask again. Start putting those answers on the table. Show us your evidence. Provide us with the numbers.
Please.
Bernard,
You are wasting your time with a neophyte like TR. He had me on the floor with this howler: "You will see that Colorado is more beautiful and it's plant life is more robust than it was in 1870". This kind of kindergarten level anthropomorphic analysis reveals how far out of his depth poor old TR is. TRs greenwash page this is. How can one equate aesthetics with function? One can't. But then again, because TR apparently has no qualifications in environmental science or population ecology, he is free to wheel out whatever nonsense he likes. I've read a lot of it in a detached, bemused kind of way. But this statement of his takes the cake.
TR, I suggest that you also look at photographs of New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and other western states taken in the late 1800s and in the present day. You'll see that the utter destruction of tallgrass prairie - wrought by subsidized overgrazing - has led to a highly simplified desert ecosystem that is more leaky, prone to collapse, overrun by invasive exotics such as Eurasian cheatgrass, and has experienced an extinction spasm amongst both terrestrial and freshwater biota. The salt cedar, another exotic invasive, grows in such dense stands that it excluded competitors along waterways in Arizona, leading to heating of the water and the concomitant extinction of several fish species due to anoxia associated with the heating. The SW region is now dominated by fire-prone exotics like cheatgrass as well as nutrient hoarders such as mesquite. A number of ecologists have been trying to restore the former tall grass sytems, without any success. Many of the grasses now exist in relic populations along railway lines and in the verges of parking lots.
TRs post reminds of the former head of Greenpeace, who became a spokeman for the logging industry a few years back, when he said that a clear-cut is a 'temporary meadow'. Utter nonsense, but simple enough to appeal to the likes of those who think like TR.
Betula posts:
You love straw-man arguments, don't you?
There's a difference between voluntarily living a simple lifestyle and forcing everyone to abandon technology, Betula. A simple lifestyle can be high-tech, for your information. You haven't dealt with what I was saying at all; you have gone directly from "someone said living a low-tech lifestyle was okay" to "AGW eco-Nazis hate Gandhi." Did you notice the direct contradiction between the two statements?
Which do you believe:
1. AGW eco-Nazis want people to lead simple lifestyles.
2. AGW eco-Nazis hate Gandhi because he told people to live simple lifestyles.
Accusing me of all people of hating the Mahatma is especially stupid. I can still sing his theme song in Hindi; can you?
Tilo posts:
Your attempt at a translation is ridiculously wrong. Do you really not understand the difference between improving the physics and fudging code? Even after the example I gave you?
kent posts:
Don't you accuse me of lying, you disgusting little twerp.
It's not miniscule at all. Read the IPCC AR4 report. Sea levels are rising, glaciers and polar ice caps are melting, droughts are hitting continental interiors in Australia, Europe, Africa and North America.
Tilo Reber posts:
Except that Svensmark and Friis-Christensen's correlation collapsed after 1996, which you'd know if you'd been following the peer-reviewed journals instead of getting your information from denialist web sites. They then switched from "correlates with cloud cover" to "correlates with low-level cloud cover." Except that that isn't working out either.
Cosmic ray bombardment generates about five (5) condensation nuclei per square centimeter. In other words, orders of magnitude less than one normally finds in cloud condensation. What is the mechanism of action proposed here? And does it involve magic wands or telekinesis?
kent, as for suggesting I lack character? That just shows stupidity.
BPL posts..
"Which do you believe:"
1."AGW eco-Nazis want people to lead simple lifestyles."
2."AGW eco-Nazis hate Gandhi because he told people to live simple lifestyles."
First of all, I have never called someone an "eco-Nazi", try to remember, I am the equivalent of a Holocaust denier so I am supposed to have too much respect for the Nazi's to insult them like that.
Secondly, I don't remember accusing people of hating Gandhi. I think all this is playing out in the science fiction lobe of your brain, which apparently has overtaken the reality lobe.
If you could hi-lite the image in your brain where I said "AGW eco-Nazi's hate Gandhi" and post it for me I would appreciate it.
In response to your questions... I would give the following answers:
1. Yes, I believe AGW theorists want people to live simple lifestyles
2. I believe AGW theorists respect Gandhi for living a simple lifestyle.
Conclusions...
1. If you say AGW theorist want people to live a simple lifestyle....you are a denialist twit.
2. If you use Gandhi's belief as an example.......you are a denialist twit.....until they realize you used Gandhi as an example, in which case you are a strawman using, hate accusing, contradicting denialist twit.
Interesting world you live in BPL...or should I say, interesting world living in you.
Barton:
"Do you really not understand the difference between improving the physics and fudging code?"
I do understand it. The thing that is laughable is that you think that they can come up with the wrong answer and then simply "improve the physics" to get it right. If improving the physics was so easy, then why didn't they do that to begin with. No, what they do is tune the parameters until they get a curve fit.
Bernard:
"Provide us with the numbers."
I will Bernard. As soon as you give me the numbers for running the world on Solar and Wind.
Barton:
"Don't you accuse me of lying, you disgusting little twerp."
Did you learn that from being a born again Christian or from being a lover of Gandhi?
Chris, my assessment of your character is accurate. People who call other people stupid are seldom perceived as intelligent. School yard bullies act this way, this my assesment.
Bernard, I said nothingh about klaxons going off. Red flags are silent, you don't want the conartists knowing you are onto them. I could have also said, gut feelings, which, unless you get them, you have no concept of which I speak. Some people call these things Intuition, a very powerfull item. Science does not know what intuition is but that does not mean it does not exist. As for which I trust the most? Science comes in second. Sorry if this offends your sense of reality, but most people trust their gut feelings more than what someone who calls themself an expert says.
Barton: "Don't you accuse me of lying, you disgusting little twerp."
That would make for an interesting AGW theme song in Hindi.
Tilo, your absurd screed to me doesn't deserve response - if only because of the obvious lies that fill it. I'll just point out that your original claim was that the IPCC climate sensitivity was derived from curve fit to find sensitivity (?!?!?!) and then an input of sensitivity to the models. Yo even intimated that this sensitivity value was specified in a "file header" somewhere. All this showing that you have utterly NO understanding of how models work, or even indeed of what a cGCM even is.
Are you aware of the reason why an upward shift of the low mid-century temps would possibly reduce climate sensitivity values a small amount? It is NOT because of changes in the slope of the temp change - that value will be essentially unchanged on century time scales. It is because of reduction in variability. Reduction in mid-century variability here MAY mean a slight change in transient response in hindcast-verified models - not as an input, but as the observed behavior when some values are changes slightly within observed physicl limits - which in turn MAY mean a slight chagne in sensitivity value - we'll have to see what falls out of the models.
What I really love aobut this, is that the denialists have been pointing to that mid-century period as evidence that temps don't follow CO2. Over on CA, they've been nattering about these sea temps for a couple years. Now, that issue has been quantified, to something very close top what the denialists have been chattering about, and the correction will remove that deviation out to a large extent. Now suddenly the denialist talking point changes to trying to argue taht somehow this correction disqualifies the record, athat it shows tht the climate scientists are untrustworthy, etc.
It is the very correction the denialists have been demanding, it weaknes the denialist argument, and the denialists now crow that it shows they were right.
Stunning.
Lee:
"Tilo, your absurd screed to me doesn't deserve response"
Yeah, I'm just twisting your arm.
"I'll just point out that your original claim was that the IPCC climate sensitivity was derived from curve fit to find sensitivity"
No, I claimed that it was a curve fit to make the model output correspond to the historical record. I also claimed that the sensitivity was a part of that curve fit. And while sensitivity may not be a part of the fit, tuning the other parameters does produce a curve fit. And tuning the other parameters does effect the resulting sensitivity.
Now go ahead and admit that you were wrong in your claim about the models all producing a sensitivity of about 3C.
And go ahead and admit that you were wrong about the sensitivity change that the correction will produce.
"What I really love aobut this, is that the denialists have been pointing to that mid-century period as evidence that temps don't follow CO2."
Actually, CA was one of the first to point out that the post 1940s instrument record looked anomolous.
"Now suddenly the denialist talking point changes to trying to argue taht somehow this correction disqualifies the record, athat it shows tht the climate scientists are untrustworthy, etc."
There are far more elements about the instrument record that are in doubt than this. The fact that such a large percentage of the instrument sites don't meet their own quality control standards. The fact that Hansen adjusts some of the very old rural temperature records down, etc.
The warmers, on their part, claim that UAH is untrustworthy because it once had an error - while at the same time claiming that the surface record is trustworthy despite its many errors. I had to chuckle at the Wiki site that talked about the UAH record, because they repeated in every other sentence that it once had an error.
Tilo's evolving dishonesty on display - all quotes Tilo Reber unless otherwise indicated.
""since the IPCC used the near term trends in determining future trends, then those trends will be reduced if the temperature of their starting point is raised.""
"If you don't use the short term trends, then you can't even get close to your .2C per decade unless you hang everything on the climate sensitivity number."
"So, you claim that they are not based upon past trends and they are not based upon climate sensitivity, then what are they based upon."
"I know that it is based upon past trends and estimates of climate sensitivity. Apparently you don't know and you are trying to fake your way out of it."
"Do you think that modeling systems create things out of thin air? Their projections are based upon assumptions about climate forcing agents which includes CO2 sensitivity."
"It works something like this. First you input what you consider to be known elements, such as solar, volcanoes, aerosols, etc. Then you compare the curve that is produced with a temperature reconstruction of some type. You assume that the difference is due to CO2 climate sensitivity. So you plug in a sensitivity number and see if it matches your historical temperature reconstruction. After you get a climate sensitivity number that gives you the right historical temperature curve, you then use that sensitivity number in your prediction.
Or alternately, you run your model using someone else's climate sensitivity number plus your assumptions about other influencing factors.
Either way, you don't get away from the climate sensitivity number and you cannot do without past trends, even if they are used indirectly to get your climate sensitivity number."
"When you are doing this you tune the assumptions about aerosol forcing, volcanoes, solar, albedo, possibly ENSO and PDO, clouds, as well as CO2 forcing. Your list of model features is all rather pointless when it comes to determining how the model models things correctly. That must be done by tuning all of those seperate components, including climate sensitivity. You can say that the climate sensitivity "falls out" in the sense of it being what is left between the observed record and the modeled record, but before you make predictions with the model you have to use a number for climate sensitivity."
At which point I said, and Tilo responded:
"I'll just point out that your original claim was that the IPCC climate sensitivity was derived from curve fit to find sensitivity"
No, I claimed that it was a curve fit to make the model output correspond to the historical record. I also claimed that the sensitivity was a part of that curve fit.
Tilo misrepresents again:
He says:
"Now go ahead and admit that you were wrong in your claim about the models all producing a sensitivity of about 3C."
What I actually said was:
"They aren't based on climate sensitivity number either, although they are consistent with a climate sensitivity of about 3C."
Tilo thinks he has disputed it with this:
"http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/shields/posters/ccppsensitivity.pdf
"ABSTRACT Climate sensitivity is investigated for 10 models that are participating in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. We consider the temporal evolution of climate sensitivity and we analyze the transient climate sensitivity from fully coupled simulations with a 1% per year increase in CO2 in terms of the all sky, clear sky and cloudy sky components. We find the following results: 1) there is nearly a factor of two spread in the transient climate response (1.39 to 2.66 °C) among the 10 models, 2) there is little over a factor of two spread in climate sensitivity, 3) there is nearly a factor of two spread in the ocean heat uptake efficiency among the models."
Now Tilo, would you mind telling us all where in that quote you produced, you disprove my "consistent with" claim? And how "the models are conssitent with" gets translated to your "the models all produce" misrepresentation of what I said?
"Now Tilo, would you mind telling us all where in that quote you produced, you disprove my "consistent with" claim? "
The models are also consistent with 2C. My original statement was that the numbers were all over the place. Your "consistent with" claim was meant to contradict that. The example that I gave you shows that the models are in fact all over the place and that the sensitivity number that they reach varies by a factor of 2 to 1. You can try to hide behind error bands and confidence levels, but the intent of your claim was to indicate that the models all produced a sensitivity number close to three. I don't call 1.39 close to three. And I also don't call it very far off Stephen Swartz's number.
And I didn't represent your statement as "the models all produce 3C", but rather "the models all produce about 3C" - which they don't.
Oh, Tilo, Tilo, Tilo.
"the intent of your claim was to indicate that the models all produced a sensitivity number close to three. I don't call 1.39 close to three."
The value oF 1.39 that you cited is not a climate sensitivity value. It is a transient climate response value. It says so: "transient climate response (1.39 to 2.66 °C." Transient climate response is not climate sensitivity. They are two different things.
Don't you even bother to google the meaning of technical terms you don't know, in this debate where you have such strongly held opinions in the absense of knowledge of even the basic concepts?
"If improving the physics was so easy, then why didn't they do that to begin with. No, what they do is tune the parameters until they get a curve fit. "
How do you know this? Are you familiar with climate modeling personally? Would you mind explaining where and when? Have you read anything detailing how it is done? If so, please share the reference with us, so that we skeptics may check your veracity. Because, frankly, i think you're just making shit up, as they say, and you are so in love with your fantasy you can't let go of it. I assume you do not indulge in this in your real life, as it tends to lead to being institutionalized for psychosis.
the paper you posted which says nothing of the sort, although you seem to believe it does, only digs your hole deeper. the way models are constructed has been posted here more than once; they are constructed from the bottom up, from measured parameters of the ocean and atmosphere, not from the top down. If you disagree, kindly post which particular parameter of some model violates what you consider a reasonable existing estimate of some physical parameter. and why in the world do you think that the fact that there is a range of sensitivities from different models proves they are being "tuned" to a desired result? doesn't it prove just the opposite? it's been observed before that "the models can be tuned to give any desired result" and it's equally oft-heard fraternal twin "the models can't even predict the current climate" go together about as well as "the warming is clearly caused by the declining cosmic ray flux" and "the earth is cooling".
on another note, perhaps you could provide us with the data showing the dearth of cosmic rays and resulting dearth of cloud cover which has caused the earth to warm so dramatically lately in your newly beloved alternative model. or are we still in the "no, it's cooling" mode? or did it just happen that nobody's measuring cosmic rays and cloud cover? hard to believe. still wondering how the solar flux is not affecting any other planets. (except mars! mars is warming!!!!) hey, does mars have that many clouds? and no other planet does?
typical what-me-agw position: a perfectly documented step by step mechanism such as CO2 absorption of long wave IR: gee, it's a laboratory curiosity, how do we know it happens in the real world? but a delicate laboratory animal like nucleation of clouds by radiation, which is so touchy that it quite literally requires nuclear physicists to make it happen under controlled conditions; no, that's the very basis of our climate system. but nobody can see the intervening variables, sadly.
kent, if you think the above couldn't apply to you then you really are stupid.
I know that many of you are wondering what the global sea level has been doing lately. So I went to the University of Colorado Sea Level Site, got the raw data, and plotted it up for you:
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/university-of-colorado-gl…
Yes, this is only three years worth of data, but what can possibly explain three years of sea level drop. If the Antarctic Ice Cap is melting, it should increase sea level. If most of the glaciers are melting, it should increase sea level. If the oceans are getting warmer, it should increase sea level. Even if the deep oceans are getting warmer while the surface stays constant, it should increase sea level. So how do we explain sea level drop?
Lee:
"The value oF 1.39 that you cited is not a climate sensitivity value. It is a transient climate response value."
My bad. I combined the two items on each side of the comma.
The part I want is:
"2) there is little over a factor of two spread in climate sensitivity"
And my point remains the same. The climate sensitivity number is all over the place.
z:
"Have you read anything detailing how it is done? If so, please share the reference with us, so that we skeptics may check your veracity. Because, frankly, i think you're just making shit up,"
So here are a few of the places from which I get my impressions z.
"The first step in the tuning process is to select appropriate values for the radiative forcing for a CO2 doubling parameter, F2x, and the climate sensitivity parameter, T2x."
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/371.htm
"However, the study illustrates that the climate sensitivity is a product of choices of parameter values that are not well restricted by observations, which allows for a certain degree of arbitrariness in the estimates of climate sensitivity."
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/3/1/014001/erl8\_1\_014001.html
"I don't want certain interests to claim that modelers are dishonest," says Kiehl. "That's not what's going on. Given the range of uncertainty, they are trying to get the best fit [to observations] with their model." That's simply a useful step toward using a model for predicting future warming."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5834/28a
"In the case of state of the art General Circulation Models/ Global Climate Models (GCMs) such as the one used in the climateprediction.net experiment, it is more a case of trying to represent everything, even if things then get so complicated that we can't always understand what's going on. The equations are tweaked, within reasonable boundaries, so that the model does as well as possible at producing past and current climates (compared to archived observations). It can then be used to try to predict what the climate is going to do in the future."
and
"This process is called parameterizing. There are many parameterization schemes in the model, such as the scheme which calculates how much cloud there is. Some of these schemes are well-constrained by observations and are believed to be quite reliable, but others are far less well understood and we're not very sure about them."
http://www.climateprediction.net/science/model-intro.php#top
z:
"still wondering how the solar flux is not affecting any other planets."
Where did you get that idea? Do a little research on that pronouncement.
"a perfectly documented step by step mechanism such as CO2 absorption of long wave IR: gee, it's a laboratory curiosity"
Perfectly documented? This statement would seem to disagree.
"The CCSM3 has both negative longwave and shortwave cloud sensitivity, while the GISS models have positive shortwave cloud sensitivity, but a large negative longwave sensitivity, as do all other models."
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/shields/posters/ccppsensitivity.pdf
"but a delicate laboratory animal like nucleation of clouds by radiation, which is so touchy that it quite literally requires nuclear physicists to make it happen under controlled conditions; no, that's the very basis of our climate system."
CERN won't be running these experiments until 2010. We don't know what the results will be. And you are lining up your excuses in 2008. That's hilarious.
Tilo Reber.
I asked you first, and quite a while ago now.
Show us your numbers.
Kent.
Crikey, the 'klaxons' thing was a metaphor, and hardly worth pulling the wings from. My thrust stands.
Are you that persniketty?
Anyways...
I have great respect for intuition and gut feelings, despite your rudeness regarding my scientific proclivities.
In fact it is my gut instinct that tells me that you are redlining on the whack-o-meter, and I believe this without trusting to any scientific evidence whatsoever.
I'm sure though that the empirical evidence would support the feeling in my waters...
Tilo posts:
I gave you a classic example of someone doing just that. Did you read it?
Because you want to avoid complicating your algorithm as much as possible. That's why people might assume the Planck Law in distributing sunlight, rather than actually doing a curve-fit to observed solar radiation. That's why a model might assume Kirchhoff's Law holds for a layer of air, rather than figuring out if it's Kirchhoff's Law times 1.000001 or Kirchhoff's Law times 0.999999.
No matter how many times you repeat this, IT'S STILL WRONG. They don't do any such damn thing. And someone like you who has never looked at the code from a climate model is incompetent to cast such an accusation in the first place.
Tilo posts:
I don't know, Tilo, maybe from the same place you and your pal kent learned to be bullying jerks? I'm just guessing here.
Betula, never one to pass up an opportunity to gang up on someone, posts:
It doesn't matter a particle to you that kent called me a liar, does it? All that you care about is that I reacted angrily. What a tragedy you are.
Tilo Reber posts:
Both claims were ignorant, tendentious, and wrong.
Tilo posts:
For those who are interested, here is a list of all the climate sensitivity estimates I could find (61 of them) for doubled CO2. Note that the mean is around 3 K and that the distribution is approximately normal:
http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/ClimateSensitivity.html
Tilo posts:
How is "cloud sensitivity" the same thing as "CO2 absorption of long wave IR???" Do you understand what the latter phrase means? We're talking about quantum physics here, and it's really not in dispute.
Tilo, this posting says very neatly and simply that you don't know what you're talking about. The latter statement does not disagree with the former statement.
Barton:
"Note that the mean is around 3 K and that the distribution is approximately normal:"
Unfortunately the correctness of science is not determined by taking a mean of the different calculations.
PSC:
"The latter statement does not disagree with the former statement."
I would say that your reading ability is impaired. First, we have that shortwave cloud sensitivity is positive in some models and negative in others. This indicates that the components of sensitivity are not well understood, contrary to z's assertion. Second, the writer stresses that the GISS models have a "LARGE" negative long wave sensitivity. That "large" is to tell you that it is bigger than what the other models use. And that tells you that z's assertion that:
"a perfectly documented step by step mechanism such as CO2 absorption of long wave IR"
Does not exist.
Barton:
"How is "cloud sensitivity" the same thing as "CO2 absorption of long wave IR???" "
Clearly Barton it means that CO2 absorption of long wave IR isn't the only element of significance. Cloud sensitivity may well be more significant, and since the models treat it differently, it's another indicator that it's not well understood.
Barton:
"I don't know, Tilo, maybe from the same place you and your pal kent learned to be bullying jerks?"
Oh, I learned that from the guys that run Real Climate. So you may be right.
Barton:
"No matter how many times you repeat this, IT'S STILL WRONG."
Barton, read #331.
And seperately, give me your take on #329.
"Unfortunately the correctness of science is not determined by taking a mean of the different calculations."
When the mean of multiple independently derived calculations are in significant and meaningful agreement, it is called the consilience of evidence. It is a principle of fundamental importance in determining the correctness of science.
BPL,
"We're talking about quantum physics here, and it's really not in dispute."
Barton, while the basic absorption properties of CO2 are not in dispute that doesn't mean there exists a direct method to accurately calculate the so called "climate sensitivity" of the planet to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 based on quantum mechanics, or any other method.
If you know of such a direct calculation I would like to see it. Most of the calculations of this "sensitivity" rely on proxy studies, climate models and other empirical techniques that largely assume the results they are trying to prove, namely that this "sensitivity" is high.
Tilo Reber:
e.g. the 10 year period July 1958 to June 1968 had a cooling trend of -0.17 deg C per decade. The ENSO events (affecting temperature from November 1963 to April 1966 and for the month of April 1968 according to the Tilo Reber hypothesis) accounted for -0.07 deg C per decade of that trend. There is a remaining trend of -0.10 deg C per decade for which Tilo Reber says there is a reason. No doubt Tilo Reber will inform us what that reason is. He wouldn't want us to think he is a bullshit artist.
re 331 - oh, good fricking god, Tilo. Stop embarrassing yourself. I got two cites into your post at 331 before quitting in disgust. This is what I found.
""The first step in the tuning process is to select appropriate values for the radiative forcing for a CO2 doubling parameter, F2x, and the climate sensitivity parameter, T2x."
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/371.htm"
That part of the TAR (and therefore years out of date) is talking about tuning a simple box model to the OAOGCM models, to create a less computer-intensive tool for some simple uses. It is NOT tuning the GCM models to the real world. Again, you show a stunning lack of basic knowledge, and of the content of the cites you post.
---
""However, the study illustrates that the climate sensitivity is a product of choices of parameter values that are not well restricted by observations, which allows for a certain degree of arbitrariness in the estimates of climate sensitivity."
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/3/1/014001/erl8_1_014001.html"
You left otu the previous sentence in the ABstract:
"The equilibrium climate sensitivities of the two model configurations differ by ca. 0.24 K, and both lie well within the range of present estimates of climate sensitivity in different GCMs."
IOW, that arbitrariness allows a variation of an entire 1/4 degree C the climate sensitivity. Stunning, Tilo. Simply Stunning. That you omitted this sentence speaks to your intellectual honesty - and not well.
----
re 329.
Tilo says:
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/university-of-colorado-gl…
"Yes, this is only three years worth of data, but what can possibly explain three years of sea level drop."
The same things that cause such a "flat spots" from 1993 thru mid 1996, and from mid 1997 thru mid 2000, perhaps? On a record taht nonetheless shows in increase in seal level of 50 mm between 1992 and 2008?
Cherry picking and ignoring history of variability is intellectually dishonest, Tilo.
Lee,
It's not intellectual dishonesty. It's cognitive dissonance. When the ego's self-interested world view is perceived as threatened by reason and empirical evidence, denial and unreason appear as the ego's only means of preserving the fiction of the ego's exceptional status.
Be kind. It can't be fun suffering from such intense existential angst.
The denialist hypothesis that there could be some negative cloud albedo feedback that overcomes the proven positive radiative forcing of the suite of well-mixed anthropogenic greenhouse gases is interesting.
Interesting for the fact it doesn't seem to exist.
Lee:
"Cherry picking and ignoring history of variability is intellectually dishonest, Tilo."
Not when one of the endpoints is the present. In that case it is an attempt to recognize the possibility that a trend may be changing.
But go ahead, use the UC data and see if you can find another flat 3 year trend in the record. Let me know the start time and the end time and I will check it out.
Lee:
"You left otu the previous sentence in the ABstract: "The equilibrium climate sensitivities of the two model configurations differ by ca. 0.24 K,"
The sentence that I included points out the arbitrary nature of tuning model parameters. The sentence you included only points out the results of two specific models. The link I gave you before points out that the IPCC uses models that have a variation in climate senstivity of two to one. So the I think the dishonesty is yours.
Too bad you missed the last two links in 331, since I saved the best for last.
luminous:
"When the mean of multiple independently derived calculations are in significant and meaningful agreement, it is called the consilience of evidence."
The trick word is "independently". If they all use the same assumptions and if those assumptions are mistaken, then they will all converge on an error. Or if they make an assumption about what the end result should be and then tune their models in that direction, they may also converge on an error.
I also have a problem with the term "consilience of evidence", since the estimates do not rely on independent sources of emperical evidence.
ok, let's take this the opposite way. is there any model without an anthropogenic CO2 term which can be tweaked to produce any sort of fit to the recent climate?
btw, one way models are used so that any oddities and artifacts and possible tweaks, deliberate or inadvertent, are NOT influencing decisions is to compare the identical model, with and without some factor. such as, an extra 100 ppm of CO2. doing that over various models and looking at the spectrum of results gives you a good idea what that change does, independent of any tweaks, fits, anomalies, or poltergeists.
Tilo,
You first need to understand that:
@ CO_2,
@ water vapor, and
@ a suspension of microscopic water droplets (as in a cloud)
all have different physical properties.
This notion is basic to this conversation.
So when someone talks about the physical properties of carbon dioxide, it's meaningless to say (to paraphrase yourself) "we can't precisely characterize the physical properties of carbon dioxide because we can't precisely characterize the physical properties of suspensions of water droplets".
Is there any point when continuing this post, after all, it's obvious that this nutbar is clueless and does not even understand the basics.
Tilo,
And now I've looked at your graph from #329.
You've put the correlation coefficient in that graph, and it's something like 0.08.
You've chopped off the first several years of the data series as well. The original graph is:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl\_noib\_global.jpg
The complete series, indicating a steady annual rise in MSL has a correlation coefficient in the order of 0.8+ (by eye, happy for anyone to correct this). There's a version on the same site where they apply a barometric correction which presumably allows for irregularities in the geoid in some way where the correlation is even better.
Are you engaging in some elaborate and bizarre attempt at satire or farce?
To borrow the words of Shakespeare:
Tilo Reber, you are the life of this thread.
Tilo posts:
Take that, John Tyndal! Take that, Max Planck!
Here is an excellent article about why Hansen's GISS temperature record is fraudulent. Of course he only covers a small number of the reasons.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/print…
PSC:
"You've chopped off the first several years of the data series as well."
Of course I have. One straight line does not tell you if a trend is changing. I'm interested in any recent changes. So the question still remains. why no sea level rise for the last three years.
"There's a version on the same site where they apply a barometric correction"
I chose the same data set that the University of Colorado chose for their own chart.
Correction to link on #363
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard\_nasa\_thermometer/print.html
"So when someone talks about the physical properties of carbon dioxide, it's meaningless to say (to paraphrase yourself) "we can't precisely characterize the physical properties of carbon dioxide because we can't precisely characterize the physical properties of suspensions of water droplets"."
Yes and no. What good does it do to say that we can precisely characterize the long wave IR absorption of CO2, when you cannot precisely characterize the long wave IR absorption of the entire system. The fact that the models treat long wave IR sensitivity in clouds differently means that the sum total of the systems long wave IR sensitivity is not "perfectly documented". Remember, z's point was that the experiment for studying the effects of cosmic rays on cloud chambers was useless because we already know precisely about the long wave IR absorption of CO2. It's an absurd response, especially since we don't completely understand the long wave IR sensitivity of the entire system. Nor do we understand the short wave sensitivity of the system. Nor do we understand many other things about the system. To complain that we don't need studies like the one CERN will do in 2010 because we know so much already is clearly absurd.
z:
"ok, let's take this the opposite way. is there any model without an anthropogenic CO2 term which can be tweaked to produce any sort of fit to the recent climate?"
Don't know. But considering that most of the models don't seem to handle things like ENSO and PDO very well, and considering that they don't handle clouds very well, it's hard to know what they could produce if they could.
Also, the term "recent climate" is a loaded one. First because there is good reason to believe that the magnitude of the warming shown by the instrument record is overblown. Second, I'm not claiming that there is no anthropogenic effect, but rather that the IPCC number is too large. Given a smaller amount of instrument measured warming and a small amount of anthropogenic effect, I'm not sure if the models couldn't be tuned to match it.
I'm also skeptical that we currently have knowledge of all of the forcings, even at a rough level. It could turn out that some of the cloud effects that Spencer describes are at work.
I think one of the reasons that we have difficulty with 11 years of no warming is that our current set of climate assumptions simply don't cover it, so we have to fall back upon hand waving and making claims about statistics and noise.
What caused -0.10 deg C per decade of the trend from July 1958 to June 1968? Or is Tilo Reber a lying bullshitter?
"What caused -0.10 deg C per decade of the trend from July 1958 to June 1968?"
Possibly a change in the way that the temperature of sea water was measured.
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2008/06/more-on-that-sst-change.html
What z said:
"typical what-me-agw position: a perfectly documented step by step mechanism such as CO2 absorption of long wave IR: gee, it's a laboratory curiosity, how do we know it happens in the real world? but a delicate laboratory animal like nucleation of clouds by radiation, which is so touchy that it quite literally requires nuclear physicists to make it happen under controlled conditions; no, that's the very basiLees of our climate system. but nobody can see the intervening variables, sadly."
What Tilo says z said:
"Remember, z's point was that the experiment for studying the effects of cosmic rays on cloud chambers was useless because we already know precisely about the long wave IR absorption of CO2."
I don't think this needs any comment.
BTW, Tilo, we discount the cosmic rays - clouds - albedo hypothesis not because it hasn't been tested, but because the cosmic ray - cloud - temperature data doesn't fit the hypothesis.
How many times do we have to catch you misunderstanding, misrepresenting, cherry-picking, displaying blatant and stunning ignorance - like making the box-model/GCM mistake TWICE, once after being corrected on it - before you exhibit some sense of shame or contrition for your bilge? Or at least admit that your knowledge isn't sufficient for the claims you are making?
Tilo,
1) CO2 and clouds have different physical properties: See Lee's comment above, I could not have said it better.
2) Your truncated graph: The reason why people make such a fuss about "correlation coefficients" is that these represent an important notion.
You need to start some handwaving about statistics and noise now.
Tilo says:
""You've chopped off the first several years of the data series as well."
Of course I have. One straight line does not tell you if a trend is changing. I'm interested in any recent changes. "
---
Tilo, there are change-point analysis techniques in statistics. Discarding most of the record - along with most of the data about inherent variability in the system - and doing a line fit to the remaining truncated 3 years, is not one of them.
The ignorant arrogance in display in your "analysis" of sea level is of a piece with that you've displayed on topic after topic throughout this thread.
So now it appears that the end of World War 2 and its sudden artificial cooling was actually between July 1958 and June 1968. We learn something every day from Tilo Reber. Either that or he's a lying bullshitter.
At #367:
[My emphasis]
Erm, Tilo Reber, upon what data do you base this statement of no warming in the last eleven years?
Data.
Data, data, data.
Preferably with a précis of the factors, important in a time series analyis, relevant to 11 years in a climate change scenario.
I can hear Tamino's knives whispering along the strop...
Tilo posts:
And yet it shares 97% of the variance with the Hadley record. Is the Hadley record also fraudulent, Tilo?
Tilo posts:
Is the good reason that you, personally, don't believe it?
Tilo Reber and Betula.
I am patiently waiting for the appropriately detailed and defensible answers that I originally requested at #301. Are they really that hard to present?
Oh, and are either of you (or HPJr, or Kent, or CP, or whoever) ready to take a stab at the 'perpetual' phenology question? It's still begging for a proper denialist treatment...
I just read Tilo's TheRegister link at 363/365.
I am near dumbstruck in amazement at just how much shite they packed in to that short article. And, like Tilo, the author is eithe r ignorant or inentionally misrepresenting even basic stuff.
He says the primary source for eth GISS global data analyusis is the USHCN network, for example, and then proceeds to analyze the USHCN adn comparte it to the GISS global data set as if that somehow makes sense.
He refers to a 'big correction in 2ooo' in the GISS data. Remember, that '2000' correction in GISS changed global temps by about 0.002C after 2000.
And then, there is this:
"In 1998 (left side of the graph below) NASA and the satellite data sources RSS and UAH all agreed quite closely - within one-tenth of a degree. Ten years later - in March 2008 - NASA is reporting temperature anomalies more than 0.5 degrees warmer than UAH. The divergence between NASA and UAH has increased at a rate of 0.13 degrees per decade (red lines below.)"
He is using the different baselines between GISS and RSS/UAH to claim that GISS os more than 0.5C divergent -e ven while he includes the trend, which says that the divergence is only 0.13C over that 10 years. I suspect Goddard knows better, and is indulging in bullshite designed to mislead the uninformed reader - such as Tilo here.
He goes on to complain that NAS chose a "well known cold spell' as their 30 year baseline zero-point. He heads that section with the accusation that this constitutes cherry picking.
Gaaaahhh I cant take any more.
Tilo, that article is crap. That yo posted it shoes tht either you dont know enough to recognize crap, or yo are quite willing to believe crap and represent it as dessert. IOW, either too ignorant to be making these claims, or dishonest. Those are the choices, Tilo. Which are you?
HadCrut3 just came out with their May data, so I decided to run an 11 year chart from June 97 to May 08. Once again, the temperature tend is flat.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/11-year-temperature-anomo…
Lee:
"Remember, that '2000' correction in GISS changed global temps by about 0.002C after 2000."
According to your comrade at Wiki, it effected the US temp by 0.15C.
"The error affects the US surface temperature anomaly record, which for years 2000-2006 reduces the temperature anomaly by about 0.15°C."
"I suspect Goddard knows better, and is indulging in bullshite designed to mislead the uninformed reader"
Actually, I had already published a divergence chart here:
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/05/divergence-of-giss-data.h…
I came up with a divergence of 0.1368 over 10 years 4 month.
Goddard made a mistake, because he mentions later that the data sets have different baselines.
But even with that mistake there is valuable information in the article. Of course you did your usual cheap stunt of finding an excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Also, a divergence of .13C per decade is actually greater than half the supposed overall AGW decadal trend of .2C. So I would say that Goddard's point is important and well made, even if he got the number wrong.
Barton:
"And yet it shares 97% of the variance with the Hadley record. Is the Hadley record also fraudulent, Tilo?"
"Is the good reason that you, personally, don't believe it?"
Good lord Barton, are you living in a cave? Watts and McIntyre have presented a truckload of problems with GISS. The only thing that HadCrut3 has going for it is that no one has taken a close look. But certainly they are as driven by the AGW agenda as Hansen. The only difference seems to be that Hansen makes little attempt to hide his fraudulence.
Bernard:
"Data, data, data."
Ask and you shall receive - well sometimes. Your data is linked in #379
Chris:
"So now it appears that the end of World War 2 and its sudden artificial cooling was actually between July 1958 and June 1968."
Don't be a moron Chris. This is exacly why you get few responses. You can see from the chart that the problem may well cover that period as well as the previous decade. You are making dumb remarks just to be contradictory and argumentative. Back in the hole with you.
And once again, Tilo Reber ignores the fact that his analysis showing ENSO had no net effect on trend applies to only the last 10 years, not 11 years. That first year had a very strong El Nino effect. Tilo Reber might only be carelessly dense this time rather than a lying bullshitter such as when he said:
Lee:
"Tilo, there are change-point analysis techniques in statistics."
I could give a rats ass Lee, it doesn't change the fact that the seas have not risen in the past three years. Can statistics tell me why? And "noise" is not an answer.
"That first year had a very strong El Nino effect."
No, most of the effect was captured in 98. And I had some slope left over, remember. Notice that June of 97 starts below the trend line. So this chart only has about 4 month of additional El Nino effect.
Tilo Reber:
Don't be a hypocrite, moron.
Sure, if you say so. Wouldn't have anything to do with you losing the argument, would it.
You never miss any opportunity to be deliberately dense if it supports your lie. If you weren't being deliberately dense you would realize that removing the artificial bias would make the cooling trend STRONGER over July 1958 and June 1968, not explain it or make it weaker.
What a hypocrite.
Back to the lying bullshitters bin with you.
"BTW, Tilo, we discount the cosmic rays - clouds - albedo hypothesis not because it hasn't been tested, but because the cosmic ray - cloud - temperature data doesn't fit the hypothesis."
A little more explanation please.
"If you weren't being deliberately dense you would realize that removing the artificial bias would make the cooling trend STRONGER over July 1958 and June 1968, not explain it or make it weaker."
Can't argue with that level of stupidity. Bye Chris!
The first year (June 97 to May 98) covered most of the effect. Try to pay attention Tilo.
Bullshit. The El Nino started about May 97 and the temperature was above trend from September or October 97 onwards.
What a deliberately dense moron. The artificial cool bias introduced at the end of World War 2 was slowly removed over the following decades. A slow removal of a cool bias is equivalent to adding a warming trend.
Tilo refutes Lee's
with:
Affected it, even. Attention, Tilo: The US temperature is not the global temperature. Since the US is only about 1.9% of the world's surface area, you would expect a fairly noticeable change in US temperatures to translate to a little bitty change in global temperatures. Want the math?
Tilo posts:
Tilo, if the temperature measurements are unreliable, why do you rely on them for your claims of recent cooling?
Pick one:
A) The temperature readings are unreliable.
B) The temperature readings show cooling.
Believing both is logically incoherent.
Barton:
"Tilo, if the temperature measurements are unreliable, why do you rely on them for your claims of recent cooling?"
I haven't claimed cooling, I have claimed an 11 year flat trend. I consider RSS and UAH as being reliable, at least in regard to showing change.
You might start by representing my position correctly before you try to shoot it down Barton.
Barton:
"Since the US is only about 1.9% of the world's surface area, you would expect a fairly noticeable change in US temperatures to translate to a little bitty change in global temperatures."
Once again, you missed the point Barton. The point is that Hansen had a very large error in his US temperature set. But then Hansen's record is full of errors of all types, not just that one.
"The El Nino started about May 97 and the temperature was above trend from September or October 97 onwards."
Exactly what I said, you got about 4 month of effect in 97.
"That first year" refers to the first year of "June 97 to May 08", i.e. June 97 to May 98, Mr. deliberately dense lying bullshitter.
Chris:
"That first year" refers to the first year of "June 97 to May 08", i.e. June 97 to May 98, Mr. deliberately dense lying bullshitter."
But the analysis that I did before stared in Jan of 98. So there are only 4 new month of effect.
Love Tim's take on the quote mining post. In talking about the Antarctic sea ice he says:
"And this month it's been running neck and neck with last year's melt."
Yes, if you want to consider having about 250,000 square kilometers more sea ice this year than last year at the same time as being neck and neck.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
But what is really funny about the post is that Tim is looking for tiny victories in the weather. After all of the data that has gone against the alarmists lately, he is trying to make news with a regional weather story. And this with all of the blustering on this site about 30 years and global responses. Just as Hansen's instrument sites cannot meet their own standards, the warmers are incapable of following their own standards about judging climate. By the way, Global sea ice is at a normal level.
As long as Tim is throwing out weather events, here is a cold spell that is killing Peruvians. And it's early in the South American winter.
"http://www.peruviantimes.com/peru-declares-state-of-emergency-due-to-re…"
Then stop calling it a 10 year trend. In any case you still haven't retracted the lie:
You're still deliberately failing to understand that the ocean temperature measurement artifact did not introduce a cooling trend to the record between July 1958 and June 1968. Why don't you get a corrected record and prove me wrong?
BTW, when you told the lie:
how long had you known about the ocean temperature measurement artifact?
Here is another good explanation of why GISS data is faudulent. Of course this is on top of all of the other reasons, like the fact that GISS doesn't cover most of Africa and most of Northern Canada. It also doesn't cover the fact that a high percentage of weather statitions do not meet the required quality criteria.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CorrectCorrections.pdf
Tilo Reber.
If you think that the data are fraudulent, you should take it up with GISS. If they give you no satisfaction, you should take it to the guv'mint.
At least, any moral person would these things, especially if (as a consequence of their garrulous outrage) they have previously been given their very own thread on which to air such 'dirty laundry'.
Please report back to Deltoid with the results of your endeavours.
Or you could google around and see if someone has already addressed these claims.
(377)
"If you think that the data are fraudulent, you should take it up with GISS."
Given the evidence, if you think that they are not, you should explain why.
It looks as though the British public, at least, are not buying the propaganda being distributed by the AGW cultists.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbone…
I'm getting tired of responing to the utter garbage Tilo keeps posting here - especially when he respond with not much more than, 'well yeah, they made all those errors you pointed out, but what about the [unspecified] stuff they got right?'.
Still, I invite people to read that "friendsofscience" thing Tilo posted at 402, and see how many misrepresentations, untested assumptions, unwarranted assumptions, cherry picks, and other absurdities they can find.
Just for starters, the paper ends with a claim of "significant' global cooling from 2002 to May 2008. Gee...
Many skeptics have tried to make the point that AGW is a cult and that James Hansen is the high priest. Now some fool in the US House has made if offical - Hansen is a prophet. Move over Moses and Mohammed.
"To mark the anniversary, he testified before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming where he was called a prophet,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080623/ap\_on\_sc/sci\_warming\_scientist
Of course not one of the fawning cultists noticed that the globe is acutally cooler today than when Hansen gave his first testimony before Congress 20 years ago. In the meantime Hansen continues his rant about a tipping point, and to make sure that no one in his right mind can consider him anything but a total lunatic, he is asking that oil company executives by put on trial for crimes against humanity.
"When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatech…
So here we have a total idiot that has done nothing except cause humanity unneccessary stress who wants to put on trial the very people that have supplied the energy that has raised our civilization and out standard of living to the very high level that it now enjoys, and he wants them in jail. Certainly no one can claim that Hansen doesn't have the twisted ideas and overblown ego that it takes to be a good prophet.
Lee:
It's entirely unclear what you are blabbing about in your first paragraph, so rather than have me guess, maybe you could try again.
"Just for starters, the paper ends with a claim of "significant' global cooling from 2002 to May 2008. Gee..."
Again, instead of just flapping your lips and rolling your eyes in your typical manner, why don't you try to say something factual and meaningful for a change.
Tilo - flap and roll, dude. Flap and roll.
I invite anyone to go read this entire thread, beginning to end. It might require either a strong stomach, or a very well developed sense of absurdist humor. But go for it - it's illuminating.
Lee:
"I invite anyone to go read this entire thread"
I would be satisfied with a better explanation of what you meant in your prior post. It looks like your philosophy is this Lee:
1. Make as few factual statements as possible.
2. Avoid giving detailed explanations of any of your points or positions.
3. Take cheap shots at, and make unsupported statements about other peoples comments.
In other words, you are trying to be a sniper in the dark. You don't seem to have the guts to make clear and positioned statements of your own, because you know that will make you vulnerable. So you wait for other people to make them so that you can shoot them in the back. For your last few posts I've been trying to draw you out and get you to actually take a clearly explained stand on something. But you seem to be too cowardly for that.
Tilo Reber said at #404:
Always shucking responsibility, aren't you Tilo?
You came to Deltoid to contradict the existence of AGW. You disclaim the validity of a very large body of evidence, from many disciplines of science. You are here to try to score points over us. The onus is thus upon you to support your stance, whether it be to answer questions about the aforementioned evidence, or to do the moral thing and stand by your statements by pursuing the proper actions that should follow on from your stated convictions.
A cursory reflection shows that you seem singularly reluctant (or simply unable) to effectively do these things: on this thread alone, I have asked at #234, #285, #301, #308, #333, #367, and #377, and tangentially to you at #256, for answers that have not been effectively provided. And from your reponse at #404 it seems that you are going to avoid putting, in the real world, your money where your mouth is.
Tilo, I have no desire to proselitise to you: it matters not a whit to me what you believe, if you cannot support your claims to a forum such as this. You are here to convert us, not the other way around, so show us that you can do this with credibility.
Twisting some data, avoid other data and the questions that arise from it, and not actively seeking to connect with people who are the primary focus of your angst, collectively show that you are a propagandist, and nothing more.
I repeat this statement almost as regularly as I repeat my phenology question:
I am by nature a sceptic in the traditional sense: I am open to countering evidence to any paradigm. I would be receptive to evidence from you if it were presented with genuine objectivity and serious engagement, and I am prepared to have my own mind changed (I ache to be able to throw my AGW concerns into the bin), but you have done nothing to remotely sway my current conclusions about climate change.
If anything you cement my stance, because if some of the howlers that you have presented are the best 'evidence' that you can produce, then it would seem that the counter argument to AGW is weaker than I might have hoped.
"Always shucking responsibility, aren't you Tilo?"
No, I'm shucking your moronic little homework assignments. Stuff that you recommend that I do but stuff that you would never do yourself.
"You came to Deltoid to contradict the existence of AGW."
No, I came to Deltoid to conradict the magnitude of AGW. Something that I have repeated a hundred times now, but something which the dense crowd here never seems to get.
Frankly, Bernard, your crying about my failure to provide evidence is just absurd. I provide far more of it than anyone on this forum. I mean basically this forum has no other reason for existing than to make snarkey remarks about skeptics.
For example, concerning the GISS temperature record I have provided these links.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CorrectCorrections.pdf
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/print…
And rather that trying to have a discussion about the issues in those papers, your brain dead response has been. "Talk to NASA about it".
Correction to link in #412
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard\_nasa\_thermometer/print.html
Hi Tilo,
Still waiting for some statistical handwaving ... I'll check back next week I guess ...
Tilo, you dishonest little...
I and others have addressed the "papers" you cite - many of which are actually op-eds, not scientific papers. I and others have shown where your cites have made errors and what the errors are, where the data analysis arguments you make fail and why, where statistical arguments fail or simply aren't made and why that makes the argument unsupported, and on and on.
And what we get in response is exchanges like this:
--Lee:
"Tilo, there are change-point analysis techniques in statistics."
Tilo:
I could give a rats ass Lee...
--
Or even better, extended exchanges in which you are shown to be wrong, then deny you said what you had said even in the face of direct quotes to what you had said.
Now you're complaining that I'm not spelling out what the problem is when I point to a clear case of cherry picking, a clear case of isolating a short term deviation from the long term record that shows the extent of such 'noise' deviations in the past, and you don't understand the point I'm making? If that wasn't clear by now, Tilo, you either are way too fucking stupid to be pretending to know enough to engage this issue, or you are dishonest to the core. I know where I'm putting my money.
For anyoen who may still be reading this - the Register link he posts here at 413, he previously posted at 363/365. I read it, and pointed out some of the more obvious egregious problems at 378. Tilo responded at 380, where he repeats one of the errors I pointed out, confusing US and Global temperatures, admits one of the errors, and then accuses me of throwing out the baby with the bathwater for not admitting the "valuable information in the article."
So let me demolish a bit more, if only for the casual reader - Tilo won't admit any of this, of course.
A center piece of that article is the two worldwide March 2008 global anomaly maps comparing data from GISS and from RAA/UAH. For starters, the claim is made that the maps show how much are of the world the GISS analysis misses - but the projections exaggerate the polar areas out of proportion. Worse, Goddard, the author, claims that the satellite data shows that the world was actually cold, while GISS claims it was hot, and therefore GISS is suspect. But those two maps ARE ON DIFFERENT FUCKING SCALES!!! They have different zero points. His comparison is equivalent to taking the temperature of a man with two scales, reading one as 38C and the other as 100F, and then complaining that the F scale exaggerates his fever.
And the author knows this - he complains about it in the very next section. He accuses GISS of "cherry picking" a baseline that 'exaggerates" the warming. But he still uses that comparison to claim in the maps section that GISS and RSS/UAH data show different things. He pretends the anomaly baselines are used to claim deviations from "normal".
Absolute anomaly values are useless, EXCEPT in comparison to their baseline. This is basic, simple bedrock knowledge - Goddard knows this, he refers to it, and he then continues to treat absolute deviations from baseline, between two data sets on different bases, as if they can be compared. Again, like Tilo here, he is either abysmally stupid or ignorant, or dishonest. But he has shown he isn't ignorant - he knows about the baseline issue, he discusses it - and he clearly isn't stupid.
"I and others have addressed the "papers" you cite -"
Okay, tell me what you said about the fact that The GISS sites don't cover the majority of Africa and Northern Canada.
Tell me what you said about the fact that Hansen adjusts urban temperatures up in the present and down in the past based upon neighboring rural sites that have become less rural and have begun to suffer some level of UHI effect themselves.
"I and others have shown where your cites have made errors "
No, you did this about 10% of the time. 90% of the time you simply claimed that they made errors without explaining why you think so.
"Tilo, there are change-point analysis techniques in statistics."
Which has nothing to do with the fact that we have had three years of no sea level rise. Your answer was simply an irrelevant distraction.
"a clear case of isolating a short term deviation from the long term record that shows the extent of such 'noise' deviations in the past,"
Another simple, unsupported assertion on your part that you couldn't back up by showing me another case of a three year period with no sea level rise.
Lee:
"But he still uses that comparison to claim in the maps section that GISS and RSS/UAH data show different things."
Thanks for finally making a statement that we can analyze Lee. Now we can show how incredibly stupid you actually are.
First of all Goddard tells you exactly what the point of the two maps is right above the maps. Here is is:
"The divergence is now quite striking. Looking closer at March 2008, NASA's data (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt) shows the month as the third warmest on record. In sharp contrast, UAH and RSS satellite data showed March as the second coldest on record in the southern hemisphere, and just barely above average for the whole planet. How could such a large discrepancy occur?"
So Goddard's use of the maps is to show you how the GISS UAH discrepency occured.
Look at the temp records. From Feb. to Mar. UAH increased in temp by 0.069. GISS temp increased by .33. This means that GISS increased by almost 5 times as much as UAH. RSS increased by 0.081. So GISS increased by 4 times as much as RSS.
The question that Goddard tries to answer is "How could such a large discrepancy occur?"
The two maps give you a very simple answer. GISS is missing most of Africa, most of Greenland, and most of northern Canada. What the satellite maps tell you is that those areas are cool relative to the rest of the world for March. If Hansen had these on his map, then they would be cool relative to his own map. This does not mean that they would be cool relative to the baseline, but rather that they would be cool relative to the portion of the globe that he does have mapped. Very simply, if Hansen had all of Africa, Greenland and Canada, he would have produced a much smaller divergence with the satellites for March because the areas that he is missing would have lowered his global average. All of this has zero to do with the fact that the two systems use a different baseline, because it is about relative changes.
Now, the discussion about the cherry picked baseline is an entirely different discussion. The accusation is tha Hansen picked the baseline that he picked because is allows him to show most of the world as hot most of the time. The colors on the map are displayed relative to his baseline. So if he uses a cool baseline he will be able to draw the majority of his map in hot colors most of the time. This is an entirely different issue from the divergence issue. And any fool who wasn't trying to fool us and himself would have understood that.
Now with regard to the "big correction in 2000", it is you that cannot tell the difference between US temps and global temps. Go back and click on the link that Goddard provides for those big corrections. It is a link to the US temp data set. It shows the changes that were made to the US data. And the changes that were made to the US data were "big" changes. So Hansen had made a "big" error with regard to the US data. And that was the whole point being made by Goddard. Your attempt to translate it to Goddard making a statement about global error is simply a misreprestentation on your part. And that is what I mean about you throwing out the baby with the bath water. First you try to misinterpret and misrepresent what was being said, then you try to throw the entire thing out as so much garbage, when in fact the only garbage is in your head.
Tilo:
at 351, I posted:
re 329.
Tilo says: http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/university-of-colorado-gl…
"Yes, this is only three years worth of data, but what can possibly explain three years of sea level drop."
The same things that cause such a "flat spots" from 1993 thru mid 1996, and from mid 1997 thru mid 2000, perhaps? On a record taht nonetheless shows in increase in seal level of 50 mm between 1992 and 2008?
Cherry picking and ignoring history of variability is intellectually dishonest, Tilo.
Posted by: Lee | June 17, 2008 1:12 PM
Tilo responded:
"Lee:
"Cherry picking and ignoring history of variability is intellectually dishonest, Tilo."
Not when one of the endpoints is the present. In that case it is an attempt to recognize the possibility that a trend may be changing.
But go ahead, use the UC data and see if you can find another flat 3 year trend in the record. Let me know the start time and the end time and I will check it out.
Posted by: Tilo Reber | June 17, 2008 6:19 PM "
Apparently, the fact that I had just listed such periods of the fricking post he was responding to was beyond the limits of his reading ability. Or, more likely, his honesty. Teh fact that he REPEATS that is just amazing...
AND, it does not require a previous three year period in the record to say that a current 3 year period is not anything remarkable. It require only enough variability in the past to make the probability of a current 3 year period sufficient high as to not be significant. This is what change-point analysis tests. I pointed out that Tilo's method was not proper for finding a change point, because it does not test whether that '3 year flat spot' is anything out of the ordinary in the record. Tilo's response was basically 'stastistics, schmastistics." Which pretty much says it all about Tilo.
Stop lying, dude. Not that yo can make yourself look any worse than you already do, but it is still not pretty.
Tilo, stop being absurd. The UAH/RSS map shows Greenland as relatively warm, while the GISS map has the few ground measurements there as relatively cool. GISS interpolates out to 1000 miles based on available adjacent measurements, meaning that Greenland would be relatively cool in the GISS analysis. Your description is exactly backwards. Same for Antarctica.
Goddard - additional idiocy - is making claims based on visual exampination of data ON DIFFERENT BASELINES, without calculations to see if there is an effect. And you described the data exactly backwards for this.
The reason that GISS has a slightly higher trend is well known - it is due to GISS interpolation of high-latitude temperatures that are not covered by either HadCrut or the satellites. The satellites don't have high-latitude coverage because of the eccentricities of their orbits, so they miss polar temperatures. GISS includes them as well as is able. Another Goddard mistake - he doesn't bother to say what is already well known.
Goddard also picks a single year when GISS happens to match in absolute values to the other three records, for a couple months, and begins his comparison there - which makes the divergence look greater. That's cherry picking, Tilo. He also picks a greatly divergent month to do his analysis, without looking at the overall record. That is cherry picking too, Tilo.
Hansen picked the baseline he picked because it was the most recent 3 decade period when he started doing this analysis. The satellites use the baseline they do because they have only that data available - they don't go back to the same time period ofas the GISS and HADCrut analysis. CRU uses a different baseline yet - again, for historical reasons having to do with when they started. Claiming that Hansen cherry-picked a baseline way back then because it "allows him to show most of the world as hot most of the time" now, is paranoid conspiracy mongering with implications of time travel thrown in.
Lee:
"Apparently, the fact that I had just listed such periods of the fricking post he was responding to was beyond the limits of his reading ability."
Talking about flats spots between A and B isn't the same thing as proving it with a three year chart from that period. Or is producing such a chart beyond your capability?
"This is what change-point analysis tests."
Great, you could also test it by finding another 3 year flat trend. Or you could do the change point analysis yourself and show me that a three year flat trend would not be unusual. Why is it that the big mouths on this forum are so allergic to work?
"while the GISS map has the few ground measurements there as relatively cool."
Nope, GISS will select the closest stations, and for most of Greenland, those are relatively hot. Notice the hot red stripe that will probably effect the temperature for most of Greenland, Elesmere Island, and the Baffin Islands. You are also left with most of Canada and most of Africa being effected by hot measurements, if the area is reached at all by a 1000 kilometer (not mile) radius. Much of Africa, Canada, and Greenland will not be reached at all. In addition, interior Antarctica has a very hot station.
"The reason that GISS has a slightly higher trend is well known - it is due to GISS interpolation of high-latitude temperatures that are not covered by either HadCrut or the satellites."
Just another reason why Hansen is mistaken, since the Antarctic is cooling. In any case, the question is not why GISS is higher, but rather why it is diverging. In a period of no global warming, one cannot use the excuse of higher latitude temperatures. If global temperatures are not increasing, then there is no reason for the poles to cause a divergence.
"Goddard also picks a single year when GISS happens to match in absolute values to the other three records, for a couple months, and begins his comparison there"
It's 100% irrelevant. Divergence is divergence if they started out together or apart.
"He also picks a greatly divergent month to do his analysis"
On that you are correct. His objective was to have a good month for explaining how such divergences could happen. In other words, what elements about the way that GISS does calculations could allow it to move so far from the way that UAH does its calculations. For the purpose, the month served just fine. Of course there are more reasons for the divergence that have to do with Hansen's idiotic adjustments as explained in this:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CorrectCorrections.pdf
But for what he seeks to explain, Goddard does a fine job.
"CRU uses a different baseline yet - again, for historical reasons having to do with when they started."
They started in 1850. What could it have to do with that?
They're not 'little homework assignments' Tilo, but basic homework for anyone to undertake, who is making the claims that you make.
The phenology is a part of stuff that I do for my own work, so I have 'done it myself', as are the matters about environmental damage resulting from shale-oil and tar-sand extraction.
The numbers about nuclear scaling-up are not a part of my work, but the numbers I have seen through my parter's work (in the energy sector) contradict your blithe enthusiasm for the technology.
In both cases I have repeatedly asked you for your numbers/evidence/sources in order to ascertain whether you have a font of higher knowledge than that to which I and many others here are familiar with; whether you have a font of arcane understanding that just might actually prove to us that we are misguided in our perceptions.
You consistently refuse to properly engage.
OK, Tilo, then answer the issue of phenology.
This field is intimately tied to the issue of climate change, and the empirical phenological evidence is telling a story of climate change magnitude which supports the IPCC projections much more than the fluffy, amorphous hiccups apparenlty promoted by you and that, when pressed, you seem reluctant to explore in any detail, in terms of occurrence/consequence relationships.
Tilo,
""Tilo, there are change-point analysis techniques in statistics."
Which has nothing to do with the fact that we have had three years of no sea level rise. Your answer was simply an irrelevant distraction."
Actually it has everything to do with it. You've got an alternative hypothesis, in English: "The sea levels rose linearly from 1994 to 2005 and then were constant", and a null hypothesis, basically "something else happened". Now you need to do something along the lines of proposing a statistical test with the power to distinguish between these two possibilities, and show that the data we have fits with the first and not with the second.
Until you do that all I note is that we've got two regression models, one with a correlation coefficient of 0.8-0.9 or thereabouts for a big data set and the other with < sod all for a much smaller one. Guess which model I'll pick?
Now is where you need to do some statistics Tilo. Still waiting.
At 417:
"Tell me what you said about the fact that Hansen adjusts urban temperatures up in the present and down in the past based upon neighboring rural sites that have become less rural and have begun to suffer some level of UHI effect themselves."
Over at Anthony Watts blog, WattsUp, JohnV has shown that using only the class 1,2 US stations, the stations that have NOT undergone any "UHI effects," that one gets a trace that is very, very close to the GISS adjusted results. Watts, being a denialist to the core, has of course responded to this analysis by ignoring it and pretending it does not exist.
Tilo, you post so much crap, and so many crap-laden links, that there simply isn't time to take it all on. Pretending a victory when there is a lack of response to some of your absurd shite, doesn't improve your argument.
"Frankly, Tilo, it is your failure to address fundamental empirical evidence for climate changes that is absurd."
What emperical evidence for climate change are you talking about. If you mean the evidence that climate is changing, just like it always has, then I accept that emperical evidence. If you are talking about emperical evidence for disasterous climate change, then all I see are models with no emperical evidence. Remember one very simple thing if you cannot remember anything else. Evidence of warming is not evidence of AGW. So in that case, I believe it is up to you to bring the evidence and prove the point. It is the warmers that are claiming that a disaster is imminent and it is the warmers that are proposing solutions that will have trillions of dollars in economic impact. I believe that it is the warmers that must make their case. And so far they have not.
"The phenology is a part of stuff that I do for my own work, so I have 'done it myself', as are the matters about environmental damage resulting from shale-oil and tar-sand extraction."
The Canadians seem to be unconvinced by your concern, as they are going full bore ahead with sand oil extraction. I believe that we should be going full bore ahead with shale oil extraction. But if you have a study that shows that it would be "disastrous", then let's have it.
"These changes are happening, these changes are ultimately what the whole broo-ha-ha is all about, "
Remember your "data data data" about the 11 years of no warming. I gave it to you. Do you dispute it? It doesn't fit the CO2 forcing theory. There is no such thing as noise in the climate system. It is not explained by ENSO effects. That is real emperical data and you choose to ignore it.
Bernard, for the umpteenth time, step to the plate and address the empirical evidence.
So, could climate sensitivity to 2XCO2 actually be only .24 K? The warmers claim that more warming caused by more CO2 will cause more moisture in the atmosphere and that this will provide a positive feedback that will increase the temperature beyond what CO2 would do alone. So, where is the emperical evidence for an increased moisture in the atmosphere. Apparently the evidence points in the opposite direction. Here is an excellent synopsis by Ken Gregory that explains the work of Ferenc M. Miskolczi on this subject.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhou…
Lee:
"Over at Anthony Watts blog, WattsUp, JohnV has shown that using only the class 1,2 US stations, the stations that have NOT undergone any "UHI effects,""
I'm looking at John Vs stuff. Let you know what I find.
Damn! Why do people have to use underscores. Here is the link for #427
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The\_Saturated\_Greenhouse\_Effect.htm
"I note is that we've got two regression models, one with a correlation coefficient of 0.8-0.9 or thereabouts"
Did you run the regression yourself to come up with those numbers; or where did you get them from?
See post 360 Tilo
Tilo:
"where did you get them from?"
Confirming that he doesn't bother to actually pay attention to anything anyone actually says to him.
Just like the posts where I p[oint out previous flat spots as ranges of years, he responds asking me to point out previous flat spots and he will 'check it out', I tell him I pointed out previous flat spots, and he responds asking why I haven't done the regression analysis and asking why we all are so 'lazy.'
All the while claiming that no one is pointing to past variability when we point out that his 'analysis' of the last three years does not constitute a change point analysis.
Tilo, 'lazy' is not bothering to pay attention to what people say to you.
Richard S Courtney -- Jun 23 2008 05:59 PM
Sirs:
You say:
"And perhaps some scientists are coming out against the idea that humankind has warmed the planet and continues to spew increasing pollutants into our atmosphere. If so, they are awful quiet about their challenge. Perhaps they should post their arguments here and let NRDC's real climate experts take them on."
Well, I am an Expert Peer Reviewer for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); i.e. I am one of the often touted "thousands of UN Climate Scientists". I and thousands of others speak, publish and sign petitions in attempt to get the media to tell the truth of man made global climate change. And in response to your invitation I post that truth below.
The AGW-hypothesis asserts that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs) - notably carbon dioxide - in the atmosphere will cause the globe to warm (global warming: GW), and that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air with resulting anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW).
I think a clear distinction needs to be made between
(a) the science of AGW, and
(b) the perception of AGW - and the use of AGW - by non-scientists.
The science
The present empirical evidence strongly indicates that the AGW-hypothesis is wrong; i.e.
1.
There is no correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and global temperature.
2.
Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is observed to follow change to global temperature at all time scales.
3.
Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.
The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present (i.e. mid-2008). This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near-constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940
4.
Rise in global temperature has not been induced by increase to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.
More than 80% of the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide has been since 1940, and the increase to the emissions has been at a compound rate of ~0.4% p.a. throughout that time. But that time has exhibited 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940.
5.
The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent.
The AGW hypothesis predicts most warming of the atmosphere at altitude distant from polar regions. Radiosonde measurements from weather balloons show slight cooling at altitude distant from polar regions.
The above list provides a complete refutation of the AGW-hypothesis according to the normal rules of science.: i.e.
Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed in the empirical data, and the opposite of the hypothesis' predictions is observed in the empirical data.
But politicians and advocates adhere to the hypothesis. They have a variety of motives (i.e. personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism, etc..). But support of science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis.
Hence, additional scientific information cannot displace the AGW-hypothesis and cannot silence its advocates (e.g. Hansen). And those advocates are not scientists despite some of them claiming that they are.
Richard S Courtney
PSC:
"See post 360 Tilo"
Thank you PSC.
"The complete series, indicating a steady annual rise in MSL has a correlation coefficient in the order of 0.8+ (by eye,"
By eye? Well I'm impressed, but not convinced. Would you mind running the numbers?
By the way, are you saying that I'm wrong and that the sea level has continued to rise over the last three years? Is that your position?
Richard Courtney, Tilo? Richard fucking COURTNEY?!?!?!?!
Please, Tilo, stop embarrassing yourself like this. Its painful to watch.
"Well, I am an Expert Peer Reviewer for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); i.e. I am one of the often touted "thousands of UN Climate Scientists""
Courtney is not any kind of scientist. He has no PhD. He has 7 known publications, the majority of which are letters to the editor. He has claimed "Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC Chairman) personally asked me to work on the current IPCC Synthesis Report." That is the highest level report, authors are nominated via national governments, there is no evidence for his claim, and ther eis no fucking way that Courtney came anywhere near that document as an author. Anyone can be "Expert Peer Reviewer" of the IPCC. All it required was asking for a copy and sending in comments. Having done so does not make him any kind of scientist, or expert.
"There is no correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and global temperature."
False. Plot temp and CO2 on century scales, and there is a very good correlation.
"Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is observed to follow change to global temperature at all time scales."
Except that recently, CO2 leads temp change. This argument is irrelevant.
"The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present (i.e. mid-2008). This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940."
Oh, good fucking god..... This is delusional. Comparing a several-month period at the depth of a La Nina, to a single year? And even then, the claim isn't true.
I cant take any more - the rest of that article is full of similar shite. It is wrong from beginning to end. Tilo, You make a fool of yourself with this kind of shit.
Very cute, Tilo. It is apparent that you're having a bet each way here.
Let me make sure that we have this straight - you acknowledge that there is empirical evidence for climate change, but you will claim that this change is completely 'natural'? This could lead to a game of incremental goal-post moving with no end, so your definitions of 'natural' climate change would be useful at this juncture.
And I have not spoken about 'disasterous' climate change, Tilo: rather, I have spoken of climate change above a 'natural' background, and the implicit involvement of humans in this. On the other hand, if one defines 'disasterous' in terms of the extinction of a species, or of any number of species, or of loss of ecosystem integrity that has survived for hundreds of thousands or even for millions of years prior to the present, then I would be prepared to put my hand up and say that the changes we are initiating very much have the potential for disaster.
At no point have I subscribed to any catastrophic Hollywood-type scenarios Tilo. I assume that this is what you mean by 'disasterous' - metres in sea-level rise overnight, plagues of locusts in the American suburbs...
The thing is, we don't have to tip the balance far from 'natural' climate change for serious ecological or even social consequences to eventuate. Now, if you can delineate your boundaries, and clearly define what you mean by 'disasterous', in terms of time, place, and effect, we might be able to stop moving those goal-posts and figure out what you believe and what you don't,and how your stance compares with observable trajectories and objectively scorable consequences.
And thus whether your reading of the evidence is as correct as you seem to think that it is.
Again, cute Tilo, but a strawman. In all of this we are specifically refering to evidence of warming beyond that which is attributable to natural cycling.
That's why we call it 'anthropogenic global warming'.
Tilo, I have seen numerous 'studies' that document the serious, and potentially serious, consequences of shale oil extraction. And even if one has never seen any such work before, it doesn't take a genius to find numerous papers on the subject. To illustrate, I did a quick search on Current Contents, and returned thousands of hits on the environmental damage of shale oil extraction. Here's an exerpt from the very first one:
(BioScience 58:6, p490 June 2008)
I could flood Deltoid with examples, and much 'better' and more detailed ones at that, but I don't cherry-pick, and as I am on dial-up at the moment I have no inclination to do more of your homework for you.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to support your statement that it is a simple matter to rehabilitate mined land.
Oo, I hope that you will expand upon this in some detail. I'm sure though that it would involve a vigorous game of semanitic tag.
It almost deserves a thread of its own...
So, Tilo, step upon the ice and define all of your positions and definitions in clear terms. No more slipperiness please. I am starting to tire of your evasion and prevarication, and I am itching to address the minutæ of your claims.
And because I am about to head into the field again for a period of monitoring of endangered species, you will have a bit of time to organise yourself. I warn you though, Jeff and several others are probably itching just as much as I am to continue to nudge you into the corner that you seem to be so determined to paint yourself.
Of course, you could seriously try to convince us that you have a truly valid basis upon which to assist us to our minds, rather than simply reinforcing our impression that your full name is Tilo Reber Dunning-Kruger.
As I have always done in the past, where I make a mistake I readily admit to it.
When closing my Current Contents page I noticed that I had 20 hits per page, not 100 as I normally set JStore to, so for the number of pages I had returned there would have been hundreds of papers, not thousands.
Oops. I think that destroys my argument.
Surely.
"Let me make sure that we have this straight - you acknowledge that there is empirical evidence for climate change,"
Good grief Bernard, it's been going on for the 3 billion plus years of the earth's existence. Who the hell would deny it?
"but you will claim that this change is completely 'natural'?"
I will claim that the majority of it is completely natural. I believe that there is a CO2 forcing component. But it is much smaller than what the IPCC claims.
"so your definitions of 'natural' climate change would be useful at this juncture."
I would say that any level of climate change that has been seen over the last 200,000 years, and before the industrial era, could be considered natural.
"Tilo: rather, I have spoken of climate change above a 'natural' background, and the implicit involvement of humans in this."
This is an interesting alarmist philosophy. Any effect that mankind has on earth makes mankind in some way guilty of a sin in the minds of eco freaks and AGW cultists. They cannot comprehend that mankind is just another part of the earth, just as "natural" as anything else.
On the other side of the coin, if nature produces incredible extremes in temperature or cataclismic events on the earth, well, there is no moral issue there at all. Species can come and go, be destroyed slowly or in mass; it doesn't matter. Only if you clowns can hang a guilty sign on mankind does it become important. Only if you can puff your chests and strut your moral superiority in front of the world do you take an interest.
"Tilo, I have seen numerous 'studies' that document the serious, and potentially serious, consequences of shale oil extraction."
Gee Bernard, are they as convincing as the studies that predicted the destruction of the caribou herds if we built an oil pipline across Alaska?
"the fact remains that no proven method exists for efficiently removing the oil from the rock," Bob Loucks, a former shale-off project manager, attested at a Senate committee hearing last June."
Total horse shit. A company named Oil Tech has built a pilot plant and proven that it can be done for somewhere between 15 and 30 dollars a barrel.
"Using conventional methods, creating 25 gallons of oil would require digging a ton of rock from massive open-pit mines and cooking it in surface retorts to release the low-grade oil, which would be shipped out for refining."
Depending on where you dig, the production rate is closer to a barrel a ton. And while the resulting product is low compared to light sweet crude, it is actually better than Canadian sand oil.
"Argonne National Laboratory estimates that manufacturing a million barrels of shale oil daily could consume up to 370,000,000 cubic meters of water per year--from the already overextended Colorado River system--necessitating considerable expansion of regional water-storage facilities."
More bullshit. That volumne of water would only be used if you moved the product as a slurrie. The Oil Tech method does not do that, and consequently uses very little water.
"Likewise, electricity needs would be formidable. Production of a million barrels per day would require ten 1.2-gigawatt power plants and five new coal mines to feed them."
More bullshit. This assumes that you use electricity to heat the shale. Oil Tech's technology allows you to use spent shale, which still has enough energy, to heat new shale. Large quantities of electricity would only be needed at retort startup.
"Leases would displace all "incompatible" activities, such as recreation, mining, livestock grazing, and oil and gas drilling."
Only during the period when active mining is happening. And that is only a small fraction of the time. Most of that land has very little recreation or livestock grazing. And I don't see how it would inhibit mining. If oil and gas drilling were truely significant in that area we wouldn't need the shale.
"but I don't cherry-pick, and as I am on dial-up at the moment I have no inclination to do more of your homework for you."
It appears that I have done much more homework on this than you. Most of the objections that you have brought are relevant to the 80s technology. They are irrelevant to the new technology.
"Oo, I hope that you will expand upon this in some detail."
It's very simple Bernard. Nothing happens in the climate system without a reason. There is no random number generator that determines the direction of climate. There is no gost in the system. It is as deterministic as one cue ball hitting another. The only reason to regard any of it as noise is because our understanding and ability to predict climate is very low.
"rather than simply reinforcing our impression that your full name is Tilo Reber Dunning-Kruger"
I wonder what they would have said about people who feel the constant need to appear intelligent by making obscure references, or by peppering their conversation with inane bits of French.
Tilo sys:
"if nature produces incredible extremes in temperature or cataclismic events on the earth, well, there is no moral issue there at all."
Correct. We do not bear moral responsibility for events that are outside our control.
"Species can come and go, be destroyed slowly or in mass; it doesn't matter. "
Incorrect - we do have the ability to observe and often change things we observe. If we see a looming mass extinction, whether we are causing it or no, we can decide whether we cna intervene to alter that, and if we should. THAT, Tilo, differentiates the efects of our actions from 'natural' cataclysmic events.
"Any effect that mankind has on earth makes mankind in some way guilty of a sin in the minds of eco freaks and AGW cultists. They cannot comprehend that mankind is just another part of the earth, just as "natural" as anything else."
Not just incorrect, Tilo. Utter bullshit. Effects that we cause or control, and that degrade the planet as a place for us and our descendants to live, may be 'natural' in that we are 'natural.' They are no less damaging for that, and pretending that we bear no moral responsibility for our actions because we are 'natural' is idiotic. By your argument, I could hold that the mudslides regularly sweep away occupied houses in LA bear no moral responsibility, and therefore I (as an equal part of nature) can destroy occupied houses in LA with no moral responsibility. Your argument is absurd, Tilo.
BTW, I am deeply amused at your near-definition of noise as something that does nto exist.
And by your seeming claim that oil shale fields will revert to grazing or recreation grounds (or wildlife habitat - we are not the only species that wants those places) after they are stripped - and not including the cost of reclamation and of the intervening degradation, and of the lowered productivity of reclaimed grounds, in the cost of operation you claim. Can yo say 'externalized cost?' I didn't think so.
"We do not bear moral responsibility for events that are outside our control."
What is the source of moral responsibility Lee? In fact, what is the source of morality?
"They are no less damaging for that, and pretending that we bear no moral responsibility for our actions because we are 'natural' is idiotic."
Again, what moral responsibility are you talking about? Where are you getting this fictitious entity from. And you can demonstrate that we are changing the planet, but the idea that we are damaging the planet is simply a value judgement based on nothing. It assumes that you know what a better planet or a worse planet is. But that is simply your own subjective judgement. Many species have been wiped out in the past. Is it a worse planet because we no longer have dinosours running around? Mass extinctions of the majority of life have happend before. Is the planet worse for it or better for what replaced it. Both perspectives are your point of view. In the big universal picture it doesn't matter even one gnats ass.
The point of view that our usage of the planet is in fact destroying it is also absurd. The planet is just a thing. We have no responsibility other than to make the most of it. We will attempt to preserve the species that we wish to preserve because we like having them around or because we judge that they serve some purpose, not because we have some kind of idiotic moral responsibility. We will preserve nature to the extent that we choose because we like it not because we have a moral obligation. And we will find a balance between nature and our needs for energy because that is what will serve us best and because we want to have both.
The idea that there is some kind of pristin earth that would exist if only mankind were not destroying it is just stupid beyond comprehension. There has never been such an earth. Creation and destruction are two sides of the same coin. The gazelle dies and the lion is fed. Is it good or bad? You cannot have one side without the other. Man is as much a product of nature as any other species and morality is as much a product of man as cars and nuclear reactors.
The idea that humanity must lower it's standard of living to preserve the polar bear, for example, is a good case in point. It would be nice to continue having a healthy population of polar bears of course. We all enjoy the diveristy of nature. But if it comes down to significantly lowering our standards of living, or of putting the polar regions off limits to usage or exploration, then to hell with the polar bears. Of course I think that the polar bear is simply a straw man for the AGW crowd. I don't see any evidence of it being such a choice. It seems to have made it just fine through warmer periods on our planet. And I don't think that drilling Anwar would make any difference to the polar bear either. Many species, including the polar bear, have shown that they can live in extremely close proximity with human civilization. As long as we leave them alone and don't make an explicit effort to kill them, they will probably do just fine.
"By your argument, I could hold that the mudslides regularly sweep away occupied houses in LA bear no moral responsibility, and therefore I (as an equal part of nature) can destroy occupied houses in LA with no moral responsibility."
You can destroy houses in LA is you wish to go to prison. The idea that there is a thing called "moral responsibility" is about as stupid as believing in ghosts.
"and not including the cost of reclamation and of the intervening degradation, and of the lowered productivity of reclaimed grounds, in the cost of operation you claim."
First, the government can always write reclamation into the lease contracts. The land quality that we are talking about is pretty low, so reclamation shouldn't be that expensive. I don't care about the intervening degradation. The value of the oil is far higher. The lowered productivity of the reclaimed grounds is a figment of your imagination.
Is there a bigger idiot on the planet than Tim Lambert when he says:
"For example, he agrees with Jennifer Marohasy, who claims:
"Global temperatures over the past ten years have stalled."
This is, of course, not true."
Now you know there is a problem when the evidence about the PAST TEN YEARS that Lambert brings to bear on this argument is a 127 YEAR CHART. Thereby reducing the period in question to less than one 12th of his tiny chart. And of course he uses the only set of station data that still shows warming over the past 10 years, the GISS data, which is based on the NCDC data.
He ignores the HadCrut3, RSS, UAH data that all agree very well with each other, and instead makes his absurd claim on the diverging GISS data.
Then morons like Barton chime in with their yearly data that is missing five month of good evidence.
And of course we have the usual crowd of brain dead alarmists that claim it's all because of the 98 El Nino, when in reality the La Nina that immediately followed that El Nino was much longer and had much more of an impact on the trend line.
Here is the real data. The past 11 years have had absolutely no warming, no matter how much the anti-science alarmists try to say otherwise.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/11-year-temperature-anomo…
"but the idea that we are damaging the planet is simply a value judgement based on nothing"
no, the planet is quite robust. what we are damaging is the future of human civilization. the planet will not care one way or the other. you may share in this opinion, apparently, but some of us who know people who will be alive in the second half of this century are of the opinion that it would be nice if things weren't really shitty for them then.
Recently I mentioned that Tim is the Good Host. How nice of him to give Tilo has own mini-blog with a link from this site.
Hey Tim, after a few months in solitary confinement, will you let Tilo post in this forum if he promises to mind his manners and not to violate the terms of his probation?
Recently I mentioned that Tim is the Good Host. How nice of him to give Tilo has own mini-blog with a link from this site.
Hey Tim, after a few months in solitary confinement, will you let Tilo post in this forum if he promises to mind his manners and not to violate the terms of his probation?
Recently I mentioned that Tim is the Good Host. How nice of him to give Tilo has own mini-blog with a link from this site.
Hey Tim, after a few months in solitary confinement, will you let Tilo post in this forum if he promises to mind his manners and not to violate the terms of his probation?
After fighting for years to acquire the release of the tree ring data that Briffa was hiding, Steve McIntyre has finally succeeded. The results are nothing short of shocking.
First, it shows that the series that Briffa and Schweingruber were using for their reconstructions were highly cherry picked. Second, it shows that the tree ring data gives absolutely no support to the surface temperature data - the tree ring data shows the last century's temperatures to be basically flat. Third, the data that Briffa had kept hidden from the world shows a much warmer medieval warming period than they had previously acknowledged.
Of course all of this isn't completely new. The North American bristlecone tree ring series that Lenah Ababneh produced two years ago showed that the Graybill and Idso series used by Mann for his reconstruction was also cherry picked and that there was no 20th century warming in the tree rings. Even though Ababneh's series was more extensive and more complete than the Graybill/Idso series, Mann never acknowledged its existence or commented on its divergence from his data.
Beyond the problem of a complete lack of professional ethics among the alarmists, this leaves us with another glaringly obvious problem. When you use the hockey teams reconstructions as they stand, they currently do not support the full 20th century rise in temperature that is given by the surface temperature records. When you remove the cherry picked data from those reconstructions, they show no warming at all.
This means that we either have to conclude that the surface temperature record is wrong, or that the tree ring reconstructions are wrong. If the tree ring reconstructions are wrong, then it is impossible to make the statement that the current climate is in any way unusual. If the surface temperature record is wrong, then the 20th century rise is either not there or it is greatly exaggerated.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/quote-of-the-week-20-ding-dong-th…
Beyond the hiding of the tree ring data, there is still the issue of the Hadley center refusing to release their raw surface temperature data records. One can only wonder how anyone could call for trillions of dollars of economic impact in energy policy while at the same time hiding the information that they claim makes it necessary.
Tilo Reber doesn't know what cherry picking is:
"First, it shows that the series that Briffa and Schweingruber were using for their reconstructions were highly cherry picked. Second, it shows that the tree ring data gives absolutely no support to the surface temperature data - the tree ring data shows the last century's temperatures to be basically flat."
Cherry picking is selection of data to match what one wishes. If one wishes to "create" a hockey stick, cherry picked data would show an increase in temperature the past century rather than divergence. Hence your accusation of cherry picking is false, meaning you should apologize for libel. Are you man enough?
"Cherry picking is selection of data to match what one wishes. If one wishes to "create" a hockey stick, cherry picked data would show an increase in temperature the past century rather than divergence. Hence your accusation of cherry picking is false, meaning you should apologize for libel. Are you man enough?"
LOL. The data that Briffa cherry picked for his papers was the data that showed the hockey stick. When Steve McIntyre plotted all of the data, including the data Briffa used, there was no 20th century warming.
The data that Mann cherry picked also showed a 20th century warming hockey stick. Actually, I shouldn't say that Mann picked it, Because it had already been preselected by Graybill. Graybill was trying to show the effect of CO2 fertilization with his study. In any case, Ababneh's later and more complete study using the same kind of trees in the same area showed no 20th century warming. So in both cases, the divergent data was the real data, and it diverged from the cherry picked hockey stick data.
Shorter Tilo Reber: "I don't understand the tree-ring issue and the hockey stick. Deniers on a blog say tree-rings are bad, hockey stick is bad, that is all I need to make the accusation that Mann is bad."
Perhaps you will get to post as a guest blog scientist at Watts Up. You are certainly qualified.
In their usual attempt to bury the truth, Real Climate has been moderating out any references to Steve McIntyre's discovery. And the Guardian is also frantically deleting any references from their "Comment Is Free" section. Too late. The cat is out of the bag and Steve's web site is so flooded that you can hardly get on.
The latest news on this subject is that Kieth Briffa now claims to be sick. He claims that he cannot take calls from reporters and that he will not be answering any of his emails.
One day science text books will use the hockey stick fraud and the work of the hockey team as a classic example of how not to do science.
I find it hilarious that you still refer to the village idiots' convention @ CA as some relevant "authority" for climate science. McI and his circle-jerk pals can't even understand Meteorology 101, and they still think they can be "auditors"?
Pray tell, how many publications on proxy reconstructions have they had since McI's flawed GRL paper? How many again? I can't hear you from all the crickets chirping.
You may think that McI is being "censored" - I, and the vast majority of people who do climate science research, and more importantly, the policy folks that matter - think he's incompetent and irrelevant. If you really care so much about McI's findings - try to get him to publish it in Nature or Science or PNAS, instead of his wanksock that is CA.
And as for discussion about McI - tried talking at Tamino's instead?
Former Skeptic:
Are you denying that Briffa fought not to have to archive his data for five years? Why would he do that if he had nothing to hide?
"If you really care so much about McI's findings - try to get him to publish it in Nature or Science or PNAS, instead of his wanksock that is CA."
Nature helped Briffa hide the fact that he cherry picked the data for all of this time by not making him archive it - even though their policy says that it must be archived. Why would they publish McIntyre?
Love your rant, however. It shows how worried you are. Maybe if you rant enough about McIntyre you can make the facts disappear. Apparently Steve's story has made it to the pages of The Telegraph.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100011716/how-the-glo…
Briff'a Yamal and Mann's North American bristcones were the mutual support structures for the entire dendo reconstruction fraud. Pull them out and the whole structure falls apart. Linah Ababneh's doctoral disertation pulled the rug out from under the North American bristlecones. Of course Mann continued to make the claim that his hockey stick was good because you could take the bristcone series out of his reconstruction and it would still show a hockey stick. But the only thing that was left in the data that still gave him a hockey stick was the Yamal data. Now that has been exposed as a cherry picked fraud. This means that all of the hockey teams reconstructions go tumbling down.
Tilo: Your attention please.
'As we said in our report, "In a real sense the paleoclimate results of MBH98/99 are essentially irrelevant to the consensus on climate change. The instrumented temperature record clearly indicates an increase in temperature."
We certainly agree that modern global warming is real. We have never disputed this point. We think it is time to put the "hockey stick" controversy behind us and move on.'
http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/07272006hearin…
Even being charitable to the braying and neighing of barnyard animals and granting your point (I don't, by the way, but assuming I did), your argument for inaction is unconvincing, and would be unconvincing even to people ClimateAudit cites favorably.
That is all.
Brian D:
This discovery not only effects MBH98/99, but almost all of the contributors to the IPCC spagetti graph that the IPCC uses to support the declaration that the 20th century temperature is unique in the history of climate for the last millenium.
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/fig6_10spaghetti…
Without Yamal and the North American bristlecones the blade on all those reconstructions collapses. Possibly the only exception is Moberg's reconstruction, and Moberg shows the MWP as being warmer than today. In addition, Moberg states that 20th century climate is not unique in the climate record. This means that the IPCC no longer has the support for making a claim about the uniqueness of the 20th Century.
As far as the temperature going up for the last 150 years - who cares. The temperature has been going either up or down for the entire 3 plus billion years of the earth's history. So for half that time it has been going up. It has been much higher than today many times. The CO2 level has been more than 10 times as high as today.
The other thing that is important with this revelation is that a very large piece of what the alarmists like to call consensus science is based on fraud. Their favorite people with their favorite peer reviews being published in their favorite scientific journals have been shown to be involved in or complicit in fraud. And those journals have been shown to be aiding in the cover up of that fraud.
Much like your thought processes, your link doesn't work.
"Apparently Steve's story has made it to the pages of The Telegraph."
James Delingpole in "Global Warming shown to be crap by blog science" shocker!
Bud:
"James Delingpole in "Global Warming shown to be crap by blog science" shocker!"
The old appeal to authority argument! Science doesn't care where it get's done and it's unimpressed by degrees and science journals. Science only cares if it refects reality or not. In this case the authority figures with their degrees and journal publications only knew the recipe for cherry pie.
Tilo Reber :
Before you accuse other people of fraud, you need to check that you are not talking utter bullshit.
"The old appeal to authority argument!"
I wasn't making an argument, I was just chuckling at how fucking ridiculous it is to crow about a story purporting to disprove climate change getting in to a James Delingpole article in the Torygraph.
I mean, James Delingpole, for fucksake...
http://jamesdelingpole.com/tag/global-warming/
This is the guy who 'interviewed' Ian Plimer. And gleefully swallowed Plimer's crap. Hardly an achievement to get him to write an anti-climate science story, now is it?
Chris:
Okay, here is what Moberg said.
"Our reconstruction shows larger multicentennial variability than most previous multi-proxy reconstructions1, 2, 3, 4, 7, but agrees well with temperatures reconstructed from borehole measurements12 and with temperatures obtained with a general circulation model13, 14. According to our reconstruction, high temperaturesâsimilar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990âoccurred around ad 1000 to 1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7 K below the average of 1961â90 occurred around ad 1600. This large natural variability in the past suggests an important role of natural multicentennial variability that is likely to continue."
Here is a graph that includes Moberg's reconstruction in red:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperatur…
I'm thinking that I still like the smell of my bullshit.
Bud:
"I wasn't making an argument, I was just chuckling at how fucking ridiculous it is to crow about a story purporting to disprove climate change getting in to a James Delingpole article in the Torygraph."
You are missing the point Bud. Your opinion of Delingpole and the Telegraph don't matter. The important thing is that this information is being placed in front of hundreds of thousands of people. This means that the hockey team will have a difficult time killing the story by ignoring it or burying references to it. Several people have tried to bring up this story in Real Climate, and Gavin has refused their posts. The same kind of thing is going on at the Guardian. There is an active effort going on to suppress the story. But obviously it's failing. This means that the hockey team will be forced to deal with McIntyre's discovery. In other words, Delingpole is killing any chance to bury the artile. Why do you think that Briffa is suddenly not taking any calls or emails from journalists? Sick my backside!
Looks like the blog sofware corrupted my link to the Moberg reconstruction. Let's try again.
[Moberg Reconstruction](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperatur…)
Tilo writes:
>*Moberg shows the MWP as being warmer than today.*
Then provides [this link](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperatur…) to contradict his assertion.
Stating:
>*Here is a graph that includes Moberg's reconstruction in red*
Tilo Reber @452:
>*Much like your thought processes, your link doesn't work.*
Ehhmm, the world smiles as Tilo Reber @459 writes:
>*Looks like the blog sofware corrupted my link to the Moberg reconstruction. Let's try again.*
"Ehhmm, the world smiles as Tilo Reber @459 writes:"
Yes, difference is that I recognized and fix my own, 20 minutes later, after answering another blogger. And I also included my comment as part of a larger post. Your comment, on the other hand, is just empty pulp. Still, nice to see that you are reading closely.
Mark:
"Then provides this link to contradict his assertion."
I read that line and I said to myself, "what is he talking about". Then I realized your mistake. You are comparing the instrument record of the twentieth century with the climate reconstruction of the MWP. That is wrong for obvious reasons. I am comparing what Moberg found out about the MWP with what Moberg found out about 20th century climate. Meaning that in terms of his reconstruction, the 20th century was not warmer than the MWP. By the way, most other tree ring proxies that take us closer to the present also do not show the level of warming that is shown by the surface temperature record - even the cherry picked ones that are designed to show as much 20th century warming as possible.
In any case, the only reason that I discussed Moberg is because out of all of the people in the spagetti graph, he is not effected by the discrediting of the Yamal and North American bristlecone series. Moberg's reconstruction has some other problems that I don't want to go into right now. The important thing is that Moberg does not, in his reconstruction, show any temperatures that are warmer than the MWP.
Shorter Tilo Reber:
The chart I linked to contradicts my arguemnt, that is your mistake.
What I really meant to say was that the MWP is warmer than before 1950, before the bulk of anthropogenic rise in CO2 occured.
You are mistaken if you think I was saying "Moberg shows the MWP as being warmer than today", although I said that, I was actually meaning MWP is warmer than pre the bulk of athoropogenic CO2e boom.
Another shorter Reber:
I can make inane snipes about broken links, how dare you smile when this blows back in my face! Your smiling is just empty pulp, my snipes are quality and when they back fire it is your mistake.
Give us all a break about your fetish about Briffa and Yamal. People who know much more about proxy reconstructions than you or McI care about more important things.
Me worried about your hockey stick fetish and your lack of understanding of climate science? Don't kid yourself. :) I'm more concerned about whether something substantial will happen in the forthcoming COP, so that my kids would have a decent and livable future. Being concerned about the ramblings of Tilo the Loony is not exactly high on my priorities.
And claiming that the "hockey team" (sic) are worried that this "news" has gotten exposure in the press in the "hundreds of thousands"? Yeah, and I'm Leonardo diCaprio. Apart from the rabid faux reporters of Delingpole and Tom Fuller the hypocrite, the mainstream media don't give two farts about McI. *yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnn* Uncomfortable with that fact, Tilo?
And my point stands - how many scientific publications on proxy reconstructions have McI - or you, for that matter - gotten out?
Janet:
"You are mistaken if you think I was saying "Moberg shows the MWP as being warmer than today", although I said that,"
Janet, you may want to use that brain for thinking some time. I said that Moberg shows the MWP as being warmer than today. I did not say that Moberg plus the surface temp record show the MWP as being warmer than today.
"What I really meant to say was that the MWP is warmer than before 1950, before the bulk of anthropogenic rise in CO2 occured."
Sorry, Janet you got it wrong again. If you want to compare MWP Moberg to 20th century surface temp, then you would have to calibrate 20th century Moberg to the surface temp. In that case, you would have a much higher MWP for Moberg. As you can see, if you take Mobergs end point and compare it to the same time on the surface temp record, the surface temp record is much higher. If you try to compare MWP Moberg directly to the surface temp you are comparing apples and oranges.
Also, the period that you are calling "the bulk of anthropogenic rise in CO2" is not a period where proxies reflect that rise. The few proxies that are up to date show an almost flat - very slight rise - for the last 50 years. What that tells you is that either the proxies were wrong or the surface temp is wrong.
Here is a doctoral dissertation that takes us to 2006.
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/Theses/AbabnehDissertation.pdf
After pulling the fraudulent series out of the other spagetti graph reconstructions those reconstructions will also show a near flat 20th century.
Try to remember - if you are going to say that the 20th century is warmer than the MWP, then it has to be shown by the same reconstructions that show the MWP, not the surface temp record. The reconstructions don't know anything about absolute temperature. The tree rings, as far as they are useful, can only show relative temperature. Even the attempt to merge these relative temperatures into the surface temp are guesses at best.
Oh, one more point. The locations where dead trees are found for the MWP differs from where live trees are found now. The MWP dead trees were found further north than where trees are today, and they were found at a higher altitude than where live trees are found today. This is another indicator that the MWP was warmer than today.
Former Skeptic:
"Give us all a break about your fetish about Briffa and Yamal."
Another very nice rant Former. You get a 9 for emotion and a 0 for content. Have a nice day.
>*Janet, you may want to use that brain for thinking some time. I said that Moberg shows the MWP as being warmer than today. I did not say that Moberg plus the surface temp record show the MWP as being warmer than today.*
Shorter Tilo:
By today, I mean 1950, before the bulk of anthropogenic CO2.
>*If you try to compare MWP Moberg directly to the surface temp you are comparing apples and oranges.*
Shorter Tilo:
You cannot compare degrees C anomaly with degrees C anomaly because Moberg did not calibrate his degrees C anomaly to the observed temperature record. Moberg was not trying to do this to compare with real temperatures. Moberg just fluked it when the peak 1945 temp reconstructions [coincided almost exactly]( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperatur…) with observed global temperature anomaly.
This all proves your mistake and my righteousness in proclaiming that *Moberg shows the MWP as being warmer than today*.
Reber:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7026/abs/nature03265.html:
Reber demonstating his delusion. I'll let him get back to his piles of bullshit.
Shorter Janet:
Duhh, if a 1945 Moberg data point matches the surface temp record we can ignore the fact that it completely diverged from it after that.
Bishop Hill has created a short history for the layman about the Briffa Yamal fraud. This is much easier to understand than McIntyre's post, as McIntyre's post assumes that the reader has arrived with a lot of prior history in hand. Since Tim's groupies have not been blessed with their fair share of gray cells, this is probably a much better read for them.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.ht…
Jennifer Marohassey has now also posted a thread on the Yamal fraud. Since Tim is very fond of posting threads of the nature "Marohassey lied", I wonder if he will have the courage to take her on over this issue as well.
> Bishop Hill has created a short history for the layman about the Briffa Yamal fraud.
Why not use his real name:
Christopher Monckton.
Who is well known to be batshit insane and has managed quite a bit of fraud on his own: He isn't a lord.
Oh, and this evidence of how poor his understanding of science is:
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
Of course given his self professed lack of qualification in climate:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/11/christopher-monckton-vs-mark-trodden…
this is hardy newsworthy.
"My degree at Cambridge was in the classical languages and philosophy, which included science and mathematics
originating in ancient Greece and Rome. While working for Margaret Thatcher during her time as Prime Minister I developed inter alia a
model of the tax/benefit system which, at that time, contained more equations than the Treasury model, and its projections were more
reliable. In preparation for the article which you have done me the honour of reading, I studied the necessary climatological physics.
However, I have no paper qualification in any scientific subject. - Monckton of Brenchley"
"Why not use his real name:
Christopher Monckton."
I don't care if his real name is Satan. Unless you can demonstrate that something that he said in his post is false, I regard this as just another personal attack whose purpose is to distract us from the fact that you can't find anything wrong with Steve McIntyre's exposure of the Yamal data as fraudulent.
> I don't care if his real name is Satan.
Actually, that's fairly close to his name...
But why don't you care what their name was?
If it was the Head Judge of the Supreme Court, would this not help you decide whether their statements on the law are valid?
If someone says that there's nothing dangerous in smoking tobacco and you found out that they were the CEO of a major tobacco company, would this not be very pertinent information?
> Unless you can demonstrate that something that he said in his post is false
He is the one making the claim. He has to prove his case.
I don't have to prove him wrong.
And his past certainly makes skepticism over his statements a valid and worthy assumption.
Prove him right, Tito.
This story becomes more beautiful all of the time. Apparently Kieth Briffa knew that he was going to be forced to archive his data, and so he created a preemptive strike to cover his butt before actually archiving it. Now he has proposed a new line of study where he tries to investigate the problem of the 20th century divergence of tree ring data from the surface temperature record. But of course he never acknowleged this as a problem in his previous publications. Nor did he admit that he had cherry picked non divergent trees for his reconstructions. Nor did he ever give any kind of explanation of why he selected the trees that he did. In fact, he hid almost everything but his hockey stick results. This new suggestion for research therefore comes as a shock, since there is absolutely no history of the admission of any problems with the hockey stick or with the cool MWP previously.
This is from Briffa:
"Description: Palaeoclimate reconstructions extend our knowledge of how climate varied in times before expansive networks of measuring instruments became available. These reconstructions are founded on an understanding of theoretical and statistically-derived associations acquired by comparing the parallel behaviour of palaeoclimate proxies and measurements of varying climate. Inferences about variations in past climate, based on this understanding, necessarily assume that the associations we observe now hold true throughout the period for which reconstructions are made. This is the essence of the uniformitarian principle. In some northern areas of the world, recent observations of tree growth and measured temperature trends appear to have diverged in recent decades, the so called "divergence" phenomenon. There has been much speculation, and numerous theories proposed, to explain why the previous temperature sensitivity of tree growth in these areas is apparently breaking down. The existence of divergence casts doubt on the uniformitarian assumption that underpins a number of important tree-ring based (dendroclimatic) reconstructions. It suggests that the degree of warmth in certain periods in the past, particularly in medieval times, may be underestimated or at least subject to greater uncertainty than is currently accepted. The lack of a clear overview of this phenomenon and the lack of a generally accepted cause had led some to challenge the current scientific consensus, represented in the 2007 report of the IPCC on the likely unprecedented nature of late 20th century average hemispheric warmth when viewed in the context of proxy evidence (mostly from trees) for the last 1300 years. This project will seek to systematically reassess and quantify the evidence for divergence in many tree-ring data sets around the Northern Hemisphere. It will establish a much clearer understanding of the nature of the divergence phenomenon, characterising the spatial patterns and temporal evolution. Based on recent published and unpublished work by the proposers, it has become apparent that foremost amongst the possible explanations is the need to account for systematic bias potentially inherent in the methods used to build many tree-ring chronologies including many that are believed to exhibit this phenomenon."
"But why don't you care what their name was?"
If Satan says that 2 + 2 = 4, I'm not going to say, "hey, that comes from Satan, so it must be bullshit". I realize that the ad-hominem attack is the nurishment upon which the Deltoid groupies survive, but I'm not going to be distracted by it.
"He is the one making the claim. He has to prove his case."
I don't believe that you even read his post. What, in his post do you regard as needing to be proven? It's a history of the Yamal case. No theories, no equations. Stop wasting my time.
"If Satan says that 2 + 2 = 4, I'm not going to say..."
But Satan isn't saying he's a maths whizz.
The uneducated (scientifically) Monkton is.
If Satan says "Sign here. No need to read the small print", would you THEN say "Hey, that's Satan, maybe I better not trust him"?
Yes? No?
> What, in his post do you regard as needing to be proven?
Well, this:
> It's a history of the Yamal case.
Is he actually stating the true history, completely and truthfully?
Given how he's lied about the truth of his position as a member of the House of Lords (he isn't), who is to say he's not lying now?
> Stop wasting my time.
An interesting demand given how you waste everyone else's...
Shorter Reber:
Therefore this proves the MWP was warmer than today. In fact, my ass proves the MWP was warmer than today.
Tilo Reber said:"Now he has proposed a new line of study where he tries to investigate the problem of the 20th century divergence of tree ring data from the surface temperature record. But of course he never acknowleged this as a problem in his previous publications."
Reality:
Nature 391, 678-682 (12 February 1998) | doi:10.1038/35596; Received 14 May 1997; Accepted 11 November 1997
Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes
K. R. Briffa, F. H. Schweingruber, P. D. Jones, T. J. Osborn, S. G. Shiyatov & E. A. Vaganov
The dot product of Tilo Reber and reality = 0
t_p_hamilton:
"Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes"
Briffa:
"Tree-ring chronologies that represent annual changes in the density of wood formed during the late summer can provide a proxy for local summertime air temperature1. Here we undertake an examination of large-regional-scale wood-density/air-temperature relationships using measurements from hundreds of sites at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. When averaged over large areas of northern America and Eurasia, tree-ring density series display a strong coherence with summer temperature measurements averaged over the same areas, demonstrating the ability of this proxy to portray mean temperature changes over sub-continents and even the whole Northern Hemisphere. During the second half of the twentieth century, the decadal-scale trends in wood density and summer temperatures have increasingly diverged as wood density has progressively fallen. The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes is not known, but if it is not taken into account in dendroclimatic reconstructions, past temperatures could be overestimated. Moreover, the recent reduction in the response of trees to air-temperature changes would mean that estimates of future atmospheric CO2 concentrations, based on carbon-cycle models that are uniformly sensitive to high-latitude warming, could be too low."
Okay, I missed that one. Odd that they haven't found a reason for this so called divergence after 12 years. And also odd that he made the piece that I posted sound like it was a new area of study. The paper that you mention came out before the Yamal data. The Yamal data was gathered by a couple of Russians, but Briffa was able to get it published two years before the Russians in 2000. The Russian version was very close to the Briffa version, except that it didn't have the huge hockey blade. So knowing about the divergence problem, Briffa made sure that he selected a set of trees from the Yamal series that did not show the problem. The other thing that is strange is that Briffa thinks that the problem is unique to the second half of the twentieth century. But since he only has surface temp records that are three times as long as the period that he is calling unique, I hardly think that the lable is appropriate. That the divergence problem is unique to "high northern latitudes" is also questionable. I know that the divergence shows up in California and Colorado samples. Of course in Briffa's latest he talks about the Northern Hemisphere instead of the "high northern latitudes" that he talked about in 97. Also, in the 97 paper he used term "recent reduction of response of trees to air temperature". Now he is using a little stronger language. "There has been much speculation, and numerous theories proposed, to explain why the previous temperature sensitivity of tree growth in these areas is apparently breaking down."
"Breaking down" may be being used because some entire sample sets are showing cooling instead of the warming that they are suppose to be showing. This brings into doubt the entire field of dendochronology.
While this is an interesting and even an important side track, it sheds no light on Briffa's Yamal fraud.
The Register has now picked up the [Briffa Yamal fraud](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/). Seems like we are reaching a tipping point. News papers and climate blogs that do not address the issue are going to look like they are running away from it. Gavin Schmidt at RC is still madly deleting any references to the issue before it hits his pages.
Shoter Tilo:
I can argue black is white just watch me.
I can argue that Moberg did not calibrate his reconstructions to the observed temperature record. Despite:
* a) this being the whole purpose of Moberg's temperature reconstruction;
* b)that Moberg's temperature reconstruction is approximately [coincident](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperatur…) with most of the observed temperature record.
I choose to ignore these facts instead I will focus on a short period of divergence. Lets pretent that If I did my own special calibaration to match the outlier divergence that it would reduce correlation with the majority of the temperature record.
Ignoring the bulk of the evidence is my speciality. I like the bits that support my world view.
"I choose to ignore these facts instead I will focus on a short period of divergence."
Given the divergence on both sides you have about 60 years of divergence and 40 years of rough agreement.
"this being the whole purpose of Moberg's temperature reconstruction;"
The purpose was to show relative temperature trends across the choosen time period.
"that Moberg's temperature reconstruction is approximately coincident with most of the observed temperature record."
Moberg's reconstruction covers two thousand years. You are talking about coincidence for about 40 years. And that is not even most of the surface temp record.
Here are Moberg's numbers. Take a look at around 1016 and 1017. Also around 1105 and 1106.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg20…
Now look at the numbers after 1950.
Those are the comparisons that I am talking about. I don't care about the instrument record. I only care that Moberg has no values in the 20th century that are greater than what he has for the MWP. You can complain that his records only go to 1979 if you like, but cores taken after 1979 simply don't agree with modern surface temp warming. The surface temp records stand alone at the high end with no tree proxy data to support them. So comparing those surface temp records to the MWP proxy data is simply idiotic.
Shorter Tilo Reber:
"Its a waste of time using instruments to measure surface temperatures, that is like comparing apples and oranges, so we should just go on as we are for another century, by which time we will be able to use tree proxies up till about 2050 to see how that compares with the same proxies that were studied before 1950"
In other words, using Tilo`s inane logic, there is no way to do anything about current warming that may not be happening because tree proxies and instruments just might produce different results. So we do nothing at all and just wait.
What a load of crap.
I'm not sure where you people got this childish and idiotic notion about pretending to imitate someone else's thoughts with "Shorter Tilo Reber" First, you are not even in the ball park, and second it looses all it's humor after the first use. It's like talking to someone who repeats everything that you say. Grow up people.
Tilo writes:
>*Given the divergence on both sides you have about 60 years of divergence and 40 years of rough agreement.*
But Tilo, Moberg data is calibrated to [minimise divergence](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperatur…). Some divergence above, some below. You would like Moberg to shift the data up which would increase the divergence below.
Shorter Tilo,
>My divergence is most important, I don't care how Moberg calibrated his reconstructions, I prefer my special calibration, as it makes me a little less wrong when I say "*Moberg shows the MWP as being warmer than today"*.
Plot your own special divergence Tilo, then publish it. Your only fooling yourself.
Tilo your link didn't work.
[This one](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html) should.
Looks like the Briffa Yamal fraud story is spreading to the foreign language sources. Here is one in German.
http://www.readers-edition.de/2009/09/30/das-ende-der-klima-wissenschaf…
And I've seen one in Spanish as well.
Janet Akerman:
"Shorter Tilo,"
Grow up!
"Tilo your link didn't work."
Looks like it blows out the underscores.
"This one should."
No, [this](ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg20…) is the one I want.
Tilo writs:
>"Grow up!"
Longer Tilo,
>I cannot refute your argument (without continuing to argue black is white), but you are immature for clearly emphasizing my folly.
Shorter Tilo:
Foreign language newspapers quoting blogs trump peer reviewed science journals.
Janet:
"You would like Moberg to shift the data up which would increase the divergence below."
I could care less how it's shifted. The surface data doesn't matter in trying to make use of the reconstruction. No reconstructions agree with the magnitude of temperature rise that is shown in the surface temp. With Yamal and the North American Bristcones pulled out, they agree even less. So the surface temp is strictly a stand alone animal. Tacking it to the end of a reconstruction is meaningless, since all of the reconstructions fail to follow the surface temp to it's dizzying height. The reconstructions are only good for comparing time periods within the same reconstruction.
Shorter Tilo:
>I was in error to claim the "Moberg shows the MWP as being warmer than today". Sorry about that. Now, I'd like to put that behind me and move on to the latest BS and makes some equally strong yet premature assertions.
The list keeps growing. The Examiner has picked up the [story](http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m9…). I imagine that the reporters for some of the larger journals are calling Briffa for his comments before posting. Fair enough. But Briffa isn't answering his phone. Eventually they will have to carry the story, with or without Briffa's input. Personally, I'm dying to hear Briffa's response. The little wave is growing every day, and eventually, Briffa, as well as the rest of the hockey team, will be unable to hide. Nature will be forced to explain why they let Briffa get by all this time without archiving his data. What fun! If nothing else, the alarmists will no longer be allowed to publish their fraudulent results without making their data and their methods available to everyone. Transparent science - what a concept!