Climate-gate

[brucep]

Nonsense - Don't get your "facts" from Right wing business men with oil investments. BTW: Did I guess corrently where your "fact" came from? If not what was the basis?

Temperature going up, while Total Solar Intensity has been going down.

Gonna ask you a question. In a few.

This is an amazing site where you can learn much about this subject without having to read the scientific literature.

http://www.eoearth.org/

Good reading for all the deniers who think their God Jehovah is going to come and save them from the mess we're making of this [miniscule] part of creation. Maybe he won't give a .... since it's an infinitesimal compared to the size of his universe. Enough of that.

Based on the 'earths global energy balance', presently out of balance due to the effects of AGW, and this measurement from NASA for ~340W/m^2 solar energy input, what would be a 'ballpark figure' for a reduction in solar energy input that could compensate for the mess we're making at the present? The Billy T educated guess?

http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif [gif from http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/radiation_facts.html

 

[Billy T]

... This is an amazing site where you can learn much about this subject without having to read the scientific literature. http://www.eoearth.org/.

Thanks - a nice general reference. In the global warming/ climate section I found figure I wanted to post with graph I posted on solar intensity falling (now less on averge than any time in last 25 years):

In post 1150 Sculptor posts older data or not on subject of solar intensity history, trying to support his nonsense.

 

[Billy T]

... Based on the 'earths global energy balance', presently out of balance due to the effects of AGW, and this measurement from NASA for ~340W/m^2 solar energy input, what would be a 'ballpark figure' for a reduction in solar energy input that could compensate for the mess we're making at the present? The Billy T educated guess?

http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif [gif from http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/radiation_facts.html

and note that more than half (51%) of the current imbalance is being hidden for any land effects in the ocean. Also note that clouds reflect 20% of solar imput, but that could change for the worse in a week or so, as I explained here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?97892-Climate-gate&p=3220284&viewfull=1#post3220284
Big tropical rain forests are not getting the rain they need due to GW's change in circulation patterns. Some years now the Amazon releses more CO2 than it absorbes - a large net source, not sink for CO2. As they dry and trees dies, the potential for very large fires increases - they will pump soot high up - have same effect as about a 10% increase in solar absorption, as soot falling on ice and snow is already doing. More soon but wanted to post your figure for you first and comment on it.

I posts this table to show how the IPCC's (and some others) linearized analysis is done - but it is nearly useless for predictions of more than a few years as there are many mutually re-enforcing positive feed backs that make the problem very, very non-linear. I.e. they only add up the current estimates of "forcing factors" and ignore these feed backs (more than 30 known).

For more complete / math discussion of IPCC's error See my post 988, but below is the heart of it:
I did not say IPCC was unaware of theses feed backs. They just ignore them in the LINEARIZED model of a NON-linear problem. I.e. they put forth a great deal of effect in a complex areas, say like net effect of aerosols, and then assign each of the effects investigated a radiative forcing function Fn where "n" is integer that might be 6 for aerosols. Then add these forcing function up to get an overall forcing function F.

F = F1 +F2 + F3 +.... +Fn where currently n should be about 31, at least (because 31 different positive feed backs are known), but I think the IPCC only includes less than 10 effects in its linearized model.

I.e. The IPCC's F is an incomplete, linear sum which totally neglects, for example, F(F3,F6) where this F(3,6) is a function that reflects the increase of F3 by positive feed back from F6 PLUS increase of effect F6's contribution to Global Warming by positive feed back from F3. Many of these omitted contribution are very small admittedly but there are more than 31 of them mutually interacting: factorial (31 !). I.e. #1 interacts with 30 others; #2 interacts with 29 others (interaction with #1 is already counted); #3 with28 others etc.) 31 ! = 8.2228387E33 So if the magnitude of the average positive feed back contribution to Global Warming is only 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 = 1E(-23) as important as factors IPCC does include in their linearized calculation of the overall forcing F then the amount the IPCC underestimates the Global Warming effect is by a factor of ~8E10 = 80,000,000,000.

Such a gross error would be obvious (near term extinction tomorrow) EXCEPT for fact Earth is an "oceanic planet" with a 30 to 40 year (or greater for some effects) thermal time constant. I.e. the obvious indicators (more flooding, air temperature rise, ice melting, more frequent and stronger storms, sea level rising, jet stream wander, droughts, more fires, etc.) are only beginning to show, but NTE is very likely impossible to avoid in cultures that value current profits more than the conditions they leave to their grandchildren. ...

 

[brucep]

Thanks - a nice general reference. In the global warming/ climate section I found figure I wanted to post with graph I posted on solar intensity falling (now less on averge than any time in last 25 years):

In post 1150 Sculptor posts older data or not on subject of solar intensity history, trying to support his nonsense.

Trying to sculpt the climate landscape with nonsense. The question was based on the most extreme mitigation where we change the earths orbit to reduce the total solar input energy. Just curious.

 

[sculptor]

Well, 97% of climate scientists disagree with you. ...

You should realize that the 97% number is a fake, a fallacy, a politician's number made up by a person of obviously low moral character. It is a lie told by a knave to make trap for fools.

.................
You do your argument a serious disservice by citing such easily refuted ridiculous bullshit.

 

[Aqueous Id]

You should realize that the 97% number is a fake, a fallacy, a politician's number made up by a person of obviously low moral character. It is a lie told by a knave to make trap for fools.

But the denial of that number is established by sincere, honest people. And meticulously careful about science. Which is why they read the papers of Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, Callendar, Revelle and Keeling just make sure that Al Gore did not invent his Inconvenient Truth.

And the only reason you're telling us this is that you care about the truth. Not because you rely on anti-climate sources to inform you.

How's that working for you so far?

 

[billvon]

You should realize that the 97% number is a fake, a fallacy, a politician's number made up by a person of obviously low moral character.

No, it's actually a quite accurate number and has been verified at least twice by over a dozen researchers (see below.) Climate change deniers hate it, of course, because it damages their political position. But that's an emotional problem, not a factual one.

Verifiers:

Naomi Oreskes
Peter T. Doran
Maggie K. Zimmerman
William R. L. Anderegg
James W. Prall
John Cook
Dana Nuccitelli
Sarah A Green
Mark Richardson
Barbel Winkler
Rob Painting
Robert Way
Peter Jacobs
Andrew Skuce
Stephen H. Schneider

 

[Billy T]

To Brucep
If you really want to understand the problem, especially CH4's role (smaller than I thought before reading Jan 2012 paper) study that link in first line here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?97892-Climate-gate&p=3220770&viewfull=1#post3220770 or Just read my "bottom line" summary of it there.

 

[sculptor]

... We do not understand all the positive feedback mechanisms which might make it worse, nor all the negative feedback mechanisms that might ameliorate it.

The use of the word "worse" is indicative of an obvious bias. May I suggest that divesting ones mind of these preliminary value judgements is an important step in regaining objectivity?

 

[billvon]

May I suggest that divesting ones mind of these preliminary value judgements is an important step in regaining objectivity?

You mean like "fake" "fallacy" "a person of obviously low moral character" "a lie told by a knave to make trap for fools" "such easily refuted ridiculous bullshit"? Indeed.

 

[brucep]

The use of the word "worse" is indicative of an obvious bias. May I suggest that divesting ones mind of these preliminary value judgements is an important step in regaining objectivity?

You're biased since you haven't read the scientific literature while filling this thread with brain dead assertions. Your argument is seeking objectivity but you forgot to do it yourself.

 

[sculptor]

oops\double post

 

[sculptor]

You mean like "fake" "fallacy" "a person of obviously low moral character" "a lie told by a knave to make trap for fools" "such easily refuted ridiculous bullshit"? Indeed.

indeed

lol

 

[brucep]

and note that more than half (51%) of the current imbalance is being hidden for any land effects in the ocean. Also note that clouds reflect 20% of solar imput, but that could change for the worse in a week or so, as I explained here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?97892-Climate-gate&p=3220284&viewfull=1#post3220284
Big tropical rain forests are not getting the rain they need due to GW's change in circulation patterns. Some years now the Amazon releses more CO2 than it absorbes - a large net source, not sink for CO2. As they dry and trees dies, the potential for very large fires increases - they will pump soot high up - have same effect as about a 10% increase in solar absorption, as soot falling on ice and snow is already doing. More soon but wanted to post your figure for you first and comment on it.

I posts this table to show how the IPCC's (and some others) linearized analysis is done - but it is nearly useless for predictions of more than a few years as there are many mutually re-enforcing positive feed backs that make the problem very, very non-linear. I.e. they only add up the current estimates of "forcing factors" and ignore these feed backs (more than 30 known).

For more complete / math discussion of IPCC's error See my post 988, but below is the heart of it:
I did not say IPCC was unaware of theses feed backs. They just ignore them in the LINEARIZED model of a NON-linear problem. I.e. they put forth a great deal of effect in a complex areas, say like net effect of aerosols, and then assign each of the effects investigated a radiative forcing function Fn where "n" is integer that might be 6 for aerosols. Then add these forcing function up to get an overall forcing function F.

F = F1 +F2 + F3 +.... +Fn where currently n should be about 31, at least (because 31 different positive feed backs are known), but I think the IPCC only includes less than 10 effects in its linearized model.

I.e. The IPCC's F is an incomplete, linear sum which totally neglects, for example, F(F3,F6) where this F(3,6) is a function that reflects the increase of F3 by positive feed back from F6 PLUS increase of effect F6's contribution to Global Warming by positive feed back from F3. Many of these omitted contribution are very small admittedly but there are more than 31 of them mutually interacting: factorial (31 !). I.e. #1 interacts with 30 others; #2 interacts with 29 others (interaction with #1 is already counted); #3 with28 others etc.) 31 ! = 8.2228387E33 So if the magnitude of the average positive feed back contribution to Global Warming is only 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 = 1E(-23) as important as factors IPCC does include in their linearized calculation of the overall forcing F then the amount the IPCC underestimates the Global Warming effect is by a factor of ~8E10 = 80,000,000,000.

Such a gross error would be obvious (near term extinction tomorrow) EXCEPT for fact Earth is an "oceanic planet" with a 30 to 40 year (or greater for some effects) thermal time constant. I.e. the obvious indicators (more flooding, air temperature rise, ice melting, more frequent and stronger storms, sea level rising, jet stream wander, droughts, more fires, etc.) are only beginning to show, but NTE is very likely impossible to avoid in cultures that value current profits more than the conditions they leave to their grandchildren. ...

For some reason I didn't see all of this post 'below the gif' the first time I looked. Thanks for the FYI.

 

[brucep]

For some reason I didn't see all of this post 'below the gif' the first time I looked. Thanks for the FYI.

It doesn't bode well for mitigation if the IPCC report has egregious errors of omission. I wonder how much of that was politicized? Succumbing to political pressure is something world leaders do well.

 

[Trippy]

Thanks - a nice general reference. In the global warming/ climate section I found figure I wanted to post with graph I posted on solar intensity falling (now less on averge than any time in last 25 years):

In post 1150 Sculptor posts older data or not on subject of solar intensity history, trying to support his nonsense.

Some projections I made in 2011 to put the hiatus in context and illustrate why I don't think it's as disasterous for AGW as some seem to think it is.

First off a disclaimer - I prepared these by eyeballing them, I didn't use any stats software or anything.

This first one ilustrates limits on the trends. The solid lines are based on the error bars, the broken lines are based on the moving average trend line:

This second one extrapolates various trendlines based on the hiatus as it was being described by the person I was addressing (no warming since 2000):

Basically. Depending on which cooling trendline you follow, the cooling would have to continue until between 2030 and 2090 before it intersected any of the lower bounds for the warming trend.

Addendum: Even then, there would still be a positive temperature anomaly and the earliest return to a zero anomaly would be 2080.

 

[Trippy]

It doesn't bode well for mitigation if the IPCC report has egregious errors of omission. I wonder how much of that was politicized? Succumbing to political pressure is something world leaders do well.

I wonder how much of it was practical limitations based in things like computing power and incomplete data...

 

[Billy T]

I wonder how much of it was practical limitations based in things like computing power and incomplete data...

There is much more than ample computing power and certainly more data would be useful but Satellites monitor most things needed. I think the main area where limited data has any significant effect is in slow ocean circulation changes and temperature, especially in the deeper ocean.* The real problem, is like many others: The vested interest of the powerful, mainly corporations in this case.

When data is lacking the worst should be assumed and this feed-back rich natural system should NEVER be modeled as a linear one. There are clearly MANY (30+) positive feed-backs known. Depending on the "loop gain" positive feed backs lead to exponential growth - not even possible in the IPCC's LINEARIZED model

Totally unqualified and undemocratically chosen government bureaucrats sit on the IPCC panel. Nothing about the assessment, no sentence and no language that can be published without all of these bureaucrats giving approval. This is unheard of in the world of science.

The IPCC scientists do not arrive at their conclusions by the weight of scientific objective and expert scientific judgment, as is the case in every endeavour of science apart from the IPCC. Every single scientist has to approve everything that is published.

Since soon after the start of the IPCC two Exxon Mobil employed scientists have sat on the IPCC panel as Exxon scientists. They have led IPCC workshops and they have been lead IPCC authors. Because of the IPCC consensus is by unanimity this gives Exxon huge power over the climate change assessments. ... The IPCC team that develops the scenarios include two scenario experts employed by Shell.

Economic oil industry interests and government influence within the Panel has resulted in the IPCC ignoring the very worst dangers of global climate change.

The world is on the brink of runaway global heating and climate disruption from the melt down of the summer Arctic sea ice and from Arctic methane carbon feedback emissions. This is a potentially catastrophic situation for all humanity and life on Earth. However, it is not recognized in climate change policy making and negotiations because it is not included in the IPCC assessment. It is not included because the IPCC does not include the inevitable additional global temperature increases from any carbon feedbacks in its global average temperature projections. The IPCC acknowledges that these feedbacks are inevitable and that they will increase the global temperature further.
This omission is a disgrace to science and is criminal negligence of the highest order.

Why intelligent people like Billvon even believe the IPCC, much less defend them, is beyond my understanding. I have pointed out the main linearization flaw of the IPCC to him in several replies, but he does not even comment on them.

* At least 35 years ago, APL/JHU where I worked had a very accurate** single satellite system that the US Navy paid us to develop, so nuclear subs would know exactly (a few meters error) where they were when launching their relatively small ICBMs. Conversely, if you knew exactly where you were on the earth, the orbit of the satellite could be known precisely. Another Navy program, had used this to define the earth's gravitational field very precisely. (I think more than 30 terms in the spherical harmonic description of it - highly classified data - even just the number of terms known was.) Thus as satellite passed over the Gulf Steam (or eddies it throws off) a downward looking precise radar on a few of the satellites could measure the distance from its antenna to the first reflection (off earth or ocean surface) with only a few cm error!

A civilian ocean research program part of this system existed - The Coriolis force on the Atlantic Gulf Stream flow tilts it surface (West side higher, as I recall.) and that tilt could be measured to a few percent error. - I.e. the flow was accurately known more than 35 years ago and dozens of eddies it had thrown off were quite well measure to on the order of 10% error.

This is why I doubt there is much of a data problem. The IPCC publishes crap because they are constrained by vested interest to do so.

** It was more accurate than GPS which replaced it. The truly gravitational satellite the main used tiny thrusters to follow (keep exactly at the mass center of the main satellite, was a ball about 1 cm in diameter, made of gold/platinum alloy that had zero magnetic force acting on it (neither para nor diamagnetic). It was very expensive to build theses satellites as we had to know exactly where the center of mass was. If the ball was not atthe mass center, then the tiny gravitational force of the main satellite's mass steadily acting on the ball would make it not follow precisely the orbit Earth's gravity alone would give it. Thus every resistor, every drop of solder, every wire (and its path thur the satellite), etc. had to be weighted and location known - Why each satellite costs many millions of dollars. GPS replaced it because it was cheaper - and inferior in accuracy, but still good enough in accuracy.

GPS satellites have constantly changing orbits (residual air drag most important I think, but sun's radiation pressure, magnetic force, etc. all made (and still do) it necessary to periodically correct the satellite's stored information about its orbit parameters, every week or so. In the MAD era, the Navy wanted to be sure that even months after the US was nothing but radioactive ash, the Polaris nuclear subs would still know exactly where they were.

Ironically, APL/JHU invented this very precise system when trying to learn the exact orbit of USSR's "Sputnik." Many were trying to do that. APL/JHU got the very best answer, by far in a few weeks. Then realized their method (record the Doppler shift for up to ~15 minutes as Sputnik was above the horizon) could be inverted, if you already knew exactly the satellite's orbit, to find out where you were on earth.

 

[sculptor]

Addendum: Even then, there would still be a positive temperature anomaly and the earliest return to a zero anomaly would be 2080.

Unless, of course, the downward trend line steepens as it did in the late '40s. which could put that cross-over point(of zero anomaly) as early as 2030.

What do you think of Mike Lockwood's recent work?

He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now – and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.

.....................
With the increased amplitude of the jet streams, the night time lows over the corn and soybean belt of the midwest have been much lower than the average of the last 70 years.....It's a peculiar summer wherein i sleep under a comforter during july and august............. meanwhile, on the other side of the jet, the west has been warmer than average.

An interesting overlay would be comparing the jet-stream to the leading edge of the glaciers during the last glacial cycle.
Just an interesting coincidence? or something more?

 

[Billy T]

As an example of how the "real world" works, consider the EPA's attempt to lower the permitted levels of ozone release:

" The {NAAQS} document is supposed to represent “the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from [ozone], and thereby inform Administrator Gina McCarthy’s determination of where to set the standard. The ozone NAAQS was last revised to 75 parts per billion in 2008; on Friday, the EPA staff recommended that standard be revised to somewhere between 60 and 70 parts per billion. ... Thanks to a recent ruling in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the EPA—indeed, the federal government!—has no say in the setting of an ozone NAAQS. Instead, that prerogative has been bestowed on an obscure group of technocrats known as the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Council."
This quote from: http://www.globalwarming.org/ article called: "EPA’s Staff Recommends Lower Ozone Standard, But it Doesn’t Matter, Because EPA Has No Say."

Here is the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Council's POV as to why lower standard is bad - despite years of scientific study of ozone's mainly non-lethal health damage with the old 75ppb stadard:

" ... the potential burden of meeting a more stringent standard, according to EPA’s estimates, could be as much as $90 billion annually. Fulfilling CASAC’s mandatory role in this regard will be especially important. ...

The undersigned associations are greatly concerned that the implementation of a stricter ozone standard could lead to astronomical costs to U.S. businesses, disrupt energy markets and place a considerable strain on a still recovering economy and job market.

Given these considerations, we strongly urge CASAC to abide by its statutory duty of informing the Administrator of the socioeconomic impacts that society will bear in attaining and/or maintaining new standards in the event they are promulgated.

Sincerely,
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
American Chemistry Council
American Coatings Association, Inc.
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Forest & Paper Association
American Foundry Society
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers
American Petroleum Institute
American Road & Transportation Builders Association
American Wood Council
Brick Industry Association
California Cotton Ginners Association
California Cotton Growers Association
Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry
Consumer Specialty Products Association
Corn Refiners Association
Council of Industrial Boiler Owners
Industrial Minerals Association – North America
Institute of Makers of Explosives
Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils
International Liquid Terminals Association
Iowa Association of Business and Industry NAPL/AMSP
National Association for Surface Finishing
National Association of Manufacturers
National Mining Association
National Oilseed Processors Association
NPES The Association for Suppliers of Printing Publishing and Converting Technologies
Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association
Portland Cement Association
Printing Industries of America
Texas Cotton Ginners Association
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Utility Air Regulatory Group
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce "

This quote from copy of letter set to EPA by above industries - read letter in full at: http://www.nam.org/~/media/7F8E595B66BA4D6F9B8A76196683D802.ashx

I don't know, but suspect they were the ones that went to court to block the EPA from imposing the new, slightly lower, ozone levels