Climate-gate

sculptor said:
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?

.....................
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?
Click to expand...

I appreciate these comments and questions. Thanks for posting them.
 
Trippy said:
I wonder how much of it was practical limitations based in things like computing power and incomplete data...
Click to expand...

Since this is 'in your wheelhouse' I wonder why you're in a 'state of wonderment' as to why something was left out of this analysis? I figured you would know what empirical limits are associated with the data discussed in this report. So is it computing limitations and incomplete data?
 
Photizo said:
I appreciate these comments and questions. Thanks for posting them.
Click to expand...

Are you thanking yourself or is sculptor actually a different person? Like you, sculptor speaks no science, cites anti climate science sources and gives glib childish answers when exposed as ignorant of technical matters. So what exactly is the game here? Or is that for us to try to figure out too, while we are considering the facts the adults in the room have put on the table?

Way to troll your own thread. Both of you, I suppose. :shrug:

BillyT said:
Why intelligent people like Billvon even believe the IPCC, much less defend them, is beyond my understanding.
Click to expand...
We agree that Billvon is intelligent. But you appear to be disparaging the intelligence of the members of IPCC, and the researchers they rely on, which makes no sense.

I have pointed out the main linearization flaw of the IPCC to him in several replies, but he does not even comment on them.
Click to expand...
I didn't comment either, but it wasn't because I didn't think you were off track. My thoughts were, I suspect, the same as anyone who has ever collected and analyzed large data sets, which is just about everyone with a science degree. And that certainly includes billvon. Let him speak for himself, but I think it's fair to say that your statement is controvertible and, based on the preponderance of the evidence, probably wrong. I think I speak for all of the scientific community in general, but I would yield to convincing argument to the contrary.

I realize you are convinced you are right, but I'm not sure how productive it would be to try to see if "little ole me" could intervene on behalf of the world to help resolve your grievances with the IPCC, since you are attacking them on multiple fronts. And you do seem to have made your mind up.

I'll just bet billvon, Trippy and the rest of the good folks here had this or some similar reaction. But of course I don't speak for them; this is just my impression of what may be going through their minds.

BTW I liked your list of the companies who are afraid of regulation. That in itself is excellent fodder for discussing the scope of the political pressure against all of the environmental sciences.
 
Billy T said:
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 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.
Click to expand...

A linear interpretation would be a joke based on what's being evaluated. Anyway thanks for 'learning me' some of the details associated with this serious problem. It's not hard to realize why this problem would be 'minimized' in a conference of 'world leaders'. 'Going in' that must have been a topic of conversation among climate scientists. A fear the official report would be politicized. Just a guess based on previous observations.

Minimizing the problem is good practice if you don't want to make decisions that would upset the status quo. As citizens of this world we've made it easy to procrastinate over any thing we don't want to deal with. Natural human sociopathy.
 
sculptor said:
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.
Click to expand...
So far there is no downward trend at all (unless the start year and interval are both cherry picked to generate one, and even that only works for atmosphere temps), but if one does develop as in the 1940s and behaves as that one did it will revert to steep and extended increase long before it gets anywhere near the former temperature regime. In fact, if the recent hiatus is taken to be that 1940s WWII drop reprised as you submit, it's due to end in a year or two.

There are no historical trend intervals or possible recurrences that will take us from now to zero anomaly within this century. That would require something brand new and currently unknown.
 
This thread periodically gets polluted by a few low-quality posts.

I don't think it would be worth it to post the multitude of papers in the last two years which have shown >99% probability that human activities are responsible for the temperature increase over the last 50 years. These people won't take one look at it. They see the same graphs we do, but interpret them in a bizarre way and insist their viewpoint is right. I have since refrained from discourse with these folks per the saying "never argue with someone stupid, as people may not tell the difference." There is an over-rated emphasis on balance in the way Americans perceive information and scientifically it's just plain wrong. I speculate that this is not the cause per se, but rather a tribal-type behavior of associating yourself with a certain group.

Iceaura, do you have references as to the ending of the recent hiatus? I'm interested to take a look at that. As we know the natural variability in the climate system appears to be preventing a clear trend right now, but I am a little ignorant on the predictions of future temperature increases.
 
Billy T said:
Why intelligent people like Billvon even believe the IPCC, much less defend them, is beyond my understanding.
Click to expand...
Because they have, thus far, been far more accurate in their predictions than any other research body. I tend to measure competence via performance rather than via theoretical output.
 
Facial said:
This thread periodically gets polluted by a few low-quality posts.

I don't think it would be worth it to post the multitude of papers in the last two years which have shown >99% probability that human activities are responsible for the temperature increase over the last 50 years. These people won't take one look at it. They see the same graphs we do, but interpret them in a bizarre way and insist their viewpoint is right. I have since refrained from discourse with these folks per the saying "never argue with someone stupid, as people may not tell the difference." There is an over-rated emphasis on balance in the way Americans perceive information and scientifically it's just plain wrong. I speculate that this is not the cause per se, but rather a tribal-type behavior of associating yourself with a certain group.

Iceaura, do you have references as to the ending of the recent hiatus? I'm interested to take a look at that. As we know the natural variability in the climate system appears to be preventing a clear trend right now, but I am a little ignorant on the predictions of future temperature increases.
Click to expand...

For most scientific subjects I'd agree with your analysis. In this case, a scientific subject discussing a serious threat to all the inhabitants of this planet, it's good to take on those who only 'give a crap' about how mitigation of the problem effects their personal bottom line or fits religious beliefs. I noticed this earlier. Check the last frequently asked question.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

That question is possibly rattling around in a bunch of heads. So for this case it becomes important to answer such questions. There's also a link to the most recent IPCC report. My opinion.
 
Aqueous Id said:
Are you thanking yourself or is sculptor actually a different person? Like you, sculptor speaks no science, cites anti climate science sources and gives glib childish answers when exposed as ignorant of technical matters. So what exactly is the game here? Or is that for us to try to figure out too, while we are considering the facts the adults in the room have put on the table?

Way to troll your own thread. Both of you, I suppose. :shrug:


We agree that Billvon is intelligent. But you appear to be disparaging the intelligence of the members of IPCC, and the researchers they rely on, which makes no sense.


I didn't comment either, but it wasn't because I didn't think you were off track. My thoughts were, I suspect, the same as anyone who has ever collected and analyzed large data sets, which is just about everyone with a science degree. And that certainly includes billvon. Let him speak for himself, but I think it's fair to say that your statement is controvertible and, based on the preponderance of the evidence, probably wrong. I think I speak for all of the scientific community in general, but I would yield to convincing argument to the contrary.

I realize you are convinced you are right, but I'm not sure how productive it would be to try to see if "little ole me" could intervene on behalf of the world to help resolve your grievances with the IPCC, since you are attacking them on multiple fronts. And you do seem to have made your mind up.

I'll just bet billvon, Trippy and the rest of the good folks here had this or some similar reaction. But of course I don't speak for them; this is just my impression of what may be going through their minds.

BTW I liked your list of the companies who are afraid of regulation. That in itself is excellent fodder for discussing the scope of the political pressure against all of the environmental sciences.
Click to expand...

I feel Billy T isn't satisfied with the analysis because of how it's modeled. billvon apparently believes it's the best model around. I want to see a model which will inspire humans to quit procrastinating.
 
billvon apparently believes it's the best model around.
Click to expand...
While it is certainly not perfect, it is the most accurate model we have based on predictive power.
brucep said:
I want to see a model which will inspire humans to quit procrastinating.
Click to expand...
The movie "The Day After Tomorrow" is probably the best inspiration. The more fear, the more reaction you will get out of people. But to me that would be intellectually dishonest.
 
Iceaura, do you have references as to the ending of the recent hiatus? I'm interested to take a look at that
Click to expand...
No. I was responding to Sculptor's drawing a parallel with the downward blip in the 1940s and the current muddling along - merely observing that if he really thinks the two situations are parallel, he is not looking at a continuing downward slope to zero anomaly, but rather a sharp reversal and beginning upward boom in a year or so. You see that in the graph of the 1940s blip.
 
billvon said:
While it is certainly not perfect, it is the most accurate model we have based on predictive power.

The movie "The Day After Tomorrow" is probably the best inspiration. The more fear, the more reaction you will get out of people. But to me that would be intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

Oddly, most people change the oil in the car on regular, if not scheduled basis. This is not from fear but maintenance of optimal performance and savings on possible repairs.

It's a matter of "caring". We care for our cars, but we don't give a sh..t about maintenance of the earth's ecosystem, except for mowing the lawn and spreading toxic pollutants to control the weeds.

It's not a matter of fear or alarm, it's a "moral" obligation. Stewardship over the earth is not a religious imperative, it is a secular imperative.
 
billvon said:
While it is certainly not perfect, it is the most accurate model we have based on predictive power.

The movie "The Day After Tomorrow" is probably the best inspiration. The more fear, the more reaction you will get out of people. But to me that would be intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about fear. Something that will inspire folks to practice intellectual honesty when making decisions about mitigation. Get off the duff. Realize that science has revealed this 'for all of us' and get off the duff. I should probably get off this soapbox but it's really frustrating when complete nonsense is ruling the day. Like this nonsense 34 years ago. When the oligarch president Reagan decided that president Carters call to reduce our dependence on foreign oil was unnecessary. Good for the Brazilian citizens. I'm off the soapbox. Thanks for all the informative comments from you science guys.
 
iceaura said:
No. I was responding to Sculptor's drawing a parallel with the downward blip in the 1940s and the current muddling along - merely observing that if he really thinks the two situations are parallel, he is not looking at a continuing downward slope to zero anomaly, but rather a sharp reversal and beginning upward boom in a year or so. You see that in the graph of the 1940s blip.
Click to expand...

and I was responding toTrippies charts and his:

[Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
Addendum: Even then, there would still be a positive temperature anomaly and the earliest return to a zero anomaly would be 2080.
Click to expand...

with my:
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.
Click to expand...
with a reference to Lockwood's observations
.....................

If Lockwood is correct, then we can expect a steepening downward trend in tsi and then(most likely) in temperatures.

Which follows from work done by Lane et al who constructed a profile of atmospheric climate "forcing" due to combined changes in solar irradiance and emissions of greenhouse gases between 1880 and 1993. They found that the temperature variations predicted by their model accounted for up to 92% of the temperature changes actually observed over the period. Their results also suggest that the sensitivity of climate to the effects of solar irradiance is about 27% higher than its sensitivity to forcing by greenhouse gases.
 
sculptor said:
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 a reference to Lockwood's observations
.....................

If Lockwood is correct, then we can expect a steepening downward trend in tsi and then(most likely) in temperatures.
Click to expand...
For Lockwood to be correct we need a downward trend now - a steep one. Do you have any evidence of one?

We would also need a mechanism, one capable of overpowering the CO2 boost's effects. Suggestions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top