Climate-gate

[Aqueous Id]

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.

This is the problem with quote-mining, esp when done through the filter of your Right Wing propaganda artists. It turns out Lockwood doesn't approve your/their use of his work:

2012 he criticized the scientific field as having been corrupted by unwelcome political and financial influence as climate change sceptics have seized upon putative solar effects as an excuse for inaction on anthropogenic warming.[5]

2007 Lockwood co-authored a paper about solar data from the past 40 years.[6] He was partly inspired to conduct the study after seeing "The Great Global Warming Swindle", [which contends that the Sun is the primary cause of recent climate change.[7] He found that between 1985 and 1987 all the solar factors that could affect climate performed an "U-turn in every possible way".[6] Lockwood 2007 told the New Scientist that he [6] seriously doubted that solar influences were a big factor compared to anthropogenic influences: to explain the lack of global cooling since 1987 would require a very long response timeconstant to any solar forcing which is not found in detected responses to volcanic forcing.[6][8]​

----

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.

I would have to either catch up on what was said here during the past couple of weeks, or else maybe BillyT will come back and say more to bring me up to speed. My assumption when I read his post was that he was referring to some of the criticisms of IPCC modeling publicized by IPCC opponents. I think probably some of this was instigated by Judith Curry, but I'm not sure. Here is one of her litanies of attacks on the modeling done by the IPCC

http://judithcurry.com/category/climate-models/page/2/

And here is a paper she references in one of those links which BillyT might hold up as the rationale for what he posted

NONLINEARITIES, FEEDBACKS AND CRITICAL THRESHOLDS WITHIN THE EARTH’S CLIMATE SYSTEM

My position is that modelers don't have the luxury of waiting until some perfect algorithm is devised. Modeling requires the ability to shoot for the Nth order approximations and then to be able to fall back to order N-1 when available information dictates. It involves being able to use piecewise linear approximations where appropriate, or using linear regression when appropriate, such as in interpolating empirical data. And it involves stabilizing the nonlinear pieces of the simulation so they don't blow up or ring simply because they are idealizations hosted on a platform which is not a perfect replica of Nature. I am of the opinion that the experts have been selected from among the best folks in the country who master this kind of knowledge and skill. I believe they are fully aware of the arguments Judith Curry has raised and have chosen a rationale which addresses her complaints.

That leaves the question of which of Judith Curry's many complaints have merit. This is hard for me to understand. It simply doesn't make sense than an objective analysis of anything as highly exposed as IPCC's reports only discovers its flaws when passed through the screen of any one person. Speaking of modeling, that's a statistic which sticks out like a sore thumb.

 

[iceaura]

For Lockwood to be correct we need a downward trend now

My apologies to Lockwood - I was assuming he had said something similar to a denialist's paraphrase, an assumption difficult to excuse.

Sleep deprivation is not a city in Sri Lanka.

Rephrasing, then: for sculptor to be correct, we would need a downward trend now - a steep one. We also need a mechanism, one capable of overpowering the effects of CO2 boosting.

 

[sculptor]

My apologies to Lockwood - I was assuming he had said something similar to a denialist's paraphrase, an assumption difficult to excuse.

.

Yes, Mike.

Lockwood was grossly wrong in his appraisal of #24 back in 2007.

Ok, so maybe he's on to something here more recently, maybe not.
Maybe Lane has it correct, maybe not.

 

[billvon]

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

We will see if his predictions come to pass. Based on other contrarian predictions I doubt it will be.

 

[billvon]

I'm not talking about fear. Something that will inspire folks to practice intellectual honesty when making decisions about mitigation.

Best way to do that (IMO) is to be intellectually honest, rather than try to fearmonger. That's why I get annoyed by people who claim that (for example) humanity might be extinct by 2020 due to climate change. Because when you do that, you get to 2021, we're still here, and the deniers can then say "See? You're completely wrong! And we shouldn't base mitigation decisions on concepts that are completely wrong."

Get off the duff. Realize that science has revealed this 'for all of us' and get off the duff.

Well, some people don't want to get off their duff; the "threat" is too far in the future for them to worry about, or they don't want to believe it, or they are unable to understand it. You can cure some of that with education but not all of it.

 

[Aqueous Id]

My apologies to Lockwood - I was assuming he had said something similar to a denialist's paraphrase, an assumption difficult to excuse.

Sleep deprivation is not a city in Sri Lanka.

Rephrasing, then: for sculptor to be correct, we would need a downward trend now - a steep one. We also need a mechanism, one capable of overpowering the effects of CO2 boosting.

The only ones I can think of don't bode too well for the biosphere: lots of volcanoes, the entire Yellowstone cauldera . . . seeding the sky with sulfuric acid (supposedly considered plausible) . . .

One of the more ominous ideas advanced in the paper I linked to above is that there seems to be a large positive feedback mechanism sitting on a hair trigger: an abundance of fresh water at high altitudes. Yet another notion that might support BillyT's concern that the models lack fidelity. I think Judith Curry is worried that they are too pessimistic. But in this case the error would swing the other way: certain disaster by about the time the Himalayas thaw out . . .?

I also was interested in their explanation as to why the Sahara dried up, which speaks to yet another of the many feedback mechanisms at regional levels. Initially it was vegetated, with adequate rainfall. A change in insolation due to precession reduced rainfall, producing a small desert, but then the albedo of the desert crossed threshold and went into feedback, reducing moisture further, and the condition grew to the present state.

They also speak of a nonlinear switching mechanism which resembles hysteresis. The insolation drops smoothly, but a threshold is crossed, causing another parameter to switch from high to low, rather precipitously. BillyT is on the money, as are the other posters, speaking to the significance of feedback (both positive and negative). This hysteresis, and other kinds of nonlinearities, are a separate class of functions for modelers to contend with. I'm just not convinced that the IPCC overlooked something as basic as the choosing between linear vs nonlinear modeling. I think they made modeling decisions after analyzing all of the science, using the best people available.

I suppose if they wanted to win Judith Curry (I was about to say "curry favor") over to their camp, they might put her in the devil's advocate's seat at their technical reviews . . . and perhaps even task her with solving some of the modeling issues. At some point it would seem all of the bickering would die down (perhaps a generation or two from now, if that's not too late) and all of the nuts and cranks -- all of that knotheaded dishonesty -- may simply go into ideological extinction. That would certainly give future generations an incentive for trying to extend the era of habitability of the Earth.

 

[Billy T]

I said: "Why intelligent people like Billvon even believe the IPCC, much less defend them, is beyond my understanding."

Because they have, thus far, been far more accurate in their predictions than any other research body. ..

His reply makes two assertion, with no supporting evidence:

(1) IPCC predictions are accurate
and
(2) More so than "any other research body."

I assert the opposite:
(1) IPCC is not accurate for predictions more than 5 years into the future.
and
(2) Several other research bodies, which DO consider feed backs, predict more accurately for 6 or more years into the future.

Further more here is evidence for my POV on (1):

The IPCC is facing a credibility deficit after temperatures today sit at levels below those of all five of its previous reports. After five misses, the IPCC is desperate to be right for once -- particularly after it was forced to retract a key glacial melting prediction from its last report.

The reason for this failure is more related* to total neglect of the ocean as a sink, S, (Negative forcing term) for slightly more than half of the net energy absorbed; But, BY DESIGN, the IPCC's linear analysis methodology CAN NOT predict serious consequences on decade time scale (or greater). Even if could that result could not be published in the report which ALL MEMBERS must approve as at least two researchers from EXXON and Two From Shell have veto power on ANY THING INCLUDED IN THE REPORT!

Also every participating country must review and approve the published reports - why it takes more than a year following the completion of the analysis before a common wording can be agreed upon for release!

I challenge billvon to find one IPCC prediction of events 6 or more years into the future which has been proven correct by measured facts. It is now 2014 so that means something in the 2007 or earlier report. The just relesed report may have something not in conflict with the facts only a couple of years from now. Linear models are quite good with near term prediction, and IPCC uses each new report to correct the errors in its earlier reports.

My next post, before commenting on (2), will explain mathematically and illustrate why linear models are accurate for predicting the near term future.

* The linear analysis of the IPCC is of the form:
F = F1 + F2 + ... F9. where the Fn is the radiaive forcing of effect n. They do consider ANY mutual positive interactions, such as F(f3, f6) or F(3,6) to reflect that effect F6's positive feed back makes effect F3's effect greater and conversely F3's effect is made stronger by positive feed back from effect effect F6. As there are more than 31, not only 9 known effects, these neglected terms (many admittedly very small) are more than 31 ! (31 factorial) - a huge number - much larger than all the stars visible even with binoculars!

Just to get predictions for next year correct it should be of the from:

F = F1 + F2 + ... F9 + F10 .. + F31. + Sj where the Sj is the jth sink. For example hear hidden in the deep ocean or CO2 uptake by forests etc. but even that would fail in a few years to be accurate a does not include the non-linear mutual interactions (a few of which are even negative or limited. For example, currently the melting ice and snow is lilke an increase of at least 4 in the solar heating, but when it is all gone, that positive feed back ceases.)

 

[sculptor]

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?

Backtracking, Lockwood was commenting about the sun------I would look to livingston and penn in support of Lockwood's prognostications about solar output. Nasa comments on the trend, but is very conservative in predicting the future.

Overpowering CO2

, we have few, one I mentioned is Lane, whose work suggest that the main climate driver is the sun. (a position which I see as "most likely") 'Twas bold of them to offer up a percentage:

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.

Many have failed in tying the sun directly to the climate by looking for a real time 1:1 ratio. It seems most likely that the climate trails tsi by several years to decades. When tsi began to fall off, the climate continued to warm, but less robustly, then stabilized.
Now we look into the future with scant knowledge, and a science fraught with divisions, biases, defensive posturing, and belligerently narrow foci.

Whatever will happen, whoever has the best focus, all remains in doubt. What seems close to being beyond doubt is that we may be witnessing a time of change. It is therefore a time to clear our minds of any bias that would blind us and watch carefully.

 

[Photizo]

the modeling issues. At some point it would seem all of the bickering would die down (perhaps a generation or two from now, if that's not too late) and all of the nuts and cranks -- all of that knotheaded dishonesty -- may simply go into ideological extinction. That would certainly give future generations an incentive for trying to extend the era of habitability of the Earth.

"...all that knotheaded dishonesty" concerning "the modeling issues" is the reason for this thread in the first place. I can confirm for you that "at some point...all that knotheaded dishonesty" WILL--not "may"-- "simply go into extinction." Needless to say, for many such a state of affairs will be hell on earth. It will not be "perhaps a generation or two"...it will be this generation.

(I was about to say "curry favor")

 

[Billy T]

Here are some exact expression for three trig function, but note x is in radians, not degrees. Sorry but I don't do "tex" and can't correct this well. perhaps some reader will copy and correct.
\sin x = \sum^{\infty}_{n=0} \frac{(-1)^n}{(2n+1)!} x^{2n+1} = x - \frac{x^3}{3!} + \frac{x^5}{5!} - \cdots\quad\text{ for all } x\!
\cos x = \sum^{\infty}_{n=0} \frac{(-1)^n}{(2n)!} x^{2n} = 1 - \frac{x^2}{2!} + \frac{x^4}{4!} - \cdots\quad\text{ for all } x\!
\tan x = \sum^{\infty}_{n=1} \frac{B_{2n} (-4)^n (1-4^n)}{(2n)!} x^{2n-1} = x + \frac{x^3}{3} + \frac{2 x^5}{15} + \cdots\quad\text{ for }|x| < \frac{\pi}{2}\!

Here from another source is sin(x)
sin(x) = x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - x^7/7! + x^9/9! ....

Here are their "linearized" version, which like the IPCC's linearized analysis, are valid ONLY for very small increases from the present.
(x is how far from the known value, x or time t = zero you want to predict or calculate the value.)
sin x = x
cos x = 1
tan x = x

For example if x = 0.1 radians, then with these linearized version:
sin(0.1) = 0.1
tan(0.1) = 0.1 &
cos(0.1) = 1 still.

Here are the true values:
sin(0.1) = 0.09983341664
tan(0.1) = 0.10033467208 Note tan(x) is always greater (up to pi/2) than the sin(x). In fact, like global warming, a non-linearized version will increase without limit!
cos(0.1) = 0.99500416527

The above linearized expansions are good approxmtion as the do not predict far from current conditions (value at the expansion point used) but like the IPCC's predictions give crap for more distant points. For example if x = 1.0 you get:

sin x = 1
cos x = 1
tan x = 1
But here are the true values:
sin x = 0.8414709848
cos x = 0.54030230586
tan x = 1.55740772465

This is quite general result. Linear models do predict well almost every thing if the predicted point is not distant from the currently known point.
Or stating this geerally: F(a+b) = F(a) + [F(a) -F(a-b)] where F(a) is known and b is not far from a, but far enough that [F(a) -F(a-b)] is a "trend" not just statistical noise.

For example b can be a couple of days (or even only one) if you want to use today's peak temperature to predict the peak temperature tomorrow. Interestingly this simple linearized short term prediction is for any given location BETTER than the US weather's computers can do!

Likewise, highly paid stock market analysts can not predict the S&P close a week from now (on 11 Sept2014) as well as this (on average):
S&P close on 11Sept2014 will be: S&P close today + [S&P close today - S&P close last thursday] {today is }11Sept2014.)

This general truth is because "step function changes" are rare. This is why IPCC gets most things correct if only predicting a few years (or less) into the future.

 

[billvon]

I challenge billvon to find one IPCC prediction of events 6 or more years into the future which has been proven correct by measured facts. It is now 2014 so that means something in the 2007 or earlier report.

Sure. Once again, here's a few predictions going back as far as 1990:

I propose we wait until 2020 and compare again. If, as in a scenario you have suggested, all humanity is dead (or even a large percentage) due to temperature rise your "stock" will rise so to speak, and you will be seen as being a good predictor of climate. If the climate continues to warm gradually, then the IPCC will again be validated. If we have entered a deep freeze the contrarians will be validated.

 

[Billy T]

Here is graphical illustration of what linear prediction from current conditions (by fromulae given in my last post) is valid IFF one only predicts small distance into the future:

To predicted the next red bar, say it is the current red bar Plus the change from the prior red bar. That is all I was proving with math (and other) examples in my last post.

 

[Billy T]

... I propose we wait until 2020 and compare again. If, as in a scenario you have suggested, all humanity is dead (or even a large percentage) due to temperature rise your "stock" will rise so to speak, and you will be seen as being a good predictor of climate. ..

Like the IPCC I have described many DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. but none are a prediction. Yes in the scenario with most of the tropical rain forests burning (due to the continuing droughts), and that making a huge "burp of CO2" and worse, with Hadley cells pumping soot up to high altitude clouds now reflecting 2/3 of the sun light incident on them become into absorbers of more than 2/3 of the incident solar energy, I would expect that most people would die within a decade or so. However, I have also commented on Guy Mapherson's prediction that humans (and most mammals) will be extinct by 2030 to say IMHO, that is too extreme - but likely before 2100, if man continues to add ~3% annually to the existing CO2 in the air.

The IPCC, uses each new report to correct the more obvious errors in prior reports.

You are NOT showing in post 1211, what the IPCC predicted back in 1990, but their later revisions of it! See comments on their original prediction, and graph of it (top yellow broken line predicting 0.85C warming by now) here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?97892-Climate-gate&p=3222165&viewfull=1#post3222165

We do agree, however that the contraian predictions are even worse.

 

[iceaura]

, we have few, one I mentioned is Lane, whose work suggest that the main climate driver is the sun. (a position which I see as "most likely")

No plausible argument in support of that as an explanation for the current warming trend has been seen on this forum. How does Lane think that is supposed to work?

'Twas bold of them to offer up a percentage:
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.

Sensitivity is not the key - total effect is. The percentage change in insolation is not going to be anywhere near the percentage change in CO2 concentration, methane concentration, or water gas concentration, so even a large sensitivity gain independent of greenhouse feedback (undemonstrated, imho) would not in itself suffice to overpower even one of the major greenhouse gases.

Or is your argument better phrased in some other way?

Many have failed in tying the sun directly to the climate by looking for a real time 1:1 ratio. It seems most likely that the climate trails tsi by several years to decades.

The sun has been tied directly to the climate quite solidly, and "real time ratios" have been measured as well as predicted and explained theoretically. Quite a bit of work has been devoted to analyzing the sun's insolation and fluctuations - the common quip that we know the sun better than we know the deep ocean, both present and past, is more or less simple truth.

The sun's fluctuations don't account for much of the current warming trend, is the conclusion drawn. There is no interval of "trailing", no mechanism of delay, and no mechanism of cause, so far discovered or proposed, that checks out when compared with the data. Of course that is provisional, like all science - cometh the ugly fact, goeth the fond theory - but that is not the way to bet, eh? This stuff, especially the sun's insolation, has been under the research microscope and telescope and thermometer and ice corer and so forth for decades now. The odds of a brand new and game changing discovery about the effects of insolation fluctuations are fading fast.

Now we look into the future with scant knowledge, and a science fraught with divisions, biases, defensive posturing, and belligerently narrow foci.

That's not so. The sciences involved seem little affected by such things - they're around, but in minor roles - and the knowledge base is kind of amazing when you step back and consider it.

 

[sculptor]

The sun has been tied directly to the climate quite solidly, and "real time ratios" have been measured as well as predicted and explained theoretically. ... .

Can you name one such study assuming real time 1:1 ratios between tsi and climate which was accurate in predicting climate 11-22 years out?

 

[rpenner]

Billy T, your "Pessimistic Predictions" graph incorrectly starts all curves at the same point when you are comparing climate model forecasts with observed data which is weather + climate. Since 1990 was hotter than years around it (weather) this distorts the comparison of climate model with observed climate.


From http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ :
1988 0.375
1989 0.245
1990 0.492
1991 0.397
1992 0.093

 

[billvon]

Like the IPCC I have described many DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. but none are a prediction.

OK. From now on we will not call "estimates of future climate changes" predictions, but rather scenarios.

Yes in the scenario with most of the tropical rain forests burning (due to the continuing droughts), and that making a huge "burp of CO2" and worse, with Hadley cells pumping soot up to high altitude clouds now reflecting 2/3 of the sun light incident on them become into absorbers of more than 2/3 of the incident solar energy, I would expect that most people would die within a decade or so.

OK. Then if that (or something like that) comes to pass, your ability to generate scenarios will be validated.

However, I have also commented on Guy Mapherson's prediction that humans (and most mammals) will be extinct by 2030 to say IMHO, that is too extreme - but likely before 2100, if man continues to add ~3% annually to the existing CO2 in the air.

OK. Once again, if that (or something like that) comes to pass, your ability to generate scenarios will be validated. Until then, the IPCC has a much better track record.

The IPCC, uses each new report to correct the more obvious errors in prior reports.

Of course. That's the purpose of later reports - to refine scenarios based on comparison to earlier scenarios.

You are NOT showing in post 1211, what the IPCC predicted back in 1990, but their later revisions of it!

Sorry, you are not allowed to use the word "prediction" - that was just a scenario.
In any case, that graph shows the IPCC 1990 scenarios corrected for actual GHG emissions. (They assumed a higher rate of emissions than actually occurred.)

 

[iceaura]

Can you name one such study assuming real time 1:1 ratios between tsi and climate which was accurate in predicting climate 11-22 years out?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Sound like there aren't any such studies - I wouldn't expect anything valid to be described like that, whatever it means.

 

[billvon]

can you name one such study assuming real time 1:1 ratios between tsi and climate which was accurate in predicting climate 11-22 years out?

ipcc ar1.

 

[sculptor]

ipcc ar1.

link to the appropriate study within the report?