Climate-gate

[Trippy]

<------------- thinking about that word "Denier"

Let us assume that Maureen Raymo is correct in her "Climate is a symphony" thing.

Is anyone who would deny any one of the climate science variables not indeed a "climate science denier" ?

Would it then be accurate to describe some members of the agw crowd as "climate science deniers" and by extension just "deniers"?

I wouldn't have thought so - the models start with insolation and so tale solar variability into account.

 

[Trippy]

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?

It usually is, I mean, good greif, we still have to model climate in 2.5° Grid squares or use distributed computing (there's a global climate project in boinc) in order to be able to manage the processing requirements and each feedback you add increases complexity.

 

[Trippy]

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.*

I disagree - we still have to use a 2.5° grid square or distributed computing. The problem is complex and doing away with the grey-body approzimation and adopting the CKD approach only increases the complexity. At some point you have to say "This is close enough" or "This is good enough" and use an approximation.

The real problem, is like many others: The vested interest of the powerful, mainly corporations in this case.

I don't share your cynicism in this.

 

[Trippy]

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

Over and above Rpenners points, heaven forbid scientists should ever revise their predictions in light of new evidence... No! Instead they should dogmaticaly stand by their original predictions and insist the data is wrong, right?

I get sick of this attitude that scientists should get all right the first time or go home - real science doesn't work that way!

 

[sculptor]

I wouldn't have thought so - the models start with insolation and so tale solar variability into account.

Insolation ain't the complete picture.

We really know little about long term solar variance, including strength of magnetic fields for the complete sun or within sunspots, effects of different strengths of different bandwidths of energy on different layers of the atmosphere, and how the relative strengths of the various bandwidths change over time, dampening and delay mechanisms as heat is transferred from sea surface waters to midlevel ocean waters and on to deep ocean waters(argo is a good start, but only a start), and whether the incoming energy bandwidths effect that transfer and how they change over time.
Only recently has the stratosphere to ocean connection begun to be recognized and studied.

The science is much broader than any of these mentioned elements, and I feel certain that we don't even know everything worth looking at yet, nor quite how to look.
Has anyone come up with definitive quantification of the effect of a single tree on global warming?
Do we really know which details are important, and what percentage of the total effect they would account for at what levels of warmth?

I'll dally awhile on Maureen Raymo's symphony. So far, I'm enjoying the french horns and kettle drums, and expect to hear the flutes or strings quite soon.

.............................................
ps
#1258 was intended as irony

 

[sculptor]

I get sick of this attitude that scientists should get all right the first time or go home - real science doesn't work that way!

Amen!

 

[Trippy]

Insolation ain't the complete picture.

We really know little about long term solar variance, including strength of magnetic fields for the complete sun or within sunspots, effects of different strengths of different bandwidths of energy on different layers of the atmosphere, and how the relative strengths of the various bandwidths change over time, dampening and delay mechanisms as heat is transferred from sea surface waters to midlevel ocean waters and on to deep ocean waters(argo is a good start, but only a start), and whether the incoming energy bandwidths effect that transfer and how they change over time.

Almost everything you're taling about here is variability in insolation - the stuff that isn't is earths internal mechanics.

Regarding B-fields, are you taling about Svensmark's work or smething else?

 

[sculptor]

Almost everything you're taling about here is variability in insolation -

Yes, but:
More information about our star is coming much more rapidly with improved instrumentation, and processing power.
Which begs the question:
How many climate models were reworked after livingston and Penn's recent work?
How can models take long term insolation into account when we know so little about it's source?
...............
as/re Svensmark
One thing I've never seen addressed well is:
If a quiet sun means a weakened heliosphere and more cosmic rays
and If that equates to much more cloud cover
and assuming that clouds reflect much heat back to the earth
then
Will increased cloud cover moderate or exacerbate the cooling of the earth during a grand minimum?
if one or the other, then by what amount?

..........
Much more information from many different researchers who have been looking into things like the varying uv strengths of the changing sun, and it's effect on the upper levels of the atmosphere.

Friis Christensen, Svensmark, etc...
= a good place to start
.................
Is it likely that we are near the middle of a superinterglacial much like mis11?

 

[iceaura]

Let us assume that Maureen Raymo is correct in her "Climate is a symphony" thing.

A comment she made while explaining to you why it is that the current warming trend is human caused, not primarily insolation driven, and likely to be faster and worse than the IPCC predicts.

Is anyone who would deny any one of the climate science variables not indeed a "climate science denier" ?

As a practical matter of prediction, almost certainly. Nobody else does anything that silly.

Would it then be accurate to describe some members of the agw crowd as "climate science deniers" and by extension just "deniers"?

Not unless they deny some of those climate variables. None do, that I know of. Certainly Ms Raymo doesn't, and like all the other pros of high repute she is firmly in the agw camp.

 

[billvon]

Has anyone come up with definitive quantification of the effect of a single tree on global warming?

Nope. Nor do we know what an individual lung cell will do in the presence of cigarette smoke. Still, we know that if a population smokes, more lung cancer will result.

Do we really know which details are important, and what percentage of the total effect they would account for at what levels of warmth?

We have a pretty good idea, yes. See below.

 

[sculptor]

A comment she made while explaining to you why it is that the current worming trend is human caused, not primarily insolation driven, and likely to be faster and worse than the IPCC predicts.

Kinda depends on perspective, and how nuanced you view her comments.

Searching for equilibrium with Pliocene CO2 balance and a Holocene climate was my take on her talk. (and, coincidentally, precisely within my area of interest)

And, based on some of her recent research which indicated rapid warming via proxy of rapid sea level rise near end eemian(mis5b),
her comment that historically most climate scientists have underestimated the rate of climate change, seemed to be referring to past climate change as well as potential current climate change.

Her:

If we hadn't understood why there were ice ages, if we didn't know that our the earth sun distance was changing over the course of ice ages
we might have looked at an ice core and thought that the entire climate change was just due to the change in co2.
So you know there is this symphony going on in the climate system...

Can be understood differently than your understanding.

 

[iceaura]

Kinda depends on perspective, and how nuanced you view her comments.

Not nuance, but basic comprehension, is the issue here. Raymo is an agw alarmist, warning you of the possible consequences of the current anthropogenic global warming.

Searching for equilibrium with Pliocene CO2 balance and a Holocene climate was my take on her talk

The new equilibrium is not going to look much like the Holocene climate we are adapted to, is the observation, and some of the major changes are likely to be sudden, says Raymo.

And, based on some of her recent research which indicated rapid warming via proxy of rapid sea level rise near end eemian(mis5b),

Raymo makes no such foolish claim. As she makes perfectly clear, her sea level research did not indicate rapid warming, but rapid environmental change as a consequence of warming far more gradual than we are causing now - a warning.

Her:
If we hadn't understood why there were ice ages, if we didn't know that our the earth sun distance was changing over the course of ice ages
we might have looked at an ice core and thought that the entire climate change was just due to the change in co2.
So you know there is this symphony going on in the climate system...
Can be understood differently than your understanding

You don't have to "understand" her - she herself tells you what her interpretation of that is. I'm just reminding you of what she herself says about the the implication of her research for current warming trend: it's not natural, it's human caused, and its effects can be sudden. She says that explicitly.

The current climate change is human caused, she says, and the effects can hit hard and hit fast, according to her research.

 

[sculptor]

Not nuance, but basic comprehension, is the issue here. Raymo is an agw alarmist, warning you of the possible consequences of the current anthropogenic global warming.

I see her as having a tad more depth than that.

Raymo makes no such foolish claim.

If I remember, the team made no temperature claims, just noted the rapid sea level rise, which was most likely due to catastrophic ice sheet collapse
The warming part was inferred.

The interesting part is what happened after that. Dr. O’Leary’s group found what they consider to be compelling evidence that near the end of the Eemian, sea level jumped by another 17 feet or so, to settle at close to 30 feet above the modern level, before beginning to fall as the ice age set in.

In an interview, Dr. O’Leary said he was confident that the 17-foot jump happened in less than a thousand years — how much less, he cannot be sure.

as rapid as anyone would want-----sell your beachfront property, do it today(we didn't do it, honest)
.............................
I think that she made that symphony comment at the end of what I quoted from her talk for a reason.
It bespeaks shunning single causation answers.

I agree with her cautions---always have, which is why i went carbon neutral a couple decades ago. That moral deed done, i am free to investigate the science without any irons in the fire. It's just a curiosity of mine.

 

[sculptor]

meanwhile, in their audit of the ipcc, the aps has some interesting questions for the ipcc

Some of The American Physical Society’s audit questions:

The temperature stasis

While the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) rose strongly from 1980-98, it has shown no significant rise for the past 15 years…[The APS notes that neither the 4th nor 5th IPCC report modeling suggested any stasis would occur, and then asks] …

To what would you attribute the stasis?

If non-anthropogenic influences are strong enough to counteract the expected effects of increased CO2, why wouldn’t they be strong enough to sometimes enhance warming trends, and in so doing lead to an over-estimate of CO2 influence?

What are the implications of this stasis for confidence in the models and their projections?

What do you see as the likelihood of solar influences beyond TSI (total solar irradiance)? Is it coincidence that the statis has occurred during the weakest solar cycle (ie sunspot activity) in about a century?

Some have suggested that the ‘missing heat’ is going into the deep ocean…

Are deep ocean observations sufficient in coverage and precision to bear on this hypothesis quantitatively?

Why would the heat sequestration have ‘turned on’ at the turn of this century?

What could make it ‘turn off’ and when might that occur?

Is there any mechanism that would allow the added heat in the deep ocean to reappear in the atmosphere?

damned good questions

answers?

......................
I like symphonies that start low and slow with french horns
or the peal of thunder

(and, with all due humility, I like to quote scientists who are intelligent enough to agree with me)

 

[Billy T]

Over and above Rpenners points, heaven forbid scientists should ever revise their predictions in light of new evidence... No! Instead they should dogmaticaly stand by their original predictions and insist the data is wrong, right? I get sick of this attitude that scientists should get all right the first time or go home - real science doesn't work that way!

Of course science must revise as new information is found - that is the basis for scientific progress.

I had noted that The IPCC totally ignores feed backs with a linearized analysis model; and has at least four petroleum industry people holding high positions in IPPC; that any one researcher can hold up their reports until all agree; Then the report goes thru many rewording as every government must approve the working too - why more that a years passes in the approval process. - That is no way to do science - That is a political compromise process and why government are required to do little if anything, by the reports.

So I said: "Why someone as intelligent as Billvon even believes the IPCC reports, much less defends them, is beyond my understanding."

He replied he did so at they were the most accurate in their prediction.

I agreed that a linear model can be very accurate for the very near term - even gave math proof and illustrated it with linerarized Taylor series for three trig function.
and said IPCC never made predictions 6 or more years into the future as accurately as other models that did include the feed backs did.

I only noted that the IPCC istself had to correct several errors in the prior report in each new one - as proof they were not accurate except in the near term - I was not in the slightest suggesting they should hold ft to their earlier false predictions.

 

[billvon]

I had noted that The IPCC totally ignores feed backs with a linearized analysis model

This is the third time you have said this, and I get the feeling you are intentionally lying to try to sway people to your "side." Shame on you.

 

[sculptor]

in post #1268, I had asked:

Will increased cloud cover moderate or exacerbate the cooling of the earth during a grand minimum?
if one or the other, then by what amount?

more from the APS:

Many different processes and phenomena will be relevant and each needs to be ‘gotten right’ with high precision if the response to anthropogenic perturbations is to be attributed correctly and quantified accurately. For example, a change in the earth’s average shortwave albedo [reflectivity] from 0.30 to 0.29 due to changing clouds, snow/ice, aerosols, or land character would induce a 3.4 W/m2 direct perturbation in the downward flux [warming], 50% larger than the present anthropogenic perturbation.

This seems, at-least a partial answer to my question.............(I'm still in doubt about quantification of the likely(?) expected drop in energy input from a potentially quiet sun)

whither hence?

 

[Billy T]

This is the third time you have said this, and I get the feeling you are intentionally lying to try to sway people to your "side." Shame on you.

Trippy suggested I was advocating no correction of prior predictions just because they were in need of corrections - complete distortion of why I noted the IPCC did that in each new report. To show I was not doing what he suggested, I had to review our exchange - showing I was only replying to your statement that IPCC had the most accurate model. I agreed that they were accurate so long as their prediction was for less than 5 years into the future. Thus I repeated the four main reasons why IPCC's predictions are significantly wrong for 6 years or greater years into the future:

(1) A linerarized analysis increasingly fails the farther it is extended into the future. I proved this mathematically and illustrated it with linearized expressions for three trig functions in post 1210.
(2) Oil company employees hold high position, even committee chairs, and make sure their "bread and butter" income is not much threatened in the reports.
(3) Reports must be unanimous (milk toast) as ALL members of each committee must approve them before the draft report circulates to the governments.
(4) Many governments then revise the wording to their liking - typically a process that takes more a year before governments will sign off and the final report can issue. Especially now with the slow recovery, several European nations back in recession, inadequate jobs grow according to Yellen, (and most new jobs being either part time or "big Mac" jobs. So except for the top 20%, the purchasing power of US salaries is either static or declining.) in the US, etc. Governments are very reluctant to add cost to production for reduction of CO2 emission, etc. Politicians, especially because they believe any catastrophe is not likely to happen while they still hold office.

This is not a scientific process - It is a political process of compromise. Shame on anyone claiming this is the most accurate scientific process!

You say I am "lying" - which of the above four contains the lie? Please tell what is false - not just "Number (1) is not true." etc.

I don't think either my or your POV is a "side" to be defended, but a struggle to find the truth. - Some of the models I think are more accurate for making decade into future predicts do not explicitly include the many* feed backs mutually amplifying the effects of each, when separately considered in a lineazied model, but inherently do include ALL** the feed backs (even those not yet known) by adjusting the "climate sensitivity" terms (that play the role of analysed radiative forcing in the no feed back model the IPCC uses) with historic data (ice cores, types of plants etc. data) to accurately model the observation.

* Most of the binary feed back pairs are very small, but as more than 31 different feed backs are known, potentially more mutually amplifying interactions exist, and many should be included some way in the analysis. The number of the binary pair feed backs is greater than 31!, a huge number - more all the stars you can see, even with binoculars aiding your vision! In recent post I describe three mutually interacting to speed the rate of Arctic ice melting. (albedo decreasing; stronger waves with greater open sea reach, breaking up the ice sheets; Jet stream meander increasing so not only is arctic cold air sent south but equal warm air sent towards the arctic.) - all totally ignored by the IPCC. Perhaps there is an important fourth too - greater humidity condensing on the ice give 940 calories per gram condensing as I recall. More too surely exist.

** Well not exactly all the feed backs as some are within the civilizations. For example (1) Chinese are rapidly growing richer buying more cars than Americans do*** - adding to the production of CO2 or (2) As average summer temperature increases, people with air conditioners run them more hours each year. etc. - These feed back are not present in the "Historic Climate Sensitivity" models but should be added, IMO.

*** And it is getting worse, rapidly as the annual rate of increase in car sales in China is twice the US's rate:

... China's auto sales smashed through the 20 million mark last year, {2013} growing ... Passenger vehicle sales jumped 15.7 percent year-on-year to 17.93 million ... In the United States, total auto sales rose 7.6 percent to 15.6 million vehicles in 2013, ...

Further more - that is just Chinese domestic sales - China now sells Chery cars in Brazil alone more that all US made car sold here I think - Chery's sales in Brazil are growing by high double digits now but from a small base as only started couple of years ago.

 

[iceaura]

"Raymo is an agw alarmist, warning you of the possible consequences of the current anthropogenic global warming."
I see her as having a tad more depth than that.

You lack basic comprehension of her warning, and her research. You are way too shallow, here, and have overlooked the depth of the AGW threat as well as Raymo's explication of the situation as she sees it.

If I remember, the team made no temperature claims, just noted the rapid sea level rise, which was most likely due to catastrophic ice sheet collapse

Exactly. So why did you? And why did you then attempt to support it by misusing the reputation of a respectable scientist like Raymo?

The warming part was inferred.

The only people attempting to use a natural, extraordinarily rapid sea level rise to infer a matching natural, extraordinarily rapid atmospheric temperature boost otherwise invisible in the paleontological record are you and your corrupt, lying, and repeatedly exposed political sources. And invoking Raymo in support of that crapola is unethical. She has been nothing but clear and explicit: the current warming trend is not natural - her term: "not natural".

I think that she made that symphony comment at the end of what I quoted from her talk for a reason.
It bespeaks shunning single causation answers.

It bespeaks including all factors, and paying attention to their influences. The deniers - and you are one of them - are attempting to exclude the single factor of anthropogenic CO2 boosting from your analysis. The people who include it and work out its influences, the entire body of reputable scientific researchers in the field, are like Raymo running around trying to warn you guys that you are setting up a strong likelihood of disaster: the money isn't worth it.

meanwhile, in their audit of the ipcc, the aps has some interesting questions for the ipcc

Some of The American Physical Society’s audit questions:

The temperature stasis - - -

While the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) rose strongly from 1980-98, it has shown no significant rise for the past 15 years

Not to be presumptuous, but I have a question for the APC: why did they pick the freak year of 1998 to base their entire analysis on? Because if they had picked any other year, most of their questions would have to be modified considerably.

And another: is the APC familiar with the book "How To Lie With Statistics" ? Just asking.

 

[billvon]

You say I am "lying" - which of the above four contains the lie?

You continually claim that the IPCC ignores climactic feedback. That is a lie, and you should know better. Shame on you for lying to advance your agenda.