Global Warming Concensus Broken
Nearly 100% of priests believe in God. Their expert beliefs are non-falsifiable too.PPS: nearly 100% of climate scientists (and not TV meteorologists) agree on global warming. Usually it makes sense to trust experts.
Do you know what the current satellite-measured departure from mean is? .2 degrees. The fourth-order polynomial curve is headed downward.PS: oh, and the world is still heating, global warming has not stopped in 1998.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
The movement of planets in the solar system is also unimaginably less complex. Also, we have a much better track record with predicting where Pluto will at a given moment be than, say, if sea ice will decline in a given year.So? Solar System is unimaginably more vast, yet we can predict positions of planets with less-than-kilometer precision.
If you worked in the field, surely you are aware the effect of CO2 is only the alleged initial driver of the changes, and that positive feedbacks comprise the majority of the climate response? I wouldn't call the interplay of feedbacks simple.The main thermal balance equations are about that simple. I.e. if you let more heat to be retained then temperature goes up.
Polywell and AGW are both complex theories. It's not surprising they would both be discussed here.How can a site dedicated to fusion be so obsessed with climate change?
Yes. Sun's energy output is pretty much constant, and its activity doesn't influence climate much.GPecchia wrote: They have been disproved?
Some sites to begin learning about the sun.
In the recent paper ( http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf ) scientists tried to correlate Sun's activity with weather change over the last 11000 years. They found no correlation.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091228.htm
Cosmic rays influence upper atmosphere.
Maybe that Svensmark guy is on to something.
Cosmic rays influence upper atmosphere.
Maybe that Svensmark guy is on to something.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Cyberax wrote:Yes. Sun's energy output is pretty much constant, and its activity doesn't influence climate much.GPecchia wrote: They have been disproved?
Some sites to begin learning about the sun.
In the recent paper ( http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf ) scientists tried to correlate Sun's activity with weather change over the last 11000 years. They found no correlation.
Which assumes that carbon uptake is a one factor problem. Which it is not.based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations.
Nice try though.
Here is the kicker though:
They forgot to subtract out the PDO and other ocean currents. Idiots.Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I deeply mistrust models which give results in disagreement with the earlier models. Usually, finer models _improve_ old results by narrowing error bands.MSimon wrote: So why when I give you evidence you don't like including more complete models and the head of the IPCC saying we are at least temporarily headed for cooling do you deny it.
I'll change my mind on this study if it's cross-checked and validated by other climate-science groups. So far I'm highly skeptical.
@!*$&#@(*$&@#(* !!!!And speaking of evidence: when are the AGW "scientists" going to compute the effect of CO2 plus feedback after subtracting out the PDO and other ocean currents.
There's NO WAY you can significantly alter the outcome of rising CO2 level using ocean currents. The main way they can affect the global climate is by modulating cloud cover, but there are definite limits on this effect and they are known since 70-s (if not earlier...).
Currents can (and do!) affect the short-term climate. But they just won't do you much good in the long run (i.e. more than 10 year period).
By the way, you might check this site: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php - it contains all your arguments...
Well yes you can. If PDO warming is attributed to CO2 it is a misattribution which will overestimate CO2's contribution to climate.There's NO WAY you can significantly alter the outcome of rising CO2 level using ocean currents.
Example. I have a big pot of water. On one side it is heated by a blow torch and on the other side heated by a match. If I attribute all the heating to the match because I don't account for the blow torch I will be in error as to the heat input from the match.
So far no correction in CO2 heating has been made to account for the PDO in the official numbers.
We are taking a stored heat source and attributing all of that to CO2. That is a so far uncorrected error. Not very good science. It gives people an impression that climate "science" is not a search for truth.
As to the models: it would be interesting to see what the results would be if all of them corrected for the PDO. So far as I am aware only one model has been corrected despite the fact that the PDO has been known for over 10 years. Funny science that.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I know I have not yet given my promised detailed account of climate models (still intend to do this), but here is the counter-argument to Simon's:
If GCMs were fudged to fit recent global temperature only, then obviously not accounting for a cooling effect would result in unrealistically high CO2 amplification factor.
I cannot believe that they are so naive. Why? Because Peer Review works, and if Simon is right the naivety has been going on for a long time.
All that is needed is for papers publishing the errors, and a GCM constructed in some other way. Simon's thesis requires climate modelling groups throughout the world with different models and assumptions all to be part of a conspiracy - or it requires the scientific process of cross-validation and refinement through debate in peer-reviewed papers to be broken.
I can't believe either.
If you ask - how can GCMs be constructed except as recent temperature curve-fitting the answer is:
(a) they are based on physics models
(b) where the physics cannot be calculated precisely (one example -atmospheric cells too large) plausible models are constructed with free parameters. These free parameters are then fitted (not overfitted) using data from the same physics-based models but without the free parameters and with a much finer grid of cells, which capture the effects otherwise missed.
(c) the models & free-parameters are cross-checked using a whole load of other local data - do they model local climate correctly, etc, etc.
Obviously working out whether this is done well or badly is complex. I don't see this complexity in the relatively small number of coherent (but rebutted) anti-AGM arguments. I do see it in the vast quantity of peer-reviewed argument, refinement, etc that makes the scientific literature on climate models and which is reviewed carefully in AR4.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Best wishes, Tom
If GCMs were fudged to fit recent global temperature only, then obviously not accounting for a cooling effect would result in unrealistically high CO2 amplification factor.
I cannot believe that they are so naive. Why? Because Peer Review works, and if Simon is right the naivety has been going on for a long time.
All that is needed is for papers publishing the errors, and a GCM constructed in some other way. Simon's thesis requires climate modelling groups throughout the world with different models and assumptions all to be part of a conspiracy - or it requires the scientific process of cross-validation and refinement through debate in peer-reviewed papers to be broken.
I can't believe either.
If you ask - how can GCMs be constructed except as recent temperature curve-fitting the answer is:
(a) they are based on physics models
(b) where the physics cannot be calculated precisely (one example -atmospheric cells too large) plausible models are constructed with free parameters. These free parameters are then fitted (not overfitted) using data from the same physics-based models but without the free parameters and with a much finer grid of cells, which capture the effects otherwise missed.
(c) the models & free-parameters are cross-checked using a whole load of other local data - do they model local climate correctly, etc, etc.
Obviously working out whether this is done well or badly is complex. I don't see this complexity in the relatively small number of coherent (but rebutted) anti-AGM arguments. I do see it in the vast quantity of peer-reviewed argument, refinement, etc that makes the scientific literature on climate models and which is reviewed carefully in AR4.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Best wishes, Tom
Cyberax,
The burden of proof is not on the skeptic. Speaking of bad arguments, maybe you can explain these problems with AGW argument...
If variations in CO2 cause changes in climate, how do you explain the fact CO2 generally lags temperature increase in the historical record?
If CO2 strongly drives climate change, how do you explain the Earth going into an ice age at CO2 concentrations an order of magnitude higher than today's?
IF CO2 is causing warming, why are we seeing more surface warming than tropospheric warming, in direct contradiction to what the models say would happen in a CO2 warming scenario?
Did you know previously unpredictable stratopheric weather events have recently been found to correlate very strongly to muon counts?
Shrug. It's an observation, not an argument. But want to bet as to whether this month follows the previous 4th order polynomial curve? It snowed in the UAE this month for the second time ever recorded. The overall trend line suggests the trend is 1-2 degrees per century.The "fourth-order polynomial curve" is about the worst argument I've EVER heard.
The burden of proof is not on the skeptic. Speaking of bad arguments, maybe you can explain these problems with AGW argument...
If variations in CO2 cause changes in climate, how do you explain the fact CO2 generally lags temperature increase in the historical record?
If CO2 strongly drives climate change, how do you explain the Earth going into an ice age at CO2 concentrations an order of magnitude higher than today's?
IF CO2 is causing warming, why are we seeing more surface warming than tropospheric warming, in direct contradiction to what the models say would happen in a CO2 warming scenario?
Did you know previously unpredictable stratopheric weather events have recently been found to correlate very strongly to muon counts?
Last edited by TallDave on Sun Jan 25, 2009 4:26 pm, edited 4 times in total.
It doesn't require a conspiracy, just bad data and poor modeling driven by the assumption CO2 is driving climate change. GIGO. The satellite data say there is no major warming trend, and there is an increasing departure over time. If you extrapolate the satellite correction to the entire GISS dataset the modern warming trend vanishes.All that is needed is for papers publishing the errors, and a GCM constructed in some other way. Simon's thesis requires climate modelling groups throughout the world with different models and assumptions all to be part of a conspiracy
The rest of the warming is based on reconstruction and is even less reliable. Depending on the data used, you can find a large warming trend or very little.
Remember what happened to GISS in October? Half of Russia's data was re-published from September and Hansen's group triumphantly announced a major warming trend. The error was not discovered until after publication. This tells you the quality control on these numbers is very weak.
"No correlation" is wrong. If you read the article, they found that solar effects might be some portion of the modern warming, just not the dominant cause.In the recent paper ( http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf ) scientists tried to correlate Sun's activity with weather change over the last 11000 years. They found no correlation.
Also, they rely on reconstructed indirect measurements of sunpspots which have a lot of assumptions and uncertainty, as noted in the article. We know from direct measurements that the Maunder Minimum coincided with the Little Ice Age.Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate
change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum
The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle — and coldest part — of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America, and perhaps much of the rest of the world, were subjected to bitterly cold winters. Whether there is a causal connection between low sunspot activity and cold winters is the subject of ongoing debate (e.g., see Global Warming).
Again, this is GIGO. The GISS surface data find a strong warming trend since 1970, satellites do not. Since satellites find about 1/3 of the GISS warming trend, what we've actually proved in the study is that all the warming could be solar-induced.It was shown that even under the extreme assumption that the Sun was responsible for all the global warming prior to 1970, at the most 30% of the strong warming since then can be of solar origin.
Heh. If you read through the comments, you'll find the skeptics have destroyed most of the assertions. For instance, on the "CO2 lag" page it is noted that temperatures have quite often decreased during a CO2 increase, arguing the sensitivity is fairly low.By the way, you might check this site: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php - it contains all your arguments...
If people want a couple billion in funding to keep an eye on AGW, I have no problem with that. But these doomsday predictions are not nearly proven enough to justify trillions of dollars of spending and lost economic growth, especially when China, India and Africa will not reduce emissions anyway.
I'd prefer to see us focus more on proven threats like asteroids.
You are far too generous. The leaders of the Climate "Science" cult are corrupt. And that includes the peer reviewers.If GCMs were fudged to fit recent global temperature only, then obviously not accounting for a cooling effect would result in unrealistically high CO2 amplification factor.
I cannot believe that they are so naive. Why? Because Peer Review works, and if Simon is right the naivety has been going on for a long time.
If you look up the history of peer review you will find that its original purpose was to eliminate contradictions to official dogma. It still works that way.
So far they have a number for CO2 heating that is not unreasonable. However, by not accounting for the PDO they need an amplification factor that is unreasonable. The whole AGW is a house of cards. BTW 80% of the "new" CO2 in the atmosphere is natural. So at most man is responsible for 20% of the CO2 heating. If CO2 doubling causes a 1 deg C rise then man is responsible for about .2 deg C.
But I have to applaud you for even entertaining the possibility that the books are being cooked.
If I am correct AGW will go down as one of the greatest scientific frauds ever.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.