PDO explains twentieth century warming?

[scareduck]

There is a common strand to the climateaudit objections. Take one part of the overall evidence, poke holes in it, claim the authors are deliberately distorting the truth, use this character assasination instead of a critical assessment of the whole corpus.

These words do not mean what you think they do. And, it's a-s-s-a-s-s-i-n-a-t-i-o-n.

Climate Audit has been pretty systematically identifying problems with the IGCC data and pointing it out. Mann has generally defended himself poorly; if anything, the comments from Team Hockey Stick have made me more, not less, suspicious of their methods. "Back off, man, I'm a scientist" is a punchline from a movie.

[scareduck]

That doesn't void Tom's point. Even if Mann is shown thoroughly to be corrupt, for instance, that doesn't mean that everybody on his side of the debate is also corrupt. Or their data bad. Guilt by association

No. Guilt by using the same data, the same reasoning, and same opacity in cherry-picking data? You bet.

[Mike Holmes]

I see you say that they've done so. You've gone through the evidence yourself? Analyzed the data? You know that they're cherrypicking because....?

I find that the usual response to this is that sombody on the other web-site said so. If, in fact, that somebody has done an actual scientific study of the data, or review of the analysis, then I'd be more prone to believe it. Do you have the link to the analysis that does harm to all of the IPCC data, just as it was done originally to Mann's first study?

For every "back off, I'm a scientist" on the one site, there's a "It's a cult!" on the other site that makes me just as suspect of that side. In other words, I'll choose to ignore those comments and stick with the analyses.

I myself went around saying that there was a lack of evidence of GW, when Mann was the main evidence, and proven to prove nothing. Then new evidence arrived. I've yet to see anything conclusive in terms of damning the new evidence, but rather lots of aspersions.

If I've missed something, I'm certainly willing to learn. I don't have anything like the knowledge or acumen to discern the truth of these matters from the data myself. Do you, really?

Mike

[MSimon]

If there's some "conspiracy" to create this global warming furor, it's quite insidiously pervasive

Not insidious at all. If the guys granting the funding are looking for studies to prove global warming and those studies are the ones that get prefferentially funded the literature gets skewed.

You can see it in fusion. The experiments proving the wonderfulness of the Tokamak get funded and the alternatives get starved.

You see it in the drug war. Studies proving the badness of marijuana are lavished with funds. Those studies proving its usefulness get done not at all, by accident, or in a very few cases by real researches looking at the questions without an eye towards the next grant.

Take the discovery of the CB1 receptor, one of the most pervasive in the brain. It was discovered by an Israeli. Why? Well the cannabinoids necessary to the experiments were unobtainable in the US due to government prohibitions.

There is a lot of corruption in science. Follow the money.

I did a post a while back on two studies, one saying that the salinity of the North Atlantic would increase the other saying it would decrease. The cause in both cases: Global Warming.

[djolds1]

The point, Duane, is that "elite" is slung around to mean... well pretty much whatever the slinger needs it to mean.

Homo Sapiens Davos.

The late Samuel P. Huntington caught the breed correctly in his "Clash of Civilizations."

Or is your contention that everybody who holds an opinion other than yours must automatically be somehow bereft of the moral fibre required to argue honestly? That'd be pretty... I dunno... elitist?

I neither expect nor require other people to change their ways of living in response to my opinions or analyses.

I'm pretty convinced that we've seen some slight warming. Again, my point is... so what? Doesn't prove we've done it, nor that it's having any particular detrimental effects. The temperature, that is. There are other problems that are much more directly attributable to the CO2 levels, as I've mentioned.

DAMNIT!

Now you go and be all reasonable! How DARE you! :twisted:

The world started climbing out of the Little Ice Age c.1850 or so. Warming after a protracted cold period of three closely linked solar minima is... axiomatic.

Duane

[IntLibber]

Lastly, is the IPCC the sole source of wisdom on the subject from the warming side? Or do other scientists agree with them? I mean, "consensus" aside, is it only the IPCC that's saying that warming is happening? Or are there not, in fact, many universities and other organizations, and scientists all over producing studies that corroborate their evidence?

There are. If there's some "conspiracy" to create this global warming furor, it's quite insidiously pervasive. Far more pervasive, I'm afraid, than my tiny brain can find credible. So many scientists willing to chuck their credibility in the name of following Al Gore. Most impressive.

Again, I'm not 100% convinced, because it's complex as that link about the Swedish Ice Age indicates. But, as a layman, I'm not about to distrust a huge number of scientists based on the fact that one of them screwed up ten years ago. Sorry.

The "conspiracy" is in the Club of Rome, which in addition to AGW, has sponsored another pseudoscientific theory based on facts that are entirely contradictory to the assumptions of AGW and IPCC predictions, and that is Peak Oil.

See the IPCC predictions of future warming are based on the assumption that we will burn over the 21st century 10 times more oil than the Peak Oilers say is in the ground. Obviously then you cannot buy AGW as global disasturbationism if you also buy Peak Oil: they contradict each other. Yet the Club of Rome promotes both to support their political agenda.

They have gotten so many other people with their own agendas to jump on the AGW bandwagon now that its become a cult. My cousin is a climatologist, btw, got his phd a few years ago from the U of Aukland. When I was discussing some of his findings on an email list with some AGW proponents, findings which contradicted their claims, the next thing I know is he called me asking me to delete my posts because he was being threatened with not being awarded his phd.

That is not how scientists should act, using persecution and threats to suppress opposing points of view. That was when I became convinced AGW was a cult.

[MSimon]

Lastly, is the IPCC the sole source of wisdom on the subject from the warming side? Or do other scientists agree with them? I mean, "consensus" aside, is it only the IPCC that's saying that warming is happening?

Actually the head of the IPCC says cooling is happening.

So right away we are off to a bad start on the topic. Unfortunately the facts have yet to alter the din of propaganda. The mantra is: "It is going to start warming again real soon now. Say about 2015. And you know it is a sure thing. Unless the PDO lasts longer than we hope."

No sunspots today:

http://spaceweather.com/

[IntLibber]

Lastly, is the IPCC the sole source of wisdom on the subject from the warming side? Or do other scientists agree with them? I mean, "consensus" aside, is it only the IPCC that's saying that warming is happening?

Actually the head of the IPCC says cooling is happening.

So right away we are off to a bad start on the topic. Unfortunately the facts have yet to alter the din of propaganda. The mantra is: "It is going to start warming again real soon now. Say about 2015. And you know it is a sure thing. Unless the PDO lasts longer than we hope."

No sunspots today:

http://spaceweather.com/

Yes, most have by now accepted that there is currently cooling going on. Some attribute it to the current extreme and extended solar minimum, others to a combination of the la Nina and North Atlantic Occillation. It's likely a combination of the three.

If it takes til 2015 to start warming again, the warming wont last very long, the coming cycle 25 in 2018 is now being predicted to be in the Dalton Minimum range, with predicted global cooling of 1.5-2.0 C that should last for two solar cycles, so 2018-2040 should be a very cold period that will put to bed any further delusions about AGW.

[tomclarke]

We all agree that CO2 affects temperature via GH (though less than same amount of H2O).

We all agree that higher temperature => more H2O vapour => possible amplification factor.

We all agree that CO2 in atmosphere is now at unprecedented (last 10,000,000 yesrs) levels and set to increase.

The issue is not "does AGW exist" but "what precisely is the amplitude of AGW".

If there are medium-term cooling effects that last 50 years that is great - but as speculative as skeptics claim the IPCC predictions are.

There is still cause for grave concern in the longer-term. The CO2 we have put up there does not go away and its effect will be permanent. the more CO2 the more effect.

I would have thought a rational approach is to do the science as well as possible with an open mind, keep on extending and challenging it, be clear about the uncertainties. The CO2 amplification factor is amenable to scientific analysis. All the other potentially unknown feedbacks, both positive and negative, are equally amenable.

So, if I view the IPCC case as unproven (and since I have not waded through all their analysis and compared it with other explanations I am not in a position to judge this myself) I am still left with a plausible case for real alarm at the extent to which we have modified the ecosystem.

I am sure that AGW skeptics value a clement climate as much as advocates, and equally share this concern. The issue then is a scientific debate of who is right and who wrong in quantifying the forcast predictions and uncertainties.

Those AGW skeptics who seem uninterested in the science, or who are so pessimistic that they assume without having tried that it is impossible to make sound predictions, do not seem to me to have an open mind.

What is to stop the other, many, rational, skeptics from engaging in a scientific debate? Is there no government (US perhaps) willing to fund such skeptic but scientific research? In fact I thought US had been doing tis for last 5 years....

Best wishes, Tom

PS - above questions sound rhetorical. Actually they are real qustions I am interested in answers.

Best wishes, Tom

[tomclarke]

There is a common strand to the climateaudit objections. Take one part of the overall evidence, poke holes in it, claim the authors are deliberately distorting the truth, use this character assasination instead of a critical assessment of the whole corpus.

These words do not mean what you think they do. And, it's a-s-s-a-s-s-i-n-a-t-i-o-n.

Climate Audit has been pretty systematically identifying problems with the IGCC data and pointing it out. Mann has generally defended himself poorly; if anything, the comments from Team Hockey Stick have made me more, not less, suspicious of their methods. "Back off, man, I'm a scientist" is a punchline from a movie.

Thanks for the English correction. I am less careful with spelling than I should be on these forums and do not always correct my many typos. But after short vowel must have two ss....

I think I agree with all your substantive points but not your conclusions.

Systematically identifying problems is good. Many would argue that the process is tendentious and annoying but I agree it is necessary, and the effort to reply worth it.

The case is that climateaudit have also been engaged in character assassination.

This typified by "Mann has generally defended himself poorly". Are you sayng that the IPCC conclusions are the result of one man's (Mann's!) work! If not the attck and defence must be much larger than Mann. To concerntrate on him is to put characters before facts.

"Back off, man, I'm a scientist". I agree this is unfortunate. To be fair realclimate seem aware of this danger and only some times adopt this holier than though attitude. Also - I know from my own work how very difficult it is to reach correct conclusions in difficult areas. We sift evidence, trying to find the underlying patterns, never sure whether or not they exist till we find them. I can't say that my judgement is comparable with that of someone who has spent years studying the problem full time. I know certainly that if I did this I would be in a position to trust my own judgement as I do not now. Either we all abandon other work and study climate change in detail, or we must trust scientific consensus and the best methods (free publication, peer review, rebuttal) we have to sort out the competent from the incompetent or prejudiced.

If there are obvious contradictions of course we may say - "the scientists are wrong". Much of this forum seems to believe that this is the case, but in most cases having looked at evidence even less than I. And in the few cases I have examined in more detail it is not obvious to me that the scientists are wrong. In fact they seem broadly right. That is not to say that they never make mistakes.

Best wishes, Tom

[MSimon]

We all agree that higher temperature => more H2O vapour => possible amplification factor.

It may also be a possible damping factor due to increased clouds.

And water vapor is parameterized in the current models because the cells in the models are not small enough to accurately simulate by physical processes what is going on in reality.

If the "heat pipe" effect is strong: delta T from more water vapor will not be such a big amplification factor. If the "heat pipes" lead to more clouds that would damp the effect of more water vapor further.

The big argument these days is: Is amplification by water vapor in the 1.1X range or is it in the 3X to 4X range. I'm with Lindzen on this. The IRIS effect. (which would put him in the 1.1X range).

BTW even the IPCC admits they do not have a good handle on water vapor. However, they like the 3X to 4X version. It makes the predictions scarier.

[MSimon]

Sure CO2 goes away. It gets dissolved in the oceans. And/Or taken up by biomass.

Besides we may need that CO2 once the current interglacial is over.

I any case we will be off fossil fuels through technological advance by 2100 at the latest. Possibly as early as 2065.

Now here we come into a difficulty: if governments get addicted to carbon taxes they will have to find a substitute once carbon use declines.

[MSimon]

Here is a bit I wrote on principles of forecasting.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... sting.html

Climate "science" does no do a good job of adhering to the principles.

===

Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts:

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/warmaudit31.pdf

We asked scientists and others involved in forecasting climate change to tell us which scientific articles presented the most credible forecasts. Most of the responses we received (30 out of 51) listed the IPCC Report as the best source. Given that the Report was commissioned at an enormous cost in order to provide policy recommendations to governments, the response should be reassuring. It is not. The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they present the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. We found no references to the primary sources of information on forecasting despite the fact these are easily available in books, articles, and websites. We conducted an audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of the total of 140 principles. We found that the forecasting procedures that were used violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.

[tomclarke]

As always, the G&A article when read carefully raises questions not apparent from the headline quotes.

My main concern is that they are conflating three things:
economics forcasting
weather forecasting
long-term climate forecasting

The three have different properties. As far as I am concerned economics forecasting is not a scientific field and most of their "principles", relevant to debunking bad economics forecasts, are not relevant to forecasts where the mechanism is physics-based not stochastic "look at past data and extrapolate".

They claim the IPCC forecasts are only very weakly physics-based. If so i would agree with G&A, but I believe this not to be so.

G&A, in their "challenge" and much of their comment, conflate weather forecasting (can you determine regional or global temperature in any given year) from long-term climate forecasting. The short-term noise is very high and obviously makes prediction impossible. I lose respect for G&A when they do not understand this.

Here, for those wanting to follow this issue up, and with the necessary time, is a short realclimate article followed by a much longer debate. As always, if you want a full picture, read all of the debate both supportive and hostile and come to your own opinion!

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... c-forecast

Best wishes, Tom

/

[tomclarke]

Simon,

Re uncertainties in modelling physics of cloud formation & atmospheric transport.

This is a key issue, I agree. I will comment when I have read enough of the analysis to feel I can come to a sensible conclusion. Till then I am with the consensus.

[One thing I can say now based on my own experience. There is a subtle but crucial distinction between fitting models to historic data, and calculating amplification factor based on historic data which correlates cloud cover at different levels with temperature. (Clouds do not necessarily reduce global temperatures - it depends where they are). It may be impossible to work out the precise physics governing cloud formation but still establish decent causal relationship between temperature and clouds.]

In science, in direct contradistinction to economics, consensus is usually pretty accurate. This does not mean it is right, and further research can invalidate current ideas. But it gets there in the end.

Best wishes, Tom