August 7th, 2009, 04:00 PM
How many climate models are there? From what I have gathered from IPCC docs, there are several. Apparently each of these models provide different forcasts and the IPCC takes the average.
If the science is truly settled, shouldn't there be only one climate model? Can't the consensus agree on how the climate works? Maybe the "consensus" is political and the science isn't really settled.
The IPCC uses 17 models according to RealClimate.
I think you are correct that the IPCC takes the average. However all models individually, as well as the average show the same trend, while showing some large variations in the shorter term. The reason for the variations is discussed in this link:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ls-really-say/It should be clear from the above the plot that the long term trend (the global warming signal) is robust, but it is equally obvious that the short term behaviour of any individual realisation is not. This is the impact of the uncorrelated stochastic variability (weather!) in the models that is associated with interannual and interdecadal modes in the models – these can be associated with tropical Pacific variability or fluctuations in the ocean circulation for instance. Different models have different magnitudes of this variability that spans what can be inferred from the observations and in a more sophisticated analysis you would want to adjust for that.
Originally Posted by Bunbury
Is science really a democratic process? Why not just use the model that most closely resembles the observed data rather than take an average of all the models? Surely the average is further from the truth than the lowest temperature estimate.
I have always thought of democracy as involving voting.
It can also involve free speech. Each model has a say--even the ones that are wrong. Then an average is taken. Is that scientific?I have always thought of democracy as involving voting.
Depending on the application, yes.
Models each have their own unique ability to handle certain circumstances better than others. One might model ocean to air energy and moisture better than another, while the other model might model high latitude albedo changes from snow better. Given all the models can only be evaluated and validated against their ability to hind cast as we raise green house gases to unprecedented levels there's really no way to know model "overall" will provide the best average prediction. Hence climatologist use a variety of models with their average best viewed as a average forecast. Note also that different models are developed to examine more than just the global average temperature that we generally think of; for example regional rainfall, monsoon generation, ocean circulations, snowfalls, soil moisture (for agriculture) and many other things.
Looking at the chart above it looks like all those models are trying to forcast the temperature. Now if one is better at that than the rest, then why not use just that one? It appears that one or two of the models mirror the actual data better than the others. In any case, there is clearly no consensus as to how the climate is supposed to work.
I am assuming the application's purpose is to mirror as closely as possible what is actually observed, actual data.
A model predicting temperature should be analogous to predicting the change for a $10 bill. One model predicts it is $10 change, another predicts it is $20. The IPCC would take the average which is $15, but that would not be very accurate. Why not use just the one model that gets it right?
Not just temperature, but also the global distribution of temperature change, the seasonal variation, the inter-annual variability. The model which well for predicting the temperature change in Thule, Greenland, might not work so well for Indiana.
Excellent idea! Now please tell me what will be the maximum and minimum daily temperatures for Iowa, Denmark, New Zealand and lets say Egypt for the year 2070 so I can compare to the models and see which fits best.I am assuming the application's purpose is to mirror as closely as possible what is actually observed, actual data.
There will be bias of one sort or another in any model. One model may assign a certain weight to one factor, say albedo, and a lesser weight to, say, el nino whereas another may assign a different weight to each of these factors, etc. But these factors all tend to interplay with one another in ways that we do not fully understand, and which may change in relative contribution over time. It may be that model A is spot on regarding the effect of albedo but that model B is better at estimating the effect of el nino; it may further be that the relative effects of these factors will be different in five or ten years.
These uncertainties do not undercut GW, but do make a case for averaging the best models. Certainly many models have been modfiied or even perhaps outright discarded as they were found to be too far off the target.
If you are more content adhering to a single model, no one willl stop you. Pick one and stick with it.
So now are you claiming that there is no world climate model? Only local models? How can the science of "global" warming be settled then? Surely the average of 17 local models does not accurately measure global climate which consists of several thousand locales.
It was my understanding, and it seems more likely, that the data above represents an average of several global projections--not local projections.
So then take and use in one model the best features of each model rather than average them.There will be bias of one sort or another in any model. One model may assign a certain weight to one factor, say albedo, and a lesser weight to, say, el nino whereas another may assign a different weight to each of these factors, etc. But these factors all tend to interplay with one another in ways that we do not fully understand, and which may change in relative contribution over time. It may be that model A is spot on regarding the effect of albedo but that model B is better at estimating the effect of el nino; it may further be that the relative effects of these factors will be different in five or ten years.
Uncertainties should undercut any hypothesis, so should negative results. (See scientific method.)
Found too far off target? So the truth is, the science has yet to be settled.
Only if it works, otherwise throw it out too. (Again, see scientific method.)
I never said that. My point is the average global temperature really isn't that interesting, it just a convenient single point of data to refer to and just one of many parameters which matter a lot more--such as being able to tell the government of Holland what might happen to sea level so they factor it into their future plans to protect the low lands. The local numbers also in many case allow models to better understand possible changes to improve their models when they don't seem realistic.
So now are you claiming that there is no world climate model?
One has no bearing on the other. Virtually every scientific field improves their models, even after their general conclusions are well established. With regard to climate, models will continue to be defined for decades to best define the likelihood and probabilities of local impacts all of us will ultimately need to adapt to a changed climate.Only local models? How can the science of "global" warming be settled then? ctions.
There is also the simple fact that as observations and raw computational power increase new model with better physics become feasible and end up replacing obsolete models that might have been state of the art just a few years ago. Aging software is another issue; for example, how many experts in Fortran 77 still around to work in the cloud radiation models I wrote in the early 80s? (heck it would probably take me months to figure it out at this point) Not many and eventually you replace hard to maintain code with better code even if the old stuff worked fine but is now needs to be plugged into other models. Nearly every scientific field goes though similar cycles and changes
You seem to have difficulty with the general utility of succesive approximations.So then take and use in one model the best features of each model rather than average them.There will be bias of one sort or another in any model. One model may assign a certain weight to one factor, say albedo, and a lesser weight to, say, el nino whereas another may assign a different weight to each of these factors, etc. But these factors all tend to interplay with one another in ways that we do not fully understand, and which may change in relative contribution over time. It may be that model A is spot on regarding the effect of albedo but that model B is better at estimating the effect of el nino; it may further be that the relative effects of these factors will be different in five or ten years.
Uncertainties should undercut any hypothesis, so should negative results. (See scientific method.)
Found too far off target? So the truth is, the science has yet to be settled.
Only if it works, otherwise throw it out too. (Again, see scientific method.)
That really is the point of the post, isn't it? I think it would be far more interesting and scientific if the IPCC didn't just simply take all the varied opinions about the climate and average them. It would be more interesting and scientific if they looked at results and featured the models that came closest to reality. Looking at the chart above, I can see a couple that aren't too far off the mark. Unfortunately they are not politically correct, nor do they justify the IPCC's existence. So I can understand why they would take the average of all the bad models along with the good, as uninteresting as that may be.
I have difficulty with garbage too. Show me a model that gets it right, and my difficulty will disappear.
Why?That really is the point of the post, isn't it? I think it would be far more interesting and scientific if the IPCC didn't just simply take all the varied opinions about the climate and average them.
Perhaps you should delve into the hundreds of pages in their reports to find out all the other interesting assessments other than global average temp they've been able to pull out of their varied models. Most of them are in pretty plain language. They are after far more than one number.
Since all the models are displayed you could just pick on anyhow as someone suggested. (one of the CMIP-3 set) Study that model, it's strengths, weaknesses, and the full range of objectives it was designed to explore. You'd find it far more educational than just complaining that the field actually uses a lot more than a single model to reach their broad conclusions.
And as I said you can only compare to the hind cast to compare to, but know we'll be moving into a greenhouse regime the earth hasn't seen in millions of years there's really no feasible way to verify with absolutely accuracy against the future--only make a range of forecast based on a set of models that take the added greenhouses into consideration.
the problem with their assessments is they don't seem to give any details as to how they come up with their numbers. Additionally, their numbers don't seem to reflect reality too well, since science for them seems to be taking the average of all the good and bad apples.
Well, I perused the IPCC website and could not find any details re: any models. They simply state they rely on several sources? That tells me next to nothing.
LOL! The consensus can't even agree on what the Earth's mean temperature is or how it should be measured, yet somehow they know it has gotten warmer and we will move into a greenhouse regime Earth hasn't seen in millions of years.
Especially when the focus is on averaging the good models with the bad, rather than focusing on the actual results.
Well they could also admit when the models have failed and go back to the drawing board. Maybe CO2 does not absorb and scatter 10 microns of IR radiation, and maybe CO2, being heavier than air, sinks when it loses energy and can't do the greenhouse thing as well as expected. So much can go wrong with the best-laid plans and models. And so much is going wrong. The Earth is cooling when there is supposed to be rapid warming, and where oh where is that hot spot hiding? Now we are told the oceans are getting warmer if not the air. But ARGO(?) shows the oceans are cooling as well. So the IPCC's approach is to take all their lame results and average them. LOL!
how do you know which are "good" and which are "bad" ? my understanding was that each model has its own strengths and weaknesses, based on initial assumptions and a decision where to allocate the computing resource
after all, there's many ways to skin a cat
only in a perfect world would we know which is the best model and only use that one - then again, in a perfect world everyone would drive the same car
You seem to be equating successive approximations with garbage. 371,000 Google Scholar hits may help with this.I have difficulty with garbage too. Show me a model that gets it right, and my difficulty will disappear.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...s+&btnG=Search
That is why I asked you for the specific data for 3 local places for the year 2070--as a tiny example of what would be necessary. To verify accurately which model will ultimately do the "best," you'd need to know average for thousands of places---all in the future. You couldn't even provide three.
Of course I'm having a bit of fun here, but you keep bypassing this simple and most important point.
The average is computed from all 3D data which the models produce.
William’s fixation on “settled science” rang a bell with me so I went looking in RealClimate and found these comments from another William (could it be the same one?) scroll down to response no. 129:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...omment-page-3/
I thought the moderator’s (Gavin Schmidt’s) reply was applicable here:
[Response: Now this is tendentious twaddle. Perhaps you would care to point out anywhere on this site, or in anything any of us have written that declares that 'the science' (whatever that means) 'is settled'? This is simply a false binary distinction (settled/unsettled) foisted on a much more complex situation where there are large gradations in what is understood, done purely to imply that if something is unsettled, we can say nothing. Well, that is BS. (Sorry to be harsh, but really!). - gavin]
How does any scientist figure that out? Observations, experiments, results. Bad forcasts = bad models. Accurate forcasts = good model.
Based on assumptions rather than observations and results. Not very scientific.
Some ways are better than others. I prefer the scientific method.
Well then I guess it would be foohardy to claim everyone drives the same car, and it would be silly to suggest there is a "consensus" among scientists.
Well I can't take credit for another William, I'm afraid, but it might be fun to pick apart Smitty's response:
"Now this is tendentious twaddle. "
He starts out with an ad hominem attack. Go Gavin!
"Perhaps you would care to point out anywhere on this site, or in anything any of us have written that declares that 'the science' (whatever that means) 'is settled'?"
OK, so Gavin does not believe the science is settled, so I guess that proves the science is NOT settled. Smitty has demonstrated here that scientists can't even agree on whether they agree.
"This is simply a false binary distinction (settled/unsettled) foisted on a much more complex situation where there are large gradations in what is understood,"
This is his fancy way of saying the science is not settled.
"done purely to imply that if something is unsettled, we can say nothing. Well, that is BS. (Sorry to be harsh, but really!)."
Well, I think AGW can say all they want, and an ass can bray, but why should I or anyone believe... if something is unsettled?
P.S. Gavin has never published any of my comments at his blog. He only publishes those that mirror his thoughts or those he thinks he can outwit.
At least I know garbage when I see it. I do not require 371,000 Google Scholar hits to convince me successive approximations are valid. I only require one model that is consistent and accurate. As it stands, I can bet against any projection or forcast and be right most of the time.You seem to be equating successive approximations with garbage. 371,000 Google Scholar hits may help with this.I have difficulty with garbage too. Show me a model that gets it right, and my difficulty will disappear.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...s+&btnG=Search
Here are a list of my successful predictions:
1. Y2K would be uneventful.
2. The killer bees won't ruin California agriculture.
3. Florida will not be underwater by year 2000.
4. New York will not have tropical weather by year 2000.
5. All species of wildlife will not be extinct by year 2000.
6. The lack of ozone layer will not destroy all life on the planet by year 1995.
You green guys keep making predictions, I keep betting against you, and I keep winning my bets. You want to change my mind? Cause me to lose bets consistently. Come up with a model that is right more than 0% of the time. For now, the 371,000 Scholar hits are just so much toilet paper.
I can't provide even one. So what? You are only making my point. To refresh your memory, my point is you got nothing. Now that being the case, why would I have something that I contend does not exist?
I bet I am having more fun than you. You make my point for me, then contend I am somehow missing it. LOL!
As S. Fred Singer would say, "What is so special about the average? Maybe it is one of the extremes that more accurately agrees with observations."
William, there was no ad hominem. Gavin addressed the content not the writer. Now you keep repeating "science is not settled" but no one here has said it is settled. This amounts to a different kind of fallacy - a strawman. Get over it please. There are serious issues to discuss.
You are obviously much too smart for Gavin to outwit.P.S. Gavin has never published any of my comments at his blog. He only publishes those that mirror his thoughts or those he thinks he can outwit.
if you knew the scientific method as well as you claim you do then you also know that whilst all good science starts with initial assumptions (how else are you going to test anything if you're not going to start off with anything that can be tested ?), it is also so that all good science goes on from the initial assumptions by making predictions and implications which can then be testedBased on assumptions rather than observations and results. Not very scientific.
if it makes you happier, i could use model-speak and call them boundary conditions or start-up parameters - just don't imply that assumptions necessarily equate with wild, unsubstantiated guesses
Is that your interpretation? The first definition of ad hominem suits me fine.
ad hominem:
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Oh how clever! The old strawman strawman argument. What do I need to get over? I am perfectly happy with the fact that no one here has said the science is settled. It sort of supports my contention that it is not settled.
You are obviously much too smart for Gavin to outwit.
What was tested empirically? What were the results? Assumptions are unsubstaniated if no evidence substantiates them, and they are wild if they miss the side of the barn rather than hit the target.if you knew the scientific method as well as you claim you do then you also know that whilst all good science starts with initial assumptions (how else are you going to test anything if you're not going to start off with anything that can be tested ?), it is also so that all good science goes on from the initial assumptions by making predictions and implications which can then be testedBased on assumptions rather than observations and results. Not very scientific.
if it makes you happier, i could use model-speak and call them boundary conditions or start-up parameters - just don't imply that assumptions necessarily equate with wild, unsubstantiated guesses
I am pretty sure the scientific method is not:
1. Assume X is true.
2. Assume X has been tested and that the results confirm X is true.
3. No results can ever falsify X. If they do, take the average of all model projections, and assume that is true.
indeed - that's not how the scientific method works
now can you provide evidence that's how climate modeling is done ?
be sure to use a real model rather than a puppet description as found in the press
See IPCC chart on page one of this thread. Read the IPCC Synthesis report and a couple of others. I have yet to see any of their docs describe any physical experiments, and what would falsify the AGW theory. Obviously climate modeling is done as I described if their projections fail to match reality. So when did any climate model ever get it right? One does not even need to know how they work to know they are not working. Using your car analogy, do you really need to know how the engine works to know your car fails to run? If it fails to run, then obviously it is not working the way it is supposed to. Anyone who insists that it is, is lying or is obtuse.indeed - that's not how the scientific method works
now can you provide evidence that's how climate modeling is done ?
be sure to use a real model rather than a puppet description as found in the press
depends what you mean by "getting it right" - do you mean 100% right, or is 90% ok or maybe even 70% ?
and how do you calculate the percentage rightness ?
The simple answer IS EVERYONE of the 17 models in question mostly "get it right," when they are compared to the past (hind cast) which is all they can be compared to because-- well obviously-- we don't have the future to compare to. The hundreds of other models and earlier versions of the current model set which don't hind cast as well aren't part of the 17.
The other problem with using single digit evaluation of model success, like average increase in temperature, is the model could be way off and get this one number right for the wrong reasons. If, for example, too much heat in one region is compensated by cooling in another where there shouldn't be any.
So the bottom line is, there were no successful timestamped predictions that were made in the past by climate models. Predicting yesterday's news doesn't count.The simple answer IS EVERYONE of the 17 models in question mostly "get it right," when they are compared to the past (hind cast) which is all they can be compared to because-- well obviously-- we don't have the future to compare to. The hundreds of other models and earlier versions of the current model set which don't hind cast as well aren't part of the 17.
The other problem with using single digit evaluation of model success, like average increase in temperature, is the model could be way off and get this one number right for the wrong reasons. If, for example, too much heat in one region is compensated by cooling in another where there shouldn't be any.
Of course the past counts. The model doesn't care what time it is, or when it started. These models all produce mostly realistic and accurate results when past data is put into them and compared to the only observations AVAILABLE, THOSE OF THE PAST. (I could have had a V8! moment).
Now if we only knew the specific atmospheric concentrations for the next 50 years, solar output, patterns of irrigation and jet cirrus contrails, volcanoes, coronal mass injections, crazy SOBs torching their oil fields or doing a nuke toss and had the temperature, wind and rain data for a few thousand stations---well than perhaps we could meet your lofty scientific standard. But because we don't, and never will, we attempt to make reasonable assumptions about the future and use a variety of models to crunch a forecast based on unchanged physics that have proved reasonably accurate forecasting past conditions.
This is the best any science can do and how it works.
Perhaps Mr. Pinn will understand better with this analogy.
Mr. Pinn, please predict the time will you wake up tomorrow. You are free to use past patterns of wakefulness and corellations of wakefulness with whatever criteria you like, when arriving at a prediction.
How far off does your answer need to be before you consider it wrong?
you misread me again - my question was exactly what free radical stated: how close does the model have to be before you consider it "right" ?
Like hitting the rim in basketball.
I seriously doubt that is even true, or if it is, it is coincidental, since a history of 500 million years shows no significant association between CO2 and temperatures. (See my other post with the chart.)
Unfortunately the assumptions of 17 plus models don't agree, and that is the point. The "unchanged" physics isn't really being applied, and models are not conforming to observations. If that were the case, you would have ONE model like there is onely one F=ma or one E=mc^2. Scientists don't take the average of all opinions re: the physics involved. They perform experiments to find out who is right. So science can do far better and has before it became a cult religion.
Well, if my prediction is off my a few minutes, that would be within a reasonable margin of error. When Carl Sagan's model predicted that a nuclear winter would occur as a result of the Kuwaiti oil fires, obviously his model was off by several orders of magnitude. That margin of error is unacceptable.
Within a margin of error of 3% would be nice. And it would be swell if the models could show a downtrend when the data shows a downtrend. Now, back at you. What would falsify the AGW hypothesis? So far it is the only hypothesis that requires proof that it isn't true.you misread me again - my question was exactly what free radical stated: how close does the model have to be before you consider it "right" ?
Unfortunately for your straw man "argument," Carl Sagan never ran a model on the Kuwait oil fires nor ever published any peer review results about the topic.
A climate trend, which is by definition is over 30 years, which showed cooling in the face of continuing rises of anthropomorphic green house emissions that couldn't be otherwise explained by other processes such as the current low point in the solar cycle irradiation. Given the 17 models in place account for every known physical parameter we can think of, and the extremely robust nature and simplicity of CO2 absorption it is highly improbable that AGW hypothesis is wrong--nearly impossible. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of by how much and what will be the specific distribution and effect on local climate/weather.What would falsify the AGW hypothesis?
Oh, I see we have another strawman strawman argument sprinkled with irrelevancies.
"Cornell Professor Carl Sagan of the TTAPS study warned in January 1991 that so much smoke from the fires "might get so high as to disrupt agriculture in much of South Asia...." Sagan later conceded in his book The Demon-Haunted World that this prediction did not turn out to be correct: "it was pitch black at noon and temperatures dropped 4°-6°C over the Persian Gulf, but not much smoke reached stratospheric altitudes and Asia was spared." [11]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
Well you have seen the 500 million year data showing a lack of association of CO2 and temperature. Here is more data showing that CO2 is driven by temperature and not vice versa:
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/3...s-and-ice-ages
I think your memory needs to be refreshed. The AGW hypothesis states that man's carbon dioxide is the predominate forcing agent, not the solar cycle. If temperatures can fall while CO2 rises then there is no need for cap-n-trade, carbon taxes and a lot of other nonsense. An ice-age can last thousands of years. The fact that ice ages are a reality should be enough to falsify AGW. But unfortunately we are dealing with a political movement, not science.
So why are you comparing studies of nuclear winter to Kuwait oil fires? What model did Sagan run, where is the paper? Please do Tell! You can't because he did no science about oil Fires and never ran any model about them. He did say that he (a non climatologist) thought Kuwait oil fires would have a global impact during a nightline episode, but it was not based in any simulations of the fires or peer review research. Your statement is factually wrong.Oh, I see we have another strawman strawman argument sprinkled with irrelevancies.
"Cornell Professor Carl Sagan of the TTAPS study warned in January 1991 that so much smoke from the fires "might get so high as to disrupt agriculture in much of South Asia...." Sagan later conceded in his book The Demon-Haunted World that this prediction did not turn out to be correct: "it was pitch black at noon and temperatures dropped 4°-6°C over the Persian Gulf, but not much smoke reached stratospheric altitudes and Asia was spared." [11]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
See the other thread. The 500million year chart compares the planet under entirely different ocean, land and solar conditions and doesn't resolve even the astronomical orbital which are nearly of the same amplitude as those show in the chart but completely unresolved due to their short time frame; It's a meaningless comparison with no relevance to the next 50 years.Well you have seen the 500 million year data showing a lack of association of CO2 and temperature. Here is more data showing that CO2 is driven by temperature and not vice versa:
Not really true. There are lots of natural ways that other mechanisms COULD be stronger than anthropomorphic forcing--it's just non of them appear likely: no solar model or proxy observation shows a solar energy reduction equal to the almost certain added forcing of anthropomorphic gas increases; other events that could produce stronger cooling, such as a super volcanoes, are exceedingly rear.If temperatures can fall while CO2 rises then there is no need for cap-n-trade, carbon taxes and a lot of other nonsense. An ice-age can last thousands of years. The fact that ice ages are a reality should be enough to falsify AGW. But unfortunately we are dealing with a political movement, not science.
So why are you comparing studies of nuclear winter to Kuwait oil fires? What model did Sagan run, where is the paper? Please do Tell! You can't because he did no science about oil Fires and never ran any model about them. He did say that he (a non climatologist) thought Kuwait oil fires would have a global impact during a nightline episode, but it was not based in any simulations of the fires or peer review research. Your statement is factually wrong.Oh, I see we have another strawman strawman argument sprinkled with irrelevancies.
"Cornell Professor Carl Sagan of the TTAPS study warned in January 1991 that so much smoke from the fires "might get so high as to disrupt agriculture in much of South Asia...." Sagan later conceded in his book The Demon-Haunted World that this prediction did not turn out to be correct: "it was pitch black at noon and temperatures dropped 4°-6°C over the Persian Gulf, but not much smoke reached stratospheric altitudes and Asia was spared." [11]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
So the ocean, land and solar conditions have more impact than CO2? OK, but that only falsifies the hypothesis that CO2 is the principal forcing agent.
None appear likely? Did you look at the data I provided? All of it falsifies the notion that human emissions have any significant impact on temperature. Further, you are contradicting yourself. Earlier you claimed that oceans, land and sun have more impact than CO2.
Well, the data over the short term shows CO2 moving in one direction while temperature moves the other way. That was not supposed to happen. The long-term data over thousands of years shows temperature leading CO2, not vice versa. That was not supposed to happen. The data showing over 500 million years shows no association between CO2 and temperature. That was not supposed to happen. Normally, a theory or hypothesis is falsified if predictions don't pan out. But AGW is very special indeed!
It does get tiresome but once more.So why are you comparing studies of nuclear winter to Kuwait oil fires? What model did Sagan run, where is the paper? Please do Tell! You can't because he did no science about oil Fires and never ran any model about them. He did say that he (a non climatologist) thought Kuwait oil fires would have a global impact during a nightline episode, but it was not based in any simulations of the fires or peer review research. Your statement is factually wrong.Oh, I see we have another strawman strawman argument sprinkled with irrelevancies.
"Cornell Professor Carl Sagan of the TTAPS study warned in January 1991 that so much smoke from the fires "might get so high as to disrupt agriculture in much of South Asia...." Sagan later conceded in his book The Demon-Haunted World that this prediction did not turn out to be correct: "it was pitch black at noon and temperatures dropped 4°-6°C over the Persian Gulf, but not much smoke reached stratospheric altitudes and Asia was spared." [11]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
So the ocean, land and solar conditions have more impact than CO2? OK, but that only falsifies the hypothesis that CO2 is the principal forcing agent.
None appear likely? Did you look at the data I provided? All of it falsifies the notion that human emissions have any significant impact on temperature. Further, you are contradicting yourself. Earlier you claimed that oceans, land and sun have more impact than CO2.
Well, the data over the short term shows CO2 moving in one direction while temperature moves the other way. That was not supposed to happen. The long-term data over thousands of years shows temperature leading CO2, not vice versa. That was not supposed to happen. The data showing over 500 million years shows no association between CO2 and temperature. That was not supposed to happen. Normally, a theory or hypothesis is falsified if predictions don't pan out. But AGW is very special indeed!
So the ocean, land and solar conditions have more impact than CO2? OK, but that only falsifies the hypothesis that CO2 is the principal forcing agent.
The hypothesis, as I, a working scientist, understands it, states that CO2 is the principal current forcing agent over which we have some degree of control. I have never heard it put forth that CO2 is the principal driver of climate. Ever. Except from climate skeptics who either don't understand the models or who do understand them and are trying to obscure the matter.
Did you look at the data I provided? All of it falsifies the notion that human emissions have any significant impact on temperature.
No, it doesn't. You are perhaps misinformed about what climate predictions actually claim. Might I recommend that you sit in on an Earth History course. This link might get you started.
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Earth--Atm...tary-Sciences/
Nice spin. I haven't heard that one before. Apparently the consensus can't even agree as to what the hypothesis is supposed to be.
I never heard that either. It is allegedly the principal forcing agent of the world's mean temperature. According to the 2007 IPCC Synthesis Report, their scientists are 90% certain that human emissions account for more than 50% of the temperature increase that has occurred over the last century. In order for that to be true, CO2 must be mostly responsible. In other words, it is the principal forcing agent (according to AGW alarmists).
You have it backwards. Skeptics refute the idea. Why would anyone need to be skeptical if no one is claiming CO2 is the principal forcing agent? Why would we need cap-n-trade?
I sat through earth science, physics, trig, calculus, chemistry, computer science, chaos theory, probability and statistics, biology, and am currently studying meteorology, so I can expose phonies who claim they are real scientists. If you ever bothered to study the subject that you are now imposing on me, you would find out that there is nothing in its content that denies the existence of or tries to put a spin on the AGW hypothesis.
There is one thing, however, we can agree on: C02 is NOT the principal driver of the climate or mean temperature of the world. Therefore, we don't need cap-n-trade or carbon taxes, or carbon sequestering, or the IPCC, or Move-ON.org, or Greenpeace, or Al Gore, or Congressman Waxman. We don't really need to spend billions on goverment scientists who are working on a problem that is insignificant compared to something like cancer or world hunger.
Hold on, Mr. Pinn. Why are you griping so much about a consensus? Out of curiosity, sir, is there ever a mass consensus in any of the sciences on EXACTLY how something works? As I understand, and as demonstrated, there is usually a generally accepted bit, in this case thathas a direct effect on, or at least correlative association with, the climate. The details are ALWAYS fuzzy, and ALWAYS will be. Just look at the discussions on other geological and physical phenomena, you will notice that there will be agreement on some aspect, and disagreement on the specifics around that aspect.
I think you are confusing discontent with sarcasm. When I speak of the "consensus," I do so with the utmost sarcasm.
Probably not. Hence my sarcasm.
Well, if you read through this thread, and other sources, I think you will find that AGW alarmists can't even agree upon what their hypothesis is supposed to be. If you falsify one version, they simply shift to a different version. Further, scientists can't even agree as to what the Earth's mean temperature was then or what it is now, and how it should be measured. Satellites for some, radiosonde for others, wind data for Sherwood at Yale. LOL! Scientists agree on so little, it is a wonder that they can unanamously agree that the Earth has gotton warmer. Even if you discount the skeptics, you will find what I say is true. As you pointed out, agreement among scientists is a rare thing indeed, and one should laugh hardily when some idiot like Al Gore makes a movie and claims the "science is settled."As I understand, and as demonstrated, there is usually a generally accepted bit, in this case that
I don't know about that. Newton's laws work pretty well for me and others. Add Einstein's relativity, and motion is pretty well covered. If AGW is fuzzy, it is because it is more religion than science. You can't get at the truth about something if there is no way to falsify the AGW hypothesis.
X + Y = a real or complex number. We can agree on that, can't we? Let's assume we do. So what? If we can't agree on something more specific, like what that real or complex number is, our agreement has little value to the world. If scientists agree the world is getting warmer, but can't agree on how temperature should be measured and what the temperature is, if their models vary, and their forcasts are off by a huge margin, who cares if they agree philosophically or politically?
"What scientists disagree upon does not prove what they agree upon."--WP
It is factually wrong because you are trying to imply that a non-climatologist who never ran a model about the Kuwaiti oil fires gave an ill informed opinion about what might happen on a talk show and than trying to compare it to actual climate science. You will find absolutely no scientific papers relating TAPPS to Kuwait oil fire.
Over half a billion year time spans when you darn well know the earth isn't even recognizable as the earth yes other things are equally or more important than Co2. No one denies this.So the ocean, land and solar conditions have more impact than CO2? OK, but that only falsifies the hypothesis that CO2 is the principal forcing agent.
[/quote]None appear likely? Did you look at the data I provided? All of it falsifies the notion that human emissions have any significant impact on temperature. Further, you are contradicting yourself. Earlier you claimed that oceans, land and sun have more impact than CO2.Not really true. There are lots of natural ways that other mechanisms COULD be stronger than anthropomorphic forcing--it's just non of them appear likely:
Do you think that plate tectonics is going to effect the next 50 years? How about the sun main sequence changes of radiation at a rate of 10% every billion years; will that effect the next 50 years? Do you think it's likely a super volcano that only happens every 100,000 years is going to happen in the next 50 years? How about an enormous giant asteroid? Hey and while I'm at it I might as well ask whether the lasers which the Martians use to mutilate cattle will effect the climate--since that's nearly as likely as the other changes you know might create more effect than adding Co2 to the atmosphere.
Actually the correlation over the 30+ year time scales is about 88% between Co2 increase and temperature since the beginning of the industrial age. The shorter time scales that result from inter annual variability aren't climate change.Well, the data over the short term shows CO2 moving in one direction while temperature moves the other way.
Says who? Every climatologist knows the sun was much dimmer and continents and oceans configured completely different 500 million years ago. They also know that such long time scales completely mask the drivers of climate over comparatively much shorter periods--like decades and centuries and even hundred thousand year periods. Your own chart doesn't even show the ice ages over the past 100,000 years that are nearly as large as the entire 500 million record.The data showing over 500 million years shows no association between CO2 and temperature. That was not supposed to happen.
Honestly this entire argument that tried to compare 500 million year trends and hand wave to imply it says something about the 50 years is extremely silly. (
So Sagan was to supposed to personally run the model? And TAPPS had to specifically write about the Kuwaiti oil fire? No inferences could be made? That's interesting because you climate guys make all kinds of inferences, assumptions, etc. Here is the lowdown on TAPPS:
"So in using their simple computer climate model, the TAPPS scientists who were investigating the environmental impact of nuclear war arrived at the sobering concept of "nuclear winter." Nuclear winter, their model's results suggested, would be the catastrophic environmental consequence of all-out nuclear war."
"Follow-up scientists to the TAPPS study discovered that the early nuclear war/climate results weren't perfectly accurate because the original computer model for the nuclear war simulations lacked some of these critical feedback processes. Rather than nuclear war resulting in nuclear winter, subsequent scientists began to hypothesize that nuclear war might instead create "nuclear autumn"-a cooling, but not a catastrophic cooling, of the earth. Of course, those results didn't make much news (it seems that finding fewer deaths is never as newsworthy as predicting more deaths), but it does point out the critical fact that we simply didn't-and still don't-understand everything about the earth's climatic system."
http://www.biggerbooks.com/bk_detail...=9781591027201
Now let's review what we know:
1. TAPPS used climate models.
2. Sagan based his prediction on those models.
3. You did not do your research or you are dishonest.
The IPCC does deny this. They claim that scientists are 90% certain that human emissions are more than 50% responsible for the temperature increase over the last century. If they speak truly, that would put CO2 at number one on the list. (See IPCC 2007 Synthesis.) So once again you have not done your homework or you are dishonest.
No less than CO2.
No less than CO2.
Do you think a .06 atmospheric concentration of CO2 (double the current level) is going to destroy the planet? I think the probability is about the same as your super volcano.
How about 7000 ppm of CO2? The chart on the other thread shows it isn't nearly enough to stop the 150 million year temperature cycle. And in 500 million years the amplitude never exceeded approximately 5K. According to alarmists, CO2 at 7000 ppm should have more of an impact, but the data falsifies their hypothesis.
Making a list of B-movie disasters proves nothing. With the exception of Martians, you have failed to show what, if anything, prevented 7000 ppm of CO2 from turning Earth into Venus millions of years ago. If you want to argue intelligently, first form a hypothesis describing why 7000 ppm of CO2 could not cause a runaway greenhouse effect then, and why it can today. Then set forth your empirical evidence in support. (The last part is tricky since you have no evidence.)
Out of millions of years you can only find a couple of measly 30-year correlations? I can find more correlations between stock prices and CO2.
Oh, you said it is silly to point out a longterm lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature, so I guess that proves there is a consistent correlation between CO2 and temperature. Because CO2 and temperature have such a strong correlation, we can only find one 30-year correlation out of millions of years. (Actually, we can find more, but the temperature leads the CO2--darn it!)
How convenient! So short-term data that falsifies AGW is too short, and long-term data that falsifies AGW is too long. Sort of reminds me of Goldilocks and the three bears. I guess the trick to good science these days is to wear blinders and only look at the data that appears to support your hypothesis.
You're trying to argue against something that climatologist don't think. This entire thread is based on the idea that climatologist think Co2 is, has always been and will always be THE primary driver of temperature. The reality is no climatologist think that is true.
Good science is about looking at data that's relevant and that takes an analysis of scales and assumptions. You'll learn this early in virtually any science class that scale is vitally important because you've got to sift through all possibles. To take a simple example, if you were trying to evaluated the water flow over a model airplane wing you could start with an extremely long form of fluid dynamic equation that are nearly impossible to solve. If you asked an aeronautical engineer for a good solution he might well point you towards one form of the Bernoulli's equations, which assumes no heat is added and static pressure is constant (and others). If you didn't do the scale analysis someone might ask and try to state that no change in static pressure was an invalid assumption because over the vertical depth of the atmosphere there is great differences in the static pressure--he might even claim because of his proof the entire equation was wrong and the airplane would not fly. The error of course is airplane wings are thin compared to the depth of the atmosphere and the real difference in static pressure between the bottom of the wing and the top is so small as to be completely overwhelmed by other forces--the end result is Bernoulli's equations do a respectable job even though they ignore many terms but include the most important ones for the scale of airplane wings.
You've done the same to compare completely different climate & weather scales and are trying to draw false conclusions because you seemingly don't understand, are just choosing to ignore the differences of scale.
Things like continental drift act on scales of 10's of millions of years--they are approximately zero and can be ignored for time scales of a centuries. Astronomical orbital change forcing is on the scale of millennium, and can also be ignored when ones considering timescales of centuries. Just to illustrate the opposite end of scaling analysis, the difference in shade between the rows of my apple orchard and my lima beans for a home garden effects scales of hours and days and can safely be ignored when considering a global analysis of decade temperature trends.
Understanding scale is crucial in all science analysis. Since you are taking one of your first classes in atmospheric science ask your instructor about some of the assumptions made and how they change with scale of the phenomena--if the teacher is worth his salt, he'll be able to give you several good examples. Any scientist could do the same in their respective fields.
I think you should write letters to the EPA, the IPCC and let them know. For some strange reason, CO2 has gotten a bad name. Sure glad to hear that no climatologists were involved.
Right. Data that falsifies your hypothesis is irrelevant data.
I trust Bernoulli's eguation because it works when tested. In other words, there is a test that can be performed that would falsify the equation if it was invalid. AGW alarmists offer no test that would falsify the AGW hypothesis if the test failed. That is why it is politics/religion/philosophy, not science. A good test might be: does the data match the predictions? The air was supposed to warm. It cooled instead. Now the oceans are supposed to be warmer, but they are also cooler according to ARGO. Any scientist would conclude that the hypothesis is wrong. It doen't work, but the AGW hypothesis lives! Like the coming of Christ, it can't be falsified.
It is clear you are ignoring the fact that, nomatter what scale you use, the temperature never rose above 22 C for the last 600 million years, and during that time fluctuated between 12C and 22C regardless of the CO2 levels ranging from 190 ppm to 7000 ppm. The temperature cycle withstood all the changes of the continents and oceans, etc. Over the midterm, ice core data shows temperatures leading CO2, not vice versa. Recent history shows CO2 rising and temperatures falling. If there were a consistent correlation between CO2 and temperature, I have no doubt the "irrelevant" data would suddenly be relevant. AGW alarmists always tell us that any warm weather is caused by global warming, but cold weather is not caused by global cooling; it is just local weather. As I said, AGW cannot be falsified. It is religion, not science.
On any scale those factors can be ignored, since there is no empirical evidence that shows they have any influence on the temperature cycle. The cycle is very constant and steady. If all those things you mentioned had any significant impact, the cycle would be more haphazard. Just because the data shows there is a lack of correlation with CO2, that is not proof that there is a correlation with continental drift, etc. Quite frankly, I found your Martian invasion hypothesis to be more entertaining.
So you think the relevant data are among the apples and lima beans?
Been there, done that. If there is a genuine correlation between CO2 and temperature, it is more likely to be apparent over the longterm rather than the short term. One can find a correlation between temperature and stock prices over the last century. Over a longer time-scale, the correlation breaks down. One could argue as you do and insist that scale matters, that the breakdown in correlation is irrelevant. The only relevant data is the last century. The problem with your thesis is a correlation can be found to some extent between any two datasets. If we were to record how often an ant stops a train, there would be a lot of data showing the train crushing the ant. There might be a few instances where the train stopped just before the ant. We could assume the ant stopped the train during those instances. We could even show a correlation and tell any skeptics that scale is important and that the other data showing the train crushing the ant is not relevant, etc.
The IPCC doesn't make the claims you say it does either, in fact they have several chapters that discuss past attributions to climate and go to great length to evaluate other forcing mechanism. I might have hoped you'd want to engage in a serious discussion to learn why evaluation of time and spacial scales of effect are an important consideration of all climate and other sciences. (shrugs)I think you should write letters to the EPA, the IPCC and let them know. For some strange reason, CO2 has gotten a bad name. Sure glad to hear that no climatologists were involved.
Have fun charging windmills. (slaps Pinns horse on the rump)
(yells) Please come back when you want to discuss science.
Uh huh. So then human emissions aren't more than 50% responsible for the increase in temperature? OK, but isn't that what skeptics have been arguing all along? Yes, I think it s. So you lose the debate.
Oh puhleeez! Can you stop fantasizing for even five minutes? You haven't set forth any evidence to show you even know what you are talking about.
Before I read further, please find this specific reference in the report. In my understanding, there is a 90% surety that human activity , not emissions, is responsible for some 50% of the warming.
Cheers,
FR
Human emissions is a human activity. If you are trying to make the case that emissions are not significant, you are making the skeptics' case.Before I read further, please find this specific reference in the report. In my understanding, there is a 90% surety that human activity , not emissions, is responsible for some 50% of the warming.
Cheers,
FR
I am making the case that you do not understand the details of the proponents' case.
Can I take your response to mean that in fact there is no source from the IPCC claiming that scientists are 90% certain that CO2 is 50% responsible for warming? If there is, please provide it.
I understand that climate models don't work. This has become a religious debate. Everytime someone falsifies the proponents' case, then that person must somehow be ignorant of the proponents' case. After all there is no test that falsifies the proponents' hypothesis--whatever that hypothesis is at any given moment. It changes from its original form to something else, then it changes back again.
I feel like I am making the rubble bounce here. Have you ever heard of cap-n-trade or carbon credits? Have you read the EPA's ruling on CO2? How about the Supreme Court's ruling re: the EPA's right to regulate CO2? Are you familiar with the latest energy bill? Come out of your cave and try Googling. For some strange reason CO2 comes up time and time again.
Humor me. Since you think you are so much more informed than I, tell me why there is so much fuss surrounding CO2. Which of the human activities are more than 50% responsible for the temperature anomalies? Is CO2 involved?
Not at all. If someone falsifies an argument on the science of AGW then that correction would be assimilated and the science would be that much better.Everytime someone falsifies the proponents' case, then that person must somehow be ignorant of the proponents' case.
You ought to try it sometime.
I have not said that you have falsified anything, or that you have not falsified anything. Put simply, you believe human activity equates to CO2, thus it would seem that you do not understand what the science claims.I understand that climate models don't work. This has become a religious debate. Everytime someone falsifies the proponents' case, then that person must somehow be ignorant of the proponents' case. After all there is no test that falsifies the proponents' hypothesis--whatever that hypothesis is at any given moment. It changes from its original form to something else, then it changes back again.
I feel like I am making the rubble bounce here. Have you ever heard of cap-n-trade or carbon credits? Have you read the EPA's ruling on CO2? How about the Supreme Court's ruling re: the EPA's right to regulate CO2? Are you familiar with the latest energy bill? Come out of your cave and try Googling. For some strange reason CO2 comes up time and time again.
Humor me. Since you think you are so much more informed than I, tell me why there is so much fuss surrounding CO2. Which of the human activities are more than 50% responsible for the temperature anomalies? Is CO2 involved?
You seem to be trying to put me on the defensive. I have asked for a simple thing. You claimed that the IPCC states that scientists are 90% certain that CO2 accounts for 50% of warming. Please provide the reference for this. That's all. I am happy to move on to the next issue once we get this point cleared up.
In what way has AGW improved? I have already tried what you suggested. I was a believer back in the 1980's. Then I saw predictions not happening and contrary evidence, so I have changed my belief according to the evidence or lack thereof. What have you done?
OK, you win! CO2 is not what the IPCC is refering to when it speaks of human activities. Now tell us what mysterious human activities they were refering to.I have not said that you have falsified anything, or that you have not falsified anything. Put simply, you believe human activity equates to CO2, thus it would seem that you do not understand what the science claims.I understand that climate models don't work. This has become a religious debate. Everytime someone falsifies the proponents' case, then that person must somehow be ignorant of the proponents' case. After all there is no test that falsifies the proponents' hypothesis--whatever that hypothesis is at any given moment. It changes from its original form to something else, then it changes back again.
I feel like I am making the rubble bounce here. Have you ever heard of cap-n-trade or carbon credits? Have you read the EPA's ruling on CO2? How about the Supreme Court's ruling re: the EPA's right to regulate CO2? Are you familiar with the latest energy bill? Come out of your cave and try Googling. For some strange reason CO2 comes up time and time again.
Humor me. Since you think you are so much more informed than I, tell me why there is so much fuss surrounding CO2. Which of the human activities are more than 50% responsible for the temperature anomalies? Is CO2 involved?
You seem to be trying to put me on the defensive. I have asked for a simple thing. You claimed that the IPCC states that scientists are 90% certain that CO2 accounts for 50% of warming. Please provide the reference for this. That's all. I am happy to move on to the next issue once we get this point cleared up.
That's really great! I'd love to read your papers. Where were they published?I have already tried what you suggested.
That's really great! I'd love to read your papers. Where were they published?I have already tried what you suggested.
Mine are published here:
http://hotandcold.gather.com
I do a thorough debunking of REALCLIMATE's idiotic "How to Talk To A Climate Skeptic," tutorials. I note you sidestepped my question: "What have you done?" [ad hominem removed]-SkinWalker
Land use, desertification, resultant albedo, etc. See "early agriculture and climate" for a start.OK, you win! CO2 is not what the IPCC is refering to when it speaks of human activities. Now tell us what mysterious human activities they were refering to.I have not said that you have falsified anything, or that you have not falsified anything. Put simply, you believe human activity equates to CO2, thus it would seem that you do not understand what the science claims.I understand that climate models don't work. This has become a religious debate. Everytime someone falsifies the proponents' case, then that person must somehow be ignorant of the proponents' case. After all there is no test that falsifies the proponents' hypothesis--whatever that hypothesis is at any given moment. It changes from its original form to something else, then it changes back again.
I feel like I am making the rubble bounce here. Have you ever heard of cap-n-trade or carbon credits? Have you read the EPA's ruling on CO2? How about the Supreme Court's ruling re: the EPA's right to regulate CO2? Are you familiar with the latest energy bill? Come out of your cave and try Googling. For some strange reason CO2 comes up time and time again.
Humor me. Since you think you are so much more informed than I, tell me why there is so much fuss surrounding CO2. Which of the human activities are more than 50% responsible for the temperature anomalies? Is CO2 involved?
You seem to be trying to put me on the defensive. I have asked for a simple thing. You claimed that the IPCC states that scientists are 90% certain that CO2 accounts for 50% of warming. Please provide the reference for this. That's all. I am happy to move on to the next issue once we get this point cleared up.
Gee, I missed reading that in the IPCC reports. Can you provide a link? Here is my link:
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&gl=us
"Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenicGHG. Its annual emissions grew by about 80% between 1970 and 2004...."
IPCC basically drones on and on about GHGs... I don't deny there are other causes of climate change. What skeptic does? What I find funny is that you seem to be putting the IPCC into the skeptic camp, perhaps unwittingly. It is skeptics who argue that other causes are more significant than CO2. I'll just get out of your way and let you continue. :-D
Sorry, william, if you think this is a debunking, thorough or otherwise you are confused. I can't be bothered to do a thorough debunking of your debunking because everything is already out on the web for anyone who has the interest to look for it. You are wrong on virtually everything from the "North Pole" to the Netherlands, where, according to you the Dutch "don't seem to be worried". Well here's what the top Dutch water guy is saying:
But perhaps you got this one right. The Dutch aren't worried. Why not? because they are actually planning for sea level rise. If you have a plan you don't have to worry."We want to make sure that there's still a Netherlands a century from now," Tineke Huizinga, the country's top water official, told state broadcaster NOS.
"We don't want to just let the water flow and all have to move to Germany."
Well, anyway, it's goodbye from me. I'm tired of your nonsense. Oh, and sorry I missed your ad hom. Was it a good one?
Sorry, william, if you think this is a debunking, thorough or otherwise you are confused. I can't be bothered to do a thorough debunking of your debunking because everything is already out on the web for anyone who has the interest to look for it. You are wrong on virtually everything from the "North Pole" to the Netherlands, where, according to you the Dutch "don't seem to be worried". Well here's what the top Dutch water guy is saying:
But perhaps you got this one right. The Dutch aren't worried. Why not? because they are actually planning for sea level rise. If you have a plan you don't have to worry."We want to make sure that there's still a Netherlands a century from now," Tineke Huizinga, the country's top water official, told state broadcaster NOS.
"We don't want to just let the water flow and all have to move to Germany."
Myself, I see them as a political body to use their power to control us all.
Note, what follows is from memory without double checking. My numbers may be slightly off:
Riddle me this. At one place in the IPCC report, they claim that solar radiation has increased by 0.2% to 0.3% since the 1700's. They go on to claim about a 0.15 watt radiative forcing change. Now I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that they conveniently disregard, and calculate nowhere, the direct temperature change due to the increased solar radiation. Power to heat equations are linear. The temperature of the earth comes from more than 99.9% from the sun. Tidal forces and radioactive decay heat the earth to a very small degree. Anyway, please follow:
Assuming the average temperature of 15 C and and Celsius is kelvin + 273.15, then the earths average temperature is 288.15 C. At the IPCC's stated 0.2% increase in solar radiation, the direct change due to the sun can be calculated at 288.15 x 0.002 = 0.5763 C. At the upper 0.3% increase, it becomes 0.86445 C increase.
The IPCC only calculates the feedback of the suns increased radiation and disregards the direct heating!
The IPCC report actually says:
So your memory is only off by one order of magnitude.In terms of plausible physical understanding, the most
likely secular increase in total irradiance from the Maunder
Minimum to current cycle minima is 0.04% (an irradiance
increase of roughly 0.5 W m–2 in 1,365 W m–2), corresponding
to an RF11 of +0.1 W m–2.
Is this correct? I don't know. Can you point us to the place where it says this?The IPCC only calculates the feedback of the suns increased radiation and disregards the direct heating!
Well, I say they only include radiative rather than direct because of their numbers. That I don't know for fact. I do know the IPCC is purely a political body who used scientists. I did some reading of the AR4 report and it acknowledges larger ranges that were corrected. How convenient.
Isn't it fishy that they compare apples to oranges? Do you think it's right to compare the maunder minimum to current cycle minima?
Anyway, AR4 refering to TAR:
NASA had changed many links, and I trust their data. Here is a graph I made that their data set is now moved:Page 108:
These satellite data have been used in combination with the historically recorded sunspot number, records of cosmogenic isotopes, and the characteristics of other Sun-like stars to estimate the solar radiation over the last 1,000 years (Eddy, 1976; Hoyt and Schatten, 1993, 1997; Lean et al., 1995; Lean, 1997). These data sets indicated quasi-periodic changes in solar radiation of 0.24 to 0.30% on the centennial time scale. These values have recently been re-assessed (see, e.g., Chapter 2).
Page 189:
Irradiance reconstructions such as those of Hoyt and Schatten (1993), Lean et al. (1995), Lean (2000), Lockwood and Stamper (1999) and Solanki and Fligge (1999), used in the TAR, assumed the existence of a long-term variability component in addition to the known 11-year cycle, in which the 17th-century Maunder Minimum total irradiance was reduced in the range of 0.15% to 0.3% below contemporary solar minima.
page 478:
In the previous reconstructions, the 17th-century ‘Maunder Minimum’ total irradiance was 0.15 to 0.65% (irradiance change about 2.0 to 8.7 W m–2; radiative forcing about 0.36 to
1.55 W m–2) below the present-day mean (Figure 6.13b). Most of the recent studies (with the exception of Solanki and Krivova, 2003) calculate a reduction of only around 0.1% (irradiance change of the order of –1 W m–2, radiative forcing of
–0.2 W m–2; section 2.7).
page 480:
The high-amplitude forcing history (‘Bard25’, Table 6.3) is based on an ice core record of 10Be scaled to give an average reduction in solar irradiance of 0.25% during the Maunder Minimum, as compared to today (Bard et al., 2000).
If you notice, I just repeated the last solar cycle that basically isn't yet.
Here is a graph I can still find the dataset for:
Please not there is an approximate 0.1% increase in the last 100 years. 0.1% doesn't seem like much, but when you consider we are at about 288 K temperature for a global average, it adds up fast. Can we really expect the sun to be more stable than that?
Here is a dataset that has solar changes since 843. Graphed:
Here's a nice formula that applies known solar cycles:
Myself, I see them as a political body to use their power to control us all.
Note, what follows is from memory without double checking. My numbers may be slightly off:
Riddle me this. At one place in the IPCC report, they claim that solar radiation has increased by 0.2% to 0.3% since the 1700's. They go on to claim about a 0.15 watt radiative forcing change. Now I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that they conveniently disregard, and calculate nowhere, the direct temperature change due to the increased solar radiation. Power to heat equations are linear. The temperature of the earth comes from more than 99.9% from the sun. Tidal forces and radioactive decay heat the earth to a very small degree. Anyway, please follow:
Assuming the average temperature of 15 C and and Celsius is kelvin + 273.15, then the earths average temperature is 288.15 C. At the IPCC's stated 0.2% increase in solar radiation, the direct change due to the sun can be calculated at 288.15 x 0.002 = 0.5763 C. At the upper 0.3% increase, it becomes 0.86445 C increase.
The IPCC only calculates the feedback of the suns increased radiation and disregards the direct heating!
The IPCC lost its credibility during the hockey stick scandal. You can Google this. Apparently Michael Mann, founder of REALCLIMATE (aka: BS-Climate) made up a program that produces a hockey-stick-like graph no matter what data is entered. It completely disregards the warming period that happened around 1000 years ago, a warming that greatly exceeded anything we have experienced in modern times. So the chart looks like warming only occurred in the last 100 years! Snakeoil pedlers have found a new angle: climate change and cap and trade.
what's your evidence for this ?
How about the tax records the Romans kept on wine grape crops in England. Now I agree it's hard to claim "greatly exceeded," but the Vikings did once colonize Greenland with farm,s and mines. My father has some old documents of our viking ancestry that I've asked him to scan and send to me. I don't know if they reflect that, but mines and farms have been found under the receding ice of Greenland.what's your evidence for this ?
Maybe it really was green at one time!
How about ice core data that shows three spikes of temperature higher than we have now in the last few thousand years:
There are several methods in paleoclimatology including those found in tree rings, sediments, fossilized diatoms, etc. that all support warmer times than present day.
Remember, a climatologist is a meteorologist with one more class to get his BS. There are several aspects in the geosciences to understand to even start to understand global warming.
i'm aware of the evidence for the medieval climatic optimum, i just don't see evidence for the statement that it greatly exceeded the present situation
in my view "greatly exceeded" is something like the eocene hothouse conditions
| « How was Mauna Kea measured to the ocean floor? | Are measures to prevent global warming justified? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
