Ledgers, Graphics, and Carvings

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 7:47 PM GMT on August 07, 2012

Share this Blog
11
+

Ledgers, Graphics, and Carvings: Models, Water, and Temperature (4)

This is a series of blogs on models, water, and temperature (see Intro). I am starting with models. In this series, I am trying to develop a way to build a foundation for nonscientists to feel comfortable about models and their use in scientific investigation. I expect to get some feedback on how to do this better from the comments. In order to keep a solid climate theme, I am going to have two sections to the entries. One section will be on models, and the other will be on a research result, new or old, that I think is of particular interest.

Doing Science with Models 1.1: In the previous entry of this series I argued that if one considered the types of models used in design and engineering, then we use models all of the time. In fact, when we build or do just about anything, we use some sort of model to get us started. I ended the previous entry with the example of building a simple picnic bench that would hold three, two-hundred-pound men. Not only do the materials need to be of sufficient strength, but the legs of the bench need to be attached in a way that they form a solid and stable foundation. If the bench wobbles and the legs spread apart, then it will be unsafe. If we have experience of some sort, we construct a model from this experience. For example, if we have built or repaired tables and benches we have some ideas of good and bad construction. If we have no direct experience then we can find or ask about plans. These plans might be a schematic, a graphic model of the bench.

For those who do not build benches, but who, say, balance their checkbooks, there are models as well. The forms in a ledger represent models that have proven usable through practice or that have become standard approaches. Information is collected and organized: the check number, the date, the payee, the amount, the purpose and the category of expenditure.

These graphic, tabular, or touchable models are common enough that we develop intuition about their use. Introductory materials to climate models often use the words “mathematical,” “numerical,” and “computational.” These words take us not only away from our intuitive notions of models, but also into subjects that many of us find difficult and obscure. However, in the past couple of decades we have seen the tabular models of checkbook balancing coded as computational products such as Quicken. Design and architecture move to tools such as Computer-assisted Design. Recently, we have seen this combination of the world of digital models and touchable products come full circle with the advent of three-dimensional printing. In three-dimensional printing, solid objects made of plastic and metal are rendered from mathematical descriptions of the objects. I will return to this idea of mathematical descriptions of objects later. The point that I would like to make now is that using computers as tools to represent the real world has in the last two decades become routine. Therefore, in and of itself, the use of computers to make numerical calculations of the real world is common. It might not be as universally intuitive to people as a ledger or a wooden design of a boat, but there is large body of experience that affirms the value of computer-based modeling.

There are a number of steps that need to be taken from here to climate models. So far, I have been talking about models that are in the spirit of a work or a structure used in testing or perfecting a final product. In climate modeling, the final product of the construction is a model. It is the purpose of that model to provide a credible representation of the climate. That representation has a number of attributes. There is the attribute of representing what we have already observed. There is also the attribute of predicting what we will observe, that is, predicting the future. Therefore, the final product of the whole process is the simulation of and the prediction of the climate.

As with many words, there is more than one definition of model in the dictionary. Another relevant definition from my print edition (third) of the American Heritage Dictionary is “A schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further studies of its characteristics.” (American Heritage Dictionary online) This definition is directly descriptive of a climate model. But like those introductions to climate models that I referred to above, it quickly goes to words like “system” and “theory” that are not quite as intuitive as I would like. This is where I will start next time.


Interesting Research: Attribution of 2011 Extreme Weather to Climate Change - Some might recall in 2011, I wandered into the contentious subject of the attribution of climate change to humans (collected here) and talking about communicating extreme weather events in the media (Shearer and Rood). The paper I highlight in today’s blog is a compilation of efforts to understand the role of planetary warming in some of the extreme events of 2011. The paper is Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective edited by Tom Peterson and others and published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. This paper looks at six of the extreme events of 2011 and tries to attribute, in a variety of ways, the role played by human-caused global warming. (nice summary in New Scientist)

I want to focus on the part of the paper that discusses the extreme heat and drought in Texas in the summer of 2011. Much of that discussion is based on evaluating the effect of sea surface temperature, and specifically, the role of El Nino and La Nina. El Nino and La Nina are the names given to recurring patterns of sea surface temperature distributions in the eastern, tropical Pacific Ocean. The approach to this problem is to use models to make many simulations with sea surface temperature distributions similar to the La Nina conditions of 2011. Simulations were made for times in the 1960s and for the year 2008. The simulations provide an ensemble of many plausible outcomes, and it is possible to investigate the odds of a drought of similar extreme attributes as the 2011 drought occurring in the 1960s. The authors conclude that the warming climate made the 2011 drought 20 times more likely to occur now than in the 1960s. The authors point out that they cannot make statements about absolute probability. That is, they cannot state that in the absence of carbon dioxide increases and associated warming, that the drought would not have occurred.

This approach of using probability to discuss the impact of warming is an active area of research as well as an emerging way to communicate the relation between extreme weather and global warming. In the Washington Post, Jim Hansen has an op-ed piece that describes a paper which was released on Monday, August 6 (reference at end). In this paper Hansen revisits his metaphor that compares extreme weather in a warming climate with playing a dice game with loaded dice. That is, the dice are loaded in a way such that what used to be “extreme” will more likely occur. Going back to the Texas drought, that result mentioned in the previous paragraph says that the dice are loaded so that the extreme attributes of the 2011 drought are 20 times more likely. The takeaway message from Hansen is that we have, so far, underestimated how much the dice are loaded and that we have underestimated the probability of extreme events such as droughts, floods, heat waves, and yes perhaps, persistent cold snaps.

r


Hansen, Early Edition, PNAS, Perception of Climate Change

Hansen, Perception of Climate Change, Public Summary

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 263 - 213

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

"Since SnowBlower's many posts seem to appear in rapid-fire sequence, are well written, with numerous images and references, I'm almost certain that they have been written in advance. How much of those posts were actually researched and written by SnowBlower individually is just a matter of conjecture on our part. Personally, I suspect that he is a part of a larger team whose goal is to obfuscate any serious dialogue about AGW. Whether this team is a group of well-funded professional deniers or a group of deluded amateurs is again a matter of conjecture."

It doesn't really matter whether Snow is an individual or a group. Or whether the posts were well planned in advance.

The issue is whether they contain truth or fiction.

I quit reading his/her/their posts a couple days ago.

When someone makes a claim, is presented with proof that their claim is incorrect, and then continues to make that same claim they've lost my interest. They become nothing better than the whacked-out wino that hangs out by the Post Office bothering everyone who happens by.

A person who cares more about furthering a political/business interest than in the truth, well, I've got no time for them.

BTW, not only a dishonest comment provider but also a lousy predicter. Arctic sea ice EXTENT, sea ice melt, did not slow but increased its drop on the way to an Arctic sea ice melt out.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Question 1: Do isotropic CO2 measurements and other factors provide reliable evidence that the "cause" GW is primarily anthropogenic?

Here's an excellent answer to this question. Link

I'll just copy one bit because people should read this very easy to understand explanation for themselves...

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I'm off to town for brunch and free music in the Parque Central of Boquete, but I'd like to ask the regulars here to help me clarify something I'm not sure of, and in which WU/CC blog "lurkers" might be interested.

While there is still debate between some parties regarding the details and accuracy of recent and historical temperature measurements, there is large and rapidly increasing body of empirical evidence of GW. This has forced many denialists to accept GW/CC, but they still refuse to accept that the major "cause" is anthropogenic. (In spite of being smacked in the face with the reality of CC, some still deny that CC is occurring except for "normal" variations in "weather," but I think it's best to ignore this ill-informed group for now.)

Many people don't understand the difference between correlation and causation. There is supposedly a strong "correlation" between both cosmic ray data and GW, and tropospheric CO2 and GW.

Question 1: Do isotropic CO2 measurements and other factors provide reliable evidence that the "cause" GW is primarily anthropogenic?

Question 2: Is there any real evidence that GW/CC support the hypotheses, based on correlation, that GW might be "caused" by cosmic rays and/or sunspot activity in spite of the fact that total and recent variations in total solar energy output is not increasing?

(Sorry, Snowlover, I have no "proof" for anything I wrote. Sometimes your demands for proof are like someone asking why the sky is blue, and you saying "prove that it's blue.")
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
Wisconsin House
Paul Ryan
(Republican, district 1)
On the issues>>



Paul Ryan on Energy & Oil

Click here for 20 full quotes on Energy & Oil OR background on Energy & Oil.
Voted YES on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling. (May 2011)
Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008)
Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008)
Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)
Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009)
Drill the Outer Continental Shelf; & license new nuke plants. (Mar 2011)


This information that PATRAP just provided should be forwarded to everybody we know!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Wisconsin House
Paul Ryan
(Republican, district 1)
On the issues>>



Paul Ryan on Energy & Oil

Click here for 20 full quotes on Energy & Oil OR background on Energy & Oil.
Voted YES on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling. (May 2011)
Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008)
Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008)
Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)
Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009)
Drill the Outer Continental Shelf; & license new nuke plants. (Mar 2011)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Meet Paul Ryan: Climate Denier, Conspiracy Theorist, Koch Acolyte
Link to Full Climate Progress Article
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick, is a virulent denier of climate science, with a voting record to match.

A favorite of the Koch brothers, Ryan has accused scientists of engaging in conspiracy to “intentionally mislead the public on the issue of climate change.” He has implied that snow invalidates global warming.


We now have a clear choice! We have the opportunity to make it easier to exploit and burn our fossil fuel resources as if they were infinitely abundant. This same choice can only accelerate the pace of AGW, resulting in more extreme weather events such as the current drought, leading to world-wide food shortages.

Easier access to fossil fuels is not a "Path to Prosperity" it is a "Ticket to Global Instability".
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Into the sun the south the north, at last the birds have flown
The shackles of commitment fell, In pieces on the ground

Oh to ride the wind, To tread the air above the din
Oh to laugh aloud, Dancing as we fought the crowd
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Old Leatherneck, you are creating a straw man out of my position on climate change. I never said that I am certain that GHGs are not the cause of the warming, I am saying that the balance of evidence suggests that solar activity probably has a more important role than Carbon Dioxide in current climate change. All reasonable people should admit to the possibility that the other side may be right. It is possible that Carbon Dioxide has driven temperatures upward, but does the evidence say it has? Unfortunately, that is not the case.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I seek the truth just like everyone else on this board. The balance of evidence to me suggests a more significant solar role for climate change than what most of you believe to be so. I want to inform the public how I see the evidence of Climate Change stack up for me. Sorry, but I do not get paid to post. That is utterly absurd. I have not made a single claim to any of you that you are being paid by green energy companies to promote AGW. I guess I am just more mannered than to attack my opponent by accusing them of being under the payroll of lobby groups.

Sad, really.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:
I tell this story because Snowlover is a fascinating character who is obviously very intelligent, but obsessed. He apparently feeds on the challenges he is finds here, and I am guessing that he might be influenced by the previously mentioned first stage of grief - the consequences of what we as a civilization face are likely facing are horribly frightening. The fact that he replied to an earlier post of mine 15 minutes after I hit the "Post" button, with a well written, fairly long response, a graphic and no errors in grammar or spelling was very impressive. I almost began to believe that it had to be a Koch brothers funded professional boiler room denialist internet response crew, and not actually a personally-motivated individual responding to my post. Or perhaps a highly skilled individual on the payroll of an anti-AGW group. We'll probably never know the real story.

The first stage of grief is Denial. Apparently SnowBlower is still in denial with his questionable claims that the earth is in a cooling trend.

Since SnowBlower's many posts seem to appear in rapid-fire sequence, are well written, with numerous images and references, I'm almost certain that they have been written in advance. How much of those posts were actually researched and written by SnowBlower individually is just a matter of conjecture on our part. Personally, I suspect that he is a part of a larger team whose goal is to obfuscate any serious dialogue about AGW. Whether this team is a group of well-funded professional deniers or a group of deluded amateurs is again a matter of conjecture.


Quoting greentortuloni:
I personally think snowlover is full of methane. However, if he/she is on the side of saving the world, I don't care if he/she thinks all the damage happening around the world is due to the easter bunny as long as he/she advocates action


The second stage of grief is acceptance. SnowBlower has already stated that he is certain that GHGs are not the cause of Global Warming. It is obvious that he/she has tuned the antennas on his/her tinfoil hat to receive cosmic rays.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting greentortuloni:
Having time on a transatlantic flight (and doubting that selecting the veggie options does anything to the carbon I burned), I read some of the comments.

The thing is to me, all this discussion about the data and all this disintegration into proving details is just ground clutter. The important fact are that the is macro-physcial evidence that stuff is happening. The question is:

where do you stand on action?


I think we need:

1. action on restoring climate.
2. move to green technology.

I personally think snowlover is full of methane. However, if he/she is on the side of saving the world, I don't care if he/she thinks all the damage happening around the world is due to the easter bunny as long as he/she advocates action.

Same thing for Sir Maelstrom.

So, to both of you: put your political money where your spam posting (IMHO) mouth is:

what is your position on action?


My suggestion would be look inward, at the C&C who
can't walk away fast enough.

Link

Besides don't forget the coldest winter in 400 years in Europe, just 6 month's ago.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Having time on a transatlantic flight (and doubting that selecting the veggie options does anything to the carbon I burned), I read some of the comments.

The thing is to me, all this discussion about the data and all this disintegration into proving details is just ground clutter. The important fact are that the is macro-physcial evidence that stuff is happening. The question is:

where do you stand on action?


I think we need:

1. action on restoring climate.
2. move to green technology.

I personally think snowlover is full of methane. However, if he/she is on the side of saving the world, I don't care if he/she thinks all the damage happening around the world is due to the easter bunny as long as he/she advocates action.

Same thing for Sir Maelstrom.

So, to both of you: put your political money where your spam posting (IMHO) mouth is:

what is your position on action?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
№ 250
Quoting spbloom:
[Full quote given piecemeal below, indented and italicized, with my responses]


No. 242.1

It's interesting you're not willing to take my word for a widely-known fact.

No offense intended. I just don't know you from Adam, and I have no knowledge of Tamino's alleged PhD being a "widely-known fact". Maybe I just don't get around enough.

No. 242.2

That said, you can confirm for yourself by searching under Grant Foster.


I know his name is Grant Foster, and a simple search turns up a lot of 'Grant Foster's. I don't see anything showing the 'Tamino' Grant Foster having a PhD. Maybe you're using a different search engine than me.

No. 242.3

Not just a PhD, BTW, but accomplished and respected in his field.


What field?

No. 242.4

That's important to note, as there are plenty of PhDs for whom that isn't the case.


Well, it would be most impressive if the field were atmospheric science, but generally I think a PhD is pretty impressive regardless. As far as "accomplished" and "respected", that's kind of subjective. If I knew what field he is an expert in maybe I could form an opinion. Is it statistics? Are you going to make me guess?

Numbering feels good on some level.

It is kind of cool.

No. 242.6

Maybe I should take it up on a regular basis.


Maybe you'll start a trend! Spblooming, anyone?

No. 242.7

Numbering individual thoughts like this is especially amusing.


It beats a wall of text any day.

No. 242.8

Don't you agree?


Actually, I do. I wonder how long it'll be before we agree on something again.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
№ 242


Tamino has a PhD?

Source?


No. 242.1

It's interesting you're not willing to take my word for a widely-known fact.

No. 242.2

That said, you can confirm for yourself by searching under Grant Foster.

No. 242.3

Not just a PhD, BTW, but accomplished and respected in his field.

No. 242.4

That's important to note, as there are plenty of PhDs for whom that isn't the case.

No 242.5

Numbering feels good on some level.

No. 242.6

Maybe I should take it up on a regular basis.

No. 242.7

Numbering individual thoughts like this is especially amusing.

No. 242.8

Don't you agree?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting spbloom:
Tamino: PhD, published expert in time series analysis, past co-author with leading climate scientists.

I believe that the PhD claim is in error.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
№ 242
Quoting spbloom:
Tamino: PhD [...]


Tamino has a PhD?

Source?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobWallace:
A what point does someone who continuously posts false information get labeled a troll and kicked back under the bridge?


Soon. Very soon.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I guess Snowlover doesn't understand that I have a high level of interest in the psychology of anti-AGW syndrome, and continues to whine about ad-hominem attacks and offers to re-post his data for me.

Snowlover, I am aware that there seems to be a well-established link between cosmic rays and cloud generation. However, I'm not aware of any science that links measured theoretical cosmic-ray induced cloud cover increases to GW in place of anthropogenic CO2 increases as identified by isotropic evidence.

(Sorry, I've never had a good memory for details, and will rely on others who are more adept at finding and posting scientific evidence support or refute my claims. I feel that i still have a role to play, particularly in raising questions that lurkers might also want to have answered.)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Deleted
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A what point does someone who continuously posts false information get labeled a troll and kicked back under the bridge?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Deleted
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Tamino: PhD, published expert in time series analysis, past co-author with leading climate scientists.

Tisdale: A guy on the internet, one with a long record of error including many pointed out by... Tamino!

Other than that, no reason.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


What does it matter where the graph comes from? He graphs the data himself, and the data itself comes from the leading scientific databases.

It matters because Tisdale is, um, less than reliable at properly representing the scientific databases. "Based on a true story" is fine for Hollywood blockbusters, but it's inadequate when discussing science.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Daisyworld, I always enjoy your posts, and it seems that you must be an active member of the scientific community. I will not attempt to debate the science and quote papers, but leave that up to others who are better at that task. My work in science was as a lab technician, and I learned a lot from the scientists I worked for and with whom I associated. I also spent several years selling and supporting scientific measuring, and graphing/plotting software.

As I mentioned in my initial postings, I am interested in human nature and the range of human reactions to the science that paints a gloomy future for our civilization. Snowlover reminds me (and this is not an attack, simply an observation) of a patient on the open ward in the psychiatry department at Oakland Naval Hospital when I was training to become a Neuropsychiatric Technician in 1962. USNH Oakland was a resident training facility, and Psychiatry was one of the fields of medicine with several MD residents in training. This patient did not have a mental illness, but was unsuited for enlisted duty in the military. He had an IQ of over 170 and was one of the most intelligent people I have ever met. However, something must have gone terribly wrong for this young man to drop out of college and join the Navy as an enlisted man. I think he had signed up for a Navy electronics field, but he really did not fit in, even with a bunch of enlisted techies. He was more intelligent than the doctors, and soon knew more about psychology and psychiatry than they did. They kept him around longer than necessary before processing him out on a medical discharge just because they were fascinated with him. He finally was discharged from the hospital and the Navy with what was called a "personality disorder" that made him incompatible with military life.

I tell this story because Snowlover is a fascinating character who is obviously very intelligent, but obsessed. He apparently feeds on the challenges he is finds here, and I am guessing that he might be influenced by the previously mentioned first stage of grief - the consequences of what we as a civilization face are likely facing are horribly frightening. The fact that he replied to an earlier post of mine 15 minutes after I hit the "Post" button, with a well written, fairly long response, a graphic and no errors in grammar or spelling was very impressive. I almost began to believe that it had to be a Koch brothers funded professional boiler room denialist internet response crew, and not actually a personally-motivated individual responding to my post. Or perhaps a highly skilled individual on the payroll of an anti-AGW group. We'll probably never know the real story.

Regardless, the "climate" (pun intended) here at Dr. Rood's CC Blog is quite amazing to me, and I am pleased with the civility of most responders to the proponents of discredited science and spouters of anti-AGW myths who pop up here regularly. The goals of educating lurkers, discovering and discussing information about CC/AGW science and countering myths and false information are laudable. Helping each other learn more so that we can at least attempt to counter the AGW denialists we encounter in our day-to-day lives is greatly appreciated, at least by me.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


That's not weather Birthmark... weather reports happen on a daily basis and are regional... The deceleration of sea level rise has been observed for several years now.

Did you miss the graph that Nea posted? If so, go take another look at post 210. The "deceleration" lasted less than two years. That is much, much closer to weather than climate.

And I'm still waiting for an answer to this question, "Got any statistically valid evidence that the {global temperature} trend isn't up (or down) over that time period?"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Deleted
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Should you follow Xandra's link, you will quickly learn why not to use Bob Tisdale's charts. Yes, where you get your charts does matter.


Why should I listen to Tamino's critiques, when Tisdale has rebuttals to each and every one of Tamino's critiques?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Yes. That is what everyone is saying. Snowlover123 is just looking for a place to spread doubt, misinformation, misdirections and anything except a real scientific discussion of the AGWT.

Thank you, for the heads up on Bob Tisdale. I have placed Tisdale on the same list as I have Dr. Tim Ball. This list is titled, "Get back to me, when you are serious".


I am a bit disappointed in you Rookie, I thought you were better than labeling skeptics as people wanting to spread doubt and misinformation.

I was wrong, apparently.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:
Wow, Snowlover - a long, detailed response to my last post just 15 minutes?? I'm very impressed. I couldn't type a response in that time, let alone research, compose and add a graphic. Most fossil fuel industry-funded CC denialist boiler rooms couldn't accomplish that. Either you are one terrifically talented human, or you've got great help. Consider that a compliment. I'm much slower - a veritable plodder compared to you. Plus I shut down and unplugged my electronics during a nasty thunderstorm this afternoon.

Regarding sunspots, cosmic rays and global warming, I'm a bit puzzled. Is there a known mechanism or process of these factors causing the current global warming episode, or simply a mysterious correlation that is unexplainable? I know there's been some work related to cosmic rays and cloud cover, but I thought that was proven to be an inadequate mechanism.

Regardless, I found a web site that supports your beliefs right down the line - The Institute for Creation Research whose motto is "Biblical, Accurate, Certain." They have a genuine climate scientist, Dr. Larry Vardiman, on their faculty. He is a professor in their Department of Astro-Geophysics, and holds a B.S. in physics from the University of Missouri, a B.S. in meteorology from St. Louis University and an M.S. and Ph.D. in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. His arguments parallel yours nicely, so I guess that means that you have God on your side - lucky you!

Another item I found at the Institute of Creation Research that might be of interest you is Snowflake Bentley, referred to as a "Man of Science, Man of God." Like you, he was apparently a snow lover.

It's fascinating how internet research can lead to such strange, yet eerily relevant information.


Actually there is an abundance of observational evidence that suggests that the link between cosmic rays an cloud cover is robust... I'll post it later when I have the time, as I am on my phone right now.

I see you chose to address absolutely nothing that I brought up in my previous post which doesn't really seem to surprise me.

Unfortunately, for your little conspiracy theory, I don't get paid by the fossil fuel industries at all, and I am an atheist. So your ad-hominem attack, a clear sign of desperation, failed you greatly.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


That was a VERY long post, I congratulate you on that. Unfortunately, the content was sort of lacking, and was more or less a total and complete ad-hominem attack toward myself...

Ad hominem tu quoque. I don't believe for a minute that you're a true victim of ad hominem. Point in fact, Xulonn and I both protected your right to have your own opinion, lacking as it is in factual content. What most people have been attacking is the disinformation you're bringing forth, not you personally. So stop acting like the victim here; you're the one that brought this bunk to the table.

Quoting Snowlover123:


[...] OldLeatherneck had posted a chart for SURFACE temperatures on Greenland, and to also comment that some other SURFACE temperatures were either flat or declining, I posted the Pacific Ocean and Southern Ocean temperatures. So you call me a "denialist" without any justification whatsoever...

The justification is your continued predilection for establishing false facts. You've presented numerous graphs with very little source data or methodology (I'm sorry, but just linking to other papers on the web isn't good enough when you're attempting to re-write the science), made sweeping declarations laced with weasel words and non sequitur statements that don't even follow basic scientific principles, then complain that you're being attacked when your data is rejected. This is not the behavior of a learned researcher, this is the behavior of polemic fluent in the art of disinformation.

Quoting Snowlover123:
[...] I am saddened to see a obviously well learned person like yourself stoop down to levels like libeling your opponent a "denier," when there is really nothing that I am denying.

Let's see, over the course of about 60-plus comments in this blog entry, you have both (1) rejected the overwhelming evidence based on scientific consensus about climate change and (2) generated controversy by denying said consensus even exists. That fits the very definition of a denialist. It's not libel, it's the truth. I'm very sorry that you find that distasteful, but you earned the label.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Wow, Snowlover - a long, detailed response to my last post just 15 minutes?? I'm very impressed. I couldn't type a response in that time, let alone research, compose and add a graphic. Most fossil fuel industry-funded CC denialist boiler rooms couldn't accomplish that. Either you are one terrifically talented human, or you've got great help. Consider that a compliment. I'm much slower - a veritable plodder compared to you. Plus I shut down and unplugged my electronics during a nasty thunderstorm this afternoon.

Regarding sunspots, cosmic rays and global warming, I'm a bit puzzled. Is there a known mechanism or process of these factors causing the current global warming episode, or simply a mysterious correlation that is unexplainable? I know there's been some work related to cosmic rays and cloud cover, but I thought that was proven to be an inadequate mechanism.

Regardless, I found a web site that supports your beliefs right down the line - The Institute for Creation Research whose motto is "Biblical, Accurate, Certain." They have a genuine climate scientist, Dr. Larry Vardiman, on their faculty. He is a professor in their Department of Astro-Geophysics, and holds a B.S. in physics from the University of Missouri, a B.S. in meteorology from St. Louis University and an M.S. and Ph.D. in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. His arguments parallel yours nicely, so I guess that means that you have God on your side - lucky you!

Another item I found at the Institute of Creation Research that might be of interest you is Snowflake Bentley, referred to as a "Man of Science, Man of God." Like you, he was apparently a snow lover.

It's fascinating how internet research can lead to such strange, yet eerily relevant information.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Deleted
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Deleted
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xandra:

Your graph comes from Bob Tisdale%u2019s website. Kindly spare us dross from Tisdale%u2019s site.


What does it matter where the graph comes from? He graphs the data himself, and the data itself comes from the leading scientific databases.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:

You want Global Ocean Heat Content? Here are two datasets (one got pulled down but the dataset is nonetheless interesting to look at).

Your graph comes from Bob Tisdale’s website. Kindly spare us dross from Tisdale’s site.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Thanks for the weather report, Snowlover, but I feel compelled to point out that this is a climate blog.


That's not weather Birthmark... weather reports happen on a daily basis and are regional... The deceleration of sea level rise has been observed for several years now.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:
You can not deny that Sea Level has dramatically slowed in the last few years (Boretti 2011).

Thanks for the weather report, Snowlover, but I feel compelled to point out that this is a climate blog.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting spbloom:
Anybody who hasn't read the last two posts and threads over at a href="http://neven1.typepad.com/">Neven's artic sea ice blog should. Amazing stuff and, as always, no trolling allowed.

Prior to the Storm, I'd been checking in at Neven's every day or two. Since the Storm, I've been over there a dozen times a day at least to get the latest information. It really is fascinating reading, even if it is a little horrifying.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Deleted
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Deleted
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Wait--we were talking about heat, not sea level rise. But, okay, let's see:

First, I can't help but notice you've once again dipped into the Deep Ol' Well Of Denialism and chosen a paper that supports your, er, "skepticism".

Second, since Borreti heavily references the University of Colorado's SL measurements, allow me to go straight to the source and see whether that school shows that the rate of sea level rise is "actually reducing rather than increasing":

slr

Hmmm. Well, I suppose the case could be made that since the 60-day smoothed line is marginally below the black trendline that the rate of SLR is "reducing", but I'm not sure how Boretti looked at that and drew the nutty conclusion that "Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not the driven force for sea level rises".

Third, Boretti is an associate professor of engineering whose primary field of study appears to be fuel efficiency in diesel engines. That doesn't necessarily make him wrong, but it certainly makes one question his credentials in the field of climate science.

Fourth, Boretti is a known denialist, having previously expressed a very Watts-ian notion that the warming observed in, for instance, New Zealand is strictly a byproduct of UHI and the poor siting of measuring statements.

Sound familiar?

Now, I'm sure you'll come back and tell me I'm addressing the man and not the science, to which I will respond ahead of time: there is no science. No honest science, anyway. Can you please provide something credible from someone credible?


Nea,

Sea Level Rise can be an indicative of heat gain, since when something gets warmer, thermal expansion occurs.

You too are also a very well educated person yourself. Unfortunately, your analysis is not at all convincing.

You first eyeball the graph and then conclude that Sea Level is decreasing, when the best fit shows the Sea Level decelerating, in the actual published paper.

I agree that I am somewhat suspicious of how he determines that CO2 is not the cause of the Sea Level Rise, I am merely citing the paper that the rate of Sea Level Rise has in fact slowed over the last few years.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:
Snowlover123's standards for "proof"

Neo, BobWallace, Patrap, Daisyworld, Birthmark, OldLeatherneck, Rookie, et al, please note Snowlover123's standard for "proof" in his response to me in post #199. He frequently demands "proof" in response to your posts, and I wanted to elicit a response that would define his standard. Apparently, the words of one "real" climate scientist (Ben Santer, in this case) and three 17-year graphs are sufficient to "prove" his point about Pacific Ocean warming. Please note, however, that Snowlover writes about of ocean warming, but his "proof" is strictly about SST's (sea surface temperatures). This is a misleading tactic typical of CC denialists that mixes terminology, oversimplifies a subject, and uses the results to promote a very flawed belief. And this provides more "evidence" that he is, indeed, a denialist


That was a VERY long post, I congratulate you on that. Unfortunately, the content was sort of lacking, and was more or less a total and complete ad-hominem attack toward myself. OldLeatherneck had posted a chart for SURFACE temperatures on Greenland, and to also comment that some other SURFACE temperatures were either flat or declining, I posted the Pacific Ocean and Southern Ocean temperatures. So you call me a "denialist" without any justification whatsoever.

When I define proof, I define it as being concrete observational proof that no other factor other than CO2 could explain. Unfortunately, the only "evidence" is that CO2 correlates with temperature, since CO2 has gone up and temperatures have gone up, and we know that CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas, so we should expect some contribution from Carbon Dioxide and other Greenhouse Gases to the warming.

You want Global Ocean Heat Content? Here are two datasets (one got pulled down but the dataset is nonetheless interesting to look at).



Not only can we notice that the average of the two provides an absolute flat line since 2003 (9 years now), and that the models grossly overestimated how much ocean heat content the upper 700 meters of the ocean should be absorbing.

The deep oceans provide a good excuse for people like you, for why we have not gained Heat Content in the upper 700 meters of the ocean, and that atmospheric temperatures have not risen for 10-15 years, since we have poor data of the deep ocean, and only robust data for the upper 700 meters of the ocean.

I am glad that you are conceding that the models grossly overestimated the warming trend of the Sea Surface. Unfortunately, they have also grossly overestimated the amount of heat content gain over the last 9 years in the upper 700 meters of the ocean (the gain is nearly zero averaging out the two datasets), which leaves you clinging to the possibility that the heat is being transferred to the deep ocean, which is a possibility, but unfortunately, we do not have great enough data down there to determine if the heat is being transfered to lower depths or not. Vertical Mixing as a whole is something that climate scientists are still very uncertain about.

You also are mistaken when I refer to a "single model." I am refering to the CMIP3 MEAN. Which refers to thirty or so highly sophisticated models forming a mean that was totally and completely wrong about sea surface temperature increases.

I am also glad that you are agreeing with me that the climate system is chaotic, and there are literally thousands of things going on in the Climate System at once, it is perhaps one of the most chaotic systems that we know today, since thousands of things are impacting the Climate System.

Again, I was responding to OldLeatherNeck's propostition that Greenland SURFACE temperatures had warmed in the last 10-15 years, but contrarily, some other places have actually cooled (on the Sea Surface, since we are comparing the same thing).

I am saddened to see a obviously well learned person like yourself stoop down to levels like libeling your opponent a "denier," when there is really nothing that I am denying.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Anybody who hasn't read the last two posts and threads over at Neven's artic sea ice blog should. Amazing stuff and, as always, no trolling allowed.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Snowlover123's standards for "proof"

Neo, BobWallace, Patrap, Daisyworld, Birthmark, OldLeatherneck, Rookie, et al, please note Snowlover123's standard for "proof" in his response to me in post #199. He frequently demands "proof" in response to your posts, and I wanted to elicit a response that would define his standard. Apparently, the words of one "real" climate scientist (Ben Santer, in this case) and three 17-year graphs are sufficient to "prove" his point about Pacific Ocean warming. Please note, however, that Snowlover writes about of ocean warming, but his "proof" is strictly about SST's (sea surface temperatures). This is a misleading tactic typical of CC denialists that mixes terminology, oversimplifies a subject, and uses the results to promote a very flawed belief. And this provides more "evidence" that he is, indeed, a denialist.

Tropical Pacific Ocean SST's vary regularly with during El Nino and La Nina events. I have not studied mid and high latitude SST variability, and cannot make any definitive statements about that subject. However, it is obvious that the extreme complexity of this subject can be overwhelming. I think that it is possible that the models used for Pacific Ocean SST response to global warming were flawed, but the failure of the models narrowly focused parameters does not that "prove" that heat was not transported elsewhere in the ocean system via atmospheric or oceanic heat transport mechanisms. The gathering of accurate temperature and heat data that might be relevant to the study of possible warming trends in the vast three dimensional realm of the oceans would seem to be a very daunting task. The interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans makes a difficult task even more difficult. Examining global oceanic surface and subsurface current maps, including thermohaline components, as well as atmospheric phenomena, reveals a very complex system. It then becomes obvious that oceanic SST patterns and long-term trends are not at all like a simple freshwater pond where surface temperatures respond predictably to such local influences as insolation, air temperature, humidity and wind. Rather than jumping gleefully on the failure of the models to accurately predict SST trends as evidence of a failure of global warming science as CC denialists like Snowlover123 do, I would question the foundations and design of the models, since there seems to be a significant body of evidence indicating that there should be enough heat going into the oceans to increase the total heat content. The fact that the predicted "warming" of a model did not manifest as an SST should lead to more questions, e.g. "why" did it fail, which Snowlover did mention as a casual remark.

Anyone with a decent understanding of science and the physical environment is aware that ocean surface temperatures are quite variable, and difficult to correlate with total oceanic heat content. Most of us are familiar with the tropical Pacific Ocean SST "ENSO" cycles that are familiar as El Nino and La Nina. My brain hurts just from trying to simplify the issues in this post without missing some important factors. OTOH, Snowlover123's reliance on a single failed model to bolster his anti-global warming agenda is pathetic for someone who seems quite intelligent.

Daisyworld, I am beginning to agree with you the Dunning-Kruger effect with respect to Snowlover. His statement that "Other places like the Pacific Ocean have cooled over the last 15 years" based on the failure of one older model designed to predict changes in sea SURFACE temperatures displays an immature and flawed understanding of science.

In closing, I think the scientific community and journalists and writers should be more careful about the use of such terms as heat, heating, cooling, and temperature with respect to global warming. (Another of those damned detail and nuance issues!) As a former solar heating system designer (I am not an engineer), I was acutely aware of the difference between temperature and heat. We did "heat" calculations for applications based on BTU's and calories. We considered temperature and temperature differentials, because they were related to heat transfer rates and heat losses in our closed systems. Oceanic warming cannot be simply evaluated by looking at sea surface temperatures, and the casual intermingling of the terms "warming" and "temperature" in discussions of large scale systems as in this discussion without considering heat and heat transport is a fatal error. The transport of "heat" via atmospheric and oceanic mechanisms and the resultant effect on "temperatures" at various locations would seem to me to be extraordinarily difficult to measure on a large scale, yet they are critical components in the science of global warming and climate change.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobWallace:
Here's a page of nasty looking pictures.

It might take a moment to figure them out as the Arctic is presented upside down from how we are used to seeing it. That's the north part of Greenland sticking down from the top and shown white.

Link

Start at the bottom right and scroll up and you can see the sea ice loosing thickness over this year. Ice, this thin, is set up for a catastrophic fail. Our winters no longer replace the ice loss, we're drawing our accumulated ice down to zero.



Not to be too gloomy, but I saw this:

"The Bremen map tonight is simply awful. The only good news is that the map should be the last really awful map until… well... until next Tuesday/Wednesday when an Arctic Dipole Anomaly should be in place."

posted by Paul Klemencic at Neven's.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
The good news just keeps rolling in - US cuts crop forecast as drought ravages Corn Belt


Apparently some cooler weather and moisture is moving into the area, but it's too late for most of this year's corn crop.

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Deleted
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Here's a page of nasty looking pictures.

It might take a moment to figure them out as the Arctic is presented upside down from how we are used to seeing it. That's the north part of Greenland sticking down from the top and shown white.

Link

Start at the bottom right and scroll up and you can see the sea ice loosing thickness over this year. Ice, this thin, is set up for a catastrophic fail. Our winters no longer replace the ice loss, we're drawing our accumulated ice down to zero.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Jim - the University of Colorado's sea level measurements, are they adjusted for ENSO?


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


One can only wonder as to how soon that 2007 will replace 1979 as the median level.


My estimate: 2012 will likely replace 2007 as our "Gosh, look at that year!". Right now it's looking like all three ice measurements - extent, area, and volume - will show new records.

We could even see new records set well sooner in the year than in past years. There are more 'bad for the ice' events lining up for the days ahead. (Of course that's weather and weather, unlike climate, is hard to predict.)

Stay tuned....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 263 - 213

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Partly Cloudy
39 °F
Partly Cloudy

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.