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: 113 - 63

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

Quoting Birthmark:

No, you cannot for the simple...well, let me show you instead. Here is the HadCRUT3 for 2001 - 2012:



Take a good look at that ± and those curved lines to either side. You see, even in HADCRUT3 you don't know if it is warming or cooling.

Comparing two such non-statistically-significant periods merely compounds the difficulty. It is a pointless endeavor that tells you little to nothing whatsoever about the underlying trend.

Your statistical method is faulty and incapable of doing what you want it to do.


You are using a two sigma error range, in statistics, error is usually calculated in the one sigma range.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:
Birthmark, we can look at te slope of a 12 year period an compare that to the slope of another 12 year period, and determine with the error bars, if this is a significant change in the slope of a line.

We can also look at the slope of the line and tell us if it is going up, down, or flatlining. Your claim that we can not tell is simply bizarre.

No, you cannot for the simple...well, let me show you instead. Here is the HadCRUT3 for 2001 - 2012:



Take a good look at that ± and those curved lines to either side. You see, even in HADCRUT3 you don't know if it is warming or cooling.

Comparing two such non-statistically-significant periods merely compounds the difficulty. It is a pointless endeavor that tells you little to nothing whatsoever about the underlying trend.

Your statistical method is faulty and incapable of doing what you want it to do.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting BobWallace:
Quoting Snowlover123:
All of the papers that I have looked at are published in peer-reviewed and credible journals.


One question, Snowlover.

How did you find those papers, through a legitimate literature search or via web sites?

Via web sites.

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting Snowlover123:


I came back because I wanted to see if anyone could poke holes into my theories about climate change, and improve on those errors. So far, no one has been able to debunk anything I have posted.


Blessed are we.

We have been visited by Cleopatra....
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Quoting Birthmark:

Sure they did. You just don't realize it and/or don't want to accept it. That's why you've come back, isn't it? ;^)


I came back because I wanted to see if anyone could poke holes into my theories about climate change, and improve on those errors. So far, no one has been able to debunk anything I have posted.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Birthmark, we can look at te slope of a 12 year period an compare that to the slope of another 12 year period, and determine with the error bars, if this is a significant change in the slope of a line.

We can also look at the slope of the line and tell us if it is going up, down, or flatlining. Your claim that we can not tell is simply bizarre.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


No one has refuted anything that I have posted.

Sure they did. You just don't realize it and/or don't want to accept it. That's why you've come back, isn't it? ;^)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:


You are in denial. I can't help you.

Look, you can't claim that the warming trend has stopped. It's silly. That is easily demonstrated by the fact that there are no twelve year periods (that I've heard of or can find) that are statistically significant. So any claims about a twelve year period are unfounded nonsense.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Birthmark:

Why? That was done for you on your previous visit here with no apparent effect. Is there some reason that every time you pop up here and post the same refuted science that someone should have to refute it again? If you want refutation of your points in the scientific literature, you need only find the last thread on this blog in which you posted this stuff.



No one has refuted anything that I have posted.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:

That is correct. It cannot be stated with any confidence that the trend of the last twelve years is up, down, or flat. So, can I assume that you will now stop claiming, "The warming has paused on all of the datasets."?


You are in denial. I can't help you.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:

You're not going to like this, but what you notice is a pretty poor scientific standard unless you can quantify your observations.


And which of those papers haven't been refuted in the scientific literature or simply ignored?



The halt in the warming recently is now a basic fact in Climate Science. The fact that you do not want to accept it, I am sorry to say, indicates denial.


Nope. I asked a question. You have failed to answer it. I stated "If you can demonstrate that there has been a statistically significant halt..." See, that "statistically significant" is pretty important. If your temperature trend isn't statistically significant then your claim is meaningless.


Yes, you cherry picked the data to get the answer you want. Let's see what would have happened had you used the other available temperature series at WFT.



Oh, look! All the temperature series you *didn't* graph happen to show a warming trend from 2001 to 2012. I wonder if that is a coincidence? lol


Again, it's hard to believe that that is surprising to anyone familiar with AGWT. It is well accepted that weather still occurs and can at times swamp the AGW signal. way.


Observations are the golden standard for scientific research, especially in Climate Science. If the models disagree with observations, simply put, they are wrong. They are not portraying the way the Climate System actually behaves. There is no way around it. Since the majority of the AGW papers deal with numerical modelling, it is more likely that the numerous solar papers that deal with observations are correct instead of the papers dealing with modelling.

According to Google Scholar, Christl et. al 2004 has gotten 41 citations, which is a decent amount of citations for an 8 year timeframe.

Marchitto et. al 2010 has gotten 15 citations, which is pretty good for a 2 year timeframe.

Zhao et. al 2009 got 5 citations over a 3 year timeframe, which is not as impressive as the other two papers, but it has been getting some citations.

Tan et. al 2011 has gotten 3 citations in a year, which is not bad for a 1 year timeframe. We shall see if the number of citations per year increases or decreases per year in the future.

Shaviv and Veizer 2003 has gotten 193 citations in 9 years, which is extremely good, and scientists are taking this study seriously.

So it seems like scientists are taking these studies seriously.

The error bars are so small in recent years that a trend change can only change 0.05 Degrees C in order for a trend change to become significant.

You can not deny that we have stopped warming over the last 10 to 15 years. As I said, this may be an indicator that CAGW may be severely flawed.

HadCruT4 did not have all of the data available on WoodforTrees, so I did not use it. I also linked graphs for ALL of the datasets in my previous post, and you can clearly see that all of the datasets have significantly slowed down to a point where there is no temperature increase over the last 10-15 years.

Your last point indicates you have the mindest of a lawyer when you approach the issue of Warming stopping over the last 10-15 days. You first claim that it is still warming over the past 10-15 years, but then you claim that it has stopped, but "the weather still occurs and can at times swamp the AGW signal." Why can't the weather signal (internal climatic variability signal) have contributed to the acceleration of the warming over the last 30 years?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


Except the only difference is that I have provided numerous references to back my claims up, wheras you have not provided a single peer reviewed paper to back up any of your assertions and claims.

Why? That was done for you on your previous visit here with no apparent effect. Is there some reason that every time you pop up here and post the same refuted science that someone should have to refute it again? If you want refutation of your points in the scientific literature, you need only find the last thread on this blog in which you posted this stuff.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:


No, they don't show any trend at all, any objective researcher can clearly see this.


That is correct. It cannot be stated with any confidence that the trend of the last twelve years is up, down, or flat. So, can I assume that you will now stop claiming, "The warming has paused on all of the datasets."?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Birthmark:
That is simply an incorrect conclusion. The datasets since 2001 say nothing about whether the trend is flat, cooling, warming or anything else.


No, they don't show any trend at all, any objective researcher can clearly see this.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Neapolitan:
Wrong. Simply wrong...

Next witness, Your Honor.

Sigh...


Except the only difference is that I have provided numerous references to back my claims up, wheras you have not provided a single peer reviewed paper to back up any of your assertions and claims.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Neapolitan:
Only about 1/4 of AMS members answered the survey, not really enough to tell whether it's a truly representative sample. Regardless, not all AMS members are climatologists, nor even meteorologists; scientists from any field are welcome. At any rate, since you brought it up, here are the numbers:

-89% say GW is happening vs only 4% who said it isn't.
-59% say it's human-caused (and 11% say it's both human and natural), vs. only 6% who say it's primarily natural.
-72% are somewhat to very worried about it, vs. just 8% who are not at all worried.
-76% say it will be somewhat to very harmful to mankind.

Those results--from a bunch of people consisting of only about 25% of the members of a group made up of others aside from climate scientists--sort of make your comment that "...it is roughly split 50/50 on whether Global Warming is primarily caused by human activity" look pretty disingenuous, dontcha think? (And if you care to look at surveys taken by actual climate scientists, you'll find numbers in the upper 90s. You know, what honest folks woud call "a consensus")


No, it is not disingenuous at all. You made a claim that the vast majority of scientists accept that humans are the dominant cause of Climate Change, so I compared who answered yes to such an assertion to people who disagreed with such an assertion. 59% of 89% is 52%.

So with the atmospheric scientists surveyed in the AMS, there is absolutely no consensus at all. It is split roughly 50/50.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Neapolitan:
For what it's worth--and I know you weren't asking me--I've spent considerable time in both Panama and Costa Rica, and have visited Ecuador on a few occasions. In my mind, there's no place more friendly to American expats--and their often slender wallets--than Panama. Beautiful country, great food, wonderful people, and highly affordable. I don't know where life will take me, but if I don't end up in Panama in a decade or two, I'll be surprised.


Cognitive Dissonance, anyone? LOL

Either you are totally wrong about everything you have ever said in any of your posts that I've read, or you will not like Panama very much in a few years.

Sorry man, its just too funny.

120F and 90% humidity? 120 and 100%?? Maybe the tropics will behave differently than I suspect. If I have the science wrong ....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
№ 89
Quoting Neapolitan:
Only about 1/4 of AMS members answered the survey, not really enough to tell whether it's a truly representative sample.
[...]


Only 30.7% answered the Doran 2009 survey from which the "97%" figure is frequently cited. Do you consider that a "truly representative sample" in that case?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:
None of the datasets that show a slight upward trend in temperatures have statistically significant trend in temperatures since 2001.

Nor should they over such a short time period. In fact, I'd be surprised if you could find a twelve year period anywhere in the temperature record where the trend was statistically significant.

Quoting Snowlover123:
The warming has paused on all of the datasets.

That is simply an incorrect conclusion. The datasets since 2001 say nothing about whether the trend is flat, cooling, warming or anything else.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Xulonn:
[...] Daisyworld, I really appreciate your posts about the Dunning-Kruger and I certainly think it applies to many unskilled/incompetent GW/CC deniers. However, I see Snowlover as highly skilled and intelligent, and I think that it is possible that he is still in the first of the classical five stages of grief - denial, and using all the energy and intellectual resources he can muster to support that denial. Many of us here, especially my peers in the later years of their lives, have reached stage five, the stage, which is acceptance. To paraphrase a classical description of this "final stage" of grief from my personal perspective: "The truth is that GW/CC is real, serious, and a great danger to man and human civilization. I accept the scientific consensus, and it is time to prepare for the difficulties ahead." [...]

Welcome Xulonn.

I generally reserve invocation of Dunning-Kruger for those who make sweeping and absolute declarations that are obviously wrong, but show little to no humility, nor room for error or discussion. In their mind, what they state is the one and only way of seeing the issue at hand. Period. Anything else must be wrong, as there's no other possible explanation that can better lay out the truth than their own "research".

I find such declarations arrogant, presumptive, and impudent. They ignore the genuine hard work and effort that others put into the science, and serve to close doors; not open them. It also exacerbates the situation when, after shutting said door in the faces of others, they act as a victim of ad hominem and complain when their coveted "information" isn't given the weight or authority that they expect it should.

I do not question snowlover123's intellect nor his skills in other trades. However, I absolutely question his skills and knowledge in the realm of climate science, as he does not realize how much he doesn't understand, yet truly believes he knows as much (if not more) than climate scientists who have devoted their careers to the science. This shows that he fails to recognize genuine skill in others, completing the circle of what can be defined as classic Dunning-Kruger.

Like Neapolitan and others here, I have little patience for this sort of attitude. Comment in a Wunderground climate blog with polite questions, modesty, and cordial inquisitiveness, and like any civilized forum, you can expect warm greetings and genuine respect of your views regardless of your stance. However, if you come bursting onto the scene with absolutes intended to cast a wide net over an entire discipline without giving credence to the accepted knowledge base (i.e., outright rejecting it), then as far as I'm concerned, you deserve any critical response that you garner.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 857
IJIS 7 days late on this......


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
BobWallace - rather than take up more space on this climate change blog, you can follow my journey to expat living at my personal blog, which I link to on my website. I see that Neopolitan has also responded to the comparison question, and he has personal experience in Costa Rica and Ecuador which I don't.

Regarding my local weather, I have been interested in weather and climate for all my life, and I consider my new home to have the perfect climate. Although it's tropical, it's at 4,500 elevation and 8° N latitude - too close to the equator for hurricanes. The temperature seldom goes above 80°F or under 60°F now, but it does drop into the low 50's at night in winter at this elevation. At 3pm, it is 71° outdoors with intermittent light rain and distant thunder moving closer, including the deep "basso profundo" type which shakes the whole house. It's been a typical day for the rainy season here, which runs from April through November.

I usually wear a t-shirt plus a warm long-sleeved outer shirt in evenings. However, when I go 5mi down to the local town of Boquete, it's usually 5-6°F warmer. And if I go to the provincial capital of David 25 miles down the hill near sea level, it's 15-20° warmer and very humid.

I completed a four-month exploratory visit to Boquete in June, and then returned to northern California to sell or donate most of the rest of my household goods and stationary woodshop tools. I came back a couple of weeks ago and moved into this highlands rental casa. I live in a neighborhood called Volcancito Arriba, which is about two miles from Lloyd Cripes Wunderground linked weather station at 4,200 ft. elevation in the next neighborhood over which is called Palmira Arriba.

I am curious about climate change scenarios for this area, but have not researched it yet. As we all know, the biggest changes so far seem to be taking place in the Arctic/Polar regions. So far, there doesn't seem to be any obvious symptoms of climate change here in Panama, and I may try to use Lloyd's monthly meteorological data, which goes back to March 2007. I might do some simple graphing to look for obvious trends, but without statistical analysis, which I am not qualified or trained to do.

Annual rainfall totals over the five years that the Palmira Arriba station has been in operation range from 146"-222". Within this small sample, August through October seems to be the period with the most rainfall. However, at 60.47", 2012 has the lowest cumulative rainfall through July over the past five years by about 3.5" or 5%.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Deleted
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
Quoting Snowlover123:


Using a sensitivity of 3 Degrees C gives you a temperature response of 1.2 Degrees C for a 40% increase in CO2, which is not what we have observed. We have only warmed 0.6 Degrees C, which is about half of that value, and it is extremely likely that a significant to dominant portion of that warming was naturally induced, making the sensitivity to CO2 even smaller.
Wrong. Simply wrong...

Next witness, Your Honor.

Sigh...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13555
Quoting Snowlover123:
There is no "vast" amount of scientists or papers that support one position. Take the recent 2012 AMS Survey for example. Only 52% of the members agreed that Global Warming was primarily caused by human activity. So it is roughly split 50/50 on whether Global Warming is primarily caused by human activity.
Only about 1/4 of AMS members answered the survey, not really enough to tell whether it's a truly representative sample. Regardless, not all AMS members are climatologists, nor even meteorologists; scientists from any field are welcome. At any rate, since you brought it up, here are the numbers:

-89% say GW is happening vs only 4% who said it isn't.
-59% say it's human-caused (and 11% say it's both human and natural), vs. only 6% who say it's primarily natural.
-72% are somewhat to very worried about it, vs. just 8% who are not at all worried.
-76% say it will be somewhat to very harmful to mankind.

Those results--from a bunch of people consisting of only about 25% of the members of a group made up of others aside from climate scientists--sort of make your comment that "...it is roughly split 50/50 on whether Global Warming is primarily caused by human activity" look pretty disingenuous, dontcha think? (And if you care to look at surveys taken by actual climate scientists, you'll find numbers in the upper 90s. You know, what honest folks woud call "a consensus")
Quoting Snowlover123:
What is a "denialist" by the way? I counted it twice in your post. Is it someone who you libel because they disagree with you? Is it someone who you libel because you can't tolerate any other opinion other than your own?
No, where climate science is concerned, a denialist is someone with a tribal--usually political/ideological--adherence to logically, scientifically, or factually flawed arguments against CAGW. It's someone who outright rejects the scientific consensus. It's someone who refuses to acknowledge basic physics. It's someone who tenaciously clings to anything written or spoken by debunked and discredited "scientists", while dismissing everything uttered by credible climate witnesses. It's someone who refuses to admit that those with their hands in Big Oil's pocket just might have financial reasons to lie. It's someone who doesn't approach the issue of climate change honestly and openly, but rather with their feet firmly planted in the (tar) sand, refusing to admit even to themselves that they may be mistaken. It's someone who continues to repeat lies--there's been no warming since 1998, and so on.

And so on. And so on...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13555
Quoting Birthmark:

It is well known that Hansen used a climate sensitivity of 4.2C. Try re-calculating Hansen's projections with a sensitivity of 3C and see what happens. Then let me know what that tells you about Hansen's model.


Using a sensitivity of 3 Degrees C gives you a temperature response of 1.2 Degrees C for a 40% increase in CO2, which is not what we have observed. We have only warmed 0.6 Degrees C, which is about half of that value, and it is extremely likely that a significant to dominant portion of that warming was naturally induced, making the sensitivity to CO2 even smaller.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting BobWallace:
How did you find those papers, through a legitimate literature search or via web sites?



Both, actually. I use Google Scholar to do my own independent research.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting BobWallace:


And, as you report "52% of the members agreed that Global Warming was primarily caused by human activity".

Hummmm...........

Kind of locks nicely with the 97% of climate scientists agree that the planet is warming and humans are the main cause....


No it doesn't at all.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting BobWallace:


Let's have a little review of current events, shall we Snow?

On 8/6/12, comment #297 you stated "Certainly the halt in the warming over the last 10-15 years does not bode well for CAGW at all, ...."

You apparently accept that you misspoke? The Foster and Rahmstorf paper is in your face and you are discussing it, acknowledging the non-halting of warming over the last 15 years.

Now you're trying to minimize at least GHG, if not human cause. Trying to turn CAGW to CaGW?

Ozone changes, land use changes - those are us.

--

As for cosmic rays causing the warming that you said wasn't happening, let me give you the Skeptical Science opening paragraphs on that topic...

Cosmic rays may play a part in helping form clouds. If this is the case, increased cosmic rays would lead to more cloud cover, resulting in a cooling effect.

Conversely, decreased cosmic rays would warm the earth.

To calculate the maximum possible role of cosmic rays in recent warming, global temperatures were compared to cosmic radiation levels measured by neutron monitors at the Earth's surface. While there was good correlation between cosmic radiation and temperature prior to 1970, the correlation breaks down sharply after 1970.

The analysis concludes that "between 1970 and 1985 the cosmic ray flux, although still behaving similarly to the temperature, in fact lags it and cannot be the cause of its rise. Thus changes in the cosmic ray flux cannot be responsible for more than 15% of the temperature increase" (Krivova 2003).


Why don't you give their site a good read on that topic and if you think they've got it wrong then take it up with people who are very knowledgeable in that sub-field? Link

--

BTW, that cold spell in the Arctic that had you all aflutter is bashing the crap out of the sea ice.

We won't likely have a good idea of the extent for a few more days when things settle down enough for accurate measurements, but if present measurements are close to accurate the Arctic will have taken a major hit.




Bob, I can take out all of the factors that impact the climate system, and claim we have not warmed. That is exactly the opposite of what you are doing to try and falsify that we have not warmed in the last 10 or so years.

Ozone changes are impacted by natural and anthropogenic causes. See all of the evidence that I posted in the other thread about how the sun likely has a major role to play in Ozone Depletion, as do CFCs. I am glad though that you accept that there are more factors than just Total Solar Irradiance, Volcanoes, and Greenhouse Gases that impact the Earth's temperature. Other anthropogenic and natural causes have been ignored that are important that Foster and Rahmstorf decided not to remove.

Your claim about Cosmic Rays not decreasing is again flawed.

There indeed has been a change in the Cosmic Ray Flux during the late-20th Century, as there has been with other solar-related variables.



From Dorman 2012



From Carslaw et. al 2002



From Ogurtsov et. al 2003

Cosmic Rays reached a record low in 1992, and the Cumulative Cosmic Ray Flux over a solar cycle was it's lowest ever recorded during the late-20th Century, contributing to Global Warming, and can account for a significant portion of the temperature increase observed during the 20th Century, and the late-20th Century (Dorman 2012)(Palle Bago and Butler 2001)(Belov et. al 2005)(Tinsley et. al 2009)(Rusov et. al 2010)(Carslaw et. al 2002)(Ermakov et. al 2009)(Ogurtsov et. al 2002)(Schrer et. al 2004)

I may have underestimated the ability of compaction. It will not be another error that I repeat in the future. DMI has dropped like crazy, I am starting to wonder how much of it actually is gone, and how much of it the satellite is not picking up, as you said.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


52% of them had their Ph.Ds in Atmospheric Science, 56% had published about climate change in the last 5 years, and 23% had written more than half of their papers on Climate Change, so some of them are legitimate climate scientists.

I can take the solar signature out of the temperature record over the last 100 years and I would see a much smaller warming than what we have currently observed.


And, as you report "52% of the members agreed that Global Warming was primarily caused by human activity".

Hummmm...........

Kind of locks nicely with the 97% of climate scientists agree that the planet is warming and humans are the main cause....
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Deleted
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
Quoting Snowlover123:


Looks like CO2 is remaining consistent at around a 2 ppm/year increase.


Tells us that we're getting deeper and deeper in trouble, eh?
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
BobWallace - rather than take up more space on this climate change blog, you can follow my journey to expat living at my personal blog, which I link to on my website. I see that Neopolitan has also responded to the comparison question, and he has personal experience in Costa Rica and Ecuador which I don't.

Regarding my local weather, I have been interested in weather and climate for all my life, and I consider my new home to have the perfect climate. Although it's tropical, it's at 4,500 elevation and 8° N latitude - too close to the equator for hurricanes. The temperature seldom goes above 80°F or under 60°F now, but it does drop into the low 50's at night in winter at this elevation. At 3pm, it is 71° outdoors with intermittent light rain and distant thunder moving closer, including the deep "basso profundo" type which shakes the whole house. It's been a typical day for the rainy season here, which runs from April through November.

I usually wear a t-shirt plus a warm long-sleeved outer shirt in evenings. However, when I go 5mi down to the local town of Boquete, it's usually 5-6°F warmer. And if I go to the provincial capital of David 25 miles down the hill near sea level, it's 15-20° warmer and very humid.

I completed a four-month exploratory visit to Boquete in June, and then returned to northern California to sell or donate most of the rest of my household goods and stationary woodshop tools. I came back a couple of weeks ago and moved into this highlands rental casa. I live in a neighborhood called Volcancito Arriba, which is about two miles from Lloyd Cripes Wunderground linked weather station at 4,200 ft. elevation in the next neighborhood over which is called Palmira Arriba.

I am curious about climate change scenarios for this area, but have not researched it yet. As we all know, the biggest changes so far seem to be taking place in the Arctic/Polar regions. So far, there doesn't seem to be any obvious symptoms of climate change here in Panama, and I may try to use Lloyd's monthly meteorological data, which goes back to March 2007. I might do some simple graphing to look for obvious trends, but without statistical analysis, which I am not qualified or trained to do.

Annual rainfall totals over the five years that the Palmira Arriba station has been in operation range from 146"-222". Within this small sample, August through October seems to be the period with the most rainfall. However, at 60.47", 2012 has the lowest cumulative rainfall through July over the past five years by about 3.5" or 5%.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
July Co2 is in.

co2now.org

394.49ppm


Atmospheric CO2 for July 2012





Looks like CO2 is remaining consistent at around a 2 ppm/year increase.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting BobWallace:
Snowlover - the AMS is a group of weathermen, not climate scientists.

Some of those guys have no clue. No clue at all.

--

Now, take the ENSO and solar cycle noise out of the graphs you post and get back to us....


52% of them had their Ph.Ds in Atmospheric Science, 56% had published about climate change in the last 5 years, and 23% had written more than half of their papers on Climate Change, so some of them are legitimate climate scientists.

I can take the solar signature out of the temperature record over the last 100 years and I would see a much smaller warming than what we have currently observed.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Neapolitan:
I'm sure it's just effects of the cooling sun, or clouds, or poorly-sited thermometers, or because Al Gore is fat and lives in a big house, but this bit of breaking news from NOAA:All of the four hottest 12-month periods in U.S. history--and five of the seven hottest--have ended this year. (And all of the top 13 have taken place since 2000.)

hot

hot

hot


The United States has been very warm, but this is not an accurate representation on a Global scale. For example, RSS for July 2012 has 2012 as the 7th warmest on record, and the 8th, 9th and 10th warmest on RSS were only a few hundreths of a degree cooler.

http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series /RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_a nd_Ocean_v03_3.txt

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Snowlover - the AMS is a group of weathermen, not climate scientists.

Some of those guys have no clue. No clue at all.

It's like surveying podiatrists about the best treatments for cancer. Just because someone is knowledgeable in one field does not give them standing in others.

--

Now, take the ENSO and solar cycle noise out of the graphs you post and get back to us....
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Quoting Neapolitan:
For what it's worth--and I know you weren't asking me--I've spent considerable time in both Panama and Costa Rica, and have visited Ecuador on a few occasions. In my mind, there's no place more friendly to American expats--and their often slender wallets--than Panama. Beautiful country, great food, wonderful people, and highly affordable. I don't know where life will take me, but if I don't end up in Panama in a decade or two, I'll be surprised.


I appreciate the info. I spent about four months in Panama several years back but most of it in the Canal Zone (~1 mo) and the San Blas Islands (~3 mo). I need to go back and see more of the rest of the country. I did make it out into the country, but not at altitude. And altitude is what makes that part of the world pleasant.

The food, all three places, I would classify as quickly boring. Perhaps in the more touristy places there's a greater variety of tastes. But what struck me in Ecuador was the wide variety of fruit and vegetables in the markets. And I recall the same in CR. The short distance from ocean/hotter climate to high mountain valleys means that many things are grown over a small geographic location and they can travel to market quickly.

Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Quoting Neapolitan:
I'm going to call BS on this one. There is no way a person could objectively and randomly select only those small number of science papers that seem to support the denialist POV--It's the sun! it's the clouds! It's not happening! It's not manmade! It won't be so bad!--while completely ignoring the vast number that have proven it invalid time and again.


Actually you are totally wrong. There are plenty of papers out there floating around in the scientific literature supporting Skeptic arguments of AGW. There is no "vast" amount of scientists or papers that support one position. Take the recent 2012 AMS Survey for example. Only 52% of the members agreed that Global Warming was primarily caused by human activity. So it is roughly split 50/50 on whether Global Warming is primarily caused by human activity.

Some consensus.

People can repeat whatever they want to repeat, and if they were wrong, even if they repeat it, it is still wrong. The flatline in the Global Temperatures is real.


Here is the WTI



HadCruT3



GISS



UAH



RSS



HadSST2



Note that the data is not complete with HadCruT4 on WoodforTrees.



None of the datasets that show a slight upward trend in temperatures have statistically significant trend in temperatures since 2001. Likewise, most of the negative temperature trends since 2001 are not statistically significant. The warming has paused on all of the datasets. To say that this isn't so, is being in denial.

What is a "denialist" by the way? I counted it twice in your post. Is it someone who you libel because they disagree with you? Is it someone who you libel because you can't tolerate any other opinion other than your own?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting BobWallace:
Welcome Xulonn.

Off topic, but may I ask why you chose Panama over other very pleasant and affordable places such as Costa Rica and Ecuador? How does it stack up in terms of health care, etc.?

I assume CR is still affordable if one gets away from the expat communities.

(I'm looking at Ecuador as where I might spend the last couple decades of my life, when life in my mountains gets too much for an old body.)
For what it's worth--and I know you weren't asking me--I've spent considerable time in both Panama and Costa Rica, and have visited Ecuador on a few occasions. In my mind, there's no place more friendly to American expats--and their often slender wallets--than Panama. Beautiful country, great food, wonderful people, and highly affordable. I don't know where life will take me, but if I don't end up in Panama in a decade or two, I'll be surprised.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13555
We all use models or at least every profession does, to structure and communicate data. I can see that the denier press uses 'it's just a math model' to discredit climate science but is there really any other kind? Those wooden 1/2 ships models were carefully reduced to inches offsets to build the real ships. Try getting a business loan without a business model/plan.
The same semantic problems occur with the word 'theory'. Just remember gravity is 'just' a theory.
Maggie Kroerth-Baker wrote last week that she accidently stepped on a trigger word like that when she used 'infinity' in the plural. The great 'take-away' from that experience was that when dealing with a contrary non-science person was to not just be aware of what you are trying to say but to see who they see you as.That is one of those great 'a-ha' moments. Maggie, great as usual.
I think non-scientists relate better to 'rigged casios' than 'loaded dice'.
My favourite model today is the six torus(I do not know the plural) of the 'Hadley Cell'.
Member Since: February 6, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 126
Welcome Xulonn.

Off topic, but may I ask why you chose Panama over other very pleasant and affordable places such as Costa Rica and Ecuador? How does it stack up in terms of health care, etc.?

I assume CR is still affordable if one gets away from the expat communities.

(I'm looking at Ecuador as where I might spend the last couple decades of my life, when life in my mountains gets too much for an old body.)
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Quoting RevElvis:


Have we? The old system was slash-and-burn which leached out the nutrients/minerals out of the soil & without moisture there was nothing to hold the soil down.

We're still "slashing" (the burning is happening on it's own). The "Green Revolution" monoculture of the 1950's, 60's does pretty much the same thing - the soil isn't "living" - it's a "dead sponge" that they plant seeds on & pour fossil fuel based NPK fertilizers & pesticides on - without adding any nutrients or minerals.

I think we've only "improved" the problems - adding a dead zone (hypoxia) in the Gulf of Mexico & if we don't get significant rain fall soon - possibly another "dust bowl".

(just my opinion - and I have opinions on just about everything - just ask me ;-)


I believe we have, don't have data.

During dust bowl days farmers didn't practice crop rotation and generally didn't use cover crops. They left a lot of land plowed and bare.

That, in turn, allowed for a lot more evaporation and the dryer ground fed the temperature increases.

eta: I think we're doing a lot more non-till farming now in the US. Rather than plowing the old plant residue under we're planting through it, which leaves more of a protective cover for the soil while it's between crops. But I'm a few years away from living in a farming area, so no observations to back that up.

Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Quoting BobWallace:


It's likely more impressive when you factor in the fact that we've changed our farming practices since the 1930s.


Have we? The old system was slash-and-burn which leached out the nutrients/minerals out of the soil & without moisture there was nothing to hold the soil down.

We're still "slashing" (the burning is happening on it's own). The "Green Revolution" monoculture of the 1950's, 60's does pretty much the same thing - the soil isn't "living" - it's a "dead sponge" that they plant seeds on & pour fossil fuel based NPK fertilizers & pesticides on - without adding any nutrients or minerals.

I think we've only "improved" the problems - adding a dead zone (hypoxia) in the Gulf of Mexico & if we don't get significant rain fall soon - possibly another "dust bowl".

(just my opinion - and I have opinions on just about everything - just ask me ;-)
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Time to join the conversation. I appreciate Dr. Rood's informative blog posts, which are based on real science, and I enjoy the most of the comments and discussions among the small group of knowledgeable and curious people who are the primary regular contributors here at the WU Climate Change Blog.

I am a 70 y/o American expat who just retired, with Social Security as my sole income, to an affordable, cool tropical paradise at 4,500 ft. in the mountains of Panama not far from the Costa Rica Border. I'm only a few miles from La Amistad International Park, a 1,548 sq.mi. tropical highlands rainforest region of incredible biodiversity. As a child, I dreamed of visiting tropical rainforests, and through some unanticipated twists and turns in my life, ended up retiring in one.

I accept the scientific consensus* regarding global warming and climate change (GW/CC), and my views and opinions on various aspects of GW/CC will become apparent via my comments as time goes on.

*Scientific consensus: The collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. (from Wikipedia)


And now on to the real subject of my first post here.

I am fascinated by the psychology of CC deniers, and at the moment, the postings of Snowlover123. (I will use the male pronoun "he" unless someone has knowledge that Snowlover is actually a she.)

Snowlover is obviously very intelligent and highly skilled at writing well composed, well documented posts, a tribute to his education - in contrast to his lack of education in the area of critical thinking. (This statement will probably elicit howls of indignation, but I am entitled to my opinions here as much as Snowlover is entitled to his.) Snowlovers' information is apparently taken from well known CC/GW denialist web sites, and he displays no attempt to examine and criticize any of the information in his sources, yet vociferously demands "proof" and point-by-point rebuttals with detailed source information from those who dare to dispute his posts and opinions. He attacks his detractors while attempting to portray himself as a "victim" when his posts are challenged. He projects an image of believing that he is simply attempting to bring truth about the climate change "controversy" to the blog and then is viciously attacked for his charitable efforts. In reality, he puts a significant amount of work into his posts, although much of it looks like anti GW/CC boilerplate available via the internet.

Daisyworld, I really appreciate your posts about the Dunning-Kruger and I certainly think it applies to many unskilled/incompetent GW/CC deniers. However, I see Snowlover as highly skilled and intelligent, and I think that it is possible that he is still in the first of the classical five stages of grief - denial, and using all the energy and intellectual resources he can muster to support that denial. Many of us here, especially my peers in the later years of their lives, have reached stage five, the stage, which is acceptance. To paraphrase a classical description of this "final stage" of grief from my personal perspective: "The truth is that GW/CC is real, serious, and a great danger to man and human civilization. I accept the scientific consensus, and it is time to prepare for the difficulties ahead."

When I moderated three vacuum tube audio enthusiast forums during the early years of audioasylum.com about 15 years ago, we would occasionally have problems with very intelligent young trolls who would burst onto the scene loaded with recently acquired web-based knowledge. They would dive into the discussions with complex and articulate, but superficial comments that were either consciously or subconsciously loaded with passive-aggressive content. Then they would cry out with great indignation and remarkable skill portraying themselves as victims when anyone contradicted or attacked them. Snowlover's posts bring back memories of the difficulties of dealing with those young trolls. Logic doesn't work - and they are extremely skilled at manipulating their detractors and eliciting sympathy from those who they can trick into sympathizing with them as "victims."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Deleted
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
Quoting Snowlover123:


All of the papers that I have looked at are published in peer-reviewed and credible journals. I have no idea how many papers support the AGW hypothesis verses how many support the solar hypothesis, simply put, there are a lot on both sides. However, I noticed that with the Solar side there are more papers that focus on observational evidence rather than numerical modelling. The numerical modelling can easily be falisified by observational evidence, and we have direct evidence that the models are less than adequate for many climatic parameters. (Probst et. al 2012) (Douglass et. al 2007)(Anagnostopoulos et. al 2010)(Christy et. al 2010)(Govindan et. al 2002)

You're not going to like this, but what you notice is a pretty poor scientific standard unless you can quantify your observations.

Quoting Snowlover123:
And if there is an insensitive climate system, that does not invalidate paleoclimate in any way. We have no idea how strong the forcings were that caused the temperature changes in the past. We have no idea what forcings even caused temperature changes in the past, however, we are starting to get a good idea that it was driven by Solar Activity, while being amplified by a variety of mechanisms, like the Cosmic Ray mechanism. (Christl et. al 2004)(Marchitto et. al 2010)(Zhao et. al 2009)(Tan et. al 2011)(Shaviv and Veizer 2003) Such a mechanism would strongly suggest an insensitive climate system, and not a sensitive one.

Actually, contrarily, the overwhelming observational evidence is supporting the solar hypothesis than the AGW hypothesis. The numerical modelling may support the AGW Hypothesis, but those have shown to have several notable flaws which is shown in several papers that I linked you up above.

And which of those papers haven't been refuted in the scientific literature or simply ignored?



The halt in the warming recently is now a basic fact in Climate Science. The fact that you do not want to accept it, I am sorry to say, indicates denial.
Nope. I asked a question. You have failed to answer it. I stated "If you can demonstrate that there has been a statistically significant halt..." See, that "statistically significant" is pretty important. If your temperature trend isn't statistically significant then your claim is meaningless.

Quoting Snowlover123:I picked an 11 year period to illustrate this halt in the warming. I started in 1990, which was a neutral ENSO year, which ended in 2001 which was a Nina. I then started 2001 which was a Nina and ended it in 2012 which was largely a Nina year (though starting to transition to a Nino in the Tropical Pacific). (CPC) If the trend is the same, and there is no halt in the warming, we should actually see a smaller trend in the 1990-2001 dataset, since I started on a neutral ENSO year instead of a Nina ENSO year. We don't observe that at all.



Here is the WTI.



Here is HadCruT3



Here is RSS.

Hansen made "scenarios" for the future. We have fallen a little bit below Scenario A in terms of the total forcing (natural and anthropogenic) impacting the climate system, and yet the temperature response is below Scenario C.

Something isn't adding up. It seems as if he has grossly overestimated climate sensitivity.

Yes, you cherry picked the data to get the answer you want. Let's see what would have happened had you used the other available temperature series at WFT.



Oh, look! All the temperature series you *didn't* graph happen to show a warming trend from 2001 to 2012. I wonder if that is a coincidence? lol

Quoting Snowlover123:
Dessler acknowledging strong negative feedbacks have dominated the climate system from 2000-2010 creating a halt in the warming would surprise anyone who has followed Climate Change for a while, considering that he has previously stated that he agrees with future warming estimates (from positive feedbacks) to be 2.5-4 Degrees C. (Source)

Again, it's hard to believe that that is surprising to anyone familiar with AGWT. It is well accepted that weather still occurs and can at times swamp the AGW signal. Get back to me when that happens in a statistically significant way.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Deleted
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
Hmmm, I do recall a few posts on refineries and how they run the show.

Refinery fire could boost gas prices nationwide
By Gary Strauss, USA TODAY


Motorists in West Coast states are about to see a big spike in gas prices, the fallout from a fire that cut production at one of the region's largest oil refineries.

Gasoline prices, now averaging $3.87 a gallon in California, $3.72 in Washington and $3.69 in Oregon, are expected to spike to $4.15 to $4.25 a gallon over the next week to 10 days following Monday's partial shutdown of a Chevron refinery in Richmond, Calif.
Nationally, gasoline prices have climbed 27 cents a gallon in the past month. While the refinery fire will drive prices along the West Coast, it will also lift the national average above year-ago levels.

"August looks like a very touch-and-go month for the entire country," says OPIS analyst Tom Kloza, who expects price relief after Labor Day. For the year to date, gasoline has averaged $3.61 a gallon 10 cents more than the average for all 2011, the most expensive year ever, he says.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Could Extreme Weather Take Down the Internet?

Slashdot.org

Worst Case Scenario

Where would the most damaging hit be? It’s debatable, but the most detrimental hit may be in Virginia. Amazon Web Services (AWS) has one of their major centers in Northern Virginia. Rackspace—probably its closest competitor—has two data centers in Virginia, as well. And Virginia isn’t a stranger to natural disasters. Between 1851 and 2009, 12 hurricanes hit the state of Virginia.

Unfortunately, according to a 2010 article in Nature Geoscience, some projections (based on high-resolution dynamical models and on theory) show that the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones will shift toward storms that are stronger. Greenhouse warming would cause this shift, and the storm intensity is projected to increase 2-11% by 2100. While there are studies that project a decrease in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, there are also projections that there will be increases in the frequency of the strongest cyclones.

Hypothetically, if an incredibly strong storm pummeled through the centers located in Virginia, the Internet could suffer greatly. When only considering Amazon’s cloud (including all of its data centers), an incredible amount of information would be affected. In a study involving millions of people, ⅓ of those surveyed reported visiting a website every day that used Amazon’s infrastructure. In 2011, Amazon’s S3 cloud stored 762 billion objects. It’s possible that Amazon’s cloud alone holds an entire 1% of the Internet.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948

Viewing: 113 - 63

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.