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: 63 - 13

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

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
Quoting RevElvis:
July heat broke 1930s Dust Bowl record

CBSNews.com

WASHINGTON (AP) - This probably comes as no surprise: Federal scientists say July was the hottest month ever recorded in the Lower 48 states, breaking a record set during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.

And even less a surprise: The U.S. this year keeps setting records for weather extremes, based on the precise calculations that include drought, heavy rainfall, unusual temperatures, and storms.

The average temperature last month was 77.6 degrees. That breaks the old record from July 1936 by 0.2 degree, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Records go back to 1895.

"It's a pretty significant increase over the last record," said climate scientist Jake Crouch of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In the past, skeptics of global warming have pointed to the Dust Bowl to argue that recent heat isn't unprecedented. But Crouch said this shows that the current year "is out and beyond those Dust Bowl years. We're rivaling and beating them consistently from month to month."


This is unacceptable........
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting RevElvis:
July heat broke 1930s Dust Bowl record

CBSNews.com

WASHINGTON (AP) - This probably comes as no surprise: Federal scientists say July was the hottest month ever recorded in the Lower 48 states, breaking a record set during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.

And even less a surprise: The U.S. this year keeps setting records for weather extremes, based on the precise calculations that include drought, heavy rainfall, unusual temperatures, and storms.

The average temperature last month was 77.6 degrees. That breaks the old record from July 1936 by 0.2 degree, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Records go back to 1895.

"It's a pretty significant increase over the last record," said climate scientist Jake Crouch of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In the past, skeptics of global warming have pointed to the Dust Bowl to argue that recent heat isn't unprecedented. But Crouch said this shows that the current year "is out and beyond those Dust Bowl years. We're rivaling and beating them consistently from month to month."


It's likely more impressive when you factor in the fact that we've changed our farming practices since the 1930s.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Your daily dose of bad news...

We're depleting some of the world's aquifers and that's not going to work out well when it comes to feeding ourselves...

Some of these aquifers are being exploited at a stunning rate, but what's truly alarming is how many people depend on that over-exploitation for their food. These aquifers include the Upper Ganges, covering densely populated areas of northern India and Pakistan, and the North China plain, which is the heart of corn-growing in that country. The aquifer of Western Mexico has become a large source of fruit and vegetable production for the U.S.

The High Plains aquifer in the United States, meanwhile, is having a particularly bad year. Farmers are pumping even more than usual, because of the drought afflicting this part of the country, and it is getting less replenishment from rainfall. So water levels in the aquifer are falling even faster, leaving less water for the region's rivers, birds, and fish.


Good map...

Link
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Quoting BobWallace:
Snowlover, on 8/5/12, comment #272 you stated -

"I think it is very likely that Sea Ice melt slows significantly over the next few days, thus saving us from a record low in the Sea Ice. I still think that 2012 should be between 2008 and 2010 in terms of Sea Ice EXTENT."

Now why you both all-capped and bolded extent is a question that stuck with me. Why did you find it necessary/desirable to pick the least informative measurement of sea ice?

Extent - suppose a kid gets worried about the family's economics and asks her daddy if they have enough money.

Dad goes into the bedroom and pulls out all their money and spreads it out on the kitchen table. "See, honey, we're fine."

A couple months later Dad has lost his job and they've had some big bills to pay. So she once more asks if everything is fine.

Dad again spreads the family money on the kitchen table and reassures his daughter that all is well.

"But, Dad, last time you covered the table with piles of hundred dollar bills. This time the stacks are smaller and it's all ones and fives!"

Dad's got that extent thing covered. It's the volume that's going to be the problem in days to come....


CORRECT!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
July heat broke 1930s Dust Bowl record

CBSNews.com

WASHINGTON (AP) - This probably comes as no surprise: Federal scientists say July was the hottest month ever recorded in the Lower 48 states, breaking a record set during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.

And even less a surprise: The U.S. this year keeps setting records for weather extremes, based on the precise calculations that include drought, heavy rainfall, unusual temperatures, and storms.

The average temperature last month was 77.6 degrees. That breaks the old record from July 1936 by 0.2 degree, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Records go back to 1895.

"It's a pretty significant increase over the last record," said climate scientist Jake Crouch of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In the past, skeptics of global warming have pointed to the Dust Bowl to argue that recent heat isn't unprecedented. But Crouch said this shows that the current year "is out and beyond those Dust Bowl years. We're rivaling and beating them consistently from month to month."
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
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)

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.

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.

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.

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)

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


Birthmark,

A few things you need to know.

I am not a "denialist" because I did not answer your questions. If you look above to my previous posts, you will see that I wrote extensive amounts of information. That took about three hours in total to write.

I should have wrote that I will soon reply to your questions, but I did not have enough time to, as it was close to 10:30 pm when I finished up my last long reply.

Fair enough.

However, when you return here after a few months and re-post links to papers that have you previously posted here and that (at that time) had been shown to be refuted (Scaffeta, for example), coupled with denialist talking points (it's been cooling since year X -where X to the present is statistically insignificant)...well, that's denialist territory whether you or I like it or not.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Snowlover, on 8/5/12, comment #272 you stated -

"I think it is very likely that Sea Ice melt slows significantly over the next few days, thus saving us from a record low in the Sea Ice. I still think that 2012 should be between 2008 and 2010 in terms of Sea Ice EXTENT."

Now why you both all-capped and bolded extent is a question that stuck with me. Why did you find it necessary/desirable to pick the least informative measurement of sea ice?

Extent - suppose a kid gets worried about the family's economics and asks her daddy if they have enough money.

Dad goes into the bedroom and pulls out all their money and spreads it out on the kitchen table. "See, honey, we're fine."

A couple months later Dad has lost his job and they've had some big bills to pay. So she once more asks if everything is fine.

Dad again spreads the family money on the kitchen table and reassures his daughter that all is well.

"But, Dad, last time you covered the table with piles of hundred dollar bills. This time the stacks are smaller and it's all ones and fives!"

Dad's got that extent thing covered. It's the volume that's going to be the problem in days to come....
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Quoting BobWallace:
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.


It also looks like there is a potential for another arctic cyclone about 8-10 days from now. There is still a lot of warm air in Siberia (Tiksi, Russia is 70(F) today) to fuel more storms.

The only question in my mind is how badly the SIE and SIA records will be broken this year.
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
Uploaded by kartzp35 on Dec 18, 2011

This video portrays the impacts of Climate Change on Arctic ecosystems and the marine mammals who live there.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128659
Quoting Snowlover123:


Well I salute you for doing your own research. I can not say that I have researched this issue for 10 years, but I can certainly say that in the few years that I have begun to research this issue, that I know so much more than when I first started doing my own research in early 2009.

But I do not copy and paste from others, so your claim that I do is simply unsubstantiated.


I find this conversation and the poster Snowlover familiar. But where did a similar thing peak my interest? Got it!

Link

The subject is different, but the result, and the lack of logic, knowledge or reasoning skills is exactly the same. AND it is the same for the same reasons:

1. We have been subsidizing churches thru tax breaks and other free money for decades and those churches have been attacking science and the scientific method for so long now that people actually believe that AGW denialists, creationists and this fool "NoFlame" present just as much authority and validity as any scientist.

2. To balance the falling lack of reasoning skills in the general population, scientists are dumbing down their discourse so that people will understand what they are saying, but the result is that by now, the truth presented by a scientist sounds and appears to be just like the BS.

Compare this recent post by Dr. Rood to an old (1970's) science textbook. Dr. Rood takes great pains to write in 3rd grade english and to never EVER include any math. No math in a blog on modeling?!?!?!?!?! Just a sign of the times.

If you have the time, compare the reasoning, and arguments presented by NoFlame on grasscity to the arguments and logic of SnowLover. They are the same. NoFlame researched the issue of who built the pyramids, he may have put in the same (or more) effort that SnowLover did. But just like SnowLover, he has no skills in telling non-sense from sense.

I've questioned my friend grasscity:MeLt about why he argues with these fools and for him, it seems to be entertaining, but it is - and he admits that it is - a complete waste of time. I spent some time trying to reason with a guy that believed completely that the Galactic Federation of Light (GFL) would save the world. That was an eyeopening experience I assure you! LOL


I have no solution ... just an observation.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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?

Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Quoting Snowlover123:


The paper that the Skeptical Science quote is referring to is Foster and Rahmstorf 2011. What they tried to do is "take out" factors that impact climate and then assume that the trend left must be the anthropogenic trend. They remove Total Solar Irradiance (which comes from PMOD) and Volcanic Eruptions, then assume that the rest is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Well this paper is not at all robust at all in my opinion, because it oversimplifies the climate system, and does not try and remove other factors that we know impact the climate system (Ozone changes, Land use changes, Ocean changes, and the Indirect forcing from the sun).
br


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.


Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
July Co2 is in.

co2now.org

394.49ppm


Atmospheric CO2 for July 2012



Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128659
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:
July 2012: hottest month on record for contiguous United States

The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6F, 3.3F above the 20th century average, marking the hottest July and the hottest month on record for the nation. The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936 when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4F. The warm July temperatures contributed to a record-warm first seven months of the year and the warmest 12-month period the nation has experienced since recordkeeping began in 1895.
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
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13555
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...
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.
Quoting Snowlover123:
The halt in the warming recently is now a basic fact in Climate Science...
Wrong. People have submitted information to you several times that indicates this is clearly not the case. Not by a long shot. To continue repeating it is, quite simply, a lie.
Quoting Snowlover123:
...the overwhelming observational evidence is supporting the solar hypothesis than the AGW hypothesis
Only if the only observations one is looking at are those by denialists--again, quite a statistical oddity if allegedly by chance.
Quoting Snowlover123:
He then resorts to the Big Oil Conspiracy again, which is one of the least scientific arguments one can possibly argue on a science forum. They must be being paid by big oil, so they must be wrong!
As opposed to your opinion that they are being paid by big oil, but that doesn't mean anything. How silly. If you don't believe there's a conflict of interest in scientists being paid to give opinions of climate science by the most profitable corporations in the most profitable industry that the world has ever known, and one that will continue to profit only if the truth about climate science is quashed, you're far more gullible than I give you credit for. For God's sake--and your own--wise up.

For what it's worth, I've visited your infrequently updated blog (on blogspot), and it's very evident that you've gone all-in on the discredited and nonsenical Willie Soon solar hypothesis, with a side order of "it's the clouds". It's also very evident that you have much knowledge--erronous though much of it may be--and a writing style that's generally reader friendly. But anyone with their own modicum of knowledge about current climate science can read what you've written both there and here and recognize that you've carefully cherry-picked certain phrases from certain papers in an attempt to validate your point. But that's not honest, my friend. Not at all. This will have to be my last response to you; I have a lot of irons in the fire, so I just can't afford to waste any further time talking to someone who is intellectaully dishonest, and continues to promulgate deception, whether intentinally or not. It's unbecoming of someone as intelligent as you seem to be.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13555
Quoting vanwx:
Sno man,
I actually read one of those dreaded book length notes you write so well and so often too. Every cut and past and link. The subject was stratospheric heating/cooling and solar input. The last article came right out at the end and said that it wasn't solar forcing; the previous was the German guy that caught the inferences of the JPL group(the subject of the above is including chlorine chemistry in ozone cycles).
Then you went on about what a well meaning ready to learn guy you are and that in 15 years or so you might change your position. No hind-casting in complexity for you! At which time you will have wasted too much of too many peoples precious time. For all your fancy cut and paste seeming manners, I think you are just an intellectual filibusterer.


I do not cut and paste from anyone. Prove it, instead of throwing out baseless conjectures.

Thanks.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Neapolitan:
That was pretty lame, Snowlover. I'm no longer convinced that talking with you is worth the time. You've entered the fray not as a scientist (or science lover) with intellectual honesty and an open mind, but rather with an armful of preconceived notions and a very thick pair of Truth Blocker glasses.

1) First, I didn't "attack" you. Or to put it another way, if I did attack you, it was only in direct response to your own remarks ("Dr. Scafetta and Dr. Soon are not correct because you say so" and "Your second post is just simply ridiculous, so I won't even address that in great detail at all".) Such tactics are typical of denialists, of course; they lob grenades, and then clutch their pearls and pretend indignant confusion when those grenades are lobbed back at them. "Oh, dear, what ever did I do to deserve that?" But you already know that, don't you?

2) Yes, I posted a graph with June stratospheric temps, because that was the most recent one in the dataset. I could have chosen any other month, however, or any combination of months, and the results are the same. Feel free to run your own charts. Then be prepared to accept and acknowledge this truth: the stratosphere is not warming. Not in June, nor in any month, nor in any region, nor in any data set. There may be month to month or even year to year upward spikes, but it's the heart of cherry-picking to arbitrarily choose a low month followed by a higher month, then proclaim, "See?! It's warming!" But you know that, too, don't you? Anyway, knock yourself out here. Now, I'm sure if you look long and hard enough, you'll be able to manufacture a chart that shows a short-term (monthly or yearly) upward trend. Latch onto that as your "proof" of a warming stratosphere if you'd like. But if you try to come here and show it around, be prepared to defend it vigorously, for it will be challenged vigorously. (And this reminder again: a slowdown in cooling is not warming.)

3) You've inquired sarcastically about my "credentials" to "attack" Soon and Scaffeta (and there's that word again. I do not think it means what you think it means. Pointing out that a particular person who is looked upon as an expert has been discredited isn't an attack. It happens every day in courtrooms all over the world). Well, here are my credentials: a) I can read, and b) I have an IQ above 70. One doesn't need more than that to see how wrong these gentlemen are--and that's without even taking into consideration the buckets opf cash they've taken from Big Oil and Big Coal. If you'd like, I can copy and paste 100,000 words about each of your heroes and the numerous and varied ethical, judgemental, and scientific errors they've made, but that would just be scratching the surface. Besides, your blinders would prevent you from seeing the truth anyway.

Anyway, I can see you're becoming very agitated, throwing around ad hominems with greater and greater frequency ("fool", "amateur", etc.). Since I don't like watching anyone melt down, I'll leave you be. But if you bring back proof that the stratosphere is warming, or that GW stopped in 1998, or that GHGs aren't the cause of the warming, I'll jump back in.


Neapolitan still has not addressed any of the evidence that supports a significant solar contribution to stratospheric cooling. Readers should take note of this.

1) He claims that saying that someone's reading comprehension skills are poor is not a personal attack. Perhaps he should say that to someone in real life, and see what their reaction is. Trust me, Neapolitan, it won't be a very nice reaction at all. Saying that your post was ridiculous is not directly attacking you. It is addressing that your point was ridiculous.

Also note that Neapolitan, in his third reply to me, has still not provided any scientific evidence that Dr. Scafetta and Dr. Soon's papers and argumetns are "illogical and easily dismissed things."
Instead, he resorts to a red herring by saying that " {He} can read, and b) {He has} an IQ above 70." He then resorts to the Big Oil Conspiracy again, which is one of the least scientific arguments one can possibly argue on a science forum. They must be being paid by big oil, so they must be wrong!

2) If you posted a chart for June Stratospheric Temperatures, you should have said so. If you knowingly posted a chart for only one month without saying it, you are being very intellectually dishonest. In addition, your link does not work. The overall yearly (not one-monthly) trend in stratospheric temperatures since 1995-1996 is upward, and this trend has been verified to be a statistically significant change in the stratospheric temperature trend and sign.

3) The big oil conspiracy is simply ridiculous.

And calling you an amateur is a personal attack? Are you not an amateur? I am also an amateur, but I do not get offended because of the fact that I am an amateur. Perhaps you should look at the definition of a personal, or ad-hominem attack, as you seem to be severely confused on what it actually means.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
HadCruT3 didn't show up on my previous post:



Here is HadCruT3
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:

"Many" is a vague word. What percentage? 2%? 10%? 50%? When and where were they published? Are they 20 years old? 30?


And what would that say about what we've learned about paleoclimate if the climate system is insensitive? Does that mean, as I strongly suspect, that by accepting those papers we suddenly have no explanation for past climate?

Sorry, but if we're going to throw out everything we know, the evidence to force such a change has to be extremely compelling. It certainly won't come from a couple of minority papers or those published in questionable journals.

It would also help if they told a single story rather than several different (and often contradictory) stories.


Well, it's not a good standard, but I suppose it is some sort of standard. Still, there's no reason to wait to make a decision. The evidence is overwhelmingly against the Sun hypothesis.


What halt in warming over the last 10 to 15 years is that? If you can demonstrate that there has been a statistically significant halt...well, you'll be the first.

For future reference, Hansen didn't "forecast" anything. He made projections based on various scenarios. So far, his projections hold up very well when one corrects for the overly high climate sensitivity he used.


Again, there is no statistically significant halt to the warming. That aside, why would it surprise you that a scientist is interested in doing science on what is currently occurring? Why would acknowledging negative feedbacks surprise you?


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)

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.

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.

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.

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)
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


[...] I am not a "denialist" because I did not answer your questions. If you look above to my previous posts, you will see that I wrote extensive amounts of information. That took about three hours in total to write.

I should have wrote that I will soon reply to your questions, but I did not have enough time to, as it was close to 10:30 pm when I finished up my last long reply.

I'm very sorry that you had to take so many hours to write up your side of the issue, staying up until 10:30 at night, only to have your opinion rejected by so many. We know how frustrating it can be.

Scientists at work in their labs are known to stay up all night, several nights a month, monitoring vital lab analyses or model compilations, returning home only after sunrise. Many of these same scientists spend months to years writing journal papers or theses based on those analyses, only to have them rejected multiple times by a committee of their peers who request revisions or re-writes.

Fortunately for all of us, this is the life of a scientist. It creates a better product in the end, free of substantive errors in the science, and a sound building block for another scientist to build their work upon.

Perhaps you should learn from their example.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Deleted
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
5th place since 1979.




3rd place since 1979.




5th place since 1979.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting Birthmark:
Snowlover, I asked you some pertinent questions in the last thread based on your claims (post number 300). I notice that you haven't answered them.

I also notice that failing to answer pertinent questions is fairly common among denialists.


Birthmark,

A few things you need to know.

I am not a "denialist" because I did not answer your questions. If you look above to my previous posts, you will see that I wrote extensive amounts of information. That took about three hours in total to write.

I should have wrote that I will soon reply to your questions, but I did not have enough time to, as it was close to 10:30 pm when I finished up my last long reply.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Neapolitan:
Oh, my; it appears that the entire theory of global warming is false, as it has snowed in Johannesburg, South Africa! (Of course, Watts and Bastardi and other hide-the-incline types will make sure to not tell you that it also snowed there in June, 2007. And August 2006. And September 1981. And June 1964. And August 1962. And May 1956. And...)

snow

Snow is, of course, fairly uncommon in the area, though it is far from unheard of, falling on average about every eight years or so.


Yeah, it is uncommon in the area, the overall synoptic set up in the upper atmosphere is highly unusual in Southern Africa, there are negative 5 standard deviation 500 mb height anomalies in Southern Africa right now.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Me thinks Snowlover123 is Joe Bastardi........


Where is your proof that "Snowlover is Joe Bastardi?" Or are these once again more unfounded assumptions?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Oh, my; it appears that the entire theory of global warming is false, as it has snowed in Johannesburg, South Africa! (Of course, Watts and Bastardi and other hide-the-incline types will make sure to not tell you that it also snowed there in June, 2007. And August 2006. And September 1981. And June 1964. And August 1962. And May 1956. And...)

snow

Snow is, of course, fairly uncommon in the area, though it is far from unheard of, falling on average about every eight years or so.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13555
Quoting Neapolitan:
That was pretty lame, Snowlover. I'm no longer convinced that talking with you is worth the time. You've entered the fray not as a scientist (or science lover) with intellectual honesty and an open mind, but rather with an armful of preconceived notions and a very thick pair of Truth Blocker glasses.

1) First, I didn't "attack" you. Or to put it another way, if I did attack you, it was only in direct response to your own remarks ("Dr. Scafetta and Dr. Soon are not correct because you say so" and "Your second post is just simply ridiculous, so I won't even address that in great detail at all".) Such tactics are typical of denialists, of course; they lob grenades, and then clutch their pearls and pretend indignant confusion when those grenades are lobbed back at them. "Oh, dear, what ever did I do to deserve that?" But you already know that, don't you?

2) Yes, I posted a graph with June stratospheric temps, because that was the most recent one in the dataset. I could have chosen any other month, however, or any combination of months, and the results are the same. Feel free to run your own charts. Then be prepared to accept and acknowledge this truth: the stratosphere is not warming. Not in June, nor in any month, nor in any region, nor in any data set. There may be month to month or even year to year upward spikes, but it's the heart of cherry-picking to arbitrarily choose a low month followed by a higher month, then proclaim, "See?! It's warming!" But you know that, too, don't you? Anyway, knock yourself out here. Now, I'm sure if you look long and hard enough, you'll be able to manufacture a chart that shows a short-term (monthly or yearly) upward trend. Latch onto that as your "proof" of a warming stratosphere if you'd like. But if you try to come here and show it around, be prepared to defend it vigorously, for it will be challenged vigorously. (And this reminder again: a slowdown in cooling is not warming.)

3) You've inquired sarcastically about my "credentials" to "attack" Soon and Scaffeta (and there's that word again. I do not think it means what you think it means. Pointing out that a particular person who is looked upon as an expert has been discredited isn't an attack. It happens every day in courtrooms all over the world). Well, here are my credentials: a) I can read, and b) I have an IQ above 70. One doesn't need more than that to see how wrong these gentlemen are--and that's without even taking into consideration the buckets opf cash they've taken from Big Oil and Big Coal. If you'd like, I can copy and paste 100,000 words about each of your heroes and the numerous and varied ethical, judgemental, and scientific errors they've made, but that would just be scratching the surface. Besides, your blinders would prevent you from seeing the truth anyway.

Anyway, I can see you're becoming very agitated, throwing around ad hominems with greater and greater frequency ("fool", "amateur", etc.). Since I don't like watching anyone melt down, I'll leave you be. But if you bring back proof that the stratosphere is warming, or that GW stopped in 1998, or that GHGs aren't the cause of the warming, I'll jump back in.


Me thinks Snowlover123 is Joe Bastardi........
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting Snowlover123:
Since Dr. Rood wrote a new blog post, I will reply to previous posts on the other thread here.

Beginning with this post from Neapolitan in the other thread:



I thought that this post was fascinating for many reasons.

Neapolitan decided to personally attack me by accusing me of having undeveloped reading comprehension skills, instead of addressing all of the evidence from peer reviewed science that I posted that suggests a strong solar contribution to Stratospheric Cooling. Perhaps Neapolitan in the future should address the science from the peer reviewed papers that I post instead of personally attacking my comprehension skills.

A classy evading technique.

He then goes on to attack Dr. Soon and Dr. Scafetta with no basis at all. I am curious as to what credentials Neapolitan has to evaluate Dr. Soon and Dr. Scafetta's papers and arguments as "illogical and easily dismissed things"

Neapolitan then tries to fool the lay lurkers of this forum by posting Stratospheric Temperatures for the month of June instead of the yearly Stratospheric Temperature anomalies to get the maximum cooling possible during the recent flatline in temperatures since 1995 in the stratosphere. Who did you think you were trying to fool? Note the upper left hand of his first image, the temperature trends he has posted are only for the month of June, and not yearly Stratospheric Temperature trends.

Neapolitan then makes an amazing claim that a peer reviewed paper that I had posted (Liu and Weng 2009) is wrong because when Neapolitan eyeballed a chart (and yes these are actually yearly stratospheric temperature anomalies in his second chart) he thought that it didn't look like as if the stratosphere had stopped cooling and started warming. Unfortunately for him, the scientists who evaluated the temperature trends in the stratosphere using scientific statistical methods come to the conclusion that stratospheric temperatures have increased recently (since about 1995-1996). I trust robust statistical analyses from qualified experts instead of eyeballing a possible trend with no scientific rigor from an amateur.
That was pretty lame, Snowlover. I'm no longer convinced that talking with you is worth the time. You've entered the fray not as a scientist (or science lover) with intellectual honesty and an open mind, but rather with an armful of preconceived notions and a very thick pair of Truth Blocker glasses.

1) First, I didn't "attack" you. Or to put it another way, if I did attack you, it was only in direct response to your own remarks ("Dr. Scafetta and Dr. Soon are not correct because you say so" and "Your second post is just simply ridiculous, so I won't even address that in great detail at all".) Such tactics are typical of denialists, of course; they lob grenades, and then clutch their pearls and pretend indignant confusion when those grenades are lobbed back at them. "Oh, dear, what ever did I do to deserve that?" But you already know that, don't you?

2) Yes, I posted a graph with June stratospheric temps, because that was the most recent one in the dataset. I could have chosen any other month, however, or any combination of months, and the results are the same. Feel free to run your own charts. Then be prepared to accept and acknowledge this truth: the stratosphere is not warming. Not in June, nor in any month, nor in any region, nor in any data set. There may be month to month or even year to year upward spikes, but it's the heart of cherry-picking to arbitrarily choose a low month followed by a higher month, then proclaim, "See?! It's warming!" But you know that, too, don't you? Anyway, knock yourself out here. Now, I'm sure if you look long and hard enough, you'll be able to manufacture a chart that shows a short-term (monthly or yearly) upward trend. Latch onto that as your "proof" of a warming stratosphere if you'd like. But if you try to come here and show it around, be prepared to defend it vigorously, for it will be challenged vigorously. (And this reminder again: a slowdown in cooling is not warming.)

3) You've inquired sarcastically about my "credentials" to "attack" Soon and Scaffeta (and there's that word again. I do not think it means what you think it means. Pointing out that a particular person who is looked upon as an expert has been discredited isn't an attack. It happens every day in courtrooms all over the world). Well, here are my credentials: a) I can read, and b) I have an IQ above 70. One doesn't need more than that to see how wrong these gentlemen are--and that's without even taking into consideration the buckets opf cash they've taken from Big Oil and Big Coal. If you'd like, I can copy and paste 100,000 words about each of your heroes and the numerous and varied ethical, judgemental, and scientific errors they've made, but that would just be scratching the surface. Besides, your blinders would prevent you from seeing the truth anyway.

Anyway, I can see you're becoming very agitated, throwing around ad hominems with greater and greater frequency ("fool", "amateur", etc.). Since I don't like watching anyone melt down, I'll leave you be. But if you bring back proof that the stratosphere is warming, or that GW stopped in 1998, or that GHGs aren't the cause of the warming, I'll jump back in.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13555
Sno man,
I actually read one of those dreaded book length notes you write so well and so often too. Every cut and past and link. The subject was stratospheric heating/cooling and solar input. The last article came right out at the end and said that it wasn't solar forcing; the previous was the German guy that caught the inferences of the JPL group(the subject of the above is including chlorine chemistry in ozone cycles).
Then you went on about what a well meaning ready to learn guy you are and that in 15 years or so you might change your position. No hind-casting in complexity for you! At which time you will have wasted too much of too many peoples precious time. For all your fancy cut and paste seeming manners, I think you are just an intellectual filibusterer.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
One good thing came of it though; I ended up going back to Plato the read about Demosthenes, Sophistry, Rhetoric and that might facilitate my understanding. I have some understanding of AGW science but I've never understood the different kinds of denialists, I think there is three or four main types. A couple more weeks of training here and you'll be able to out-blather the 'not really a Lord', Mr. Moncton.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Sno man,
I actually read one of those dreaded book length notes you write so well and so often too. Every cut and past and link. The subject was stratospheric heating/cooling and solar input. The last article came right out at the end and said that it wasn't solar forcing; the previous was the German guy that caught the inferences of the JPL group(the subject of the above is including chlorine chemistry in ozone cycles).
Then you went on about what a well meaning ready to learn guy you are and that in 15 years or so you might change your position. No hind-casting in complexity for you! At which time you will have wasted too much of too many peoples precious time. For all your fancy cut and paste seeming manners, I think you are just an intellectual filibusterer.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Snowlover, I asked you some pertinent questions in the last thread based on your claims (post number 300). I notice that you haven't answered them.

I also notice that failing to answer pertinent questions is fairly common among denialists.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:


Why don't you show what you don't like about specific parts of my analysis and the peer reviewed papers that I cited.

Because it has already been done in the peer-reviewed literature in many cases, Snowlover. The rest are largely ignored by serious scientists, and so, need not be addressed at all on this blog.

In post number four of this thread I see that Hansen's projections are measured against something called "Solheim Temperature." What is "Solheim Temperature?"
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting spbloom:
"If Foster and Rahmstorf had adequately evaluated the solar influence to climate change, and treated the climate system as a chaotic non-linear system that has many, many factors influencing Climate Change, their results would have been totally different, as they would have substracted a greater solar forcing from the linear temperature trend, resulting in a smaller temperature trend and a smaller anthropogenic contribution to the warming trend than what they calculated."

I really have to admire this passage. It's the utterest gobbledygook I've seen in quite some time.

It really is epic, isn't it?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Sno man,
I actually read one of those dreaded book length notes you write so well and so often too. Every cut and past and link. The subject was stratospheric heating/cooling and solar input. The last article came right out at the end and said that it wasn't solar forcing; the previous was the German guy that caught the inferences of the JPL group(the subject of the above is including chlorine chemistry in ozone cycles).
Then you went on about what a well meaning ready to learn guy you are and that in 15 years or so you might change your position. No hind-casting in complexity for you! At which time you will have wasted too much of too many peoples precious time. For all your fancy cut and paste seeming manners, I think you are just an intellectual filibusterer.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


Yeah, we are at pretty low levels Sea Ice extent wise in the Arctic. A lot of the shrinking now has to do with compaction and not melt. Temperatures are now below normal in the Arctic Basin.



Also what about all that missing MASS. Doesn't that make you mad that we are missing so much snow and ice that you love so much?

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting Snowlover123:


Yeah, we are at pretty low levels Sea Ice extent wise in the Arctic. A lot of the shrinking now has to do with compaction and not melt. Temperatures are now below normal in the Arctic Basin.


LOL! How can you have compaction in areas where there is no ice?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting Snowlover123:


Yeah, we are at pretty low levels Sea Ice extent wise in the Arctic. A lot of the shrinking now has to do with compaction and not melt. Temperatures are now below normal in the Arctic Basin.
And Dunning-Kruger strikes again...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Hey Snowlover don't this make you mad? We are losing so much snow and ice that you love so much..... Look here we are record lows since 1979..



Yeah, we are at pretty low levels Sea Ice extent wise in the Arctic. A lot of the shrinking now has to do with compaction and not melt. Temperatures are now below normal in the Arctic Basin.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Hey Snowlover don't this make you mad? We are losing so much snow and ice that you love so much..... Look here we are at record lows since 1979..

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting RickyRood:


[...] 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...
I'm fond Dr. Hansen's dice metaphor, but I've often found that communicating the concept of probability to non-scientists leads to a perception of uncertainty. That is, if we as scientists state that there's a 95% probability that a hypothesis is true, a non-scientist sees that same probability as a lack of certainty despite the high number percentage (i.e., they see the 5% as a significant hole in the hypothesis).

Of course, scientists understand that the variability in nature prevents a pure 100% probability from ever occurring. Nevertheless, the very words "probability", "variance", and "error" can be seen as detractors from a concise conclusion by those outside of science. Some my friends even like to use the euphemism "statistics lie", when in fact it's not the statistics that lie, but those who misuse it.

I have yet to find a solution to this miscommunication, as the human brain seems wired to perceive absolutes: either you're 100% sure, or you're not. Those wishing for science to be incorrect on a subject will be able to exploit that small percentage of uncertainty by always pointing to it in a debate.

However, I still find that metaphors such as Dr. Hansen's dice explanation as helpful. It might not strike a chord with everyone, but if we keep coming up with useful metaphors, maybe we can reach enough people who can relate to those metaphors. Personally, I still enjoy the "Weather on Steroids" analogy that Dr. Masters and Dr. Broccoli have talked about, and the video by Noah Besser:

Steroids, baseball, and climate change
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Blackout: What's wrong with the American grid

BoingBoing.net

Our grid is old. The average substation transformer is 42 years old—two years older than the designed lifespan of a substation transformer. For the most part, our grid hasn’t been modernized—it’s largely mechanical equipment operating a digital world, Clark Gellings said. Perhaps most importantly, the grid isn’t being prepared for the future.

”From 1995-2000, the electricity sector put less than ⅓ of 1% of net sales into research and development,” Massoud Amin said. “In the following six years, that number dropped to less than 2/10 of 1%. We are harvesting the existing infrastructure more and investing less and less in the future.”

The frustrating thing is that this isn’t simply a technology problem. It’s also social and political. Just like the national grid is really a patchwork of grids, it’s also a patchwork of regulatory systems. That uncoordinated mixture of regulation and de-regulation often fails to incentivize the investments the grid actually needs. Building transmission lines, for instance, is a job that crosses multiple states. Many of those states aren’t going to get a direct benefit from the line, even if that’s what’s best on the whole. Local regulators may understand that, but when they have to operate in the best interests of their state or county, they might still challenge the line, Gellings said. This is part of why it can take as long as 12 years to get a single new transmission line built. In another example, de-regulation in many states has created a confused system where there are now lots of stakeholders in the electric grid, but nobody has an incentive to think about, or invest in, the long term.

If we want the grid to work as well three decades from now as it does today, we need to put some money into it. Massoud Amin has estimated the cost of grid improvements. To make the grid stronger—adding more high-voltage lines and upgrading the existing ones—he says we need to spend about $8 billion a year for 10 years. To make the grid smarter—digital, centralized, automated, and with the kind of big-picture communication that helps us stop blackouts before they happen—it’ll take an investment of $17-20 billion a year for 20 years.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


So why don't you show us where your claims have substantiation and how your claims have substantiation?

For example, how and where are my previous claims suspect?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:

However, where is your evidence that the abnormally strong area of low pressure in the Arctic will have lasting implications on the weather patterns over the next few decades?
By observing comments between scientists, reading peer-reviewed articles and having learned a great deal by reading the posts by Dr. Masters and Dr. Rood.

Which of my claims are suspect?
Most of them


Where have I insulted anyone?
Regularly
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
Ah, and I made a promise on the other thread, and I will keep my promise.

The Arctic ice extent shrinking did not slow down today as I had expected. I do think that tomorrow should have slower shrinking values than today. I will evaluate how that will go tomorrow.

I say the word shrinking instead of melting, because most of the ice loss is coming from compaction, whose impacts I may have underestimated. The Arctic is actually quite cold compared to normal right now.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting OldLeatherneck:

It's been over 6 hours since Dr. Rood posted a very lengthy an informative post. He did not do this for his benefit or his ego. He did this to educate us about the complexities and challenges regarding the modelling of climate change.

Meanwhile in the real world, the artic ocean is undergoing an unheard of event with a massive cyclone that will have lasting impacts on global weather events worldwide, for decades to come.

What's happenning on this blog tonight??

Well, SnowBLOWER has been spamming us with insults to the regular posters here, with very suspect claims.

And then our friend CB expects Dr. Rood to magically model the Tunnels, at no cost, without providing detailed proven data. If feasible to produce, the modelling and simulation will cost millions of dollars.



I first would like to say that I appreciate what Dr. Rood posts on this blog and what he has to say.

However, where is your evidence that the abnormally strong area of low pressure in the Arctic will have lasting implications on the weather patterns over the next few decades? Which of my claims are suspect? Where have I insulted anyone?

Start providing a basis for your claims instead of childishly insulting people.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699


It's been over 6 hours since Dr. Rood posted a very lengthy an informative post. He did not do this for his benefit or his ego. He did this to educate us about the complexities and challenges regarding the modelling of climate change.

Meanwhile in the real world, the artic ocean is undergoing an unheard of event with a massive cyclone that will have lasting impacts on global weather events worldwide, for decades to come.

What's happenning on this blog tonight??

Well, SnowBLOWER has been spamming us with insults to the regular posters here, with very suspect claims.

And then our friend CB expects Dr. Rood to magically model the Tunnels, at no cost, without providing detailed proven data. If feasible to produce, the modelling and simulation will cost millions of dollars.

Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
Quoting spbloom:
"If Foster and Rahmstorf had adequately evaluated the solar influence to climate change, and treated the climate system as a chaotic non-linear system that has many, many factors influencing Climate Change, their results would have been totally different, as they would have substracted a greater solar forcing from the linear temperature trend, resulting in a smaller temperature trend and a smaller anthropogenic contribution to the warming trend than what they calculated."

I really have to admire this passage. It's the utterest gobbledygook I've seen in quite some time.


Why don't you show what you don't like about specific parts of my analysis and the peer reviewed papers that I cited.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699

Viewing: 63 - 13

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.