New Research

[Methuselah]

There's an even greater chance that I'm having a real thicko moment here; I was hoping someone could answer this apparent conundrum and show me where my idiocy stems from - I must be missing something fundamental because that paper makes no sense when read in conjunction with the rest of the data I've posted.

How can we be brightening and dimming at the same time

Could be it's brightening over here whilst it's dimming over there? http://nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif http://nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif

[VillagePlank]

Some interesting new research: Analysis of Sunspot Variability Using the Hilbert – Huang Transform: Bradley L. Barnhart and William E. Eichinger,SOLAR PHYSICS Volume 269, Number 2, 439-449, DOI: 10.1007/s11207-010-9701-6,

here

The Hilbert-Huang Transform is a method of decomposing a signal into it's constituent patterns. For instance, Fourier found that any non-sawtooth signal can be composed of a number of sine/cosine waves - and we use techniques such as that for signal analysis; indeed, I've done it with the CET, here.

The Hilbert-Huang Transforms goal is identical - decompose a signal into it's constituents. However, instead of decomposing into sine/cosine waves, it decomposes it into functions that may not be strictly periodic (as sine waves etc are)

This has distinct advantages. When conducting Fourier analysis, one of the primary assumptions is that all the required data is present. Clearly, almost never true. Under HHT, however, it works just as well on local data - so for instance, is ideally suited to decomposing the rather limited temperature record and extrapolating those results to be representative of the complete record.

It has produced some interesting results which might well be controversial. Consider the following three plates:

First thing to mention is that all three of these show the original data, followed by it's decomposition functions - intrinsic mode functions - in descending frequency order; so IMF1 is the highest frequency found, IMF6 is the lowest.

With the SSN number analysis, if we look at the lowest frequency (IMF6) it shows the general trend of sunspot numbers. This is important, to me, because I found that this was the case with my research a few years ago into modelling climate with a leaky integrator. This independently verifies the overall behaviour the LI model found - time to get those old papers out.

With the TSI analysis - this puts to bed, if this paper is found to be correct - the notion that the sun was quiet during the later parts of the 20th century and into the 21st. Again looking at the trend, IMF6, we can see that this is virtually identical to the SSN number (the link between TSI and SSN is well known - nothing new, there) However, now compare it to the global mean temperature IMF6. The straight line preceding about 1880 is pre-instrumental records. Note the underlying trend - it's almost identical.

Can we trust these results? Well, you'd do well to waive them. This research clearly shows the 11-year Schwabe, 22-year Hale, and ~100-year Gleissberg cycles on the SSN analysis and is comparable to longer studies using Fourier analysis. I wouldn't be surprised if one of those IMF functions looks like El Nino, either (I haven't checked)

It's extension into climatology is, I think, interesting. A side-note (as we found with the LI research) is that variance increased through the time line, and all three of these charts show the same thing. The cause is unknown, and as far as I know, there's no real answer to why this is the case; pertubations due to CO2 mixing, perhaps?

Many thanks to Jethro for pointing out this research to me some weeks ago.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Sparticle

[paul tall]

And they are???

You know, THEM. The industry.

[Methuselah]

You know, THEM. The industry.

The Spanish Inquisition?

[Gray-Wolf]

The Spanish Inquisition?

I didn't expect a kind of Spanish inquisition?

J'

http://www.metoffice...o/s/dimming.pdf

Where is getting brighter and where is getting dimmer?

Areas that are continuing to show global dimming tend to be areas where pollution is still increasing. Areas like Hong Kong, the Far East, around Asia and India, places like that are continuing to show dimming trends. Areas where there’s been a reversal to global brightening tend to be areas where pollution is being cleaned up. Particularly areas over Europe are showing now a reverse trend to global brightening.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

I don't know whether this helps but the Royal Met. Soc. published an article "Global Dimming-A new aspect of climate change" in Jan. 2005, Vol.60, No. 1. It's available online.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1256/wea.210.03/pdf

Edited July 15, 2011 by weather ship

[jethro]

Thanks for the dimming stuff folks.

I accept and understand that dimming/brightening won't be universally even, areas of high pollution such as China are bound to have more dimming than a non industrial nation but, this is the bit I just don't understand............if dimming causes cooling by blocking the Sun reaching the Earth, why has China continued to warm (at a greater rate than the global average) whilst their pollution is alleged to have cooled the rest of the world? Shouldn't the most direct impact of cooling be felt and recoded below the actual dimmed area? Why would the CET level off or fall but China continue to warm?

Sparticle: thanks for that. It's been a long week, it's Friday afternoon and I'm knackered, I'll get back to you when my brain isn't half dead....

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd just refresh yourself with a GFS model or two J'?

The same as our recent 2 winter's 'cold spells'? circulation shifts the air above to somewhere else pretty darn fast. I was always impressed that air over Greenland could be on our shores within 18hrs!

The overall impacts of having a sun shade over 1/3 of the planet was pretty well established by our episode of 'dimming'.

As for the Asiatic countries? well we did not have to burn there grade of coal (unless in Silesia) so we got off quite lightly. Remember 3 winters back and the 'green snow' in Russia?

We found out pretty fast 'what' and 'where' that came from now didn't we?

Sadly it's another 'Time will tell' tale for those who seek irrefutable proof of our impacts across our home planet.....

EDIT: Let's also not forget it takes about 7 years for the sulphur to be 'rained out' of the sky.

Remember 2 summers back (or was it 3?) the 'brown cloud' over Indonesia due to forrest fires and Forrest clearing?

I suppose that has another 4 years to run. Let's also not be forgeting India in all of this? We may focus on 'The Communist's' but all the developing world is clamouring for a 'developed world lifestyle' (and why wouldn't you?)so we can see a swathe of nations in the middle/far East all adding to the type of pollution we used to create (until the trees/lakes started dying?)

Anyhoos , I do not have any problem in 'seeing' the problem but then again I'm a born worrier?

Edited July 15, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

I'd just refresh yourself with a GFS model or two J'?

The same as our recent 2 winter's 'cold spells'? circulation shifts the air above to somewhere else pretty darn fast. I was always impressed that air over Greenland could be on our shores within 18hrs!

The overall impacts of having a sun shade over 1/3 of the planet was pretty well established by our episode of 'dimming'.

As for the Asiatic countries? well we did not have to burn there grade of coal (unless in Silesia) so we got off quite lightly. Remember 3 winters back and the 'green snow' in Russia?

We found out pretty fast 'what' and 'where' that came from now didn't we?

Sadly it's another 'Time will tell' tale for those who seek irrefutable proof of our impacts across our home planet.....

EDIT: Let's also not forget it takes about 7 years for the sulphur to be 'rained out' of the sky.

Remember 2 summers back (or was it 3?) the 'brown cloud' over Indonesia due to forrest fires and Forrest clearing?

I suppose that has another 4 years to run. Let's also not be forgeting India in all of this? We may focus on 'The Communist's' but all the developing world is clamouring for a 'developed world lifestyle' (and why wouldn't you?)so we can see a swathe of nations in the middle/far East all adding to the type of pollution we used to create (until the trees/lakes started dying?)

Anyhoos , I do not have any problem in 'seeing' the problem but then again I'm a born worrier?

I accept all of that and considered that pollution isn't going to remain static, it will drift around the globe with the weather but the impact will be lessened with distance from the original source as it gets more and more diffused - the greatest impact should still be at the original source but it doesn't appear to be. In addition, the global dimming has lessened considerably in recent decades and globally we've brightened 4% over the last decade - the time that dimming was supposed to have caused cooling. That doesn't make sense.

I wonder if the ocean acidification (particularly in the Pacific)thought to be as a result of CO2 could also be linked to pollution from China? Sulphur in the Troposphere causes acid rain.

[jethro]

Another view on the Kaufmann sulphur paper:

http://blogs.forbes.com/patrickmichaels/2011/07/15/why-hasnt-the-earth-warmed-in-nearly-15-years/

[jethro]

An even newer paper says it isn't due to China and their pollution, it's down to volcanoes.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047563.shtml

[Gray-Wolf]

Just a peep at Asias SO2 outputs. Seems that 98' would have been a good year for a high global temp eh?

[jethro]

Just a peep at Asias SO2 outputs. Seems that 98' would have been a good year for a high global temp eh?

You'd be hard pushed to decipher anything from the 1998 data, other than the huge El Nino.

[Gray-Wolf]

You'd be hard pushed to decipher anything from the 1998 data, other than the huge El Nino.

And the Europe drop off/US drop off and global temps over that period?

EDIT: I think you know where my 'worries' are centred though J'? We have been told (endlessly) that we are not seeing the kind of warming that the current CO2 levels should promote and then you bring solar drop off, Asian pollution and volcanoes up to show impacts that would 'cool' us? The pollution will hopefully go, as for solar and volcanics? If all that 'missing heat' is just sat there waiting to manifest (for as long as the CO2 stays aloft) then we will see a rapid increase in global temps once the mechanisms 'stalling it' fall away?

On top of all that we have the 'Arctic situation' and the possible tundra timebomb to consider.....oh to be unconvinced of our peril! It must be bliss!!!

Edited July 19, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

Chicken Little was a work of fiction, not a lifestyle manual.

[Gray-Wolf]

Vive la différence!

What appear straigh forward and obvious to me seems shrouded in mysteries to you?

The clean air acts did, within the 7 years of 'drop off' make a huge difference to global temps,pan evap rates,sunshine 'strength'? 9/11's U.S. flight ban seemed to show another big difference in 'energy' reaching the ground. to me this is a given , to you? well you seem to seek out reasons not to accept such.

Once Asia's pollution problem is adressed I suggest that we will see an even greater impact on global temps (seeing as we have continued to 'up' our GHG levels since our 'clean air acts' gave impact) I take it you would not expect such?

Again , to me, it is plain and straight forward to see any furth leap in temps impacting the polar region more than the lower latitudes? (experience now show us this?) You ,it appears do not feel this to be a logical step ?

As for 'Chicken Little' I enjoyed the movie more than the book....made much better entertainment?

Hows about 'The Little Red Hen'?

Edited July 20, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

A scientific consensus is not science. Indeed, the debate is often very unscientific.

Firstly, any argument from any consensus viewpoint is an appeal to the majority. It's logical wrong. Furthermore, saying that it must be true since the guys who say so really know what they're talking about is an appeal to authority - yet another logical farce.

Of course, it get's even better; since those who vehemently strive for AGW (not any here that I can think of, I think the bad ones have all moved on) go on to make the challenge - "well, show that AGW doesn't exist" - yep, you've guessed it - another logical fallacy, and this one's bad as it's also a argumentative trap. You cannot show that something doesn't exist; the proof of existence relies entirely on those making the claims about something existing.

There's plenty more examples from both sides of the debate. So next time you hear someone on the telly saying something like "well the majority of scientists think it's true, and no-one has shown that it doesn't exist - therefore it's fact" laugh, roll your eyes, and walkaway - they don't know what they are talking about.

And always look out for false dichotomy - it's my favourite way of weeding out the nonsense ... and, of course, confirmation bias is rife (an example is that I posted the result of some interesting research that seems to show that the sun has been increasing in activity at the same rate as the warming, here - it seems to have been roundly ignored)

Edited July 20, 2011 by Sparticle

[Gray-Wolf]

A scientific consensus is not science. Indeed, the debate is often very unscientific.

Firstly, any argument from any consensus viewpoint is an appeal to the majority. It's logical wrong. Furthermore, saying that it must be true since the guys who say so really know what they're talking about is an appeal to authority - yet another logical farce.

Of course, it gets even better; since those who vehemently strive for AGW (not any here that I can think of, I think the bad ones have all moved on) go on to make the challenge - "well, show that AGW doesn't exist" - yep, you've guessed it - another logical fallacy, and this one's bad as it's also a argumentative trap. You cannot show that something doesn't exist; the proof of existence relies entirely on those making the claims about something existing.

There's plenty more examples from both sides of the debate. So next time you hear someone on the telly saying something like "well the majority of scientists think it's true, and no-one has shown that it doesn't exist - therefore it's fact" laugh, roll your eyes, and walkaway - they don't know what they are talking about.

And always look out for false dichotomy - it's my favourite way of weeding out the nonsense ...

I wouldn't think of raising any argument at this point but if I'm faced with a person working in the Cryosphere,one specialising in Oceans, one in atmosphere, one in zoology, one in hydrology and one in climatology and all of them, at the end of their study, can only ascribe the extent of changes they have measured to the additional forcing of man's polluting should they be ignored???

I must have put my thickie pants on today for I would (atm) see this as a very convincing group of unrelated folk and, by them all ending up with AGW as the 'extra' forcing' needed to bring about the anomalies they study, would reinforce my view that man is indeed altering the planet?

Edited July 20, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

I wouldn't think of raising any argument at this point but if I'm faced with a person working in the Cryosphere,one specialising in Oceans, one in atmosphere, one in zoology, one in hydrology and one in climatology and all of them, at the end of their study, can only ascribe the extent of changes they have measured to the additional forcing of man's polluting should they be ignored???

I must have put my thickie pants on today for I would (atm) see this as a very convincing group of unrelated folk and, by them all ending up with AGW as the 'extra' forcing' needed to bring about the anomalies they study, would reinforce my view that man is indeed altering the planet?

Here's why I think you are attempting to construct a straw-man: my objection is to those (mainly in the press, actually) who say because there is agreement it must necessarily be true. In terms of scientific consensus we can all relate shocking stories of consensuses (sp?) being overturned. Remember the consensus where aboriginies where considered the half-way house between and ape and man (a consensus across the scientific world) so the Germans went to Australia killed some of them had them stuffed and put them in museums for additional proof of the theory of evolution?

Anyway, what you are describing is that many scientists have produced papers ascribing changes apparent to AGW. You only need one to show it is the case. Increasing the numbers in an attempt to validate something is necessarily an appeal to the majority.

And that is faulty thinking. Just because a great deal of people believe in something it doesn't make it anymore true than if just one person believed in it. It also doesn't increase the likelyhood (I won't bore you rigid with statistics) of something being necessarily the case, either.

In your example a powerfully written paper where the physical evidence is undeniable from any one of your scientists is enough.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Sparticle

[VillagePlank]

We have been told (endlessly) that we are not seeing the kind of warming

Warming.

It's a good word but what is actually increasing? I think that we'd all agree that the global temperature average value is increasing and that we call that warming.

But is that correct? The global temperature average is little more than a simple arithmetic mean; ie you add up all the numbers and divide by the quantity of numbers you have. Seems fair enough, easy to understand and provides a statistic that most people can get to grips with. There is a little more to it than this such as adjusting individual stations temperatures for height, movement, etc etc. I'm sure we all agree so far ...

Except that we don't. It is as meaningless as adding up the 'phone numbers on your mobile and dividing by the quantity and then claiming you have the 'average' number. Well, you do - but it's not going to call anyone you know and is therefore useless.

Consider it this way: if you add up the weight of everyone in the world then what do you have? You have the combined weight of everyone in the world. In fact if you could get everyone in the world to stand on a gigantic comedy set of scales - you can scientifically measure it; that is you can crunch the numbers and empirically test it.

What about temperature? If you add up the temperatures of the world, what do you have? Well you have a rather large number that we couldn't empirically test. You could fly out to space and measure the temperature of the world, but it would be vastly smaller than our added up variety. This means you can show, empirically, that the adding up of temperature data (the first part in the average calculation) is false: that is to say information about context is lost, and is therefore an invalid calculation. The premise is not only falsifiable, it is demonstrably nonsense.

But still, we divide those calculations up and come up with a number that has no meaning, observe that it's regression is going upwards and call it warming.

The world might be warming. But the global arithmetic mean is not the way to show it.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Sparticle

[jethro]

I've got this info, if it's any help:

http://www.climatedata.info/index.html

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/

[Methuselah]

A scientific consensus is not science. Indeed, the debate is often very unscientific.

Firstly, any argument from any consensus viewpoint is an appeal to the majority. It's logical wrong. Furthermore, saying that it must be true since the guys who say so really know what they're talking about is an appeal to authority - yet another logical farce.

Of course, it get's even better; since those who vehemently strive for AGW (not any here that I can think of, I think the bad ones have all moved on) go on to make the challenge - "well, show that AGW doesn't exist" - yep, you've guessed it - another logical fallacy, and this one's bad as it's also a argumentative trap. You cannot show that something doesn't exist; the proof of existence relies entirely on those making the claims about something existing.

There's plenty more examples from both sides of the debate. So next time you hear someone on the telly saying something like "well the majority of scientists think it's true, and no-one has shown that it doesn't exist - therefore it's fact" laugh, roll your eyes, and walkaway - they don't know what they are talking about.

And always look out for false dichotomy - it's my favourite way of weeding out the nonsense ... and, of course, confirmation bias is rife (an example is that I posted the result of some interesting research that seems to show that the sun has been increasing in activity at the same rate as the warming, here - it seems to have been roundly ignored)

Have I got this right? The belief (strangely popular among mainstream scientists) that biological evolution is really happening, is nothing more that an 'appeal to the majority'; that space and time are inextricably linked, likewise; and, ditto for quantum uncertainty??

I've always had my doubts about taking philosophical musings too seriously; but, hey, Jean-Paul Satre is really dead...Jean-Paul who?

Chicken Little was a work of fiction, not a lifestyle manual.

Not if you read the Daily Express, it isn't!

[VillagePlank]

It's a good word but what is actually increasing?

A specific example might help.

Consider the average daily temperatures of two cities: Amsterdam, and Acapulco in October.

Amsterdam has the recorded range of 46->57F, Acapulco, 77->88F; you will note that they do not overlap. We will, in a thought experiment presume that these are the only temperatures that are possible. ie the universal set is the list of temperatures. Indeed this is the case since we want to know what the 'average' temperature between the two sites is.

In an ideal world we'd use real valued functions but for this I will pretend integers are the way to go (the result is still the same) - therefore the possible list of temperatures is

A₁={46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57}

A₂={77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88}

Now the premise is that the mean temperature is a temperature.

Let's assume that each of the temperatures possible in our two city world has occured over a period of 12 days. So what we'll do is average each day and plot a graph:

The problem should be obvious: if our average is a temperature, it must occur with the range of known temperatures. But it doesn't. In fact it is prohibited by well known laws since you can't have thermodynamics at a distance - ie intensive properties of thermodynamic systems must necessarily be independent ... (and weather stations are, of course, independent of each other. Weather station A for instance can't affect weather station B (unless they are sat on top of each other))

The premise is therefore faulty. Since we know what all valid temperatures are and the average of temperatures between two sites doesn't fall within that set of numbers, the precise premise that the average of temperature between two independent sites is a temperature is disproven by means of contradiction.

Now you know.

(My original uses interval arithmetic to make it real-valued. PM me if you want a copy. Actually, the mean global average has almost certainly been recorded somewhere on Earth before but that's because of the law of large numbers and doesn't invalid the fact that you can create an average of two sites temperatures that can't possibly be a temperature)

Have I got this right? The belief (strangely popular among mainstream scientists) that biological evolution is really happening, is nothing more that an 'appeal to the majority'; that space and time are inextricably linked, likewise; and, ditto for quantum uncertainty??

I've always had my doubts about taking philosophical musings too seriously; but, hey, Jean-Paul Satre is really dead...Jean-Paul who?

Hmmm. I'll get back to you

Edited July 22, 2011 by Sparticle

[Cloudman]

A scientific consensus is not science. Indeed, the debate is often very unscientific.

Firstly, any argument from any consensus viewpoint is an appeal to the majority. It's logical wrong. Furthermore, saying that it must be true since the guys who say so really know what they're talking about is an appeal to authority - yet another logical farce.

Of course, it get's even better; since those who vehemently strive for AGW (not any here that I can think of, I think the bad ones have all moved on) go on to make the challenge - "well, show that AGW doesn't exist" - yep, you've guessed it - another logical fallacy, and this one's bad as it's also a argumentative trap. You cannot show that something doesn't exist; the proof of existence relies entirely on those making the claims about something existing.

There's plenty more examples from both sides of the debate. So next time you hear someone on the telly saying something like "well the majority of scientists think it's true, and no-one has shown that it doesn't exist - therefore it's fact" laugh, roll your eyes, and walkaway - they don't know what they are talking about.

And always look out for false dichotomy - it's my favourite way of weeding out the nonsense ... and, of course, confirmation bias is rife (an example is that I posted the result of some interesting research that seems to show that the sun has been increasing in activity at the same rate as the warming, here - it seems to have been roundly ignored)

The fact is though that physics tells us the increasing greenhouse gases causes warming and that there is a posiitve feedback from increased water vapour. The 20 the /. 21 st century warming cannot be explained apart from this. You don't need paper after paper to tell you this. We do need research and publications to explore regional climate change and the uncertainties in the magnitude of the warming over the next century.

[jethro]

The fact is though that physics tells us the increasing greenhouse gases causes warming and that there is a posiitve feedback from increased water vapour. The 20 the /. 21 st century warming cannot be explained apart from this. You don't need paper after paper to tell you this. We do need research and publications to explore regional climate change and the uncertainties in the magnitude of the warming over the next century.

Not really.

The physics tells us that CO2 causes warming, it also tells us that this is a logarithmic function (the more you add, the less impact it will have). The theory of AGW and the temperature projections for the future rely on the assumed positive feedback of water vapour to amplify and increase the small amount caused by CO2. As far as I'm aware (haven't checked for a while) this assumed positive feedback hasn't been shown to be happening.

The assumption hinged on warmer oceans, leading to greater evaporation creating heat trapping clouds, creating a net positive feedback - so far, despite numerous studies, no one has yet been able to show this evidence or unravel the conundrum. The clouds issue and lack of understanding is probably the greatest unknowns in all of this and absolutely crucial in order to anticipate any future temperature increases. Hopefully more information will be available in the not too distant future when the current satellite studies are completed.