Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

Some interesting thoughts by Tamino on

 

Gone with the Wind

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/gone-with-the-wind/

Edited February 19, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

 

 

No science hasn't moved on. They constantly change the predictions to fit with the current day thinking. What is blue today is black tomorrow.

 

That should read, science has moved on. Scientists often change the direction of their thinking on the basis of on-going research and gaining more knowledge about extremely complex issues. That's what science is all about and has been for centuries. And as a matter of interest what do think current day thinking is based on?

 

And to reverse that. What is current sceptic/denier thinking based on?

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-55#entry2935518

 

 

Priceless. Is that article 100% correct?

 

Can't argue with that.

 

If any article in the sun was 100% correct it would indeed be priceless.

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-55#entry2935578

 

 

The problem drgl is that if you try and bring an alternative view over in the thread all they are interested in is how they can debunk your point.

 

I'm very interested in what scientific alternative views to the consensus have been postulated this morning. Were they written in invisible type? Or does this count as one.

 

 

It's a prime example of how even the Met Office is taken over by AGW alarmists.Their job should be looking back through their extensive records and gently pointing out the past winter is rather similar to several other wet ones, even if the rain-bucket lottery eventually shows England and Wales has a few mm more than one or two others.But they can't help but push the agenda once again, and can't resist deliberately teasing the media with ambiguous statements that can be used for propaganda.

 

Genuine alternative views supported by reasoned scientific evidence is always welcome and by that I don't mean drivel from Watts and Goddard. Trouble is these views seem to be in short supply.

[Gray-Wolf]

I just do not think the other thread understands what the MetO were saying about our changing weather ( as the MetO see it) and the way such 'changes' are predicted to play out? They seem wholly unable to grasp that as the weather and climate change various  places will see more extremes in all weather types? From Record snows in Tokyo to record droughts in the Mid west and west coast of the u.S. , from floods to droughts here in the UK. From coldest winters in 60 years to record summer rainfall events. As the climate shifts so does the weather.... the trick is figuring out just where and just when.

 

My own view that we are entering the start of a rapid/abrupt climate shift, linked to Arctic ice loss and the flip back to positive augmentation of the underlying AGW warming. Again I'd repeat that this is my own take on things!. As such it sits at odds with the more 'moderate' views of the MetO. It does not mean we are different in our understanding that our changing climate is now demonstrably impacting weather across the globe. It means that I have concerns of a key event occurring pre 2020 where as they see this around 2030 or later?

 

As it is this years forecast Nino is now forecast to start in M/J/J and the sst plots look to favour PDO+ve. All we need to see now is the IPO flip to warm surface mode ( killing off the strong Trades) and we sill beginning to see just why I hold the fears I have?

 

Either way within a year of the Arctic becoming ice free I believe we will be seeing a lot of AGW predictions swing to the less conservative side of projections. 

 

EDIT: Has anyone considered the impacts on the temp gradient , between pole and equator, that these strengthened Trades are having? Could they be enhancing the gradient by cooling the equator slightly? Will any move for them to fall light serve to increase the gradient and so strengthen the Jet? ( unless we see further energy gains across the Arctic wiping out the impact?)

Edited February 19, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-55#entry2935575

 

"I've come to the conclusion it is pointless trying to convince or debate with a group that clearly is neither open or willing to do so. I am a firm believer that the main and dominant cause of temperature rise and stalling is down to solar cycle effects which are many and complicated."

 

A fairly oft seen self contradiction.

 

I came to the conclusion, long ago, that there are plenty of people who simply not only wont be convinced by the evidence but wont look at it and would rather believe something else. I'm utterly convince you wont budge a mm from you ideas set out above - so why critics others for so doing?

 

What we need is facts.

 

However the opposite is what we see from so called sceptics.

 

For example, just at the moment there is a developing internet myth that winter November-January 1929/30 saw 812mm of rain across the country and was thus way wetter than this year. It's completely untrue - the correct figure is 500mm. But, Christopher Booker has spread the myth, other on climate forum have taken it as correct and now James Delingpole is telling his readers. Thus a myth is born - and a pernicious myth. Anyone saying we've seen the wettest winter will be told that 1929/30 was way wetter. You might even be one of them?

 

 etc etc etc.

 

My view? This winter has been on of the wettest on record. It's been cause by: a string of storm brought on a strong jet stream. I also don't rule out (I'm open minded!) that excessive rain in Indonesia (remember how warm the seas there were last Autumn, think typhoons) has causes a kink in the jet forcing it way N over Alaska, thenit returns S over the US and the cold air there triggers the jet that has enabled our wet winter.

 

My other views? CO2 is a ghg. We are likely to double it's atmospheric concentration. That, alone, will cause 1C warming. That 1C warming will, likely, cause feedback warming - aso a warming of 2-4C in total. I expect YOU'LL rubbish that...

Edited February 19, 2014 by Devonian

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-55#entry2935620

 

I do admit something close to 'vitriolic personal attacks' on one person 'Steve Goddard' - though I'm not sure that is his name. I've read his blog for some time, much of it is either ignorant or deliberately misleading. He is thus either an ignoramus or untrustworthy. I've said as much. His most recent codswallop I posted about here. It is, coincidentally, another example of pernicious myths being spread. However, if you (or anyone else) is able to correct my view then I, sir, will change my mind!

 

I DO NOT admit to such attacks on anyone else. I don't know you, or anyone here, from Adam. I deeply, deeply, disagree with your views - that is all.

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-55#entry2935628

 

I'm not GW, I'm Devonian. And, yes, 2-4C warming as a result of a CO2 doubling.

 

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-55#entry2935643

 

I don't, entirely, share GW's views. I think we'll see 2-4C warming as a result of a CO2 doubling. That is some time, many decades, away.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Devonian

[BornFromTheVoid]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-55#entry2935620

 

I do admit something close to 'vitriolic personal attacks' on one person 'Steve Goddard' - though I'm not sure that is his name. I've read his blog for some time, much of it is either ignorant or deliberately misleading. He is thus either an ignoramus or untrustworthy. I've said as much. His most recent codswallop I posted about here. It is, coincidentally, another example of pernicious myths being spread. However, if you (or anyone else) is able to correct my view then I, sir, will change my mind!

 

I DO NOT admit to such attacks on anyone else. I don't know you, or anyone here, from Adam. I deeply, deeply, disagree with your views - that is all.

 

It's a pseudonym Dev, so don't think you can personally attack a made up character!

[Devonian]

It's a pseudonym Dev, so don't think you can personally attack a made up character!

 

Point taken and technically yes, but there's a person(s?) behind the mask. Becuase I've seen multiple examples I think that person is either ignorant or deceptive, or (I guess) both. I own up to saying that, I stand by it until or if (here's another chance for our resident sceptics) shown otherwise.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Devonian

[knocker]

Point taken and technically yes, but there's a person(s?) behind the mask. Becuase I've seen multiple examples I think that person is either ignorant or deceptive, or (I guess) both. I own up to saying that, I stand by it until or if (here's another chance for our resident sceptics) shown otherwise.

 

Remember when he did a Sam Clemens. Hilarious.

 

 

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the report of the death of Steve Goddard is somewhat premature.  When I first e-mailed Anthony with this news, his first response was “I don’t know this might be a fake is real name is ….†a subsequent e-mail responding to a link to the Real Science site noted “some of it jibes with what I know it some does not I’d be cautious…†then he asked me to post the link to the notice with a notice that we could not confirm anything.  Apparently his caution was justified and WUWT readers can be assured that Anthony keeps a close watch on his interns even when he takes a rare few hours off.

 

One of the illiterati was devastated.

 

 

It seems a bit sudden, but… I’m very sorry to hear this. He did Immense amounts of work to shine the light on the AGW fraud, and one can only hope those who take over for him, can keep the pressure on.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/21/real-science-announces-the-death-of-steve-goddard-2/

[Devonian]

Remember when he did a Sam Clemens. Hilarious.

 

 

I'm never, actually, quite sure the Goddard isn't a parody - perhaps he's a dreaded 'warmist' in disguise . I mean 'Real Science' is often little different to the much missed Denial Depot. And, tbh, with so much utter anonymity on the net it's hard to tell if his commentators are for real, or all the same person, or 'extracting the.....' out of him (though what a parody of a parody would be I don't know).

 

Actually I do...James Delingpole

Edited February 19, 2014 by Devonian

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-55#entry2935672

 

You say no rise for 17 years, last year people said no rise for 16 years and the year before 15 years. Why? Because if you take noisy data that's trending up, pick an outlier (a high one, 1998) then the chances are the trend will be changed by doing that.

 

One thing for sure, starting the trend with a cold year is something all 'sceptics' would instantly complain about but when it's the other way around you all seem to miss them problem...

 

Or, perhaps you'd like to work out the trend from, say, 1976 and let us know what it is?

Edited February 19, 2014 by Devonian

[knocker]

Or we could take 30 years for climate purposes. And we could differentiate between global warming and climate change. I'm also intrigued how anything in the present can refuse to play ball with a projection. Did it also refuse to play ball after the 70s? And 1976 Dev.

 

 

Edited February 19, 2014 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

Well I seem to have missed something ( esp. the 2-4c bit???) whilst away?

 

Just so they ( in the other world/thread) can have it straight.

 

I am concerned that we are in the run up to losing ice cover over summer. I have outlined why that is over numerous posts so to recap

 

1/ Nino 2014.... top 5 temperature year.

 

2/ should the Nino be 'normal' ( 18 months in duration) 2015 record global temp year.

 

Both years will impact Arctic seas ice in the way we saw 2010's Nino impact sea ice volume.

 

3/ 2017 earliest possible return of 'Perfect Melt storm Synoptic' ( last 2 were spaced 10 years apart)

 

4/ PDO-ve looks to be done and neutral/Positive from here on in. IPO ready for a flip back to warm ocean surface phase ( and so drop the Trade winds back down from their elevated heights).

 

The recent study on Arctic Albedo flip ascribes the 'flip' to warming of 25% that of what we see from CO2. We have only had low ice cover since 07' and snow level didn't plummet until the late 90's so their impact is also 'recent'. this means the lions share of that 25% came from recent changes to the Arctic and it's albedo. 

 

The total loss of ice cover will add another sizable 'jolt' to the earths already imbalanced energy budget. It will add at least ( I believe) the same amount of warming as we have already seen from CO2 but do so over a matter of months. If the 7% increase of the earths hydrological system is responsible for the extremes we see currently then what will an instant doubling do to those extremes?

 

As we all know every temp hike leads to feedbacks that augment that warming.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[Polar Maritime]

Arctic sea ice is melting twice as fast as previous climate models predict, decreasing from 52% to 48% between 1979 and the present day.

Researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, studied 30 years' worth of satellite observations taken between 1979 and 2011.

They said the decline of the Arctic sea ice has been documented by satellites over the last 30 years and observations show a darkening of the Arctic seen through passive microwave observations.

According to the report, researchers found a strong relationship between Arctic sea ice and albedo – the ratio of reflected radiation upon it.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-melting-twice-fast-models-predict-1436926

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd be careful with the Article PM, the figure of 52 to 48% refers to one area of albedo loss and not 'sea ice' loss? I'd linked to the paper further up the thread and they mention 2 areas of 'albedo flip', the one from 52 to 48% and another with Albedo down to 36% (atmosphere?).

 

Arctic sea ice has reduced far more from 52 to 48% over the period 79 to 2011 ( even more if 2012 was included!) I'd guess at 90's% down to 60's% over most recent summers ( Maybe BFTV has the figures on Area/extent loss since 79'?) I believe the loss of volume has been even greater than that of extent/area over the period?

 

If we are to credit the figure of 25% the warming as CO2 over the period (4% drop in albedo) then what should we realistically expect the impact to be when we go from 48% reflectivity to  low teens % reflectivity ( 30% drop in albedo) ...... the math appears simple in terms of CO2 warming if 4% drop equates to 25% of the warming of CO2......

 

EDIT: This is why I concern myself with worries over an 'abrupt climate shift' when sea ice goes..... to find a full number degrees C hike in temps ( like a super Nino year) suddenly dumped on the top of current warming ( maybe in a Nino year?) will cause chaos....

 

EDIT:EDIT: try this;

 

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2014/02/decreasing-arctic-albedo-boosts-global-warming.html?cid=6a0133f03a1e37970b01a73d7b9929970d

Edited February 20, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

1/ Nino 2014.... top 5 temperature year.

 

Not sure where you get your data from GW.

 

This is certainly *not* what the professionals are forecasting. Odds like more or less evens for Neutral/Nino. No suggestion whatsoever of a top 5 temperature year driven by Nino. Well, not at present, anyway.

 

 

http://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/2014-february-quick-look/?enso_tab=enso-cpc_plume

 

Given expected trends, I'd say slipping into Nino territory very late 2014, to early-mid 2015.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Sparkicle

[knocker]

Just an observation. Notice that deniers love to quote the great scientist Richard Feynmam because they think he's their sort of scientist. Indeed Goddard has a quote at the top of his web page.

 

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

 

Regarding Goddard I would have thought another quote more apt.

 

“Ordinary fools are all right; you can talk to them, and try to help them out. But pompous fools-guys who are fools and are covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful they are with all this hocus pocus-THAT, I CANNOT STAND! An ordinary fool isn't a faker; an honest fool is all right. But a dishonest fool is terrible!â€

[VillagePlank]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-55#entry2935672

 

You say no rise for 17 years, last year people said no rise for 16 years and the year before 15 years. Why? Because if you take noisy data that's trending up, pick an outlier (a high one, 1998) then the chances are the trend will be changed by doing that.

 

One thing for sure, starting the trend with a cold year is something all 'sceptics' would instantly complain about but when it's the other way around you all seem to miss them problem...

 

Or, perhaps you'd like to work out the trend from, say, 1976 and let us know what it is?

 

Yes, I agree: but by the same reasoning you'll have to accept the start of the instrumental record is also a cold outlier, approx 1850, thus exacerbating the trend - I mean that technically to mean the upward gradient of least linear squares. That's the problem with incomplete data series - the amount of data points needs to be sufficiently large. For instance (simple) linear regression is *not* OK as a method of determining trend as HadCrut4 is not normally distributed by the Anderson-Darling test (one might want to argue whether this test is suitable, of course) So not only are sceptics wrong to pick out the last 17 years (or whatever) others are equally wrong to pick out the entire series as guaranteed by the central limit theorem - which justifies the conclusion that the number of data points are insufficient for simple linear regression.

 

Here's the probability plot of HadCrut4,

 

 

Which is probably why you find actual climate scientists avoiding such techniques like the proverbial plague (ever seen Hadley produce a chart with a straight line trend on it?)

Edited February 20, 2014 by Sparkicle

[BornFromTheVoid]

Not sure where you get your data from GW.

 

This is certainly *not* what the professionals are forecasting. Odds like more or less evens for Neutral/Nino. No suggestion whatsoever of a top 5 temperature year driven by Nino. Well, not at present, anyway.

 

figure1.gif

 

http://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/2014-february-quick-look/?enso_tab=enso-cpc_plume

 

Given expected trends, I'd say slipping into Nino territory very late 2014, to early-mid 2015.

 

Considering we finished between 2nd and 8th (depending on the data set) last year while in the -ve side of ENSO neutral, it seems a move toward even the +ve side of ENSO neutral would make a top 5 year very likely.

 

As for an El Nino, from the latest weekly update 

 

• ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere spring 2014, with a possible onset of El Niño sometime after the spring.
• Most models predict ENSO-neutral (-0.5ºC to +0.5ºC) to continue through the Northern Hemisphere spring. After that, models predict either ENSO-neutral or El Niño (greater or equal to +0.5ºC) during the Northern Hemisphere summer 2014.

Doesn't seem unreasonable to call for an El Nino or a top 5 year for 2014.

 

 

Yes, I agree: but by the same reasoning you'll have to accept the start of the instrumental record is also a cold outlier, approx 1850, thus exacerbating the trend - I mean that technically to mean the upward gradient of least linear squares. That's the problem with incomplete data series - the amount of data points needs to be sufficiently large. For instance (simple) linear regression is *not* OK as a method of determining trend as HadCrut4 is not normally distributed by the Anderson-Darling test (one might want to argue whether this test is suitable, of course) So not only are sceptics wrong to pick out the last 17 years (or whatever) others are equally wrong to pick out the entire series as guaranteed by the central limit theorem - which justifies the conclusion that the number of data points are insufficient for simple linear regression.

 

Here's the probability plot of HadCrut4,

 

hadcrut4.png

 

Which is probably why you find actual climate scientists avoiding such techniques like the proverbial plague (ever seen Hadley produce a chart with a straight line trend on it?)

 

I wouldn't call 1850 a cold outlier

 

[Interitus]

Yes, I agree: but by the same reasoning you'll have to accept the start of the instrumental record is also a cold outlier, approx 1850, thus exacerbating the trend - I mean that technically to mean the upward gradient of least linear squares. That's the problem with incomplete data series - the amount of data points needs to be sufficiently large. For instance (simple) linear regression is *not* OK as a method of determining trend as HadCrut4 is not normally distributed by the Anderson-Darling test (one might want to argue whether this test is suitable, of course) So not only are sceptics wrong to pick out the last 17 years (or whatever) others are equally wrong to pick out the entire series as guaranteed by the central limit theorem - which justifies the conclusion that the number of data points are insufficient for simple linear regression.

 

Assuming that the temperature series is normally distributed is wrong because it is non-stationary, but this may not really matter -

 

 

Contrary to common mythology, linear regression does not assume anything about the distributions of either X or Y; it 

only makes assumptions about the distribution of the residuals ei. As with many other statistical techniques, it is not 

necessary for the data themselves to be normally distributed, only for the errors (residuals) to be normally distributed. 

And this is only required for the statistical significance tests (and other probabilistic statements) to be valid; regression 

can be applied for many other purposes even if the errors are non-normally distributed. 

 

 

http://seismo.berkeley.edu/~kirchner/eps_120/Toolkits/Toolkit_10.pdf

[VillagePlank]

Considering we finished between 2nd and 8th (depending on the data set) last year while in the -ve side of ENSO neutral, it seems a move toward even the +ve side of ENSO neutral would make a top 5 year very likely.

 

As for an El Nino, from the latest weekly update 

 

• ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere spring 2014, with a possible onset of El Niño sometime after the spring.
• Most models predict ENSO-neutral (-0.5ºC to +0.5ºC) to continue through the Northern Hemisphere spring. After that, models predict either ENSO-neutral or El Niño (greater or equal to +0.5ºC) during the Northern Hemisphere summer 2014.

Doesn't seem unreasonable to call for an El Nino or a top 5 year for 2014.

 

 

 

I wouldn't call 1850 a cold outlier

 

 

Do you have the numeric data for that chart?

 

I think we should have a bet (for fun). I'd go for 2014 being a top 15 year: I guess you'd go for top five? Shall I start a thread

[VillagePlank]

Contrary to common mythology, linear regression does not assume anything about the distributions of either X or Y; it 

only makes assumptions about the distribution of the residuals ei. As with many other statistical techniques, it is not 

necessary for the data themselves to be normally distributed, only for the errors (residuals) to be normally distributed. 

And this is only required for the statistical significance tests (and other probabilistic statements) to be valid; regression 

can be applied for many other purposes even if the errors are non-normally distributed.

 

Well, quite: and so they should be, too!! And incidentally, the uncertainties are not normally distributed either: I am, ahem, uncertain whether this means the error (is it the standard error? in which case it isn't normally distributed) as I do not have access to the Hadley's error covariance matrices (anyone got a link?)

Edited February 20, 2014 by Sparkicle

[Devonian]

Yes, I agree: but by the same reasoning you'll have to accept the start of the instrumental record is also a cold outlier, approx 1850, thus exacerbating the trend - I mean that technically to mean the upward gradient of least linear squares. That's the problem with incomplete data series - the amount of data points needs to be sufficiently large. For instance (simple) linear regression is *not* OK as a method of determining trend as HadCrut4 is not normally distributed by the Anderson-Darling test (one might want to argue whether this test is suitable, of course) So not only are sceptics wrong to pick out the last 17 years (or whatever) others are equally wrong to pick out the entire series as guaranteed by the central limit theorem - which justifies the conclusion that the number of data points are insufficient for simple linear regression.

 

Here's the probability plot of HadCrut4,

 

hadcrut4.png

 

Which is probably why you find actual climate scientists avoiding such techniques like the proverbial plague (ever seen Hadley produce a chart with a straight line trend on it?)

 

Fair enough though I have to admit I don't understand what you probability plot shows.

 

Question: If you have a series and you ignore end points are conclusions about its trends more valid?

 

Edit: hum...answer, no because you have, effectively, made more end point?

 

So, it can be a nice excuse to say you can't say anything?

Edited February 20, 2014 by Devonian