Man Made Climate Change - Evidence Based Discussion

[stewfox]

I

"Your argument is predicated upon a false premise, Earth has a higher albedo than the moon."

The Earth's surface albedo Interitus, without an atmosphere is that of the moon. It's the same rock. Go and check Trenburth's energy diagram for surface albedo. It shows that of the incoming flux transmitted by the atmosphere the surface spatially averaged absorbs 161Wm-2 and reflects 23Wm-2. The surface albedo with ice and deserts and foliage and ocean is therefore (23/(23+161))= 0.125 cf 0.12 for the moon. According to Kevin anyway.

The increase in the Earth's albedo from without an atmosphere (0.12) to with an atmosphere (0.29) is due to the atmosphere. I'm simply pointing out that heralding a component like water for heating the surface as the major GHG component without realising that it already stops a very significant amount of energy from directly heating the surface is unfairly biased.

 

 

?????

 

If you took the Earths atmosphere away much more of the oceans would freeze (average global temps would be around -20c  cf 14c now) ,

 

Frozen ice has a 0.5 to 0.7 albedo . All other things being equal Albedo rates would go up without a atmosphere..

 

If you just looking at rock v rock ignoring distance, earth tilt remove all desert sands all soil and the remove the  whole structure of the Earth that has developed in the last 5 billion years (ie compare the moon and the Earth as they were 5 billion years ago) then you would be partly correct. Of course given the Earths core is very different that would have further mitigating effects.

 

ps you can find Albedo rates here

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

Edited September 20, 2014 by stewfox

[Geoffwood]

stewfox thanks for the input. I totally agree on the issue of albedo.

However, Trenburth's energy budget shows the same surface albedo for the Earth as the moon. So I am comparing rock vs rock. I have shown the calculation from knockers link. Therefore the modification of Earth's albedo to 0.29 from 0.125 is due to the atmosphere. Look at the budget diagram. I am the one pulling it to pieces, not you!

[Geoffwood]

MIA.

This is not in disagreement, so please do not take this the wrong way.

Temperature is an already averaged quantity, being a measure of a 'mean' kinetic distribution. The averaging of already averaged quantities requires very careful weighting to retain significance. With temperature this average is both over time and space, increasing the dependence upon accurate weighting for accuracy. AGW is dependent upon radiative flux which is non linear. Flux proportional to T^4. You cannot simply average a non linear function. The output of this model is supposed to reflect the physical ability of the surface element of the globe as an arbitrary layer as it responds dynamically to entropically driven equilibrium to return to space the equivalent of the shortwave thermalised, as a single number. Not a trivial calculation. But still delivered to three significant figures as an anomaly when we do not know the Earth's temperature to that degree!

So the output of the model is highly dependent upon the algorithm. No smoothing required.

That is why I prefer global ice extent and mean position of the circumpolar vortex as the flux integrators. Fewer calculations

Regards.

[Crepuscular Ray]

Geoff, as a sceptic, please could you - as doubtless asked before - post in the sceptics thread. If needed either includ the material from here that you're posting as a quote or include a link to the relevant bit of the thread. 

[Gael_Force]

Geoff, as a sceptic, please could you - as doubtless asked before - post in the sceptics thread. If needed either includ the material from here that you're posting as a quote or include a link to the relevant bit of the thread. 

 

Read Paul's opening post, please.

[BornFromTheVoid]

What satellites were they using in 1880 ? I think most agree a realistic bench mark is 30 years.

 

August 2014 beats the record set in 2005 by 0.08°C (0.14°F), We are talking about 0.08 comparative changes

 

Satellites don't measure surface air temperatures. Do you dispute all surface temperature records then? 

Each little increase doesn't matter so much, but when you combine them, you'll find that the GISS August temp this year was 0.4C warmer than anything recorded before 1980.

 

 

 

BFTV.....

Wasn't going to respond, BUT you seem detrermined to make it personal....

Interitus has agreed that the chart was cherry picked and showed world tenperatures (I only used Europe and America as examples I knew about), were much higher (look at Antartica also) than the current figures show. This is a normal practice used by CAGW followers, you may think its Ok, but its a form of data manipulation to show things in the best light to strengthen the case.

As for the data being checked and corrected. I reckon (but I havn't checked) that by a factor of about 4 to 1 you will find the changes support a CAGW policy. Why is this? I am a simple guy and my expectations would have been about 50:50 up and down. Certainly in August all the adjustments were up on NOAA.

I am interested in getting presentatiuon of correct data. Not continually adjusted data for a political cause. If the climate prooves your case of huge CO2 impact is correct then fine by me.... but please lets not have to look at all one-way adjusted data. I have no axe to grind one way or the other in my views, but you seem to view me as a skeptical heretic. That is the problem that the CAGW people are having. Anyone not total believers are heretics.

This approach WILL lose the battle for you if things do not show your rapid global warming in the next 5 years. I hope the above is helpful for your cause, but I doubt that you will see it that way!!

MIA

 

I think you missed the sarcasm in his post...

 

The fact of the matter is current world temperatures are higher than any 30 year climatology in use. 51-80 cannot be a cherry pick, because every single 30 year average before those dates was colder still, and every 30 years after warmer. The 51-80 average is actually one of the warmest standard climatology periods that could have been chosen, with 3 warmer and 7 colder. Calling that cherry picking simply makes no sense and comes across as borderline paranoia.

 

So once again, rather than looking into the adjustment and seeing what they are, what they specifically correct for and why they are necessary, you're simply going off your gut feeling. That seems like a handy way to reinforce your own conspiratorial beliefs. If you never bother to look at the details and the reasons, you'll never have your assumptions challenged, and you can continue to call it political manipulation, no matter how much data to the contrary is out there.

So we've got:

 

(1) all the worlds climate monitoring agencies working together to manipulate the temperature record, even employing climate sceptics like Roy Spencer John Christy who have adjusted the UAH satellite data several times, and Richard Muller to create a false temperature record under the guise of a sceptic. They've also manipulated the peer review process in order to provide false justifications for their adjustments. All as a joint conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of scientists, and more university faculty members, under the banner of some sort of global political goal. Only a group of journalists, political bloggers and general PR specialists know the truth and are desperately trying to inform the public of this mass scientific deception

 

(2) or scientists maintaining the temperature record have found certain adjustments are required to maintain consistency. Things like time of observation, station equipment, station housing equipment, site movements, UHI, etc need accounting for. Different groups in different countries have developed their own methods to handle these problems, but all the results end up quite similar. Even when a genuine sceptic investigated this by creating his own record, his results were in near complete agreement and he even commented on how unbiased the other records had been. Meanwhile, the largest PR firms in the world are working hard to throw doubt on the temperature record, just as they threw doubt on the CFC/Ozone connection and smoking/lung cancer connection. Many wealthy industries stand to lose money if we act on climate change, and they wish to postpone that as long as they can.

 

I'm not calling you out for "your scepticism", but for completely baseless conspiracy theories. You seem to have a massive distrust of the climate science community. Rapid warming in the next 5 years will in no way prove or disprove global warming, apart from in the minds of some laypeople. Scientifically, it's already been proven by multiple lines of evidence.

[Midlands Ice Age]

BFTV

So now I am not a sceptic but a conspiracist.

All I want to see is the actual data.........

YOur last point indicates your position totally.....

The climate for the next 5 years is already undertood by multiple lines of evdence. I suppose you mean the models and Mann's hockey stick. Could you please let the resy of the world know what the proven techniques are for forcasting the next 5 years and also let us all into the secret of the next 5 years climate. Eg Temperature increase etc.

I want to deal in actual facts not forcasts based upon tribal beliefs.

MIA

[knocker]

I'm not clear what forecasts based upon tribal beliefs means in this context perhaps you would be kind enough to elucidate? I simply prefer facts to ideological rhetoric.Oh and as matter of interest ( just so there is no confusion ) are you questioning the validity of Mann's hockey stick and the numerous other papers that concur?

Edited September 21, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

Talking of predictions, not forecasts, just been reading an old article.

 

 

Overall, Broecker’s paper (together with that of Sawyer) shows that valid predictions of global warming were published in the 1970s in the top journals Science and Nature, and warming has been proceeding almost exactly as predicted for at least 35 years now. Some important aspects were not understood back then, like the role of greenhouse gases other than CO2, of aerosol particles and of ocean heat storage. That the predictions were almost spot-on involved an element of luck, since the neglected processes do not all affect the result in the same direction but partly cancel. Nevertheless, the basic fact that rising CO2 would cause a “pronounced global warmingâ€, as Broecker put it, was well understood in the 1970s. In a 1979 TV interview, Steve Schneider rightly described this as a consensus amongst experts, with controversy remaining about the exact magnitude and effects. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/happy-35th-birthday-global-warming/comment-page-2/#sthash.FlRaMhso.dpuf

[knocker]

From derp to denialism

http://johnquiggin.com/2014/09/21/from-derp-to-denialism/

[knocker]

People for climate from around the world

 

And the quote of the day

 

Seen today. Chip Knappenberger (half of the Pat'n Chip denier duo of the Cato Institute) is quoted in a copy and paste at WUWT:
 

...there are a lot more cases of non-extreme weather than there are of extreme weather.

Duh!

 

Ain't that obvious? Nuts for brains!

Edited September 21, 2014 by knocker

[Crepuscular Ray]

Perhaps he should go on a statistical analysis course.

[Devonian]

BFTV

So now I am not a sceptic but a conspiracist.

All I want to see is the actual data.........

YOur last point indicates your position totally.....

The climate for the next 5 years is already undertood by multiple lines of evdence. I suppose you mean the models and Mann's hockey stick. Could you please let the resy of the world know what the proven techniques are for forcasting the next 5 years and also let us all into the secret of the next 5 years climate. Eg Temperature increase etc.

I want to deal in actual facts not forcasts based upon tribal beliefs.

MIA

 

MIA, read what BFTV  said again.

 

He said that the next five year wont disprove or prove global warming because it's already proven (and effectively it is, only the magnitude isn't known). You saying he said the climate of the next five years is proven is to misquote and misunderstand what he said, perhaps even to chop up what BFTV said and mischievously mix them up to paint him in a different light.

 

Well, that or you simply misunderstood the paragraph?

[Midlands Ice Age]

 

MIA, read what BFTV  said again.

 

He said that the next five year wont disprove or prove global warming because it's already proven (and effectively it is, only the magnitude isn't known). You saying he said the climate of the next five years is proven is to misquote and misunderstand what he said, perhaps even to chop up what BFTV said and mischievously mix them up to paint him in a different light.

 

Well, that or you simply misunderstood the paragraph?

Devonian..

I did as you suggested and re-read what the final paragrah said.

Yes I did somewhat misread the last paragraph.

I was in a hurry to get out for a golf match against another club at 13:30 and was already late.

But the last sentence of BFTV's reply still does not make sense to me.

How can anyone KNOW what the climate will be in the next 5 years. We cannot even forcast weather for the next 7 days. That part of my response in my opinion therefore was valid...

.

What empirical data evidence is BFTV talking about?

I havn't seen any empirical evidence for forcasting the next 5 years. If you have then please let me know what the increase in temperature will be by 2020 and describe the processes involved.

My main point still is . Why should the agencies not still distribute/show original unmodified data?

My request for the actual data comes fron a career (30 years) working with statistical data and computer software. I know how much a small change in original data (sometimes only a single apparently insignificant digit) in a data field can change the whole final outcome.

As to the relevence of this approach you can see in the weather forcasting models on display today. Even a small change in initial data can replace a 960 mmbs low over Iceland with a a 1010 mmbs high. This happens every day during times of rapid change. Just look at all the different GFS output for every run for verification.

Remember that these changes occur with only minute changes which are engineered in the original data stream to provide some idea of the overall impact of a small change in the final outcome.

So my Cyncisym of current climate change is based upon 30 years of producing mathematical data from custom made software. I could produce any result raquired by the customer simply by adjustment of the input data or software. I am CERTAIN that the climate modellers are capable of being able to do the same.

I am neither a SCEPTIC nor a Conspiracist. I do know that when I see adjustments to original data that I become very cynical. That is why I want the original data to be preserved. What have you AGW

guys got against keeping the original data? I know I ALWAYS did as a checkpoint. I believed that my career as a scientist was at risk if I could not prove the data and my changes.

That is true science.

If AGW is so clearcut why not release the original data? You would then be able to prove to the whole world that AGW exists.

MIA

[knocker]

 

If AGW is so clearcut why not release the original data? You would then be able to prove to the whole world that AGW exists.

MIA

 

It is not up to those of us who believe the science regarding AGW is overwhelming to prove to the world that it exists. People can make up their own minds on the available evidence. It may help of course if they start with an open mind without hindrance of any embedded ideological bias. Just to add I think you may find that much of the data is in the public domain if you look. It's rather odd as well that you require temp.data sets as proof of climate change. Look around.

[Interitus]

BFTV

I do understand these charts....

I understand why the baseline compsrison It is set at 1951 - 1980.!!

Oh no it just happens to have been the coldest 30 years in the last 65 years.

Pure coincidence I am absolutely certain.

This is the well known technique employed to hide the current hiatus.

Lets look at the recent data.....

Oh dear me perhaps not.

MIA

BFTV has explained the data in depth, but just to add that the 1951-80 baseline is purely the default on the GISS site and the chart was linked from another site in any case.

What hiatus?

Cherry-picking is a well known technique employed to show the current hiatus, with the use of the 1998 strong El Nino year. As this has been surpassed can we now assume that if there was a hiatus it is now over?

The common logic applied (not necessarily you MIA) seems to be that record temperatures are required to show any warming, but even then disputed as natural variation. The corollary of this is that record low temperatures will be required to show any cooling outside of natural variation.

 

[knocker]

https://forum.netweather.tv/topic/80838-sceptical-about-climate-change-reasons-and-opinion/page-7#entry3044417

 

 

Yes Mullender, it just highlights the folly of using computer models instead of observational evidence to determine what is occurring and basing policy etc.. on the output of said play-station pseudo reality. The models have already totally hashed-up the projected warming and loads of other things to numerous to list. Time to get back to proper Feinman type real observational science.

 

That's skeptic speak for 'I don't know any valid scientific reasons so I'll resort to a blanket generalisation instead that nobody can dispute". I take it that's Richard Feynman or have skeptics adopted another rent-a-quote?

[Methuselah]

https://forum.netweather.tv/topic/80838-sceptical-about-climate-change-reasons-and-opinion/page-7#entry3044417

 

 

That's skeptic speak for 'I don't know any valid scientific reasons so I'll resort to a blanket generalisation instead that nobody can dispute". I take it that's Richard Feynman or have skeptics adopted another rent-a-quote?

Indeed. 

 

Don't forget that 'they laughed at Galileo too'. Undeniable proof that 'Lord' Christopher Monckton is the world's leading authority on all things Climate Change!!

[mikeworst]

I will post this here, come on Knocker let us have a real evidence based debate on this, you and me, we can open a new topic with only logical argument allowed together with verified observational evidence. You got the balls for that??

[knocker]

Plenty of time but not to waste.

[Methuselah]

It is not up to those of us who believe the science regarding AGW is overwhelming to prove to the world that it exists. People can make up their own minds on the available evidence. It may help of course if they start with an open mind without hindrance of any embedded ideological bias. Just to add I think you may find that much of the data is in the public domain if you look. It's rather odd as well that you require temp.data sets as proof of climate change. Look around.

Absolutely!

 

It's up to those making the most extraordinary claims, in this case that 97% of climate scientists have got it all wrong, to produce their, necessarily extraordinary, evidence...

[mikeworst]

Mrs Trellis as has been shown in my previous submission in the sceptical thread  you are here just to disrupt or whatever. If Knocker would like to put his point across against myself without histrionics and include only valid scientific evidence without input from WHO, Greenpeace et al bring it on. If you are man enough.  

[knocker]

Trend since 1998—significant??

http://environmentalforest.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/trend-since-1998significant.html

[BornFromTheVoid]

Removed

Edited September 22, 2014 by reef
Original post removed as it was devoid of evidence as per thread title, Thanks

[knocker]

Steve McIntyre Misrepresents Climate Research History