Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chris Ho-Stuart

February 9, 2012, 1:17 am

≫ Next: Comment on Consensus or not (?) by Edwin Wigmore

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Latimer Alder

$

0

0

You are ignoring the fact that short term trends change quite rapidly.

Using HadCrut3, for example, the 10 year trends have the following sequence.
0.29
0.25
0.28
0.35
0.33
0.29
0.24
0.24
0.09
0.04
0.07
0.03
-0.03
-0.10

That’s going from 1989-1999 inclusive at the top, to 2004-2011 inclusive, at the bottom. You might like to play with the spreadsheet I’ve made available at SkyDragon to do these calculations quickly.

Swings around a bit, doesn’t it? That’s why we DON’T use the 10 year trend as you have done. That’s why it’s just silly to say Met Office is trying to make us believe what isn’t “actually” the case. The Met Office, after all, specified the time span. What they actually said is (via Leake’s article) is this:

“Our records for the past 15 years suggest the world has warmed by about 0.051C over that period,”

Why would you pick a short term, which is even LESS reliable as an indicator of what’s coming, as what is “actually” happening now? I call BS on that. (BS being “Bad Science”, of course.

What’s “actually” happening isn’t a trend over any window. Next year might be warmer or cooler; the changes “now” aren’t given by ANY trend. The trend over a window is a diagnostic, used for testing hypotheses. What is ACTUALLY happening now is that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is getting stronger; and at the same time the circulations of water and air and heat and cloud and so on around the globe are going on their merry chaotic way, meaning that we are going to have unpredictable short term variations while there is a continual flow of heat into the ocean from the energy imbalance between what is being emitted and what is being absorbed.

It’s the physics that matters. The behaviour of temperature, along with a lot of other observations, is all backing up the general picture of the planet shifting climate to get into balance with the new atmospheric composition. It’s not just extrapolating trends. It’s classic conventional science, digging into material causes, and forming and testing hypotheses.

---

Comment on Consensus or not (?) by Edwin Wigmore

February 9, 2012, 1:18 am

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Latimer Alder

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chris Ho-Stuart

$

0

0

The reason why stakes have to be driven regularly through the heart of AGW is because it is “zombie” science. By that I mean, like a zombie, it moves, makes noises and acts alive, when really it died quite some time ago.

The thing that keeps it looking alive is the huge amounts of money pumped in by governments. Cutting the money flow would be the ultimate stake into the heart of this one.

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Latimer Alder

February 9, 2012, 1:22 am

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chief Hydrologist

≪ Previous: Comment on Consensus or not (?) by Edwin Wigmore

$

0

0

@chris ho-stuart

The problem with your reliance on ‘the physics’, is that the pesky climate doesn’t seem to be behaving the way your theory tells us it should. And I’m disappointed to see that your response isn’t to go back to the physics and see what you’ve missed, but merely to reiterate that it’ll all work out fine in the end.

H’mm

Scientific history is littered with examples of ‘comprehensive theories’ that were 90%+ correct, but with just a few little problems in some dark corners. And it is the investigation of those troublesome phenomena that can lead to interesting and new insights. Einstein’s work on the photo-electric effect and discovery of the quantised nature of radiation is a classic example.

So colour me unconvinced that you really understand this climate system. And colour me even more unconvinced by the argument that though it is impossible to forecast the climate 5 years away, you are perfectly capable of doing so 50 or 100 years out.

Unless and until you can give a better understanding of the recent plateau in temperatures it seems to me that you have a lot more work to do. And that ‘It’s the carbon dioxide, stupid!’, may prove to be a far too simplistic theory.

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chief Hydrologist

February 9, 2012, 1:24 am

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Latimer Alder

$

0

0

I propose a 100 years – after all we want a really long term trend that encompasses all of the variabilities – see Girma for the details – I really can’t be bothered.

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by manacker

February 9, 2012, 1:30 am

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Paul S

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chief Hydrologist

$

0

0

Chris

Thanks for your response.

I think you have pinpointed where our basic disagreement lies.

You cite “physics” (rather than “physical observations”) as the basis for the postulations leading to the CAGW premise.

By this, I suppose you are referring to greenhouse theory or climate sensitivity hypotheses used in the climate model simulations.

These are great, but as a rational skeptic, I would like to see empirical data to validate the hypotheses (which you call “physics”).

If the “physics” tell me one thing, but the “physical observations” are showing me something else, I’ll go with the physical observations, especially in a science that is still in its infancy, such as climate science.

Until these hypotheses (your “physics”) are validated by empirical evidence, based on real-time physical observations or reproducible experimentation, they remain uncorroborated hypotheses.

This is how “physics” (and all other sciences) work, Chris. Hypotheses and theories are tested against empirical evidence. If the empirical evidence shows that they can pass repeated falsification attempts, they can become “corroborated hypotheses” and eventually “reliable scientific data”. The CAGW hypothesis has not passed this test.

Show me (and Girma) the empirical evidence to support the CAGW hypothesis, i.e. that human GHG emissions have been the primary cause for past global warming and that this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment unless these emissions are curtailed dramatically.

But don’t just tell me it’s based on the “physics”.

Max

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Paul S

February 9, 2012, 10:07 am

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Steve Milesworthy

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by manacker

$

0

0

<i>While a 30-year trend line will yield a similar value (0.16), shorter or longer time frame do not. (The 15-year trend is essentially 0, the 60-year trend is 0.11, and the 90- and 120-year trends are 0.07C/decade). Some posters are critical of the short time interval, and rightly so, but why neglect the long term trend in favor of an intermediate timeframe?</i> Because the theory isn't that the climate should be warming at a certain rate by decree over any chosen timeframe. The theory is that climate will warm in proportion to changes in radiative forcing over time (+ equilibrium 'pipeline' warming). I'll post the <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/" rel="nofollow">GISS forcing diagram</a> again. Note that the forcing increase since 1950 is about 3 times that from 1880 to 1950, hence the theory would expect a greater rate of warming over the past 60 years compared to the past 130 years. There is also a, less clear, acceleration at around 1970 so again, we would expect the past 40 years to have a greater trend than the past 60. Likewise, see my previous post about RF change since 2000. The GISS estimate suggests there has been no net RF change over this period.

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Steve Milesworthy

February 9, 2012, 10:08 am

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by David Bailey

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Paul S

$

0

0

Part of caption of Fig 1 FAQ 3.1 AR4 WG1:

“Results from climate models driven by estimated radiative forcings for the 20th century (Chapter 9) suggest that there was little change prior to about 1915, and that a substantial fraction of the early 20th-century change was contributed by naturally occurring influences including solar radiation changes, volcanism and natural variability. From about 1940 to 1970 the increasing industrialisation following World War II increased pollution in the Northern Hemisphere, contributing to cooling, and increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases dominate the observed warming after the mid-1970s.”

Other diagrams show greenhouse forcing only really taking off in the late 1950s (as compared with net forcings from other influences) after which Agung puts a spanner in the works by erupting twice in the early 1960s.

So “emphatic” seems to be a strong word for the mid 1940s to mid-1950s. In fact I personally can’t recall anyone ever focussing on this particular period (not that that means much). Usually the focus is normally on the 1940 peak or the mid 1940s all the way up to the 1970s.

Does this adequately represent the IPCC view for example:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/what-about-mid-century-cooling.php

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by David Bailey

February 9, 2012, 10:18 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar discussion thread II by Paul Matthews

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Steve Milesworthy

$

0

0

In all these discussions, we tend to forget that Anthony Watts has presented considerable evidence that global temperatures are:

1) Inaccurate – many measurements just don’t have 0.1C precision.

2) Adjusted upwards in recent years (just the opposite to be expected of any UHI corrections).

3) Based on a variable number of actual measuring sites, with the rest filled in by software!

I wonder what the real global temperature graph is doing.

---

Comment on Solar discussion thread II by Paul Matthews

February 9, 2012, 10:21 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar discussion thread II by Paul S

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by David Bailey

$

0

0

The solar person on AR5 is Blanca Mendoza, one of the lead authors of chapter 8, with Joanna Haigh as a contributing author.

The leaked ZOD devotes just two and a half pages to the topic (there’s slightly more in the FOD) with zero citations of Lean,
Svalgaard or Svensmark.
If the FOD is similar (my lips are sealed) there may be critical comments from reviewers.

Comment on Solar discussion thread II by Paul S

February 9, 2012, 10:22 am

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Steve Milesworthy

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar discussion thread II by Paul Matthews

$

0

0

One thing which isn’t often discussed is the annual cycle in incoming solar radiation. The typically quoted values of 1360 or 1365 W/m^2 represent the amount received at a hypothetical Earth which is always 1 Astronomical Unit away from the Sun. In reality the Earth’s orbit is slightly elliptical so is receiving different amounts at different times of the year.

The SORCE data suggests that solar energy received at Earth distance varies from about 1400 W/m^2 in the SH summer to about 1310 W/m^2 in the NH summer. The trade off for the SH is that their Summer period is shorter at present orbital and axial configurations.

I think it was Chief Hydrologist who posted a graph showing an ENSO reconstruction over the past 10000 years. The changes in ENSO appeared to correlate quite nicely with the changes that would have happened to this annual cycle over the period. That is, about 10,000 years ago the cycle would have been flipped such that the NH was receiving the maximum solar dose in its summer. I don’t know if there has been much published research on this.

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Steve Milesworthy

February 9, 2012, 10:23 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar discussion thread II by dennis adams

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar discussion thread II by Paul S

$

0

0

Latimer,

Such model runs have already been done and are reported in the IPCC report. But they don’t help with short term variability because the natural variability of even two identical planets would cause temperatures to diverge.

Comment on Solar discussion thread II by dennis adams

February 9, 2012, 10:32 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar discussion thread II by maksimovich

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Steve Milesworthy

$

0

0

This non-scientist had the same reaction to the same graph and correlation as you did. It must be my lying eyes.

Comment on Solar discussion thread II by maksimovich

February 9, 2012, 10:32 am

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Vaughan Pratt

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar discussion thread II by dennis adams

$

0

0

First Wang 2005 is incorrect in so far as the minima of 22/23 is the same as 23/24.The degradation of the PMO6V radiometer has been well identified eg Frolich, Svaalgard,discussions and more recently Krivova 2011 ie the minima 22/23 is overestimated by 0.2wm2 or to put it another way the ar5 models are already wrong,

Second the distraction of looking for cloud nucleation correlations in GCR tends to reduce the importance of energetic particles effects on both dynamics and surface climate ie a distraction.

The importance of energetic particles of differing energy on atmospheric chemistry has been well described in the literature eg Crutzen 1975,Thorne 1977,and the background levels (persitence) through the solar cycle need to be taken into account.

The influence of GCR and EEP on surface weather is discussed in a recent paper M. Calisto et al.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/11/653/2011/

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Vaughan Pratt

February 9, 2012, 10:41 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar discussion thread II by Jim Cripwell

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar discussion thread II by maksimovich

$

0

0

You have but to open your eyes to see.

Chief, I closed my eyes and right away I could see what you meant.

The first epigram here bears on this, as does Circa Survive here:

Comment on Solar discussion thread II by Jim Cripwell

February 9, 2012, 10:53 am

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Dikran marsupial

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Vaughan Pratt

$

0

0

I remembered. Not stricly what you are looking for, but try

http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3836-new-paper-on-cosmic-rays-and-diurnal-temperature-change.html

This is the effect on diurnal temperature range during Forbush Decreases. So it is solar wind and coronal mass ejections, not GCRs. But the effect on the earth is similar. HTH.

---

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Dikran marsupial

February 9, 2012, 11:00 am

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by MattStat

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar discussion thread II by Jim Cripwell

$

0

0

DanH the reason that we are still using the AR4 models is that organising a consistent set of scenarios and getting a large number of modelling groups to coordinate to produce the multi-model ensmeble is a large effort, which detracts from the time required for research. There will be a new set of model runs for the next IPCC report and I understand that work on this is already underway.

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by MattStat

February 9, 2012, 11:05 am

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Girma

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Dikran marsupial

$

0

0

Joshua: A question for “skeptics.”

I didn’t see a question. You seem to want skeptics to prove that something is correct, whereas we mostly point out limitations in the science: showing that the IPCC/CAGW view does not rest on a solid base. In this instance, the IPCC projections are shown to be unsubstantiated by subsequent events, so there is no good reason to believe the forecast for later decades.

Ignorance is the hardest state to recognize and admit to. We document the ignorance (i.e. limits of the knowledge) and you want us to turn it into an alternate certainty. The only proper way to do that will be to continue the research until there is more evidence of all kinds. I give you “Raymond T. Pierrehumbert’s book ‘Principles of Planetary Climate’ is mostly correct, but inaccurate in detail, and the details require more study”. You want proof that some other presentation of details is correct, but every presentation is inaccurate in details. This seems to cause you anguish. I attribute to you a belief like “The consensus has to be correct because there is no strongly supported alternative”, but I give you “The consensus is full of cavities, is not strongly supported, and there is no strongly supported alternative.”

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Girma

February 9, 2012, 11:08 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar discussion thread II by capt. dallas

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by MattStat

$

0

0

Please bookmark this page (http://bit.ly/zA0a2j) so that we could compare IPCC’s projection with observation in the coming years. This the most easily verifiable graph IPCC ever gave regarding the performance of climate models in the near term.

Why has the realclimate’s error shades look like a diverging tube instead of a cylindrical one?

http://bit.ly/xj9PfS

Is not the projection a linear warming of 0.2 deg C per decade? In this case, does not the error shade need to look like a cylindrical tube?

May be they wanted to keep the recent observations inside the error shades.

I prefer the following comparison than RC’s one => http://bit.ly/xQJNcF

Comment on Solar discussion thread II by capt. dallas

February 9, 2012, 11:11 am

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by MattStat

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Girma

$

0

0

Richard Betts asked, “Can anyone point to any evidence in the peer-reviewed literature that the effect of galactic cosmic rays is large enough to influence global concentrations of cloud condensation nuclei, or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle?”

No, there is a paper I noticed on the shift of the tropical belt that may be germane. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00244.1

and also http://www.marine.usf.edu/PPBlaboratory/paleolab_pdfs/Poore_GRL04.pdf

With Spencer and Braswell’s recent “Cloud Forcing” dust up this looks like a likely candidate for amplifying solar impact.

GCR change may play a role, may not.

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by MattStat

February 9, 2012, 11:13 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar discussion thread II by Chief Hydrologist

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar discussion thread II by capt. dallas

$

0

0

Joshua: I assumed it was because I wasn’t sophisticated nor intelligent enough to understand that the answer to my question was obvious.

Not quite. It’s because, whatever your actual sophistication and intelligence, you write stupidly on purpose. As you wrote in another post, you try to prove people wrong using the technique of “Socratic Dialogues”, which in this venue are pointless.