@ Norm Kalmanovich; Norm, you are molesting the truth on a more gentle way. You state: ''we ALL know that the planet has warmed since the little ice age'' LIE, LIE!!! Correct it, please: - ''you are ALL LYING that the little ice age was GLOBAL''!!! When was your ''little ice age in Europe'' on the S/H was warmer than normal. Not taking in calculation the southern hemisphere - should be ONLY for the ''flat earth believers'' . Loaded comments are = raping the truth, by false pretence! Shame, shame!!!
Comment on Consensus or not (?) by stefanthedenier
↧
↧
Comment on Solar discussion thread II by John Carpenter
My thought is it doesn’t appear to have much to do with the topic of this post….. Unless your theory reconsiders the role of the sun.
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by hunter
Chris,
Are you suggesting Hansen has been proven right?
↧
Comment on Solar discussion thread II by capt. dallas
Doc, the problem is that both the Earth and the Sun have independent harmonics. It is like tuning a guitar with another. If they are it a little out of tune and it doesn’t. So you only “see” some peaks in the noise.
Then those peaks are not sustainable. Since the frequencies of both the Sun and Earth are close, but not close enough, they will never synchronize for any significant period of time relative to the frequency of of the common oscillation. Velman has some pretty interesting stuff on non-ergodic systems.
↧
Comment on Solar discussion thread II by manacker
Judith Curry
Thanks for posting some good stuff.
The Lean presentation is very interesting. It’s always interesting to see what solar scientists are thinking, and she appears to be one of the best.
It goes into significant detail on how solar activity is measured, how it has correlated in the past with global surface temperature, plus impacts on the troposphere as well as the stratosphere.
One slide near the beginning caught my eye, which showed the (K+T) energy budget cartoon and stated:
- Observed energy budget uncertainty is 6 Wm-2 (Loeb et al.)
- Modeled unrealized global warming is 0.85 Wm-2 (Hansen et al.) – or less??
This tells me that Hansen’s model-estimated “unrealized” past warming (i.e. the warming that is “hidden in the pipeline”) – a number that was derived by the a bit of “circular logic” – is only one-eighth of the estimated “uncertainty” in the budget!
Then there is the slide: “How – and Why – will Climate Change in the next few decades?”
This slide shows a sine curve that very much resembles the curve posted by Girma.
To the question: Did China’s coal burning REALLY offset global warming in the past decade? the conclusion is NO
The researchers conclude that declining solar activity over the period and an overall change from El Niño to La Niña conditions in the Pacific Ocean also contributed to the temperature plateau.
Lean concludes that there will NOT be another period of major cooling, such as occurred during the Maunder Minimum (LIA) – and that ”an actual Maunder minimum may take more than 100 years – not 10 years – to eventuate”
The last slide compares the Wolf number (sunspots) with surface temperature, showing a good apparent correlation.
It also has the statement:
The sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature
[This is much different than the IPCC or Hansen estimate of 7% attributed to solar forcing, but checks with several solar studies, which conclude on average that around 50% of the past warming can be attributed to the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity (highest in several thousand years).]
Max
↧
↧
Comment on Nullius in Verba by manacker
Jim D
Sounds like you are now counting on El Nino to save the AGW bacon.
What happened to CO2?
Max
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Girma
Chris
Your choosing of 1997 for the two periods as start and end points (http://bit.ly/xFJErP) is a “clever trick” of obfuscation because it is a discontinuity in global mean temperature as the temperature suddenly rises.
Very sad!
Here is a proper example with out a “trick”
For 1980 to 1990 => 0.07 deg C per decade (Based on 10 years)
For 1990 to 2000 => 0.25 deg C per decade (Based on 10 years)
For 1980 to 2000 => 0.16 deg C per decade (Based on 20 years)
Approximate estimate for 1980 to 2000 => (0.07 + 0.25)/2 = 0.16 deg C per decade, which is an exact estimate!
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by manacker
Anteros
You’re going to have to run me through your arithmetic.
Here’s mine:
Let’s say IPCC projected warming of 0.2C per decade for the first decades of the new century. This is a projection of 0.4°C warming over the first two decades.
The 11-year period 2001-2011 showed cooling of, let’s say 0.1C.
The 9-year period 2012-2020 must now show warming of:
(20*.02 + 0.1)/9 = 0.5/9 = 0.0556°C per year or 0.556°C per decade, in order for the 20-year projection to have been correct.
Right?
I personally believe this will not occur. It appears that the next 9 years may even show continued cooling, but who knows? I just do not think that it is reasonable to assume that warming will resume at a rate that is three times the peak rate seen in the 1990s.
And that is what will have to happen for the IPCC projection for the first two decades to be correct.
Max
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chris Ho-Stuart
Max, thanks for the exchange, and the more friendly approach above.
I’m fine with this as a summary (and tell me if you agree with this summary or not!)
(1) We both agree that 10 year windows don’t actually say much about the longer term. I also claim that the IPCC recognizes this as well, and is not predicting 10 year windows; but that’s only my understanding which apparently is still disputed by some folks.
(2) We both agree that the IPCC is expecting 20 year windows to say something useful about the longer term. We both agree that this is a prediction that can be tested against data. The IPCC says “about” 0.2 C/decade; I take that as being 0.15 to 0.25 based on the graph we’ve seen many times now; but I speak for myself there.
(3) Robert I Ellison proposes that 65 year windows are needed to show the underlying trend. I think you agree? My inclination is to think that overstates the case. The length of the window needed to smooth out quasi-periodic internal variability is not only based on the frequency of those changes, but their amplitude as well. It seems to me that the underlying forcing is strong enough to show up on shorter windows even given a longer term quasi-period variability. So I guess this point 3 is where we differ most?
I’ll continue to keep an eye out for developments on that score, and I don’t mind at all if the IPCC turns out to have been wrong about the 20 year window.
Cheers — Chris
↧
↧
Comment on Solar discussion thread II by Doug Cotton
Lindzen and Spencer have yet to come to grips with the fact that the Second Law of Thermodynamics also applies to radiation, meaning there can be no radiative forcing by any GH effect. Hence, at night for example, the cooling of the surface cannot be slowed by any radiation from the cooler atmosphere. (In fact Prof Nahle’s experiment in Sept 11 proved the lower atmosphere cools faster than the surface at night, as I also found in my backyard.)
In order to slow the rate of cooling of the surface the radiation would have to add thermal energy, just as it would if it were to increase the rate of warming in the morning.
It cannot do this without heat transfer from cold to hot, which is against the Second Law. Johnson merely showed how and why the Second Law applies to radiation. I don’t ask you to accept any more than that simple statement which is also made by these German physicists in a peer-reviewed published paper over 100 pages in length which knocks the AGW conjecture for six.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
“Unfortunately, there is no source in the literature, where the greenhouse effect is introduced in harmony with the scientific standards of theoretical physics.”
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chief Hydrologist
Chris,
Swanson’s RC post is another way of looking at it. The 1976/1977 and 1998/2001 events are extreme events assoiated with chaotic bifurcation.
‘We develop the concept of “dragon-kings” corresponding to meaningful outliers, which are found to coexist with power laws in the distributions of event sizes under a broad range of conditions in a large variety of systems. These dragon-kings reveal the existence of mechanisms of self-organization that are not apparent otherwise from the distribution of their smaller siblings. We present a generic phase diagram to explain the generation of dragon-kings and document their presence in six different examples (distribution of city sizes, distribution of acoustic emissions associated with material failure, distribution of velocity increments in hydrodynamic turbulence, distribution of financial drawdowns, distribution of the energies of epileptic seizures in humans and in model animals, distribution of the earthquake energies). We emphasize the importance of understanding dragon-kings as being often associated with a neighborhood of what can be called equivalently a phase transition, a bifurcation, a catastrophe (in the sense of Rene Thom), or a tipping point. The presence of a phase transition is crucial to learn how to diagnose in advance the symptoms associated with a coming dragon-king.’ http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.4290
So the idea is of course to exclude these points to arrive at a residual trend. It is again not the 0.17/decade trend commonly discussed.
The Pacific phases seem stable for 20 to 40 years as standing spatio-temporl waves in the Earth’s climate system. They can be seen in hydrology, oceanography, climatology and biology. They have an influence on energy dynamics through clouds.
Swanson is right and we have a decade or three of moderate warming if not cooling.
↧
Comment on Nullius in Verba by Doug Cotton
Your “absolutely nothing wrong with it” paper clearly claims that the Earth’s surface receives thermal energy which is radiated from the atmosphere.
This would be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
It does not happen; it cannot happen. Your paper has no veracity.
I have said it many times and linked papers such as this* peer-reviewed published German paper which clearly explains the breach of the Second Law by such assumptions as your linked paper clearly stated. They put their foot in it.
Learn some physics …
* http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
“Unfortunately, there is no source in the literature, where the greenhouse effect is introduced in harmony with the scientific standards of theoretical physics.”
↧
Comment on Nullius in Verba by hro001
<blockquote>Go with your gut is now the new motto for the Royal Society?</blockquote>
Perhaps this might explain Phil Jones' mode of doing "peer review"**. He aspires to Fellowship in the Royal Society.
** For details pls see: <a href="http://hro001.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/phil-jones-keeps-peer-review-process-humming-by-using-intuition/" rel="nofollow">Phil Jones keeps peer-review process humming … by using “intuition”</a>
↧
↧
Comment on Nullius in Verba by Chief Hydrologist
So decadal natural variability cancels out? In the 20th century it cancels out to a residual trend of 0.08 degrees C/decade. So what’s the freakin’ problem? And it’s cooling for a decade or three more. After that well who the freakin’ hell knows.
↧
Comment on Nullius in Verba by Chief Hydrologist
Nobody gives a freaking rat’s arse. Why don’t you say something that isn’t a whine or is vaguely amusing.
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Vaughan Pratt
@Markus Yep, definitely 74.8% anthropogenic and only 25.2% natural.
I’d hate to misrepresent you on that little detail.
If you found an error I’d greatly appreciate your drawing it to my attention. If not then I don’t understand the point of your remark, unless you’re finding those numbers a bitter pill. If you’re interpreting the chart as standard deviation instead of variance then I would certainly agree with you that under that interpretation the chart would be wildly inaccurate.
Your recent reasoning in a three-component analytic model of long-term climate change, to me was illogical in several respects,
Do you mean it was wrong or that you didn’t follow it? Happy to fix either one.
but the biggest bias was your misanthropism.
I’ll have to pass on that one. Understanding how “but the biggest” can serve as a connective between topics whose relationship has not been made clear is above my pay grade.
your ad-hominem attack was no more than a condition of your preconceived ideals.
Again I’m not following. An ad hominem argument is an appeal to a negative trait that is unrelated to the argument. How is someone’s inability to accept that their reasoning is circular irrelevant when that’s what I’m complaining about?
Being a bank robber is a negative trait, but calling someone who’s robbing a bank a bank robber is not an ad hominem attack because it’s a relevant trait.
In my 58 years hanging out with Aristotle, I’ve never seen a better protagonist with the fallacy than you.
I take it you’re not a fan of constructive logic.
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chris Ho-Stuart
The proper way to show that some rule is wrong is to find and show counter examples, so I did.
The same thing shows regularly in the record, or in any auto-correlated random series. Here are a couple more (using the values you should enter in Wood for Trees) The window is from the start of first year to the start of the second.
1969-1979: trend 0.084
1979-1989: trend 0.063
1969-1989: trend 0.129
1988-1998: trend 0.036
1998-2008: trend 0.102
1988-2008: trend 0.195
Here’s one in reverse.
1964-1974: trend 0.282
1974-1984: trend 0.418
1964-1984: trend 0.160
This isn’t obfuscation. This is an attempt to help show you why your rule is mathematically incorrect.
You can look for an additional condition which would allow your rule to hold. (You spoke of needing no “flip”; but you’d have to define that before I could tell if the condition is mathematically sufficient.) The point is that this “flip” or whatever it is shows up quite a lot in the record.
Cheers — Chris
↧
↧
Comment on Nullius in Verba by Dikran marsupial
DanH which means that Prof. Curry’s assertion was clearly factually incorrect.
Nobody is claiming that consistency is a ringing endorsement of the models. It is pretty much the lowest hurdle, which is why caliming inconsistency is a big claim and why it is important for Prof. Curry to retract the claim so as not to promulgate a falsehood and further reduce the signal to noise ratio in the debate.
The really sad thing is the fact that so few seem to be able to bring themselves to explicitly say that the claim was wrong, when it so clearly is.
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Girma
Thanks Chris.
↧
Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Pete Ridley
Hi Doug, just a quick respone fo rnow. You say ” .. you can’t even slow down the rate of cooling (such as the surface cooling at night) without adding thermal energy .. “. SO a thermos flask has a built-in heater??!!
Pete r
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
