Jeff Glassman & wrhoward
See links above to <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/24/the-50-50-argument/#comment-621474" rel="nofollow">Fred H. Haynie</a>, for <a href="http://retiredresearcher.wordpress.com/" / rel="nofollow">his blog</a> and earlier <a href=<a href="http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf" rel="nofollow">presentation. </a>
He provides detailed analysis of CO2 trends, especially interesting the variations from south to north pole.
Like Salby, he finds CO2 dominated by natural sources.
Comment on The 50-50 argument by David L. Hagen
↧
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Dan Pangburn
The tiny difference in R^2, whether considering CO2 or not, corroborates that CO2 change has no significant effect on climate. All measurements, including since 2001, are within the range of historical random variation. http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Matthew R Marler
Tom Scharf: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/a-closer-look-at-turbulent-oceans-and-greenhouse-heating/
Thanks for the link. It contains a reference to a paper discussed at Climate Etc, and a link to what is called a helpful discussion by Judith Curry.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by John Bills
Steven Mosher,
You don’t use models in your Best analyses?
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by cwon14
Wag, you know what I and many want to hear. I want her to join Singer and Lindzen and identify the politics specifically. It’s a left-wing cult first and foremost, it’s amazing what would happen….positively…once the soft shoeing the PRIMARY motive is acknowledged.
↧
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Rob Ellison
The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) defined abrupt climate change as a new climate paradigm as long ago as 2002. A paradigm in the scientific sense is a theory that explains observations. A new science paradigm is one that better explains data – in this case climate data – than the old theory. The new theory says that climate change occurs as discrete jumps in the system. Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob with a linear gain.
The theory of abrupt climate change is the most modern – and powerful – in climate science and has profound implications for the evolution of climate this century and beyond. A mechanical analogy might set the scene. The finger pushing the balance below can be likened to changes in greenhouse gases, solar intensity or orbital eccentricity. The climate response is internally generated – with changes in cloud, ice, dust and biology – and proceeds at a pace determined by the system itself. Thus the balance below is pushed past a point at which stage a new equilibrium spontaneously emerges. Unlike the simple system below – climate has many equilibria. The old theory of climate suggests that warming is inevitable. The new theory suggests that global warming is not guaranteed and that climate surprises are inevitable.
The surface energy budget in these emergent climate states changes with albedo and with changes in the partitioning of energy between oceans and atmosphere. The quantifying of this is the primary goal of climate science.
The theory suggests that the system is pushed by greenhouse gas changes and warming – as well as solar intensity and Earth orbital eccentricities – past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks – as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems. Some of these changes have a regularity within broad limits and the planet responds with a broad regularity in changes of ice, cloud, Atlantic thermohaline circulation and ocean and atmospheric circulation.
Dynamic climate sensitivity implies the potential for a small push to initiate a large shift. Climate in this theory of abrupt change is an emergent property of the shift in global energies as the system settles down into a new climate state. The traditional definition of climate sensitivity as a temperature response to changes in CO2 makes sense only in periods between climate shifts – as climate changes at shifts are internally generated. Climate evolution is discontinuous at the scale of decades and longer.
There is theory – the most modern and powerful in climate science – there is data – however inadequate it is – and there is prediction that is far more realistic and accurate than any alternative approach.
In the way of true science – it suggests at least decadal predictability. The current cool Pacific Ocean state seems more likely than not to persist for 20 to 40 years from 2002. The flip side is that – beyond the next few decades – the evolution of the global mean surface temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum (Swanson and Tsonis, 2009).
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Matthew R Marler
wagathon, thank you.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
Marler, you must be dense. All of the net warming since 1880 is attributable to man-made causes.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Rob Ellison
Let’s add a description for the mechanical balance. Many simple systems exhibit abrupt change. The balance above consists of a curved track on a fulcrum. The arms are curved so that there are two stable states where a ball may rest. ‘A ball is placed on the track and is free to roll until it reaches its point of rest. This system has three equilibria denoted (a), (b) and (c) in the top row of the figure. The middle equilibrium (b) is unstable: if the ball is displaced ever so slightly to one side or another, the displacement will accelerate until the system is in a state far from its original position. In contrast, if the ball in state (a) or (c) is displaced, the balance will merely rock a bit back and forth, and the ball will roll slightly within its cup until friction restores it to its original equilibrium.’(NAS, 2002)
In (a1) the arms are displaced but not sufficiently to cause the ball to cross the balance to the other side. In (a2) the balance is displaced with sufficient force to cause the ball to move to a new equilibrium state on the other arm. There is a third possibility in that the balance is hit with enough force to cause the ball to leave the track, roll off the table and under the sofa there to plot revolution with the dust balls and lost potato crisps. .
In the spectrum of risk – rolling under the sofa is a possibility.
↧
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by cwon14
Wag, do you think calling this “politics” is fair way of describing it?;
http://350.org/how-racial-justice-is-integral-to-confronting-climate-crisis
We can’t assign this to a particular political culture? It’s this concession you’re asking for?
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Wagathon
True, our schools are helping government destroy society to stay in power. Observing that, "America’s institutions of higher education," are an example of, "a fundamentally unsustainable social and economic model," Paul Campos (<em>The Atlantic</em>) concluded that:
<blockquote>The only real difference between for-profit and nonprofit schools is that while for-profits are run for the benefit of their owners, nonprofits are run for the benefit of the most-powerful stakeholders within those institutions…</blockquote>
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Matthew R Marler
Rob Ellison: I never said it was dominant – merely significant. Read harder as they say Matthew.
True. You said that the cited sources contributed 70% as much CO2 as human. But you also said that Salby was 100% correct. If human sources are greater than natural sources, then Salby isn’t 100% correct.
So one was forced to guess a bit as to your intended meaning. I put more weight on what you wrote in caps. Looks like I was wrong.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Wagathon
We know what ISIS thinks of Christianity and the ideal of individual liberty. Like the Left, they also hate our way of life. But, what would ISIS say about Climatism?
<strong>Year 17 of No Global Warming – <em>America Held Hostage!</em></strong>
↧
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by David L. Hagen
wrhoward
You will find preliminary info in Salby's 2012 edition of <a href="http://www.langtoninfo.com/web_content/9780521767187_frontmatter.pdf" rel="nofollow">Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate</a>
17 Influence of the ocean 533
17.3 Role in the carbon cycle 544
For his recent work, Salby is trying to get past the climate gatekeepers.
Best I have found are his presentations with some <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/22/excerpts-from-salbys-slide-show/" / rel="nofollow">posted slides.</a> and his presentations <a href="https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=murry+salby+co2" rel="nofollow">Murry Salby CO2</a> e.g. his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Salby+2013+Hamburg+presentation" rel="nofollow">18 April 2013 Hamburg presentation</a>
For an evaluation of Salby equations, see
<a href="http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/A-comparison-of.pdf" rel="nofollow">A comparison of Gösta Pettersson's carbon cycle model with observations, </a> By <a>Pehr Björnbom</a>
Page 10 addresses Salby's equations.
<blockquote>According to this, Murry Salby's equation may be seen as an incomplete variant of equation (13) neglecting the two first terms. It is not unlikely that the two first terms in equation (13) temporarily describe a curve of a similar form as the third term. That would explain why <b>Murry Salby's equation gives a good fit to observational data.</b> However, the complete equations (9) and (13), unlike Murry Salby's equation (11), show that <b>anthropogenic emissions have an impact on the carbon dioxide mixing ratio.</b> Although the results of Salby and Titova (2013) may not give an accurate picture of the the impact of anthropogenic emissions they support the results from the Pettersson model.</blockquote>
(His posts on <a href="http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/tag/murry-salby/" / rel="nofollow">Murry Salby</a>)
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Steven Mosher
” It is not necessary to have a theory that explains every twist and turn, it is sufficient to have a theory that over a long time span always makes predictions that are sufficiently accurate; or a theory that over a long time span always has correct bounds on the min and max temp change..”
one could argue that energy balance models do this for us already.
the problem is that people then object.. “but twists and turns”
so you press to get twists and turns.. and dont get them all correct
and people object “THESE twists and THOSE turns”
So you press some more.. and then they say
“You are just making up excuses for the pause”
And so it goes.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Tonyb
Matthew
If you google ‘the green alps’ you will see a climate audit article from several years ago.(can’t do it for you as I can’t open a new window on this tablet)
Until a year or two ago there was an American professor who took tours in hanibals footsteps over the alps . I suggested over on WUWT some years ago that we organise a trip but got no takers.
There are various silver mines from the roman and medieval period which are only now thawing out again. There is a good one in Austria I went to see as part of my research a few months ago. I would recommend a book such as laduries times of feast times of famine as a good record of the advance and retreat of glaciers over the past few thousand years.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Pekka Pirilä
I have had a look at a couple of his presentations. Based on that the only conclusion that I can draw is that he has nothing publishable in a properly peer reviewed journal. If he has, nobody can prevent him from publishing it somewhere. That way he has the perfect possibility of proving all us wrong, who presently believe that there’s nothing.
As long as he has not brought to public anything of substance we can only continue to believe that he has nothing to present, except empty words.
↧
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Rob Ellison
Does Salby insist that natural changes are dominant in the 20th century? Or are you relying on popular strawmen?
Other sources seem far more relevant to my mind – but the statement that – in significant part – CO2 follows global temps seems entirely justified by experiment, modeling and fundamental biokinetics. .
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Brandon Shollenberger
Steven Mosher:
It’s easy to prove otherwise. Show the other examples you considered and explain why the Tol example was the best.
I can’t think of a single example that would have fit well at all. I’m sure there may be some out there somewhere, but I doubt many are in guest posts at this blog. Of any guest posts here with examples that might have fit, I’d wager I wasn’t involved with them.
You have an issue with Tol, that’s cool. denying it is funny, almost Joshua like.
For someone who has said he believes me to be a liar, multiple times, you seem to have little interest in what I actually say. I’ve never denied having an issue with Richard Tol. I never would. It’s obvious I do. Just like it’s obvious I have issues with John Cook, Michael Mann and many other people.
Not only have I not denied having issues with these people, I’ve openly discussed having issues with them. The only thing I denied is that I used Richard Tol’s stupid remarks as an example of a particular sort of behavior because of any issues I have with him. I didn’t. I just used the best example I had.
Here’s a simple explanation. When I want to provide examples of inappropriate behavior, the people who consistently exhibit such behavior will tend to provide most of the examples. I take issue with people who consistently behave in inappropriate ways. That means I will have issues with most people I use in examples.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Wagathon
The glaciers, according to the new hypothesis, have shrunk down to almost nothing at least ten times since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. “At the time of the Roman Empire, for example, the glacier tongue was about 300 meters higher than today,” says Joerin. Indeed, Hannibal probably never saw a single big chunk of ice when he was crossing the Alps with his army. (Ibid.)
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
