Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

How Lying Liars Lie About Climate Change


davedavies

Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441

The only real significant question is this:

Does variety of live need to evolve from a primeval soup or not?

Man is pretty well doomed on this planet because we won’t consider controlling our numbers; religious myth puts paid to any chance of a discussion about this - not one religion says there are too many of us. Pretending to control climate change to save us all is pointless.

We are energetically inefficient and consume a huge amount of food. There is only a set amount of energy on the planet, which can only be changed from one form to another, not created or destroyed.

So the more humans that need to consume food = the less animals and plants. Human population growth is going exponential.

When we are long gone, are we leaving behind a denuded planet, or can new life and variety evolve from what we leave behind?

Perhaps it will be the time for insects to become intelligent and take over?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1
HOLA442

The only real significant question is this:

Does variety of live need to evolve from a primeval soup or not?

Man is pretty well doomed on this planet because we won't consider controlling our numbers; religious myth puts paid to any chance of a discussion about this - not one religion says there are too many of us. Pretending to control climate change to save us all is pointless.

We are energetically inefficient and consume a huge amount of food. There is only a set amount of energy on the planet, which can only be changed from one form to another, not created or destroyed.

So the more humans that need to consume food = the less animals and plants. Human population growth is going exponential.

When we are long gone, are we leaving behind a denuded planet, or can new life and variety evolve from what we leave behind?

Perhaps it will be the time for insects to become intelligent and take over?

Don't beat yerself up about it!

Big Business and the small clique of Billionaires/Elites who farm us and make sure the majority of the wealth gos to them are to blame!

They fund the Green party & others to do their dirty work, brainwashing kids in skools & making the gen population feel guilty for Big Business owners rape of the Earth!

Some got their come-uppance when the french sunk the Green-peace(???) ship in New Zealand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443

The inability to model the consequences of a theory in all its detail does not falsify that theory. When, say, a grenade explodes, it is virtually impossible to predict where all the pieces will fly, but we can still predict the overall effect of pulling the pin!

Scientifically, though, that is a weak answer. It amounts to "you can't disprove it". Well, no, I can't disprove a lot of things, but I'm not the one with the claim. A model which has 3 degrees of freedom can be trivially set to match a dataset with circa two degrees of freedom. This is a tautology. If I am allowed to use a tautology as "evidence", then I can prove anything you want me to. Science doesn't work that way.

As far as I can see, the simplest explanation for the periodic interglacials is cyclic (Milankovitch) variations in the Earth's orbit, with the effect of these variations amplified by various positive feedbacks. A number of these feedbacks have been identified, and include the release of GHGs and changes in albedo. What other theory comes close to providing any sort of explanation?

The Milankovitch cycles explain only a tiny fraction of the variance, e.g. see this paper. So actually Milankovitch cycles and GHG feedbacks explain very little of the interglacials. A more complete theory, which explains the entirety of the variance, would be a stochastic model plus Milankovitch forcing with a low sensitivity, e.g. discussed at this link (click through to presentation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444

The Milankovitch cycles explain only a tiny fraction of the variance, e.g. see this paper. So actually Milankovitch cycles and GHG feedbacks explain very little of the interglacials. A more complete theory, which explains the entirety of the variance, would be a stochastic model plus Milankovitch forcing with a low sensitivity, e.g. discussed at this link (click through to presentation).

Well, since the idea that the glacial-interglacial cycle is driven by milakovitch cycles with GHG feedbacks is wrong - or at least has not been the accepted explanation for a long time - presenting this as the current position is deceptive, to say the least. As I've already pointed out, it is the ice-albedo feedback effect which appears to dominate.

How any of this links to global warming I'm not sure, given the considerable disparity in mechanism, time scale and extent.

However, if you have decided that such feedbacks don't exist, then you have to explain how your LTP works without violating the laws of thermodynamics. For example, if the current trend in surface temperatures is NOT caused by GHGs, then the energy must be coming from somewhere else. Where?

(Oh, and I'd like an explanation of what 'forcing efficacy' is, but I doubt I'll get one; I'd point out that the generally accepted value for Charney Sensitivity is circa 3K, hardly made up; but I suspect that you'd use that conclusive scientific argument 'LOL' )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445

Well, since the idea that the glacial-interglacial cycle is driven by milakovitch cycles with GHG feedbacks is wrong - or at least has not been the accepted explanation for a long time - presenting this as the current position is deceptive, to say the least. As I've already pointed out, it is the ice-albedo feedback effect which appears to dominate.

I'm responding to several posters on this thread that believe the Milankovitch - GHG cycles are the best explanation. No point in telling me that it isn't the current view - that's what I'm explaining to them. Both snowflux and 1929Crash have suggested that these mechanisms are the driving factors.

If your interest is in getting the science pinned down, your frustration should be pointed at them for making the claim, not to me for pointing out that it is wrong. But then, getting the science pinned down isn't your main priority, is it?

How any of this links to global warming I'm not sure, given the considerable disparity in mechanism, time scale and extent.

Because the LTP component is scale-invariant. That's the point of using it.

However, if you have decided that such feedbacks don't exist, then you have to explain how your LTP works without violating the laws of thermodynamics. For example, if the current trend in surface temperatures is NOT caused by GHGs, then the energy must be coming from somewhere else. Where?

Firstly, you once again make strawman claims about my argument. I have not, at any stage, stated there are no feedbacks. I acknowledge the presence of feedbacks but point out they must be treated net, and in a non-linear sense, to be meaningful. And on that basis, we have considerable evidence that (1) the net direct feedback effect is probably small, and (2) that the feedbacks that do exist are a complex non-linear result of a large parameter space, and will exhibit complex structure, not a simple linear feedback.

LTP doesn't violate any laws of thermodynamics, you sound like a creationist (or some of the more ignorant sceptics) by making daft claims like that. If you understood the mathematics behind it (e.g. from turbulence as derived by Kolmogorov), then you would understand how LTP can get into a system.

(Oh, and I'd like an explanation of what 'forcing efficacy' is, but I doubt I'll get one; I'd point out that the generally accepted value for Charney Sensitivity is circa 3K, hardly made up; but I suspect that you'd use that conclusive scientific argument 'LOL' )

Now this is funny. You quote the IPCC report at me while telling me there is no such thing as forcing efficacy. Try reading chapter 2.8.5 of the very document you just linked to. And no, I do not think the climate sensitivity you quote is "just made up", but I do think there is considerable evidence that is inconsistent with such a simplistic model, and that single number you cite in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446

I am perplexed and sad.

My 6 year old daughter explained to me that she has been learning about electricity. I was intrigued at first until I found that she has been taught about what uses electricity and how it must be saved.

She proudly informed me about how the planet will be saved if we turn lights and televisions off and how we should have showers instead of baths.

I tried to set her straight but it is already apparent that she has been assimilated and struggles to listen to me.

I think that it is time to back up and protect all evidence that glowball warming is a sham because not only will it have gone in the future but coming generations will have no idea other than what they are told.

I am a warmist, I believe that the climate will warm for somewhere near another 100 years. But that is based on charts and data. The facts of a planetary cycle. I have absolutely no doubt at all that warming will happen but I also have the same certainty that it is not man made.

I know all about the system of schooling and how it breaks a child but finding something that I have trouble fighting with is unexpected. I am sad for my little one and sad for our future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447

Scientifically, though, that is a weak answer. It amounts to "you can't disprove it". Well, no, I can't disprove a lot of things, but I'm not the one with the claim. A model which has 3 degrees of freedom can be trivially set to match a dataset with circa two degrees of freedom. This is a tautology. If I am allowed to use a tautology as "evidence", then I can prove anything you want me to. Science doesn't work that way.

But it is perfectly possible to disprove the theory that GHG feedback is a major factor behind the interglacials, as you thought you had done earlier! If the Earth's temperature were found to have changed by a significant amount over a short period of time without a corresponding change in total GHGs, that would disprove the theory that GHGs are the main driver of temperature change.

The Milankovitch cycles explain only a tiny fraction of the variance, e.g. see this paper. So actually Milankovitch cycles and GHG feedbacks explain very little of the interglacials. A more complete theory, which explains the entirety of the variance, would be a stochastic model plus Milankovitch forcing with a low sensitivity, e.g. discussed at this link (click through to presentation).

I note that neither of these papers disputes the relevance of greenhouse gases to the temperature changes associated with the interglacials. Certainly, the significance of the Milankovitch cycles is disputed, given their small effect, but this is irrelevant as far as GHGs are concerned. (Although I, personally, find it hard to explain the periodicity of the interglacials without invoking orbital influences.)

Regardless of whether Milankovitch cycles, stochastic processes or some other effects trigger the observed temperature changes, changes of such magnitude are hardly possible without some sort of rapidly-acting positive feedback effect. Sure, albedo changes are going to contribute, but I don't see (nor have I seen) why GHGs should not be the main feedback, given the obvious mechanism for their effect, the observed correlation with temperature and the lack of other explanations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448

I am perplexed and sad.

My 6 year old daughter explained to me that she has been learning about electricity. I was intrigued at first until I found that she has been taught about what uses electricity and how it must be saved.

She proudly informed me about how the planet will be saved if we turn lights and televisions off and how we should have showers instead of baths.

I tried to set her straight but it is already apparent that she has been assimilated and struggles to listen to me.

I think that it is time to back up and protect all evidence that glowball warming is a sham because not only will it have gone in the future but coming generations will have no idea other than what they are told.

I am a warmist, I believe that the climate will warm for somewhere near another 100 years. But that is based on charts and data. The facts of a planetary cycle. I have absolutely no doubt at all that warming will happen but I also have the same certainty that it is not man made.

I know all about the system of schooling and how it breaks a child but finding something that I have trouble fighting with is unexpected. I am sad for my little one and sad for our future.

So long as this kind of crap is circulated (I know people who think it is a perfectly reasonable film to be broadcasting) the idiots really are in charge.

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/56500/Climate_Film_Depicts_Children_Assassinated_For_Not/

I have always been on the opinion that we need to be cutting back on waste in every form (the BBC program about the farce that is the bottled water industry hopefully opened a few eyes) but brainwashing our kids is dangerous and the hypocricy of those spouting some of these views are quite frankly dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449

But it is perfectly possible to disprove the theory that GHG feedback is a major factor behind the interglacials, as you thought you had done earlier! If the Earth's temperature were found to have changed by a significant amount over a short period of time without a corresponding change in total GHGs, that would disprove the theory that GHGs are the main driver of temperature change.

Your demands are unrealistic. GHG concentration changes with temperature, primarily due to ocean outgassing. Demanding we find a temperature change without some change in corresponding atmospheric make up is never going to happen. Fundamental to any scientific test, is that the test must meaningfully separate two theories. Your proposed test does nothing of the sort.

But we can find examples - such as the exit of the Eemian - where the changes in GHG are just irrelevant to the overall temperature change. Even with fluffy's cherry-picked feedbacks, the methane forcing is two orders of magnitude down on the actual temperature change.

I'd recommend you read fluffy666's post. Many climate scientists don't talk about the Milankovitch cycles and GHG forcing. Because they know such claims have no credible support.

I note that neither of these papers disputes the relevance of greenhouse gases to the temperature changes associated with the interglacials. Certainly, the significance of the Milankovitch cycles is disputed, given their small effect, but this is irrelevant as far as GHGs are concerned. (Although I, personally, find it hard to explain the periodicity of the interglacials without invoking orbital influences.)

Regardless of whether Milankovitch cycles, stochastic processes or some other effects trigger the observed temperature changes, changes of such magnitude are hardly possible without some sort of rapidly-acting positive feedback effect. Sure, albedo changes are going to contribute, but I don't see (nor have I seen) why GHGs should not be the main feedback, given the obvious mechanism for their effect, the observed correlation with temperature and the lack of other explanations.

Unfortunately this tends to suggest you haven't fully understood what the papers are saying. As I've already clearly demonstrated, the idea that the GHGs are the main feedback is undermined by a simple order-of-magnitude calculation. So the known mechanism you refer to is irrelevant, lost in the noise. The correlation is expected from ocean outgassing, and what is more this is consistent in terms of magnitude of effect.

Periodicity can also be partially explained by certain types of stochastic model (Long Term Persistence, or LTP). These types of model exhibit periodicity and trends at all scales which are often tempting to attribute deterministic causes to. Spectral analysis of paleoclimate data and instrumental data supports the presence of LTP.

There are other explanations, but they just don't rely on GHGs (and to be honest our understanding of them is very limited). Fluffy666 alludes to one (although this explanation fits order-of-magnitude better, we still lack evidence or a complete explanation behind this claim). Claiming it must be GHGs because you can't think of another explanation (even though alternatives are presented in the literature) is a classic argument-from-ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410

Your demands are unrealistic. GHG concentration changes with temperature, primarily due to ocean outgassing. Demanding we find a temperature change without some change in corresponding atmospheric make up is never going to happen. Fundamental to any scientific test, is that the test must meaningfully separate two theories. Your proposed test does nothing of the sort.

Of course it does. If the Earth's temperature were to change significantly without major changes in GHGs, it would indeed disprove the theory that GHGs are important for climate change. You yourself thought this was the case at the end of the Eemian, but had neglected to consider methane, and now you cry foul! Anyway, how about this for a test: We find some way of determining the temperature history of the (airless) moon - if this shows anything like the sort of variation we have discovered for the Earth, we'll know it's not GHGs! :)

But we can find examples - such as the exit of the Eemian - where the changes in GHG are just irrelevant to the overall temperature change. Even with fluffy's cherry-picked feedbacks, the methane forcing is two orders of magnitude down on the actual temperature change.

In what way are fluffy's feedbacks cherry-picked? He simply pointed out the well-known fact that water vapour, as a powerful but transient GHG, strongly amplifies any warming effects, in this case from methane. You seem determined to ignore this in your calculations for some reason.

I'd recommend you read fluffy666's post. Many climate scientists don't talk about the Milankovitch cycles and GHG forcing. Because they know such claims have no credible support.

Sorry, but that is clearly nonsense. It is widely accepted (look in any textbook on the topic) that GHGs were the main positive feedback effect in natural climate change and are currently forcing anthropogenic climate change. The Milankovitch cycles are also considered to be the main candidate for initially triggering natural climate change, but there is some debate about this, as evidenced by the papers you cited.

Unfortunately this tends to suggest you haven't fully understood what the papers are saying. As I've already clearly demonstrated, the idea that the GHGs are the main feedback is undermined by a simple order-of-magnitude calculation. So the known mechanism you refer to is irrelevant, lost in the noise. The correlation is expected from ocean outgassing, and what is more this is consistent in terms of magnitude of effect.

Your determined refusal to acknowledge the effects of water vapour as the main GHG feedback mechanism would suggest that you're the one with the comprehension problem.

Periodicity can also be partially explained by certain types of stochastic model (Long Term Persistence, or LTP). These types of model exhibit periodicity and trends at all scales which are often tempting to attribute deterministic causes to. Spectral analysis of paleoclimate data and instrumental data supports the presence of LTP.

I'm sure it may be possible to find other explanations for the periodicity, but there is one sitting there in front of us by the name of Milankovitch.

There are other explanations, but they just don't rely on GHGs (and to be honest our understanding of them is very limited). Fluffy666 alludes to one (although this explanation fits order-of-magnitude better, we still lack evidence or a complete explanation behind this claim). Claiming it must be GHGs because you can't think of another explanation (even though alternatives are presented in the literature) is a classic argument-from-ignorance.

Considering the alternatives and choosing the simplest one that fits the data is not argument-from-ignorance, it's Occam's Razor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411

Of course it does. If the Earth's temperature were to change significantly without major changes in GHGs, it would indeed disprove the theory that GHGs are important for climate change. You yourself thought this was the case at the end of the Eemian, but had neglected to consider methane, and now you cry foul! Anyway, how about this for a test: We find some way of determining the temperature history of the (airless) moon - if this shows anything like the sort of variation we have discovered for the Earth, we'll know it's not GHGs! :)

As I've already shown, the GHG effect of methane at the exit of the Eemian is tiny, in the noise. You have no credible mechanism. Of course over 5000 years, some concentrations of some gases will change. To pin the cause on these when they have a negligible or small effect is not scientific.

In what way are fluffy's feedbacks cherry-picked? He simply pointed out the well-known fact that water vapour, as a powerful but transient GHG, strongly amplifies any warming effects, in this case from methane. You seem determined to ignore this in your calculations for some reason.

Firstly, they are cherry picked because you cannot isolate individual feedbacks - they act in concert, and interact in non-linear ways. Secondly, water vapour is a function of many things (e.g. mainly evapotranspiration over land), not just temperature. Temperature is only a limiting factor at high RHs, which occur only a small percentage of the time. Furthermore, if water vapour was increasing at high humidity conditions, you would almost certainly affect cloud cover, which affects albedo, blah, blah, blah.

These are all too poorly understood to quantify. Better to quantify the net effect required or evidenced in paleoclimate evidence, as I have linked; and this evidence categorically points away from large positive feedbacks.

Sorry, but that is clearly nonsense. It is widely accepted (look in any textbook on the topic) that GHGs were the main positive feedback effect in natural climate change and are currently forcing anthropogenic climate change. The Milankovitch cycles are also considered to be the main candidate for initially triggering natural climate change, but there is some debate about this, as evidenced by the papers you cited.

Just because it is in a textbook doesn't make it right. The evidence doesn't stack up, and I've explained why. Even fluffy666 doesn't agree with you on this one (arguing, instead, that albedo changes dominate).

Your determined refusal to acknowledge the effects of water vapour as the main GHG feedback mechanism would suggest that you're the one with the comprehension problem.

I haven't refused to accept them. I've pointed out that they are more complex than you think. Water vapour is not just a feedback, it can be a primary forcing, when the changes are due to other reasons (e.g. complexity in the hydrological cycle, as outlined above). It is no surprise that the papers I link are largely written by hydrologists, who understand that the concept of a trivial, linear feedback from water vapour is a oversimplification, has little or no evidential support, and anything but scientific.

I'm sure it may be possible to find other explanations for the periodicity, but there is one sitting there in front of us by the name of Milankovitch.

And that theory doesn't fit with the data. When the evidence doesn't fit, most people change their minds. Clearly not all of us...

Considering the alternatives and choosing the simplest one that fits the data is not argument-from-ignorance, it's Occam's Razor.

It doesn't fit the data, though, I've already demonstrated that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412

As I've already shown, the GHG effect of methane at the exit of the Eemian is tiny, in the noise. You have no credible mechanism. Of course over 5000 years, some concentrations of some gases will change. To pin the cause on these when they have a negligible or small effect is not scientific.

They are insignificant only if you ignore positive feedback effects, as you insist on doing. That is not scientific.

Firstly, they are cherry picked because you cannot isolate individual feedbacks - they act in concert, and interact in non-linear ways. Secondly, water vapour is a function of many things (e.g. mainly evapotranspiration over land), not just temperature. Temperature is only a limiting factor at high RHs, which occur only a small percentage of the time. Furthermore, if water vapour was increasing at high humidity conditions, you would almost certainly affect cloud cover, which affects albedo, blah, blah, blah.

You can't isolate individual feedbacks (who was?) but you can't simply ignore them either. Water vapour may not be just a function of temperature, but the average amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is primarily temperature dependent. Also, we know that water vapour is a GHG and is primarily responsible for keeping the Earth's temperature 33C above its black body temperature. It's true that the effects of cloud cover in particular are difficult to quantify, but this in no way detracts from the greenhouse effect of water vapour.

These are all too poorly understood to quantify. Better to quantify the net effect required or evidenced in paleoclimate evidence, as I have linked; and this evidence categorically points away from large positive feedbacks.

Strange. Everyone else thinks the paleoclimate can be explained only by large positive feedbacks. What is your alternative explanation for the large temperature swings observed?

Just because it is in a textbook doesn't make it right. The evidence doesn't stack up, and I've explained why. Even fluffy666 doesn't agree with you on this one (arguing, instead, that albedo changes dominate).

That GHG feedbacks played an important role in the interglacials is textbook stuff because it's widely accepted, despite what you or fluffy666 claim. Which climate researchers dispute this?

I haven't refused to accept them. I've pointed out that they are more complex than you think. Water vapour is not just a feedback, it can be a primary forcing, when the changes are due to other reasons (e.g. complexity in the hydrological cycle, as outlined above). It is no surprise that the papers I link are largely written by hydrologists, who understand that the concept of a trivial, linear feedback from water vapour is a oversimplification, has little or no evidential support, and anything but scientific.

Have you even read the papers you cite? Neither paper disputes the importance of water vapour as a feedback mechanism! And who said anything about it being trivial or linear? Sure, we know the feedbacks are complex, but how does that stop them from being significant?

And that theory doesn't fit with the data. When the evidence doesn't fit, most people change their minds. Clearly not all of us...

It doesn't fit the data, though, I've already demonstrated that.

All you've demonstrated is a bizarre form of logic which appears to assume that if a process is too complex to model in detail it must be insignificant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413

A good account of how some climate scientists behave in order to push their theories of man made global warming is "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by AW Montford.

It serves as a good introduction into the subject of climate change. Montford relates the controversy surrounding Mike Mann's famous hockey stick graph and also the University of East Anglia e-mail leak, as well as insight into how the IPCC operates. There are hundreds of quotes from, and references to, the scientific literature. I think Montford does a great job of explaining the various arguments clearly and in language understandable by non-scientists. A great read giving lots of information from both sides of the debate. In my opinion, the pro-warming lobby comes out looking distinctly tarnished whereas the skeptics appear to be more thorough and open in their science and discussion. I wonder if anyone here has read it and would like to comment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414

They are insignificant only if you ignore positive feedback effects, as you insist on doing. That is not scientific.

Good grief, you are as bad as fluffy. I do not ignore positive feedback effects. I directly estimate the net feedback from the data. This includes positive and negative feedbacks. I'm accounting for both, you are cherry picking one (water vapour) and ignoring the rest.

How hard is this to understand? The interglacials include measurable direct responses from the orbital parameters. The presentation I linked fitted harmonics using orbital parameters to the response. From this we can determine the magnitude of the effect from the orbital variation. Knowing the overall magnitude of the interglacials (as we do) and the variance explained by the orbital parameters (which we also know), we can get a feel for the direct feedback effects.

And as we see, from the tiny variance explained by the orbital parameters, the direct feedback - including everything from water vapour, to clouds, to albedo - is actually quite small.

We can then directly calculate the radiative forcing of the GHG changes in the Eemian, which I have done for you and you have not been able to dispute or provide alternative calculations, and demonstrated that these are TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE DOWN on the actual change, requiring a massive positive feedback. But we've already falsified the idea of massive positive feedback from the orbital parameters.

In short, you are doing the equivalent of claiming urinating in the sea causes tsumanis because of positive feedbacks, when no such evidence exists. Most of the rest of your post is worthless hand waving. But you did have a question which I have already answered, but I shall answer it again:

Strange. Everyone else thinks the paleoclimate can be explained only by large positive feedbacks. What is your alternative explanation for the large temperature swings observed?

Simple. Fluffy knows what my claim is (although fluffy disagrees with it), the claim is touched on in the presentation I linked to above. long term persistence in the hydrological cycle, driven by a complex, coupled, non-linear system can trivially give rise to the large swings we see. Long term persistence (LTP) is the more common name, although Prof. Koutsoyiannis is trying to coin the term, "Hurst-Kolmogorov Climate" after the scientists who first discovered and analysed LTP behaviour in geophysical systems. A better presentation which explains the principles upon which this is based can be found here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415

A good account of how some climate scientists behave in order to push their theories of man made global warming is "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by AW Montford.

It serves as a good introduction into the subject of climate change. Montford relates the controversy surrounding Mike Mann's famous hockey stick graph and also the University of East Anglia e-mail leak, as well as insight into how the IPCC operates. There are hundreds of quotes from, and references to, the scientific literature. I think Montford does a great job of explaining the various arguments clearly and in language understandable by non-scientists. A great read giving lots of information from both sides of the debate. In my opinion, the pro-warming lobby comes out looking distinctly tarnished whereas the skeptics appear to be more thorough and open in their science and discussion. I wonder if anyone here has read it and would like to comment?

The J also appears when looking at vibrational frequency of a CO2 molecule!

The base frequency for the 'bending' (J) mode w2= 666.xxcm-1

Therefore 'J' the hockey stick shape, symbolic for 'bending' the truth!

Also Jesu starts with a J - what they are doing is veiled antichrist

Somewhere in those numerals you will find part of the fluffy!

EJ = hcBeJ(J+1), J = 0, 1, 2, 3, ...

CO2The4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416

The J also appears when looking at vibrational frequency of a CO2 molecule!

The base frequency for the 'bending' (J) mode w2= 666.xxcm-1

Therefore 'J' the hockey stick shape, symbolic for 'bending' the truth!

Also Jesu starts with a J - what they are doing is veiled antichrist

Somewhere in those numerals you will find part of the fluffy!

EJ = hcBeJ(J+1), J = 0, 1, 2, 3, ...

CO2The4.jpg

Hilarious. You've not read the book then LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417

Climate Change:........all I know the climate has been changing before even man set foot on it and it will continue to do so, nothing we do will change anything significantly....just stop cutting down so many trees, and keep planting new ones. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418

Good grief, you are as bad as fluffy. I do not ignore positive feedback effects. I directly estimate the net feedback from the data. This includes positive and negative feedbacks. I'm accounting for both, you are cherry picking one (water vapour) and ignoring the rest.

How hard is this to understand? The interglacials include measurable direct responses from the orbital parameters. The presentation I linked fitted harmonics using orbital parameters to the response. From this we can determine the magnitude of the effect from the orbital variation. Knowing the overall magnitude of the interglacials (as we do) and the variance explained by the orbital parameters (which we also know), we can get a feel for the direct feedback effects.

And as we see, from the tiny variance explained by the orbital parameters, the direct feedback - including everything from water vapour, to clouds, to albedo - is actually quite small.

We can then directly calculate the radiative forcing of the GHG changes in the Eemian, which I have done for you and you have not been able to dispute or provide alternative calculations, and demonstrated that these are TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE DOWN on the actual change, requiring a massive positive feedback. But we've already falsified the idea of massive positive feedback from the orbital parameters.

In short, you are doing the equivalent of claiming urinating in the sea causes tsumanis because of positive feedbacks, when no such evidence exists. Most of the rest of your post is worthless hand waving. But you did have a question which I have already answered, but I shall answer it again:

Simple. Fluffy knows what my claim is (although fluffy disagrees with it), the claim is touched on in the presentation I linked to above. long term persistence in the hydrological cycle, driven by a complex, coupled, non-linear system can trivially give rise to the large swings we see. Long term persistence (LTP) is the more common name, although Prof. Koutsoyiannis is trying to coin the term, "Hurst-Kolmogorov Climate" after the scientists who first discovered and analysed LTP behaviour in geophysical systems. A better presentation which explains the principles upon which this is based can be found here.

Sorry, but your post makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Perhaps we we keep things simple and take this one sentence at a time, slowly, so nobody gets lost.

To start with: What exactly do you mean by "I directly estimate the net feedback from the data"?

How can you separate feedback effects from direct forcing without some theoretical basis for your assumptions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419

Because the LTP component is scale-invariant. That's the point of using it.

In which case you'd need to demonstrate it at more than one scale, to show that your result is not merely an artifact.

This is especially true if you are looking at the glacial-interglacial cycle. As I have already noted, ice-albedo feedback is the strongest individual forcing component driving this, in a system that clearly has two stable states. Hence your technique is likely to find an apparent signal.

Firstly, you once again make strawman claims about my argument. I have not, at any stage, stated there are no feedbacks.

Continually claiming a sensitivity to CO2 doubling of ~1K IS a no-feedback claim. Unless you are seriously claiming that the water vapour content of the atmosphere is independant of temperature, or somehow nets out to zero, which would appear physically impossible.

I acknowledge the presence of feedbacks but point out they must be treated net, and in a non-linear sense, to be meaningful. And on that basis, we have considerable evidence that (1) the net direct feedback effect is probably small, and (2) that the feedbacks that do exist are a complex non-linear result of a large parameter space, and will exhibit complex structure, not a simple linear feedback.

You have given zero evidence for (1) - you simply assume it - and for (2) you haven't given any actual examples. In other words, you are making a hand waving argument about a system you have no knowledge of. Given this, having a high degree of confidence in a statistical technique which can easily generate spurious results appears unwarranted.

First order feedbacks such as water vapour are not particularly complicated, and importantly are absolutely critical to understanding how the planet is not frozen solid. Hence the high degree of confidence in a Charney Sensitivity of circa 3K.

LTP doesn't violate any laws of thermodynamics, you sound like a creationist (or some of the more ignorant sceptics) by making daft claims like that. If you understood the mathematics behind it (e.g. from turbulence as derived by Kolmogorov), then you would understand how LTP can get into a system.

I strongly suspect I know a bit more about this than you, which is why I'm seeing if you can explain it for the system in question. Which, I may add, is not a turbulent flow system, but a planet. Can you explain how the earth maintains long excursions from the equilibrium temperature for a given radiative balance? And if not, then clearly LTP is a spurious result.

Now this is funny. You quote the IPCC report at me while telling me there is no such thing as forcing efficacy. Try reading chapter 2.8.5 of the very document you just linked to. And no, I do not think the climate sensitivity you quote is "just made up", but I do think there is considerable evidence that is inconsistent with such a simplistic model, and that single number you cite in particular.

I didn't say there was no such thing, I asked for you to give an explanation of what it was.

Your fundamental point appears to be that the current temperature rise - which is completely consistent with a sensitivity of 3K and sensible values for lags - is actually a product of a much lower sensitivity plus some 'internal variability' - with no physical basis given for this variability.

You may forgive me for thinking that this is a case of someone clutching at anything-but-CO2 as a theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420

I'm way too busy at the moment to answer these properly, will do so around mid next week when I have some time available

But just a few quick observations

In which case you'd need to demonstrate it at more than one scale, to show that your result is not merely an artifact.

Already done, and linked in the presentations given. From deep geological proxies (100+ Myr) through sediment cores (single figure Myr), ice cores (10kyr-100kyr), borehole and tree ring proxies (1kyr-10kyr), through to instrumental (monthly-100yr) all yield consistent behaviour with H ~0.92 to 0.95.

Continually claiming a sensitivity to CO2 doubling of ~1K IS a no-feedback claim.

Which I then follow up by determining required feedbacks to have a consequent effect. This is trivial science 101 stuff. Estimate the feedback from the ratio between effect and forcing, rather than just assuming it.

This is such trivial science I'm astonished you can't figure it out.

Unless you are seriously claiming that the water vapour content of the atmosphere is independant of temperature, or somehow nets out to zero, which would appear physically impossible.

This comment is beneath stupid. If you want to respond to me, don't make stuff up that I haven't said.

First order feedbacks such as water vapour are not particularly complicated

The hydrological cycle is not complicated? And temperature is the dominant factor in water vapour concentrations?

LOL. No. Fail.

But this is the funniest bit that I had to respond to:

I strongly suspect I know a bit more about this than you

This is typical pseudoscientist behaviour. You know nothing about me, beyond what I post here. Yet you are entirely confident, based on zero evidence other than your own arrogance, that you know more than I do about LTP.

Here's the story fluffy. I make no assumptions about what you do or do not know. I am explaining simple scientific models using a balance of language which is sufficiently detailed that people can follow if they want to. The only response you have is to make up claims that I have never made, or throw your toys out of the pram because I'm implying something about climate scientists (when in fact I'm responding to a point made on this forum).

I'm following simple logic and evidence, and your reasoning is at best tortured. But the "I suspect I know more about this than you do", as an argument, is possibly one of the worst I have ever come across in this forum in my entire life.

which is why I'm seeing if you can explain it for the system in question. Which, I may add, is not a turbulent flow system, but a planet.

Umm, are you having real basic comprehension problems? Firstly, turbulent flows are actually quite an important component of climate science, although I have never claimed they are the cause of LTP in the temperature record. I merely pointed out the first person to derive the mathematics behind LTP was studying turbulence. If you cannot tell the difference between me talking about a paper developing the mathematics, and a specific application of said maths, then I'm not sure me explaining much more will get us anywhere.

But anyway, despite your attempt to take the moral low ground and insist you are somehow testing me (lol), I will assume you were simply asking me to expand on my position and add more detail.

The primary reason I would expect LTP in the temperature record is not from a direct effect. There is no reason (that I am aware of) to expect such a thing. However, there is good reason to expect LTP in the hydrological cycle. And, as we know, the hydrological cycle in turn has a very large effect on radiative equilibrium, both through water vapour and clouds.

The basis for this is well covered, and can be derived from more than one method. I don't have time now to look up references, but will furnish them later if you need them. Since you claim to know lots about this subject, perhaps you will already have read these references anyway. At least, lets hope you read them better than IPCC AR4, containing the chapter on the efficacy of radiative forcing, which you last referenced immediately after claiming such a thing does not exist.

The first model demonstrating LTP in the hydrological cycle was Vit Klemes' semi-infinite cascading reservoir system, written up in the late 1970s. Here he demonstrated two things; firstly, in such a system LTP could emerge from IID random variations in flow between reservoirs; and secondly, importantly, that the semi-infinite constraint was not a strict one, and in fact modelling found that LTP emerged from systems with relatively few reservoirs.

This is one form of direct modelling. In a similar vein, Koutsoyiannis has proposed simple three-reservoir hydrological systems which exhibit LTP, and indeed also shown simple 2-parameter tent map models which exhibit similar behaviour based on just two nonlinear feedback terms.

In addition to this approach, Koutsoyiannis has also demonstrated that one would expect LTP trivially from applying maximum entropy as a constraint certain processes. Again, the constraints are not applicable directly to global temperature, but do apply to the hydrological cycle, and once again if you believe water vapour is an important GHG, then LTP will clearly be imprinted on the temperature through this mechanism.

But, of course, this isn't all. We can not only model LTP in the climate system through the hydrological cycle, we can also measure it directly. The first measurement by Hurst of the Roda Nilometer as part of his analysis of the requirements for the Aswan Dam. It was later confirmed by others, including the late Benoit Mandelbrot (e.g. Mandelbrot and Wallis?, 1968? I think.). Of course, the analysis I have linked to in this thread shows further assessment of proxies shows consistent values of the Hurst exponent. Spectral analysis shows the underlying variability has a strong inverse relationship with frequency. All classic LTP behaviour.

This doesn't *prove* LTP of course, but you'd have to be a bit of an oddball to look at all that evidence and think "sure, those data look like classic autoregressive statistics with an overlaying deterministic behaviour that just happens to look exactly like LTP, but actually isn't".

Your fundamental point appears to be that the current temperature rise - which is completely consistent with a sensitivity of 3K and sensible values for lags

"Completely consistent with" is not the same thing as evidence. The current temperature rise is completely consistent with LTP as well (eg. Cohn and Lins 2005 GRL paper). If you want to differentiate two theories, you need a test which falsifies one. Luckily, the interglacials clearly falsifies one of them - and it isn't the LTP theory.

Oh, and while I remember, if you think there is something special about the limits of the interglacials - that it is bouncing from one limit to another - try plotting a cdf of the vostok ice core. You'll find there is nothing terribly special about the distribution that would suggest hitting a limit. Sure, there is a min and a max (true of any finite data set!) and the distribution has a little asymmetry (slight skewness towards the colder end) but there is nothing special about the limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421

IPCC underestimated Antarctic sea ice increase by 50%

By Andrew Moran.

New errors have been found in the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change such as the Himalayan glaciers and a significant increase in sea ice around Antarctica.

As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change publishes reports indicating that sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctica is vastly decreasing due to global warming, new errors show that decrease in sea ice may not be the case.

According to the World Climate Report, several errors have been found in the fourth assessment Report (AR4) of the IPCC, which include setbacks with African agriculture, Himalayan glaciers, attribution of damages from extreme weather events and the significant increase in sea ice. Majority of the errors come from the non peer-reviewed sources.

Most of the press focuses its attention on the decline in Arctic sea ice, which has been questioned by some, however, virtually none of the mainstream media outlets have focused on the increase in Antarctic ice, claims the WCR. Peer-reviewed literature shows that there has been an increase in the sea ice around Antarctica since the late 1970s when the first satellite observations were published, reports Climate Research News. However, the AR4 established the evidence and concluded the increase was only half the rate established in peer-reviewed studies and that it was, statistically speaking, insignificant as well.

Therefore, the rise in sea ice in Antarctica was ignored in order to highlight the decline in sea ice in the Arctic, states the WCR. In 2001, the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) was released and in the executive summary it stated, “Satellite data indicate that after a possible initial decrease in the mid-1970s, Antarctic sea-ice extent has stayed almost stable or even increased since 1978.” Another point from Zwally et al. 2002, which is not cited in the AR4, states, “The derived 20 year trend in sea ice extent from the monthly deviations is 11.18 ± 4.19 x 103 km2yr-1 or 0.98 ± 0.37% (decade)-1 for the entire Antarctic sea ice cover, which is significantly positive. Also, a recent analysis of Antarctic sea ice trends for 1978–1996 by Watkins and Simmonds [2000] found significant increases in both Antarctic sea ice extent and ice area, similar to the results in this paper.”

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/287706

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information