Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
"Well ,I can see you guys are not exceptionally well read".After reading your bs ,Rick, i tend to agree with you.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Ed, nice you brought up the Marcott et al. (2013) paper. That's been raising a fuss on denialist blogs, and perhaps Rick knows their talking points.
The hockey-stick ghosts in several panels of Fig. 1 (which Ed shows above) confuse denialists the most, though these graphs are described clearly in the paper. Fewer than one in a hundred of the comments (or blog posts) I've seen are from people who did read the paper, or grasped that the authors' comparison of Holocene (paleo proxy) and modern (instrumental record) temperatures refers to Fig. 3.
Fig. 3
Holocene temperature distribution compared to modern temperature and future projections. Shown are relative frequency plots of Holocene temperature anomalies in 0.05°C bins using multiple data subsets and reconstructions (colored lines), instrumental means for 1900–1909 and 2000–2009 CE (vertical black lines), 2100 CE projections based on various emissions scenarios (35) (black squares and gray bars give the best estimate and 66% confidence interval), and the Holocene median and 66% range from Standard5×5 + high-frequency stack (black square and blue bar). Projections in (35) were referenced to 1980–1999 CE, whereas we reference them to 1961–1990 CE here. Data sets are divided by proxy type: UK'37, Mg/Ca, and the remainder (Other); method: arithmetic mean (Standard) and RegEM; weighting: equal Northern and Southern Hemisphere weighting (0.5NH + 0.5SH), 5° × 5°grid, and 30° × 30°grid; exclusion of data sets: no North Atlantic and Jack50; and high-frequency addition: red noise with the same power spectrum as Mann et al. (2) added to the global stack (supplementary materials).
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
Great posts Ed and Chiloe,Dr F,and Base.The Science needs to be Applauded!
|
|
Spitzer
climber
|
|
"Furthermore atmospheric CO2 follows temperature rise-it does not create a temperature rise."
Could someone here (Ed? Chiloe?) comment on the March 1 article in Science by Parrenin?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Spitzer:
Could someone here (Ed? Chiloe?) comment on the March 1 article in Science by Parrenin?
Good question, that's an interesting article. It goes to the heart of a zombie argument from the blogs, for one thing; more substantively it clarifies a topic of real interest, the relative timing of (global) CO2 changes and (local) Antarctic temperature changes at the end of the last glaciation. For a start, here's the abstract (emphasis added}:
"Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming"
Parrenin et al. Science March 1 2013
Understanding the role of atmospheric CO2 during past climate changes requires clear knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years. Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Earlier Antarctic studies concluded that, at the end of the last glaciation, Antarctic temperatures began to rise several hundred years before there was a global rise in CO2. The zombie argument is (approximately): because temperature rose before CO2, this somehow disproves the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Belief in that zombie has become a durable test for whether people actually read any science, or have just ingested and are repeating sciency talking points from blogs, etc. that agree with their politics.
It's a zombie because in the science literature this is not a live argument. For a bunch of well-known reasons, such as
 CO2 is known to be both a forcing and a feedback for warming. If warming starts for other reasons (e.g., orbital) this will increase ocean outgassing, as well as expose and thaw permafrost, each of which releases CO2 (also methane) that then becomes a feedback to enhance warming. GHG feedback is a chief mechanism by which small orbital-related variations can lead to large climate changes like starting or ending an ice age. But no one claims that CO2 change has to initiate all climate change in the first place. For one thing, there would have to be a source for the "new" CO2.
CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere so the Antarctic CO2 can be taken for a global indicator. However, Antarctic temperature is not a global indicator, it's mainly Antarctic. So when Antarctic temperatures warm or cool, that does not necessarily tell us what the mid-latitudes, tropics or far North were doing.
More specifically, a recent paper by Shakun et al. (2012) found that for reasons involving ocean circulation, southern hemisphere began warming before CO2 started to rise, but the northern hemisphere warmed after CO2 rose.
However, Parrenin et al. take a fresh look at the timing itself. How do we know when CO2 rose, and when temperature did? Turns out to be trickier than it sounds because the CO2 measurements (based on gas trapped in the ice) and the temperature estimates (based on isotope ratios within the ice itself) are dated by different methods, not previously well calibrated to fit together.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
With a better chronology of CO2 and temperature changes, Parrenin et al. find the lag between temperature and CO2 change is no longer significant (emphasis added):
Our chronology and the resulting aCO2-AT phasing strengthens the hypothesis that there was a close coupling between aCO2 and AT on both orbital and millennial time scales. The aCO2 rise could contribute to much of the AT change during TI, even at its onset, accounting for positive feedbacks and polar amplification (21), which magnify the impact of the relatively weak rCO2 change (Fig. 4) that alone accounts for ~0.6°C of global warming during TI (21). Invoking changes in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation is no longer required to explain the lead of AT over aCO2 (22).
Given the importance of the Southern Ocean in carbon cycle processes (23), one should not exclude the possibility that aCO2 and AT are interconnected through another common mechanism such as a relationship between sea ice cover and ocean stratification. Although the tight link between aCO2 and AT suggests a major common mechanism, reviews of carbon cycle processes suggest a complex association of numerous independent mechanisms (2, 23).
Changes in aCO2 and AT were synchronous during TI within uncertainties.
Various climate time series during TI. Shown are δD from EDC (28) (purple), ATS (dark blue, this study) and confidence interval (light blue), aCO2 from EDC (1, 2) (light green), rCO2 (dark green), atmospheric CH4 from EDC (29) (red), and Greenland δ18O from NorthGRIP (gray) onto the GICC05 age scale (27) with a 220-year running average (dark gray). The solid lines represent the best six-point linear fit of ATS, aCO2, and rCO2 (supplementary materials). The vertical dashed lines mark the four break points in ATS (blue) and in aCO2 (green), where we evaluated the aCO2-AT and the rCO2-AT phase lags (black numbers). The new EDC age scale is described in the supplementary materials.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2013 - 12:53am PT
|
I am a least as far below Ed's ,and possible other proponents of disastrous AGW posting on this thread, command of physics and mathematics as a grade schooler is to a post grad,this i readily admit.In addition, i'm sure ,in the course of your work, most of the scientific literature on the subject is available to you ,free of charge, just a few key strokes away. But, it seems you guys read rather few of the dissenting opinions by other "credentialed experts" in the field, and those you do review are considered with a far more critical eye than the proponents papers. Chiloe stated-"this is a huge and active field of research ,across scores of disciplines and many thousands of scientists". That seems to be a fact, and a reasonable inference from that fact would be that many billions of dollars of continuing funding and thousands of careers are dependent on keeping this issue alive and popularly accepted. Just as many of you consider most contrary opinions tainted by corporations that stand to lose a lot if the recommendations of IPCC are implemented, many others could reasonably consider the so called "scientific consensus" likewise tainted by their financial exposure.
Ed has said- "Good science wins out in the end" and "At some point proponents could admit that their alternative is not likely, that is, their hypothesis failed. This is normal in science;we are more often wrong than right". Now what does this mean-is it a mistaken choice of words or is it an indication he is less than positive of the consensus view.
How many of you posters are 100% positive or even 75% positive of DAGW, and what are you prepared to do about it? Are you deferring having children, have you switched careers to work in the field, are you booking passage on the next Virgin Atlantic Galactic express to exit the planet before it turns to cinder?
Nobody can argue a case effectively if the other side is blind and deaf to all contrary evidence, if the goal posts are constantly reconfigured and moved,if the "consensus" is predetermined.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2013 - 08:19am PT
|
being aware of climate change and studying it is the first step to doing something about it...Shrill , loud poo pooing of extensive Climate change research is mere parroting of shock-jock ppropaganda who's only agenda is to pad their bank accounts....
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2013 - 01:04pm PT
|
What i have been questioning and trying to get the more learned of you to question is; Where is the irrefutable science of DAGW when the model predictions exceed the measurements? Since i sense a juggernaut to cast aside over a 100 years of proven energy production technology (that works quite well and could get much cleaner simply by large scale conversion to NG)in favor of green technology, which is still in its infancy, presently inefficient and in its current form economically ruinous to all from the average private citizen up to the largest corporations; shouldn't the science be much more critically evaluated?
I presented the HadCRUT3 1850 to present graph because it was one of the most alarming and included what looks to be the famed hockey stick.I pointed out its recent flattening and irregularity with the models. I was then going to show that because we have largely inferred data from 1979(the start of satellite measurements) and getting increasingly inferred from their (less and less weather stations) into the past, that the graphs have less and less chance of accurately depicting the short term large oscillations of the last 15 years.In other words their would have been alarmingly large oscillations in this recent past also.I was then going to proceed backwards through historic times (many periods of warming and cooling in excess of what we are now witnessing) to the prehistoric with its glacial and interglacial periods and finally to geologic time during which, as Base pointed out, had hothouse periods in which dinosaurs were present worldwide and roamed in large numbers above the Arctic Circle.These periods show are present warming to be insignificant.
Alas, i am not ready. It would be folly at my present state of understanding to effectively argue with the more learned of you. I'm hitting the books and papers.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2013 - 01:09pm PT
|
I hope y'all are sitting down and have a paper bag handy to breathe into.
THIS JUST IN!
Arnold has gotten Climate Change religion!
California's silent disaster
|
|
Mike Bolte
Trad climber
Planet Earth
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2013 - 01:33pm PT
|
Arnold recognized the impacts of global climate change while he was in office. He commissioned some studies and paid careful attention to the projected consequences (one that got his attention first was the likelihood that the San Francisco and Oakland airports would be under water later in this century).
He saw major infrastructure costs to address sea level rise as a big funding challenge in the next few decades.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2013 - 05:47pm PT
|
rick sumner writes:
a reasonable inference from that fact would be that many billions of dollars of continuing funding and thousands of careers are dependent on keeping this issue alive and popularly accepted.
For this to seem a "reasonable inference" explaining the scientific consensus on climate change, you need a conspiratorial outlook on life -- and a deep personal conviction that almost all scientists are lying, greedy scoundrels who will say whatever they think will get them more money. Plus the fantasy belief that behaving in this way actually will get them more money.
It's depressing that such convictions are so widespread among some segments of the public, or come so quickly to mind when people don't like the research findings. I'd guess that most people holding these beliefs have never met actual scientists, or had the bad luck to meet an exceptionally bad one somewhere.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2013 - 06:06pm PT
|
rick sumner writes:
I presented the HadCRUT3 1850 to present graph because it was one of the most alarming and included what looks to be the famed hockey stick.I pointed out its recent flattening and irregularity with the models. I was then going to show that because we have largely inferred data from 1979(the start of satellite measurements) and getting increasingly inferred from their (less and less weather stations) into the past, that the graphs have less and less chance of accurately depicting the short term large oscillations of the last 15 years.In other words their would have been alarmingly large oscillations in this recent past also.I was then going to proceed backwards through historic times (many periods of warming and cooling in excess of what we are now witnessing) to the prehistoric with its glacial and interglacial periods and finally to geologic time during which, as Base pointed out, had hothouse periods in which dinosaurs were present worldwide and roamed in large numbers above the Arctic Circle.These periods show are present warming to be insignificant.
Rick, you're confused about a lot of things from what the the hockey stick is (it refers mainly to paleo reconstructions, or sometimes paleo+instrumental, not to all-instrumental records like HadCRUT3) to whether oscillations in the past 15 years are large (no) or recent warming is exceptional (yes). Each of these has been a topic of intense, cumulative research by many different teams, so quite a lot is known and it's not what you think. A lot remains unknown too, but you have been misinformed about what that part is. People on this forum would be happy to link to the relevant studies and talk about the evidence, or what mysteries remain, ranging from paleoclimatology going back tens of thousands or millions of years, to forecasting the future of Arctic ice.
But your talking points and assumptions won't get you very far in a conversation with people who do read the research. Open your mind, there's a lot to learn and it's fascinating.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2013 - 08:08pm PT
|
No Ed, i started posting here because dr. F "policed" me off another thread and transferred my post here-ask him. I did not misquote you, it is was verbatim from one of your recent upstream posts.
Chiloe ,i wasn't claiming it was conspiratorial on the individual scientists or incidental workers part but rather a personal pocketbook issue and matter of professional pride. The conspirators are people like Gore, Hansen and a few prominent politicians who sensationalized the issue from day one on very little scientific evidence and corporations and mega brokerage houses who stand to gain substantially. The individuals(scientists and workers) matter little independently but when you add their total weight together they have substantial influence.
You guys need to find some credentialed opposition to argue with. I'll be back when i'm prepared with a solid and defensible argument.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2013 - 08:25pm PT
|
The conspirators are people like Gore, Hansen and a few prominent politicians who sensationalized the issue from day one on very little scientific evidence and corporations and mega brokerage houses who stand to gain substantially. The individuals(scientists and workers) matter little independently but when you add their total weight together they have substantial influence.
Rick, you don't know how much you don't know. Just for a start, Gore was following the scientists, not leading them. And your conspiracy is as imaginary as your chronology is backwards.
Want a reality-based history? (I'm sensing you do not, you sound pretty confident about that conspiracy.) But if you did, you could start reading here:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2013 - 09:05pm PT
|
"I'll be back when i'm prepared with a solid and defensible argument"
That's just great,98% of scientists believe that GW is happening ,2% do not.We know where you will be finding those arguments.You and your 2%,get way to much airtime.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2013 - 09:43pm PT
|
Reilly...i'm wearing my electric- cooled -pony harness , fumbling for my clementi sew-up glue and paper bag...Thanks for caring bro...
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2013 - 09:44pm PT
|
F, I've heard Rear Admiral Titley, the US Navy's chief oceanographer, talk about climate change a few times. He reports the Navy is taking it quite seriously for reasons including the need to plan for a new Arctic Ocean, and the fact that "Navy infrastructure tends to be located at sea level."
http://www.iphider.org/
|
|
corysue
Boulder climber
reno,nevada
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2013 - 10:42pm PT
|
So with out reading all of this lengthy and oh so impressive thread, can you tell me which of you guys can piss the farthest?
Dr, Rong, could global wetting just be Gaia's wet dream?
Dr Ed are you related to the talking horse? Base, I was unaware there were any people still alive that still worshipped at the Carter shrine. How old are you?
Chiloe do you know Cheech?
Rick, who, sounds like a wanna be sciency guy.
Dr. Frankenstein I presume.
Gee can I be one of you guys?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!