Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 08:31pm PT
|
Do you understand what these " " mean?
It is NOAA data.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 08:46pm PT
|
I like the tone this new professor TLP is sounding. I like it even more that in his judgement, as a newcomer and as a luke warmer, he thinks the wannabe two bit CAGW emperors are freezing in the cold without clothes.
He asks a question of what we believe. I believe we just exited a period of natural global warming that was enhanced by anthropogenic contribution to the tune of about 25% or, .2c. The anthropogenic contribution, i believe, was a result of land use, i.e large scale deforestation, urbanization and polutant release that changed the albedo of the reflective surfaces as much as the 3% anthropogenic contribution of the total 120ppm increase of atmospheric CO2. I don't think we have much to worry about from the CAGW theory of runaway global warming. I also believe we should transition, as economics allow, away from the dirtier FF's like coal to transitioning into expanded NG and new generation nuclear power. The money spent studying doomsday CC scenarios would be much better spent in developing nuclear fusion and cost effective energy storage systems for intermittent power from wind and solar. I have no problem with alternative energy unless it breaks the bank and sends us into a self created dark age.
Larry, Ht, Phule- the troposhere depth varies from 8 to 16 KM. It is deepest in the tropics from thermal expansion and shallowest at the pole due to less thermal expansion. The mid troposhere at the tropics begins at approx. 350hpa, in the extra tropics at about 580hpa. None of the graphs show anything but cooling from these altitudes to the tropospheres top, excecpt the raobcore data set. Furthermore all the graphs show warming in the statosphere 12-50 km but at which level i am unsure.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 09:34pm PT
|
Now now Chief, as our new friend and professor TLP says; the insult hurling is ineffectual at solving this climate puzzle. Old Bruce is a man of above average intelligence that justs feels a bit disaffected with the system. Obviously he equates authority with what he deems to be right wing ideology and he is unsatisfied with his standing in this world, which he blames on authority figures. The CAGW industry, in desperation for lack of predictives matching reality, has labeled anyone denying their twisted version of truth as right wing authoratarian denialists. They prey on the disaffected as easy marks for enlistment. So we have Bruce in constant attack.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 10:32pm PT
|
Well, damn! It sure clears the air a bit (ha ha) when you find out what people believe in; sometimes you find you don't disagree nearly as much as it had sounded like. Agreeing that there's some amount of warming from CO2, but believing that it's less than what the current set of models say, is a long way from "the science is total BS" that we have seen in many posts (and which I think is just an incorrect position to take). I'm not sure I agree with all of the other anthropogenic contributors, for example I would have thought that deforestation increases albedo, not decreases it; that should reduce warming, not enhance it. But at least that's an objective discussion one could have. If the graphs posted a page or three back are correct, the models seem to be pretty close on the magnitude of change, but I'd love to see ones that have a similarly objective basis and show that it's going to be less.
I'd say I agree entirely with Rick's opinion on what we ought to do, and also that there is unlikely to be "runaway" (however big that has to be) warming in the span of a decade or three. I look at all the graphs people have posted and see trends that can be dealt with without enormous changes over that timeline. Additively, over 100 years, maybe we diverge a bit, I think it could get pretty bad by then in specific places (like densely inhabited lands that are just barely above sea level now). But I'm outta here by then. It's probably prudent to be discussing, now, what maneuvers we should try to make with the global battleship and see whether the costs make sense in comparison with the costs of climate effects. The big wild card is that when you see these gradual creeping temperature or sea level graphs, what if some of those represent really big changes in patterns; which they probably do. Superimposed on natural variations that we know occur, the arid West for one region could be really screwed. Unquestionably, anything that might happen about GHG emissions will only steer the ship the slightest bit in these few decades. What's the plan to deal with the likely huge reduction in water supply everywhere west of Kansas and south of Wyoming? Just call everyone else names? In my view, planning for some of the climate changes that are modeled is pretty much the same as planning for dealing with the known range of natural variation, in that part of the country. It won't matter whether the models turn out to be right, or off a little, or off by a lot. We'll want to have done something anyway.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 11:07pm PT
|
Well TLP. i'm glad your so agreeable, but i differ with your asessment that this global warming phase we have just passed will continue with adverse consequences decades down the road. Regardless of that small difference that shouldn't deflect us, and the decision makers that actually matter, from wanting to divert most of the huge sums dedicated to overblown scenarios of doom towards development and deployment of new technologies that actually work and have the side benefit of reducing the release of plant food (CO2) into the atmosphere. That includes only a small percentage of the overcostly and underperforming current generation of wind and solar, but does include embrace of Ng and latest generation nuclear. I also disagree with you about deforestation's albedo changes. Fallow soil absorbs significantly more solar radiation than allowed through forest canopy onto vegatated soil. But minor differences.
Bruce, i've been the boss and authority figure for going on 35 years now in my career. I may be massaging your chipped shoulder here, but if you had worked for me, on any of my jobs of the past, i'm afraid i would have quickly terminated your employ. On strictly ethical grounds mind you, since the rebellion you like to sew would be bad for morale and dangerous to the crew in the non democratic organization of my operation.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2014 - 01:01am PT
|
Where are the values for the x axis in your upper graph Ed? You know, if you were a climate scientist and i was in one of your classes in the past you would have flunked me faster than i would have fired Bruce from one of my jobs.
Bruce, i ran a small operation, but i still had many direct employees that worked for me for over a decade and one that worked for me for 26 years, just completing a job for my sons last month. I've had numerous sub contractors that worked for me for over 15 years and my electrician is the third generation of his family that has done our wiring. You my friend have no conception of legitamate respect, ethics, or mastery of craft, be it professional or personal. Some of this duration of employment is loyalty working both ways, although i would characterize the majority as mutual appreciation of ethics, skill levels, and moral character.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2014 - 01:14am PT
|
350hpa, in the extra tropics at about 580hpa. None of the graphs show anything but cooling from these altitudes to the tropospheres top, excecpt the raobcore data set. Furthermore all the graphs show warming in the statosphere 12-50 km but at which level i am unsure.
Are you blind or just stupid? The graphs definitely do not show what you think they do.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2014 - 01:28am PT
|
I would ask the same of you Phule, but i suppose that the graphed trend 0f between .00 to .02 per decade for the LT is significant compared to the margin of error to you even though it isn't the mid to upper troposphere.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2014 - 01:36am PT
|
I would ask the same of you Phule, but i suppose that the graphed trend 0f between .00 to .02 per decade for the LT is significant compared to the margin of error to you even though it isn't the mid to upper troposphere.
What are you talking about?
Can you please tell me the trend in the middle troposphere in the extra-northern hemisphere? Just so I know in what way you manage to interpret a simple graph.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2014 - 01:57am PT
|
Not actually agreeable at all, more like an argumentative a%hole, but that too is not relevant. It would be good to spend collective resources on useful things rather than making and criticizing predictions. No question that both "sides" are spending a lot of unnecessary money in that kind of activity. But I doubt if very much of the money that is spent on climate science is devoted to making alarming predictions. I bet the vast majority of the cost is in collecting the basic data. It's really expensive to get this info. And the more vociferous the criticism, the more need there is to collect millions of times more data. Take the blog you linked a bit ago, which said the models aren't using a fine enough grid to do accurate modeling. Well, fine, that just means that there needs to be many times more data collection devices and that much more high-cost scientist time to collect and work up the data, and computing power and time to do the analysis he recommends. How about if the entities that are so critical of the science chip in and collaborate to get the needed data and crunch numbers and refine models according to any points on which there's agreement? What about oceans? We have a so-so understanding, better than nothing, at present, but need hugely more basic data to resolve it more finely. That's expensive. So, I agree that the science should be improved - like every science - but it's hypocritical for skeptics to turn around and criticize the cost and the motivation. Better to figure out any basic points of agreement, specify the disagreements, and figure out how to resolve them one way or the other.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2014 - 02:05am PT
|
The tropospheric depth lessens the nearer the poles you go, from an average of 16 km at the equator to an average of 8 km at the poles. The extra tropics are defined as anything greater than 20 degrees north or south. So giving a generous decrease to 13 km at 20n that would correspond on my chart to approx 120hpa for top of trosphere and approx 450 hpa at mid troposphere. The MT in the NH at the lower altitude is clearly below .02 and at the TT clearly well below -.01.This is a decreasing rate of increase,mean value near .00, statistically insignificant against margin of error. So i read it as decrease since it is a product of a highly AGW biased organization regarless of there claim of independent origin.
Well TLP, i don't think anyone would be disagreeable if science provided new FF free energy technology at a cost anywhere near competitive to FF. So this is what puts the big lie to the whole affair in my mind. Why, if there is a consensus, is the majority of the CC studies money not going to solutions of the 95% certainty of a problem. You can claim it is to counter criticisms tell the cows come home, but it doesn't wash. The trend for proposed solutions always goes to reaching deeper into our pockets for "necessarily skyrocketing energy costs", carbon taxation, and limits to our mobility and freedom. I believe you are naive if you think that even a small portion of this increase of power and plunder they want to extract from the populace will go to actual solutions.
EDIT: Bruce- All hail The Chief. He's top dog in this pony show.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2014 - 02:30am PT
|
So giving a generous decrease to 13 km at 20n that would correspond on my chart to approx 120hpa for top of trosphere and approx 450 hpa at mid troposphere. The MT in the NH at the lower altitude is clearly below .02 and at the TT clearly well below -.01. This is a decreasing rate of increase,mean value near .00,
Please, put on a pair of glasses and look at the figure until you realize that what you write are incorrect. The trend is actually .2 degrees, 120 hPa (about 16000 m) is also a very high estimate for the height of the troposphere outside of the tropics and the mean calculation is way of (much more data close to .2 than -.1.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 11, 2014 - 03:08am PT
|
Where are the values for the x axis in your upper graph Ed? [Detailed description of why weights are irrelevant in the graph.]
...
here's the link to the weights:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/weighting_functions
rick, I think Ed just tore you a new ozone hole.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2014 - 10:37am PT
|
Illiterate^^^
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2014 - 01:03pm PT
|
I hoped you guys all enjoyed my replication of the CAGW crowds patterns of reality denial i demonstrated over Ed's graphs depicting multiple measurements of decadal trends in tropospheric and stratospheric temp changes. Here is the pattern- 1. Deny the reality of what is shown. 2. When forced to acknowledge change the parameters ( in this case pick an atmospheric level sympathetic to your interpretation) then claim statistical insignificance of contrary evidence while highlighting evidence supporting your position. 3. The final step in the process is to completely discount all the information as being from as biased from an unreliable source.
Getting to the truth though, the graphs don't show anywhere near the higher rate of of the mid troposphere warming predicted in GCM's.
Okay Ed, i read Santer et al.. What am i supposed to get out of this other than he detects serious overestimations in the values used for the main forcing agents (presumably GHG's) and the resulting projections of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling are outside the 5-95 certainty range of CMIP 5 models. He did identify human influence on climate as the major cause of the warming (ending i might add 15 years ago) by his fingerprint methods while excluding solar, volcanic or any KNOWN modes of internal variability.
EDIT: Ed where the hell are the volcano's Chiloe uses? Last time i checked there were a number of low level eruptions but the sum total dont add up to anywhere near a Pinatubo. And wasn't Pinatubo's effects short lived-2 to 3 years?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 11, 2014 - 01:49pm PT
|
Wow, The Chief. That InfoWars clip is sure eye opening for me, to see how they use spin to entice anger.
For example, the whole clip paints the Maddow segment as opposing veteran's rights. In fact, that whole segment was about how the Republicans and Tea Party were holding the gov't hostage using the threat of a shutdown in an attempt to get what they wanted.
InfoWars twists the basic focus of what Maddow is showing, and thus makes a straw-man argument, which they use to bash Maddow.
You have to understand who is writing what and why are they trying to influence one way or another. A skill not easy for the uncrafted.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2014 - 01:57pm PT
|
OK Ed. how about this from the same conclusion- "On average, the CMIP-5 models underestimate the observed cooling of the lower stratosphere and overestimate the warming of the troposphere. Biases are largest over the tropics and the southern hemisphere. Results presented here and elsewhere(40-42) suggest that forcing errors make an important contribution to such biases. These results point to the need for a more systematic exploration of the impact of forcing uncertainties on simulations of historical climate change". Looks to me like your exhibiting steps 1 and 2.
Okay they are asking for " more realistic treatment of stratospheric ozone depletion and volcanic aerosol forcing", in the abstract, which brings me again to the question of is their significant volcanic forcing currently or recent enough in the past to have an effect in Chiloes analysis. Last time i checked there has been no recent major eruptions and the combined total of all active volcanoes would be a small percentage of that from Pinatubo from 23 years ago?
EDIT: And can you please tell me what is wrong with the skeptical blog sites? They seem to be a wonderful resource, understandable to laymen, with guest articles from scientists identifying new mechanisms of climate change,and serious questioning of the IPCC conclusions. Is dissent not to be tolerated?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2014 - 02:51pm PT
|
I am concluding that you exhibit at least step 1 in the process of denial i listed above by cherry picking out what reinforces your beliefs while denying the reality of the whole, especially deficiencies noted in GCM's as well as Santer's admission of unknowns. I did the same thing amigo-cherry picking what i liked. On the whole the paper seems a balanced attempt at honest science.
I don't see why you fear and hate the skeptical blogs so. After all isn't science and the learning of it supposed to include a healthy dose of skepticism. The blogs level the playing field so average people, that will be affected by adverse impacts from either CC or the crippling and economically devastating suggested responses to it, can make informed judgements from both sldes of the debate.Isn't this the way it should be in a modern free society?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2014 - 03:36pm PT
|
Who in the hell doesn't include human influence Ed? We are the dominate species on planet Earth and possibly overpopulated, we are not outside of nature on planet Earth. It is impossible for humans to not have an effect on the climate. The extent compared to natural variability is the question.CAGW science will not be refuted by the blogs, it will be refuted by nature deviating from the GCM script to a degree that it is impossible for it's promoters to continue to deny. The blogs only highlight the ongoing deviation while providing a platform for alternative explanations such as provided by the likes of Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Judith Curry, Roger Pielke,Bob Tisdale, Willis eschenbach, the Idso family and many more- serious scientists all. They also cite reference material, analyse the sama data, conduct experiments, just like the AGW scientists. I might add, they are also immediately reviewed and in many instances criticised by their audience.
I am not a scientist Ed and therefore unable to produce anything but the crudest of reports of the hypothesis i may have. I'm too old to start now.
Does the above answer your questions Bruce. If you doubt me take a serious look for yourself
EDIT: Larry has shown that Bob Tisdale crossed himself off the above list. But that still leaves hundreds if not thousands in opposition. It's good that Larry feels the freedom to critically evaluate some of the material produced on Skeptics blogs, but for him to fear return criticism coming from that quarter only serves to show his confusion that the true enemy of his cherished beliefs is not critics but instead his inability to compensate for the shortcomings of AGW science as compared to observational reality.
Bruce, get it straight in your scattered brain- is it stupidity or ethics.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!