Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Why is the sharp rise in temps from 1910-1940 maladjusted downwards in the plot? Why is the plot only going to less than 2010 when it is now almost 2015? Why does the plot templine flatten from 2000 onwards when the GCM's continue upwards? Has Berkeley Earth adopted the phony infills of Cowtan and Way to exaggerate a rise over the last fifteen years when their was none, or so little it is within the range of uncertainty? Why do you Ed still incessantly try to pass off discredited excuses as science? Baffle the herd with bullshet, but please stop the same old song and dance with us.
maybe you should read their paper, and download the data to reproduce their results... then you could make a technical criticism of what they did.
it isn't discredited, you haven't done that, you've parroted what you have read on other blogs...
phony infills? you should look at what BEST did with their data, rick. Until you do, you really don't have much to offer in this discussion except your tired old complaints that the science doesn't agree with your "intuition."
you've got lousy intuition, and not only that, you don't have the slightest idea how to acquire intuition... let's just say it starts with your realizing you are wrong, and then working back from their.
The Chief, perhaps you should read the BEST methods paper too, I believe you can make the very same plots on that blog you're abusing... if only you knew what it was they were talking about in the plot options... you're like some midshipman on the flight deck in this domain, you don't know what you're talking about, but you're talking... maybe shut up and listen to someone who has a whole lot more experience than you do in these matters.
Only difference, you're not going to be killed or kill anyone else... maybe just your keyboard.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
Chief, I still can't quite figure out your issue.
Do you doubt that global temperature is increasing?
Do you doubt that the rate of change of temperature is out of accord with past climate change patterns?
Do you doubt the methods of extrapolating past temperatures based on tree ring records, paleo-pollen studies, etc? Or, past CO2 concentrations from trapped glacier ice gases?
Do you doubt that increased CO2 emissions are out of accord with historical patterns?
Do you doubt that at least a portion of the increased temperature is caused by human activity?
What is it that you want people to get?
Do you believe that all people who get the climate change issue are just politically motivated?
Do you just have a problem with the term climate change? It is, admittedly, a poor term since climate is always changing and always has.
It is most likely that a portion of the increasing temps represent a natural cycle. There is a lot of room for debate and the debate is legitimate if the members of the debate have enough grasp of the issue to have actual conversation and interchange. The science is not complete and no one who understands the science would say so. When you talk to the real deal non-industrial, pure science researchers who are collecting data in the field, you hear a lot of concern from these non-political academics. There is something goin on that ain't right and that don't fit historical models.
No, correlation is not causation, but it is grounds for further investigation. And, to those here who us reason to make their points, even if I don't agree with them, thank you!
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
You are mistaken, Chief, as there is indeed a great deal of empirical evidence that the rate of global temperature change is, at least, partly due to increased CO2 emissions relative to burning of carbon fuels. It has been posted here, but you ignore it in total or try to discredit it by nit picking details or present illegitimate critique of the data, data collection, or analysis. You could present some cogent arguments about the effect of human related carbon fuel use relative to other factors in the observed increased climate temperature. That is a conversation worth having. To position yourself that human activity isn't a factor at all doesn't hold up and saying it over and over again doesn't make the idea any better.
And, yes, those that say the changes we are observing is solely due to human activity are off base, but I don't believe that is what you are generally seeing here.
Do you believe that fossil fuel use does not account, at least in part, for increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the last 150 years?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2014 - 01:23am PT
|
Most of the authors in EDH's ref, NA Climate Report are gov't employees.
many are contractors, probably most are at the universities... but the plot above is not my plot, it is the work of the climate science community, and it does appear in the national climate assessment report....
year after year the case becomes better with more evidence and more observation.
The plots you make are not "temperatures in the log book" you should do a little research and see just what it is your are plotting.
You are clueless as to their origin or how they are produced. You have no idea at all, really.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2014 - 06:37am PT
|
You have a ref to that physical evidence that clearly and unequivocally depicts a human signature, Mark?
I have referred to what has already been posted here by others, most especially Ed, that does. You will not have a problem with the data methods, analysis, and graphs once you have audited some 101 science classes and make sure to throw in scientific methodology and statistics for good measure.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2014 - 07:00am PT
|
You have a ref to that physical evidence that clearly and unequivocally depicts a human signature
I refer you to the industrial revolution. that's only like, what? 150 years...
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 10, 2014 - 07:30am PT
|
Wow Mark, nicely done.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2014 - 08:24am PT
|
Wow, Chief, those last two posts are pretty random.
PS the total carbon footprint of electric and hybrid cars is not that great and makes diesel and biodiesel cars look better (algae biodiesel anyone?).
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 10, 2014 - 08:38am PT
|
Nice BALLCUPPING KaveMAN!
Somehow I don't picture The Chief as being one who is able to hold a rational discussion.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 10, 2014 - 08:51am PT
|
PS the total carbon footprint of electric and hybrid cars is not that great ...
Energy in the form of electricity is a difficult thing to cage--it keeps wanting to get out. There are no perpetual-motion machines and the 2nd law is always waiting to bite you.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2014 - 09:59am PT
|
CORRELATION now deems CAUSATION without any physical evidence.
ah, not quite... and it was understood in 1896 just what the underlying physical process for the surface temperature of the Earth was... CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
From that first paper we find a number of refinements in the ability to calculate, with accuracy, the global mean average of the surface temperature. Those calculations also provided a host of other checks, comparisons with observations.
We continue to add more in the calculations, which accounts for improving accuracy. As these bits of additional science get added in, the disagreements between the calculations and the observations improve that science, increasing the understanding.
If you are left jumping up and down yelling "correlation is not causation" then you really should save your energy and try to see what the causes are, as have been revealed by the correlation.
The accuracy of the climate science can be seen in the comparison of the model and the data. The BEST plot is an example,
Since Sketch can't get it I'll be more explicit. The predictions of climate science are represented by the models. The models are run with a variety of scenarios because the detailed inputs which are not a part of the climate dynamics (they aren't affected by climate, such as volcanic aerosols) and the precise occurrence of the various ocean oscillations (probably due to lack of observation of the entire ocean system) create an ensemble of results.
This ensemble is averaged to obtain a prediction of, in this case, the SST, which can then be compared to the observation. This prediction has all of the complex factors at a level where the physical mechanism of the particular process is known. Disagreements between the observation and the prediction then identifies what physical process might be contributing...
There are departures of the prediction from the observation of order 0.2șC throughout the 100 year time series. That is remarkable in that, taken seriously, the accuracy of the models are small compared with the overall magnitude of the temperature change of 1.4șC.
The models provide a way of identifying what the cause is, in detail. And the correlation of the change in SST and the increased concentration of CO2 is very much a part of the cause, as shown in the models based on physical principles.
While you might use a "linear trend line" to make a time projection, the slope and intercept of that line have no simple physical meaning. Without that connection there is nothing that can be learned regarding the climate with such a model.
The models can provide insight in some simpler analysis, like the one Chiloe reproduced upthread from the Forster & Ramsdorf paper. The models tell us what the largest factors are in the SST changes in time, one can take the indices of those factors and use them to make a prediction of how the SST will change... and get a very good accuracy. But finding that set of correlations without the model would not only be unlikely, but unsupported. Such analysis requires the weight of analysis provided by the models.
models are attacked but actually we make models of everything... even the "climate." One of our climate models have been that the climate doesn't change, it remains as variable as it always has been and that there isn't anything we can do about that.
That model has been put forward in this thread, but the scientific basis for it has not been fully expressed. Solar variability is very low, and does not account for the climate change observed in the plot above. While the smallness of the solar variability is a fact, the hypothesis that there is some climate amplifier of that variability has been suggested. After more than 10 years no physical mechanism has been revealed that would explain such an amplification... basically you use the same procedures, model the mechanism and see if the resulting prediction agrees with observation.
Another common objection to the modeling is that the system is "chaotic" and the detailed behavior of the climate system cannot be predicted. This criticism rests on a solid definition of what constitutes a "chaotic" system, and the characteristics are quantitative, and testable. We know that local weather forecasting has a reduced accuracy in two weeks, and I believe the reasons for this are well known, and often attributable to the characteristics of a "chaotic" system.
The issue is averaging over the entire system, as we do when we calculate the global mean temperature the very interesting question is how long into the future can we project that prediction before being overcome by the sensitivity of the dynamic system to the initial conditions?
Apparently, as evidenced in the graph above, we seem to be able to predict with the accuracy of 0.2șC a century ahead... Maybe we couldn't do that for 1000 years... but from a policy point of view we're already stretching the relevance of what we have to do today to prepare for what happens a century away.
But given that the changes that we're making persist over many decades, if not centuries, we can use those model predictions to be a reliable guide to what the consequences of our actions today are for the future.
It's an international issue, everything on the planet is affected, and the consequence of the way we currently generate energy.
No changes in energy generation results in the "2100 higher scenario" CO2 atmospheric concentration, two doublings of that concentration from the historic range going back nearly 1 million years. That would result in a 4șC increase in the SST less than a century away.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2014 - 10:50am PT
|
Ed - All those squiggle lines going back to 1880 paint a lovely picture. It shows how well model designers have been able to "curb fit" their models to be consistent with the historical record. A little tweak here or there... and voila... your model mimics the data. Hallelujah! Amen!
you keep making the assertion that the models are "adjusted" to fit... maybe you could back that assertion up?
otherwise, you don't have much of a criticism, especially since you don't know how the modeling is done.
[I assume you mean "from the date they were created..." why would that matter?]
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2014 - 11:20am PT
|
Medieval theologiansso goes the clichespent a lot of time arguing about
how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. (As with much medieval
theology, you had to be there to get why this mattered.)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2014 - 02:58pm PT
|
tuning a model... very familiar with the concept...
what's your beef?
in general, what are you tuning? you aren't setting the value of the SST directly, you actually have to adjust a physical parameter inside you model.
to the extent that you are allowed to do that (usually there are physical constraints) you affect all of the output. so it is a multidimensional adjustment, and a value is usually found that optimizes many different observations (not just SST in this instance).
where you cannot tune the model you find you are probably missing something, and adding it, you may have to adjust the parameters of those new physical models to get some degree of accuracy.
you are saying that we should know ab initio something like the gravitational constant? or that we "tune" it's value in response to more accurate experiments?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2014 - 05:18pm PT
|
whatever "derp" means...
as for the predictions, they are best if you have a sense of the accuracy of the prediction, so if you take the apparent current 0.2șC (that's the full width of the ensemble) then you have a good idea what the future holds under various CO2 emission scenarios.
whether or not you can discern the economic impact of 0.2șC is probably not relevant, what is relevant is the possibility of 1ș, 2ș or 4șC changes, the difference between the later two probably have some significant economic impact.
The accuracy of 0.2șC is not going to matter much.
So it comes down to establishing the accuracy of the models, and understanding how they are affected by unknowable inputs... such as volcanic activity. Once again, a range of scenarios is run and some sense of the variation of the predictions provides both a likely value but also the range of possible outcomes.
Or you can draw a straight line on a time series with a ruler and a crayon... (or the technological equivalent of that)...
...I'll take the models, and as refined (tuned) as they get.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2014 - 06:10pm PT
|
You are one loony wackadoodle Eddy. The GCM's are thus far a complete failure and apparently your among the last inhabitants of planet Earth to figure this out. They started this criminal enterprise with the wrong simple minded premise, that CO2 is the primary control knob for atmospheric heating/cooling, then misspent a good portion of a scientific generation and untold quantities of the fruits of taxpayer sweat and toil on a near continuous defense stance of the GCM's while "tuning" the models furiously to achieve some resemblance to observational reality. It aint working amigo, the gig is up. For knowledge's sake it's a pity that an all out effort wasn't made in the beginning to learn and parameterize all processes, known and unknown, that are involved in the tremendously complex coupled Ocean/land/atmosphere/solar climate engine/geological activities/biota that make up the habitable environment. When the pols finally realize the futility of using this broken down vehicle for travel to the desired state of totalitarian fascism there will be hell to pay for the scientific community.
Why don't we talk about the reality of what you folks really want. Can any of you wackadoodles explain how this utopian world you envision will actually work as an improvement of the human condition?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2014 - 06:20pm PT
|
gee rick, you don't even understand what you're talking about...
take a deep breath, calm down, and look at the plot
pretty dang good, considering the simulations pass through a climate window early in the run and then evolve for 100 years, tracking the SST (and other variables) along the way.
you've got anything better?
and while you keep your slander of quantum mechanics going (which is why CO2 does what it does) you don't have anything to show for it...
you've even stopped the pretense of quoting cranks and quacks and just keep stating the big lie...
over and over again.
guess it works for you.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2014 - 06:41pm PT
|
Absolutely Certifiable,right there.^^^^^^[rick]
More proof that CC is a hoax.
Yes,we are out to save the world and simultaneously destroy it at the same time.
Cannot go backwards.There are ways to protect this place for future generations,and that survivalism will win out.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!