Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road... 43

[ewh]

What is the reputation of the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a organization of 50 "top" scientists) in the engineering community? I really don't know how reliable they are, but a study (Climate Change Reconsidered II) produced by them and published by the Heartland Institute (an organization which espouses other ideas I disagree with) claims to be "double peer reviewed" and presents a seemingly well-founded arguement that AGW is a political red herring.
I am not a climate scientist, but thought that this was a good example of one side of the differing dogmas surrounding the issue. Just how is a layman supposed to make sense of these opposing arguments?

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

or the summary

http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[TomDOT]

Probability continues to increase for El Nino conditions:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

If I am understanding the arguments correctly, the global average temperatures seen during an El Nino event should be higher, and if they are, will support the climate change consensus explanation of the temperature pause. In an El Nino event, we should be seeing record-high (or near record high) temperatures for the year.

 

[ewh]

GrandpaDave,
I do still lurk here, trying to soak in as much info as I can while ignoring the ad hominem attacks... my last post was 22 May 14 8:27.
I have no objection to closing the thread, but a new one will probably pop back up again before very long. There have been over 1400 responses over a series of related threads so far, and my ulterior motive for starting this one was the time it took to load the former thread.


“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[GrandpaDave]

ewh... That's probably a record on hits... Congrads
This subject will continue for a long time.
I'm still not convinced that the science is closed.
I'm all for clean water and clean air. But I'm not
for shutting down coal and oil as the President's
regulation are doing. The regs should result in cleaner
coal and oil uses and management. Keystone should
move forward.
G-pa

 

[ornerynorsk]

Science is simply relative to what is well known and completely understood, with sound postulation and the testing and development of correct theories. I don't think climatology and all of its inter-related mechanisms fits that litmus test just yet. History is full of junk science and quackery, and this area is truly in its infancy. Too much so that conclusions are not even a valid response at this point. After all, the earth was once the center of our solar system. Only after sufficient observation did it finally get sorted out, and if memory serves, one of our great scientists narrowly escaping the chopping block.

When the penalty phase is ramped up and pushed for at this stage of understanding and whole industries slated for obsolescence without sound reasoning, this sets off the alarm bells. We are letting politics once again choose the winners and losers by allowing the science to be corrupted and biased toward whomever is funding it. With funding the way it is, it would take a very mature and insightful body to keep bias out of it, but when you pay for something, you want your money's-worth, right? This is why people are so skeptical, myself included.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[beej67]

If they'd just hurry up with those gulf stream turbines we could have all the free energy we need, usable as regular base load without all the hassle of wind and solar. Seems like a much better thing to throw federal money at than carbon freakoutery, regardless of whether you believe the freakoutery or not.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[btrueblood]

Nice link, Tom. Agree, let's see where the next El Nino takes us. If by this time next year, the global average temperature is fully 1 C or more above the last several years, we may begin to have something to talk about...unless the following La Nina takes all of that anomaly away again and more.

 

[ornerynorsk]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/23/taxpayers-paid-56-million-for-climate-change-games/

Yeah, this. This is the kind of BS we definitely don't need.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[GregLocock]

If you look at the temperature record of the 20th century it does look as though the basic behavior is a series of sudden jumps, followed by long plateaus. This could be ENSO, or some other oceanic mechanism, absorbing and releasing massive amounts of heat over a cycle with a length of decades. (It's a brilliant arse saving theory because the temperature changes are unmeasurably small and vary spatially, and we only have a few buoys measuring them)

But the jumps and plateau theory looks a bit suss in the long term.

Here's a 5 year moving average of the part of the CET I am working with at the moment. I like the CET as it is actual measured temperatures, not tree rings.





Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[SomptingGuy]

I have a feeling that operational gulf stream turbines would stir up Central English Temperatures. A very big butterfly.

- Steve

 

[rconnor]

GregLocock, I’m rather confused as to what your point is. CET is not a global temperature data set. To highlight this, 2010 was globally the hottest year on record for HadCRUT4 (and every other data set) but was the coldest since 1986 for HadCET. While CET may be a very accurate data set, it is not representative of anything besides regional temperatures. Furthermore, I need to ask why your graph stops at ~1975? HadCET data is available all the way up to 2014. My guess would be because you are going off Manley 1974.

I’m unsure of what conclusions you are trying to draw or have us draw from showing a regional data set up to ~1975. It certainly has nothing to do with global climate because it’s purely regional data. It certainly has nothing to do with recent warming because it ends in ~1975 and the trend after ~1980 climbs rapidly. There was a downward trend starting around 2005. The most notable drops occurred in 2010 (which, again, highlights the variability in dealing with such an isolated region and the inability to extend any conclusions globally), 2012 and 2013. However, thus far, 2014 appears to be back to the upward trend seen since 1980. Regardless, the period from 2005 is likely to be highly effected by the high variability of a small region.

Regarding the staircase effect on global temperature trends, ENSO is certainly an aspect and, during some periods, the most dominate one. However, aerosols (both from volcanoes and humans) and solar activity need to be taken into account. None of this suggests lower sensitivity nor does it suggest a natural driver to recent climate change. Quite the contrary actually, as ENSO alone cannot be attributed to a continual rise in OHC and long-term temperature trends and solar activity is moving in the opposite direction than temperatures. Aerosols from natural sources are short term and aerosols from humans are increasing but the fact that they continue to rise while global temperatures and OHC do as well suggests that they have a smaller cooling effect than the warming effect of CO2. A complete understanding of the CO2 theory, ENSO, solar activity and aerosols does both explain and simulate the changes seen in the temperature record. By “brilliant arse saving theory”, I’m guessing you actually mean “best theory as supported by empirical data and our scientific understanding”.

 

[GregLocock]

"I’m rather confused"

yes, obviously.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[GrandpaDave]

Greg...

You must not up set the resident, self appointed expert.
You see if you don't agree or have another opinion you
are wrong.

Oops, my tongue is stuck in my cheek again. Sorry.

G-pa Dave

 

[TenPenny]

Apparently, if the Lord mentions you by name, you are expected to reply with a well-supported response. Including 8x10 color glossy photos, with circles and arrows, and a paragraph on the back of each one.

Me, I just eat popcorn instead, after he slagged me for not responding appropriately.

Why anyone expects this thread to result in any sort of reasoned discourse escapes me.

 

[TGS4]

rconnor - my reply to you is not ad hominem. I am not invalidating your arguments by attacking your person (the very definition of the term). In my post, I make no comment about your arguments. Rather, I am simply ridiculing you, or, if you prefer, exposing you to ridicule, for what I perceive as your whiny attitude of "I have presented the evidence, why won't anyone believe me...".

I do applaud you for not resorting to the inflammatory language used by some of the warmunists. I am particularly puzzled when I get referred to as a denier -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denier_(unit)#Denier.

However, by not explicitly calling out climate communication idiots like Mike Mann or Dana Nutticelli for their ridiculously over-the-top agenda-above-nuance screech-fests, you end up no better than they are. I suspect that a more-nuanced approach to understanding certainty can be provided by Dr. Curry who has blogged extensively on the topic. Even if all of the evidence that you have presented demonstrates (at least in your perspective) sufficient cause to demonstrate causal relationships and future concern, you need to acknowledge the uncertainty inherent in EVERYTHING related to the evidence, not the least of which is small things like selection bias, measurement uncertainty, etc. You look at a certain line of evidence (or multiple lines of evidence, as you have repeated reminded us) and see not only past certainty but future certainty which compels a particular set of actions. I look at the same evidence and see wide uncertainty bands that demonstrates only past uncertainty and absolutely no future certainty. Therefore, I am compelled to wait for more data. That doesn't make me (or anyone who has the same perspective) #antiscience or #climatedenier or part of the supposedly vast conspiratorial #kochmachine.

And if you bring up consensus, I will keep bringing up h. pylori, phlogiston, relativity and all sorts of other "settled science". And an appeal-to-authority will bring a reminder of that simple chap in the Swiss patent office.

 

[GregLocock]

Perhaps a good question might be, why does the CET record, which was done with thermometers, not show the long term trend that the other more politically convenient estimates of historical temperature, using tree rings and so on, do? Now I can see there are problems with CET, it is largely influenced by the ocean, and as discussed previously, the ocean temperature does not change much due to the enormous heat capacity compared with the atmosphere. Additionally the UK has its own form of central heating via the Gulf Stream, so perhaps CET is really a measure of the strength/location/temperature of the Gulf Stream, rather than a proxy for the global temperature.

Well when I've finished messing about with ENSO/CET I might have a look at politically convenient temperature reconstructions vs CET.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[beej67]

Hey TenPenny, save me a spot on the Group W Bench, would you? I'm still waiting for rconnor's new thread where he explains, in detail...

...how turning over control of an arbitrarily concocted derivatives market, designed to manipulate all United States carbon emissions, to the same clowns who crashed the US economy for giggles in 2008, will reverse global warming (from all sources) without any participation from China, India, or the Middle East.

He promised us it was forthcoming.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[beej67]

Ran across this today:

http://www.cato.org/blog/current-wi...ndy-carbon-tax-temperature-savings-calculator

Using our calculator, you can specify

the carbon dioxide emissions reduction amount (calculated from the 2005 baseline) that will take place by the year 2050 (and remain in place thereafter),
the region which will take part in the emissions reduction plan (the United States, or for the more optimistic, the industrialized nations of the world),
and the climate sensitivity (how much you think the global average temperature will increase as a result of a doubling of the pre-industrial atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration). The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) modestly-educated guess is 3.0°C, but a collection of reports from the recent scientific literature puts the value around 2.0°C, and based on recent global temperature behavior, a value of 1.5°C may be most appropriate. Not wanting to leave firebrands like former NASA employee James Hansen out of the fun, we include the option of selecting an extremely high climate sensitivity value of 4.5°C.

The results from our calculator are produced from climate change calculations performed using the MAGICC climate model simulator (MAGICC: Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change). MAGICC was developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research under funding by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

It's a pretty great way to apply current modeling to potential policy, in a way that rconnor has been very reluctant to do, whenever someone presses him on it. And the results are quite interesting.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[TenPenny]

Now I can see there are problems with CET, it is largely influenced by the ocean, and as discussed previously, the ocean temperature does not change much due to the enormous heat capacity compared with the atmosphere.

Wouldn't the ocean's effect make the CET a more accurate representation of the earth as a whole, or is the goal to consider atmospheric temperature only, not the temperature of the earth? I know it's only one geographical location, but if you're considering long term changes due to man's activity, doesn't it make sense to do that in a specific location that has active humans in it?

Where the ocean is in effect a large capacitor, if you are considering the earth, don't you have to include it as part of the system?

 

[rconnor]

GregLocock, although humorous, your first response does little to help answer my question. As I am genuinely intrigued by the prospect of your analysis, I am interested in clarifying your intention and methods. Which is why I appreciate your second response as it attempts to address my question. However, your second response only adds to my confusion (or, rather, illustrates my point).

why does the CET record, which was done with thermometers, not show the long term trend that the other more politically convenient estimates of historical temperature, using tree rings and so on, do?

Ignoring the unnecessary verbiage, you still have not addressed why using a regional data set up to 1974 is at all relevant to a discussion on global climate change. As I stated, although you feel it is much more accurate than other data sources, it is a regional data set that is not necessarily reflective of global temperatures. Furthermore, your statement that CET shows a different long-term trend than other global paleoclimate data is untrue, on top of being irrelevant.

[image

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/2005/berkeley12vshadcet12mon.png

]

Clearly, the trends match each other closely, with CET having much higher year-to-year variability. Again, this highlights the inherent variability in looking at such a small regional data set and the inability to project conclusions globally. Beyond that, the only conclusion that could be reached by the comparison is that CET, which you believe is much more accurate, validates the other data sets. Although I feel this is, unfortunately, contrary to your opinion.

The irrelevancy of CET data only grows when you are attempting to provide some link to ENSO events. Why use CET (north Atlantic) data when trying to conclude something about ENSO (which develop in the equatorial Pacific)? Might I suggest looking at AMO, which would be much more relevant to CET data.

There certainly are multi-decadal oscillations (hence the “MO” in AMO) prior to the rapid increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, with the temperature trend of both CET (regional, AMO) and BEST (global, AMO and ENSO) following roughly sinusoidal trends. This is in keeping with our understanding of both AMO and ENSO, which have a significant short term effect on temperature, oscillating between positive and negative, but have no inherent mechanism that could result in a long term imbalance. Conversely, after the rapid increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, both CET and BEST seem to follow an equation roughly closer to T(t)= sinX(t) + Y(t). Note this is also during a time when solar activity was in decline and aerosols were increasing, both of which should contribute to decreasing temperatures.

To say that ENSO (or AMO) are responsible for the recent long-term warming trend would be contrary to the physical understanding of these phenomena and contrary to both paleoclimate and modern data, including your chosen (but still irrelevant) CET data set. Yet, when the complete picture is taken into account (CO2, solar, aerosols, ENSO, AMO, albedo, etc) you can both explain and simulate temperature trends, with CO2 being central to both paleo and modern observations.

I remain interested in your analysis and am hoping that you can provide clarification if and where I have misunderstood your intentions. However, I also remain skeptical of both the relevancy and accuracy of any conclusions regarding recent global climate change that can be drawn by connection ENSO and CET data up to 1974.

To aid you in your research, this might be of use and this.

TGS4, you were attempting to invalidate my argument by attacking my person. My argument was that the lack of coherency and lack of defense against rebuttals has severely denigrated this debate. You responded by saying I was whining that people weren’t agreeing with me. This purposefully misses the point, in an attempt to portray me as arrogant and whiny (which is likely true but is nevertheless irrelevant). You’ve continued to miss the point in this reply, so let me be clear:

My issue is not that people disagree with me. My issue is that people are unwilling to engage in any sort of debate. When presented with facts and figures that counter their claims, very infrequently do people address such rebuttals. In order for the quality of this debate to improve, from both sides, this needs to be addressed. But after reading these replies, I’m not holding my breath that this will happen. (and if you consider this whining, then I suppose we have different definitions of what a rational dialogue is)

Beej, I have not replied because:
1) by addressing each and every one of your posts, I feel complicit in this nonsensical charade of random, unrelated arguments. At the very least it encourages and slightly validates it, so I will stop.
2) almost all of my criticisms of the litany of unrelated and unsupported arguments you’ve present remain open, without defense by you. I’d encourage you to defend previous arguments before opening new ones.
3) the demand that I address your posts presents a frustrating double standard. It’s a game that I will no longer take part in.
4) IPCC reports clearly outline temperature projections along different emission paths. As you’ve said you read the reports in detail, I’m sure you’re familiar with them and, thus, I shouldn’t be required to restate it.
5) you’ve manufactured a straw man scenario that is not representative of real attempts to reduce CO2 emissions, at least not the attempts I advocate for. You’ve failed to address those that I do advocate for, such as revenue-neutral carbon taxes that have had success in BC.
6) As stated to cranky a while back, what to do to minimize climate change is a separate question than whether or not climate change is caused by anthropogenic CO2. If you don’t agree it’s caused by anthropogenic CO2 than discussing what to do about it is meaningless. If you’re willing to state that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the primary cause of climate change and that future, unmitigated climate change will be negative, then I suppose I could talk about mitigation measures with you.
7) I’ve been busy organizing, preparing my soccer team for and going to a showcase tournament out of town, which I just got back from.

 

[GregLocock]

All I am doing is looking at reconstructed ENSO strength, and HADCET, and seeing if there is any correlation between them in a signal analysis sense, using the standard methods I would use when examining the relationship between any two signals. If ENSO does not share signal characteristics with HADCET then it seems unlikely that the ENSO is affecting HADCET, and so the dog ate my homework theory is less believable. If on the other hand one or the other is a leading indicator for the other then we can make testable predictions.

Well I'm glad HADCET is a reasonable proxy for global temps, that's one less argument.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?