The Impact of "Small" Volcanic Eruptions on Earth's Climate 11

[Maui]

These "small" volcanic eruptions are being viewed by some scientists as potentially having a greater influence on earth's climate than was previously believed:

http://www.rdmag.com/news/2015/01/s...?et_cid=4359172&et_rid=407330416&location=top

Please do not allow the vitriolic verbal pyrotechnics of your fellow contributors overshadow the points that you are attempting to make in your replies.

Maui

 

[rconnor]

I think you mean MBH98 (MM05 was Mckitrick's criticism of Mann's paper, MBH98). But yes, that is likely their thought process. Of course it's flawed because the issues MM05 had with MBH98 were largely superficial to the main conclusions (on top of the fact that many of the more recent papers used different techniques entirely). But, so it goes.

Isn't it telling that we've been around the block a few times when we can just predict the arguments before they happen? I suppose it highlights the futility of trying to show the science. But I do have faith in the ability of some to honestly review the information and learn a bit.

 

[cranky108]

So what is being proposed other than more taxes? Paint buildings roofs white anyone?

Engineers solve problems. What solutions are being offered? Self driving cars? more robots? The internet? These haven't made one inch of a solution.
Solar panels to cover the white sands of New Mexico?

 

[rb1957]

we agree to disagree. MBH may well be 17 years old, but it was the "poster child" for the climate change "debate" and Al Gore, etc.

sure others may have used other data models but as far as I know these haven't be reviewed in the same manner, and I can see why. I mean it took M&M 7 years to publish ! ok, a little less as they had to do their analysis. IMO these models are based on the same data as MBH98 and they're getting the same result ... so maybe they're just as flawed ?

The issues M&M had with the MBH98 ... sure a lot were technical, but they found data being copied (incorrectly) and their key finding was random noise produced the same hockey stick. That is way more than a "technical" issue.

but, as you say, this is old news, the "science" has moved on. we agree to disagree ... if I was buying the palace that is AGHG, I'd like to know that there's a sewer in the basement.

I'm not saying Mann is morally bankrupt. I do think that when he got the result he expected he said "eureka!" and in seeing the forest, lost sight of some of the trees; a very human reaction. and I think the reviewers (who clearly didn't interrogate the data model) said "yes, this is good" in part because it's what they expected and wanted to see and in part because Mann is a well known scientist; again a very human reaction.





another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[IRstuff]

sure others may have used other data models but as far as I know these haven't be reviewed in the same manner, and I can see why. I mean it took M&M 7 years to publish ! ok, a little less as they had to do their analysis. IMO these models are based on the same data as MBH98 and they're getting the same result ... so maybe they're just as flawed ?

> Or, they're getting the same result because that's what is happening -- Occam's Razor would say that the simpler answer, which is that all the data is, in fact, correct, as opposed to concocting conspiracy upon conspiracy, falsified data on a global scale, hundreds of people lying, etc.

The issues M&M had with the MBH98 ... sure a lot were technical, but they found data being copied (incorrectly) and their key finding was random noise produced the same hockey stick. That is way more than a "technical" issue.

> Their key finding was random noise COULD produce a hockey stick, but only by "tuning, the noise, but you are suggesting that EVERY dataset taken ALL have the same noise that produces the SAME hockey stick. Again, Occam's Razor would say that the more likely story is that the only way to refute the overwhelming weight of evidence is to claim a massive conspiracy wherein hundreds of scientists are all lying and fudging data. After all this time, one would think that someone would weaken under that burden of guilt in deceiving all those gullible left wingers and confess to their part of the conspiracy.

This is oddly, well, perhaps not that oddly, reminiscent of those that believe that the Moon landings were faked. Again, they claim that all the data, all the records are fudged, and that thousands of people participated in the falsification of landings and the videos, etc., yet, likewise, no one has stepped forward under their burden of guilt to confess to faking the Moon landings.



TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529


Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
There is a homework forum hosted by engineering.com:

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

 

[rb1957]

I'm not saying the data is fudged, I'm suggesting that if a noise input gives the same result as a data input, then the result is less dependent on the input (and more dependent on the processing). hence what value is the result ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[IRstuff]

That's fine for a single occurrence in a single set of data, but you're asking for suspension of reality if you think that every single dataset is showing the same thing because of the same noise. Moreover, they speculated on a noise mechanism that has no basis in reality; because if it were real, it would have manifested itself all over the place, and not just to be coincidentally aligned with AGW.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529


Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
There is a homework forum hosted by engineering.com:

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

 

[GTTofAK]

A little bit both Burger et al. and Stockwell er al concluded that all statistical reconstructions would tend towards a hockey stick. It's fundamental, temperatures are tending only trending one way during the calibration period. Take any red noise. If you keep the series that correlate to the 20th century. The average of those series will be a hockey stick. If you can't see that in your head you should quit your profession.

 

[GTTofAK]

"That's fine for a single occurrence in a single set of data, but you're asking for suspension of reality if you think that every single dataset is showing the same thing because of the same noise. Moreover, they speculated on a noise mechanism that has no basis in reality; because if it were real, it would have manifested itself all over the place, and not just to be coincidentally aligned with AGW. "

Would you mind restating this in English. Nothing in this gibberish of an explanation makes any sense. If at all it shows that you have 0 clue what you are talking about when it comes to statistical temperature reconstructions.

Its also wrong to think that every temperature reconstruction is a hockey stick, a believe that is what you mean by data set. Even the reconstruction in censored folder on Mann's ftp server wasn't a hockey stick. Why was the hockey stick reconstruction the one that was published while the one sitting in the "censored" folder forgotten? Mann didn't just remove the Grabyill chronology at random. He removed it because he knew then that the veracity of the series as a temperature proxy was doubtful. If anything the reconstruction sitting in the "censored" folder is the better reconstruction because it uses better data. So why was it discarded and the hockey stick published?

 

[GTTofAK]

"But you know what, you want to think Mann is morally bankrupt, you want to think that "climategate" demonstrates wrong-doing by a handful of climate scientists, go right ahead. However, thinking that doesn't mean climate science is false nor does this mean that the entire scientific community is morally bankrupt.

There's a story that demonstrates this perfectly. One scientist thought the exact same things you did about MBH98 and about "climategate", maybe even stronger. This scientist stated that because of those events, "I now have a list of people, who's paper's I won't read anymore". He was so put of by this, he questioned the entirety of climate science. So, what did he do? Well, he started his own research group to investigate the science and repeat the work in a transparent manner. What did this scientist find? Well, that the science was accurate and that "Humans are almost entirely the cause [of climate change]" (quote, written by the scientists, can be found in the reference in next sentence). He known refers to himself as a converted skeptic. Yes, it's Richard Muller."

Yes there is a story. Thats all it is a story. Or as some would prefer to call it a bald faced lie. Yes Mann is morally bankrupt and you have supported him by telling a story for an equally morally bankrupt individual.

He known refers to himself as a converted skeptic. Yes, it's Richard Muller."

Ah yes such a story. Its easy to tell such stories when you are a morally bankrupt liar. Lets look at some quotes from this skeptic before he converted.

November 3, 2011
“It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic — only a scientific skeptic,” he said in a recent email exchange with The Huffington Post. “Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller ‘Physics for Future Presidents’ I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blackberry/p.html?id=1072419

December 17, 2003
"“Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.”

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/2/

October 7, 2008
"If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion - which he does, but he’s very effective at it - then let him fly any plane he wants."

http://grist.org/article/lets-get-physical/

November 2,2008
"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse."

http://www.wired.com/2008/11/physics-the-nex/

Wow such a skeptic. The first thing someone is willing to do for their beliefs is lie. The converted skeptic narrative made for good press so what if it isn't true. Dont you know the world is a at stake.

 

[GTTofAK]

A more reasonable opinion is that of “group-think”. But this fails to recognize that you advance in academia by proving your peers wrong, not agreeing with them. Scientists are looking to be the ones to bust the consensus, not conform to it. Getting scientists to agree is a little like herding cats. Furthermore, the idea behind “group-think” implies that the thought shared by the group is inherently wrong. This is a non-sequitar.

Bull for every Einstein there are literally hundreds if not thousands who advanced themselves by kissing ass. In today's day and age where the politicians have immense control over who gets promoted its even worse. Ass kissers out number free thinking rogues by orders of magnitude.

You have to be truly gifted to change the paradigm. There is a reason we know the names of Einstein, Newton, etc. They are rare very very very rare. How do you think the other hundreds of thousands of scientists put food in the table. They kissed ass.

 

[cranky108]

There is some truth to the old adige "Those who can do, and those who can't teach". And I would not be suprised if anyone can point out a few on either side of the argument. Most of these guys are trolls for grants, either from the government, or private industry. I expect there aim in either case is to produce the results there financer expects.

Al Gore is nothing more than a money grabbing hypocrite. If he really believe what he was saying he would live it.

Carbon offsets? Yes if you give me money to grow a tree, and you would have no way to verify that I am growing that tree, then the answer is yes I will grow you that tree.

I just can't stand the decept from either side. It is much more palatable that the non-warming side does not expect me to send them my money for dodgy schemes.

 

[IRstuff]

"It is much more palatable that the non-warming side does not expect me to send them my money for dodgy schemes."

That's just precisely what they want you to think; until the tipping point is reached, and they can charge you whatever the market will bear to alleviate your misery. There is little profit in prevention; there's always more profit in "fixes" after the fact. Once they make their money, they can afford to buy the higher ground and charge you accordingly for that as well.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529


Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
There is a homework forum hosted by engineering.com:

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

 

[2dye4]

GTT

""A little bit both Burger et al. and Stockwell er al concluded that all statistical reconstructions would tend towards a hockey stick""

Surely not this bit of nonsense.

http://88.167.97.19/albums/files/TM...ng_series_with_red_noise_AIGNews_Mar06_14.pdf

 

[cranky108]

There is little profit in prevention; there's always more profit in "fixes" after the fact.
Just ask Al Gore how much he has made in prevention technology?

It cuts both ways. Create a problem, and charge people to fix it. Sort of like virus software.
What will happen with all the defunct wind towers in 20 years? And solar panels when they don't work?

Are these fixes to a problem, or a jobs program created by the government? Do they really produce more energy than is used to create them?
I don't know the answers, but I doubt very many other people know either.

 

[rconnor]

rb1957, firstly, I think that I should acknowledge that you aren’t purporting a conscious suppression of “proper science” but mere “confirmation bias”, as made clear in your last paragraph.

You say, we agree to disagree but I’m unsure of where your disagreement comes in and whether our disagreement matters to the main point, which is - how and why does this matter to climate science today?. I’d like to go through a couple possible objections that could arise from MM05 (and the rest of the “hockey stick” saga). Please let me know which objection(s) you agree with and how and why it matters to climate science today. If I haven’t exactly captured the wording of your objection, please feel free to correct and elaborate.

1) MM05 and the “hockey stick” topic makes you question the character of Michael Mann
From what I’ve read, Mann is arrogant and cocky. Many scientists, that agree with the science on climate change, say that had Mann simply acknowledged the technical issues in the first place, no one would be talking about it today. It was his aggressive defense (or attacking of his attackers) that made it seem like he was “hiding something”. Had he simply went “ya, there’s some issues. We’ve corrected them and still get the exact same conclusion.” (which Wahl and Ammann 2007 did) people would have moved on. A great piece on the entire “hockey stick” issue can be found here. I’d highly recommend reading it as it’s a fun read and relatively unbiased.

So if you question the character of Mann, I’d hardly oppose that view. However, the main question is, so what?

Impact on climate science today
None. If Mann is a questionable character or not, it means absolutely nothing to modern climate science. Mann is not the only one studying paleoclimate nor is he the sole voice of the paleoclimate community. Disregarding all of his papers, you’d still have the same main conclusions in the paleoclimate science and climate science in general.

Questioning the character of a scientists does not allow one to conclude that all the science is questionable. Doing so highlights a sever lack of comprehension on just how robust and diverse the evidence supporting climate change science really is. Seriously, it’s nuts. Go to the references in any chapter of any IPCC report and look at how many different scientific papers, from different authors from different institutions and journals, are referenced. To accuse all of them (them being scientists, institutions, journals and reviewers) of having the same “confirmation bias” is difficult to believe (especially with nothing but a hunch and a few anecdotal examples to support it).

2) To you, MM05 demonstrates that MBH98 is fundamentally flawed
MM05 points out some issue that are technically correct. Other issues raised by MM05 are due to an incorrect analysis/assumptions done by MM05. Huybers 2005, Wahl and Ammann 2007 and Rutherford 2005 demonstrate this.

Taking into account the issues raised by MM05, what impact does that have on the conclusions of MBH98? Does it completely nullify the main conclusion (that the extent and rate of warming in the late 20th century is anomalous)? No, it does not. Apply the “corrections” suggested in MM05 and here’s what you get (from Wahl and Ammann 2007, Figure 2.):
[image

http://s3.postimg.org/ek5k44psz/Wahl_Ammann_2006_figure_2.jpg

]

Impact on climate science today
Seeing as MM05 really doesn’t change the conclusion of MBH98, it could hardly have any impact on climate science today. But let’s forget that for a minute. Let’s assume (incorrectly) that MM05 does demonstrate that MBH98 is fundamentally flawed, then what?

Still nothing. MBH98 is not the sole paleoclimate reconstruction. Again, I’d encourage you to visit NOAA’s Paleoclimate Network (PCN) which contains 92 temperature records. Or have a look through the “List of large-scale temperature reconstructions of the last 2,000 years” Wikipedia page (which contains links to the (30+) specific papers). Or the PAGES 2K Consortium (and FAQ).

3) …But all those studies were based off MBH98. So, if MBH98 is wrong, they all are wrong
This thought is false on pretty well all accounts. Firstly, MBH98 is not fundamentally wrong. As shown, if you incorporate the criticisms of MM05, the late 20th century (and early 21st century) is still warmer than any other period in the reconstruction. Secondly, the subsequent studies use different (and increasingly better and more robust) data sets and use a variety of different techniques (some don’t use PCA at all). This is demonstrated in Rutherford et al 2004 (Mann was a co-author). They conclude “These
evaluations suggest that differing methods of reconstruction (e.g., different CFR techniques or local calibration approaches) yield nearly indistinguishable results if differences in underlying proxy network, target season, and target region are controlled for.” Furthermore, they state, “Finally, the evidence for exceptional late-twentieth century warmth in the context of the period since A.D. 1400 (in warm, cold, and annual temperatures) is a robust conclusion with respect to all of the factors considered.”

If you don’t like that Mann was a co-author, then look at the PAGES 2K information. They examine a much wider range (and more updated) data sets and techniques and specifically state “On the basis of our current assessment, about 360 of our 511 records were not used in the reconstruction of Mann et al. (2008, 2009)” and Mann was not an author of the Consortium (neither was Bradley, Hughes, Ammann, Rutherford nor Jones for that matter).

It should also be noted that many of the techniques, such as “climate field reconstruction” (CFR) methods, do not utilize techniques that were criticized in Von Storch et al 2004 (VS04) or Burger and Cubasch 2005 (BC05)/Burger et al 2006 (BFC06). Despite VS04 being criticized (and subsequently GC05 and BFC06, which are based off VS04) by such papers as Wahl et al 2006, these papers are irrelevant to most paleoclimate reconstructions because they use different techniques than criticized by VS04, BC05 and BFC06. Again, the criticism of some possible techniques for reconstructions is not evidence (in the slightest) to suggest that all reconstructions are flawed.

So not only does it appear incorrect to conclude that MBH98 is fundamentally flawed but, even if we were to conclude that, it would be meaningless as the subsequent papers and reconstructions, from different authors, using different data sets and different techniques, all broadly agree with the same conclusion. To quote PAGES 2K,

The 20th century ranked as the warmest or nearly the warmest century in all regions except Antarctica. During the last 30-year period in the reconstructions (1971-2000 CE), the average reconstructed temperature among all of the regions was likely higher than anytime in nearly 1400 years. However, some regions experienced 30-year intervals that were warmer than 1971-2000. In Europe, for example, the average temperature between 21 and 80 CE was warmer than during 1971-2000.

In light of this, I’m unsure what parts you disagree with and why you do. I feel that you’ve read some things that sound convincing (or damning) but, in the broader context, those arguments just don’t hold up. If you want to hold a different opinion than that I’ve PAGES 2K, your going against the entire field of paleoclimatology. And you’d do this with no leg to stand on because even if you want to throw away all of Mann’s work and embrace MM05 as truth, it doesn’t change the conclusion in the slightest.

So, rb1957, I don’t believe it’s good enough to say we’ll agree to disagree. You simply cannot discuss this in isolation of MBH98 or Michael Mann in general.
Either we agree, and I misunderstand your position, or you disagree with the entire field of paleoclimatology and, I’m afraid to say, reject all the papers, research and data.

 

[cranky108]

Not to open old wounds, but this has some interesting points:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcm...not-helping-the-cause-climate-scientist-says/

Maybe the big government thing is not the best enforcement.

 

[GTTofAK]

“I think environmental advocates have done a disservice by trying to amplify heat by saying we’re going to be alarmists, we’re going to scare you into agreeing. People don’t scare into agreeing,” said Elisabeth Moyer, a University of Chicago climate scientist who co-directs the Center for Robust Decision Making on Climate and Energy Policy.

“The only way we can do this is back off, get some perspective, start talking about solutions and get away from that sort of sense of fear that’s driving people into whatever their comfortable preset positions.

....”

Moyer pointed out that the Little Ice Age was caused by a drop in average global temperatures of about a half degree Celsius. The world is currently on path, she said, to warm by 9º C.

“Geologically the changes of the Little Ice Age are really quite small,” she said. “We’re facing something that’s more than 10 times as great as what has happened in the past.”

You cant make this stuff up.

'We have to stop scaring people. Yadda Yadda Yadda its going to warm by 9C. Its going to be worse 10 times worse than the little ice age.'

It is nice however to see tha alarmists have moved beyond claiming that the little ice age never existed circa 2000. Of course they do so only because it suits their argument at the time.

 

[cranky108]

That's what I have been saying. Offer solutions other than big government taxes, and solutions would be more acceptable even to those who don't believe.

But the running around yelling the sky is falling dos not change minds. It creates a hard resistance to any scheme no matter the facts.

 

[KENAT]

You mean solutions like 'cap & trade' creating a market for carbon where you know the same old folks will probably get rich as on wall street etc.?

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[lacajun]

Not to be contrary but curious, since the earth is 4.5 billion years old. What does a temperature trend look like over that 4.5 billion years of history? What do GHG trends look like over that same span of time? What drivers can be unquestionably identified for those trends? Just curious.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC