: Climate manipulations -

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Climate manipulations

#1 User is offline   andre 

  • Group: Registered Climate Users
  • Posts: 4427
  • Joined: 16-July 03

Posted --

This is how science goes:

1: We think that increases of CO2 in the atmosphere has strong effects on global temperature, likely stronger than any other effect on climate

2: We do the math and based on that math we do a predictions to see if our thoughts are true,

3: We wait and see of the reality lives up to our predictions.

4: We encounter a trend reversal of the temperature on the steady increasing CO2, opposing our prediction, hence we were wrong, CO2 is not the strongest effect on climate.

This is how a hoax goes:

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002906.html


0

#2 User is offline   skanky 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5905
  • Joined: 23-July 04
  • LocationSheffield, S8

Posted --

Or alternatively:
http://scienceblogs....corrections.php
0

#3 User is offline   andre 

  • Group: Registered Climate Users
  • Posts: 4427
  • Joined: 16-July 03

Posted --

Anyway, once more, 

The scientific methodgoes something like:

1. observation of a phenomenon
2. think out a mechanism that could cause it
3. make a prediction that follows from the mechanism
4. test the prediction against reality

*******

1: Observations
1.1: it's warming
1.2: carbon dioxide is increasing
1.3: in the geologic past there seems to be a correlation between the two

2: think out a mechanism that could cause it
2.1. greenhouse effect of CO2

3.
3.1. make a prediction that follows from the mechanism
According to Hansen et al 1988:

Page 7 Fig 3:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg

Notice about scenarios Hansen et al '88 Section 4,

Quote

A: ...the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially"

..B: decreasing trace gas growth rates, such that the annual increase of the greenhouse climate forcing remains approximately constant at the present level"

...C: drastic reduction in GH gas growth.

See also appendix B with more assumptions on other GH gasses.

4. test the prediction against reality:

CO2 emission trends continue to accelerate in 21st century.

Quote

Yet this upper-limit projection predicted annual emissions growth of only 2.3 percent between 2000 and 2010far less than the 3.1 percent annual increase observed so far this century.

So Hansen was too optimistic and he should also have included a scenario even higher than A. So if we compare nowadays reality we certainly can disregard scenario B and C.

(Note that on the annual plots the last one is the first quarter of 2008 the other are annual, hence comparison is with reservation) 

No way of a A+ scenario. Who can possibly maintain that Hansens prediction was correct, implying that climate was mostly about greenhouse gasses and very little about anuything else.

yes of course there is the solar variability and La Nina but there is also El Nino of 1998, (a nice end point bias of the IPCC). But if you issue forecasts for a cooler year due to La Nina, what then really is driving the climate? The CO2 or the sun and the ENSO?

Why didn't Hansen think of the ENSO and the PDO?

Anyway, all the reason for this open letter to the UN:

Quote

.....These latest temperature readings represent averages of records obtained from standardized meteorological stations from around the planet, located in both urban as well as rural settings. They are augmented by satellite data, now generally accepted as ultimately authoritative, since they have a global footprint and are not easily vulnerable to manipulation nor observer error. What is also clear from the graphs is that average global
temperatures have been in stasis for almost a decade and may now even be falling.

A third important observation is that contrary to the CO2 driver theory, temperatures in the upper troposphere (where most jets fly) have fallen over the past two decades. [Footnote 2]

IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food – maize as biofuel – has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops [5].

Given the economic devastation that is already happening and which is now widely recognised will continue to flow from this policy, what possible justification can there be for its retention?

We ask you and all those whose names are associated with IPCC policy to accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.....

 


0

#4 User is offline   skanky 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5905
  • Joined: 23-July 04
  • LocationSheffield, S8

Posted --

For the scenarios vs reality, you're comparing GHG forcing vs CO2 emissions.
If you look at the figure2 from the paper, you'll see that the bulk of the difference between the scenarios A & B, up to 2010, was down to the trace gases and that CO2 only forcing was very similar. Now, as it happens CFCs have declined (this is a bit offset by the HFC replacement), and methane has levelled off and now follows a lot closer to scenario C. However, it is the total radiative forcing that is what is important.

For a twenty year old climate model with a high sensitivity (4.2C) that's a pretty good prediction - so far (it could change).

For more discussion and links to data etc. see http://rabett.blogspot.com and look at the June 2006 postings (obviously the graphs will be two years out of date).

"The CO2 or the sun and the ENSO?"

Well as all climate scientists will tell you, the climate is driven by many external forcings (some of which act as feedbacks on different time scales) and the amounts that they drive it will depend on how much they change, over the scales being discussed. Thus that is an ill-formed question. Even the Hansen paper linked to discusses role of the sun, aerosols and various forcings (see section 6.2). As for ENSO, well that's weather really as it shouldn't have much effect on a 30 year trend, seeing as it's just a redistribution of the heat.

If you want to know the answer for the current period of time, then science's best estimate can be found in the chart of climate forcings in the IPCC FAR.
Don't have a direct link in, but this chart is a good start: http://en.wikipedia....ve-forcings.svg (see source at link)

0

#5 User is offline   EllyTech 

  • Group: Frouks
  • Posts: 9780
  • Joined: 11-March 08

Posted --

Where doubt exists, questions remain unanswered. Where questions remain, proof is not possible.

Proof not possible, questions remain unanswered - doubt exists.

AGW Doubt, reigns and rules ATM.
0

#6 User is offline   Dan G 

  • Group: Chasers
  • Posts: 3970
  • Joined: 01-May 05
  • LocationExeter, UK

Posted --

Why do you guys read blogs so much? They're just third-party re-interpretations of published (and some times unverifiable unpublished) works, and often highly selective in what they quote.

Go look at the science itself and make your minds up based on that.
0

#7 User is offline   EllyTech 

  • Group: Frouks
  • Posts: 9780
  • Joined: 11-March 08

Posted --

Read the whole transcript of the hearing at congress regarding the 'Hockey Stick'. Hours and hours long, no stone unturned and every scientist under oath with the facts of their findings, 'fore and against'. Much follow up done on the papers has been undertaken by myself in what these science 'findings' are both based upon, and, the nature of the studies . My doubt about AGW remains and I support and salute Andre in his efforts to try to open the minds of the contributors here.
0

#8 User is offline   EllyTech 

  • Group: Frouks
  • Posts: 9780
  • Joined: 11-March 08

Posted --

This has been posted before but if anybody cares to read it also - be my guest. The scientists involved are obviously all named and their published works easily sought. It is a balanced hearing and a good basis for study, therefore.


http://frwebgate.acc...id=f:31362.wais

0

#9 User is offline   skanky 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5905
  • Joined: 23-July 04
  • LocationSheffield, S8

Posted --

Quote

Dan G - 17/4/2008 19:28

Why do you guys read blogs so much? They're just third-party re-interpretations of published (and some times unverifiable unpublished) works, and often highly selective in what they quote.

Go look at the science itself and make your minds up based on that.


Well my first source is the IPCC (it is, after all, just a very big meta-study of the literature), but for papers that aren't reviewed in there I tend to use a mixture of reading papers and (mainly scientists') blogs. If I had the time to only read the science I would, but sometimes I need the short-cuts. I'll generally try and at least skim any references, too - and am wary of those that don't have any.
0

#10 User is offline   Andy Mayhew 

  • Group: Executive
  • Posts: 25176
  • Joined: 15-October 02
  • LocationEvesham, Worcs

Posted --

Quote

andre - 7/4/2008 08:59

This is how science goes:

1: We think that increases of CO2 in the atmosphere has strong effects on global temperature, likely stronger than any other effect on climate

2: We do the math and based on that math we do a predictions to see if our thoughts are true,

3: We wait and see of the reality lives up to our predictions.

4: We encounter a trend reversal of the temperature on the steady increasing CO2, opposing our prediction, hence we were wrong, CO2 is not the strongest effect on climate.

This is how a hoax goes:

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002906.html

 

Meanwhile some of us consider that it's all correct except the highlighted bit ;) 


0

#11 User is offline   EllyTech 

  • Group: Frouks
  • Posts: 9780
  • Joined: 11-March 08

Posted --

Did you know:

Orangutans habitat is threatened due to the massive demand now for palm oil as bio fuel. Their extinction in the wild, looks probable.

We already have biofuel in our petrol and diesel.

Bio fuel crops will swallow up arable land if we follow the policy of further increase to the ratio of this in our petrol and diesel.

The WFP organization is concerned about 'feeding the world', due to increasing food demand and current food shortages.

0

#12 User is offline   skanky 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5905
  • Joined: 23-July 04
  • LocationSheffield, S8

Posted --

Quote

Orangutans habitat is threatened due to the massive demand now for palm oil


Palm oil is used for a lot more than just bio-fuel. The orangutans were endangered because of that for some years now.
Also, while I agree that the move to biofuels is a potential problem in itself, though the Charney sensitivity probably isn't affected by our choice of transport fuel.

Finally, this year is expected to beat last year's all time record of global grain production. It seems that a large proportion of it goes to feeding animals.
http://www.fao.org/d...5e/ai465e04.htm

0

#13 User is offline   Andy Mayhew 

  • Group: Executive
  • Posts: 25176
  • Joined: 15-October 02
  • LocationEvesham, Worcs

Posted --

Palm oil is used in hundreds of products - from soap to crisps..... and yes, it's (IMO) a bigger threat to global climate than driving a car.
0

#14 User is offline   EllyTech 

  • Group: Frouks
  • Posts: 9780
  • Joined: 11-March 08

Posted --

Indeed, but the growing use (and it is huge demand) is car fuel. This quantity could outstrip all of the current use for soap products, more than doubling demand.
0

#15 User is offline   John Mason 

  • Group: Warnings Team Managers
  • Posts: 21863
  • Joined: 04-March 03
  • LocationMachynlleth, Mid-Wales

Posted --

Quote

EllyTech - 17/4/2008 19:13 Where doubt exists, questions remain unanswered. Where questions remain, proof is not possible. Proof not possible, questions remain unanswered - doubt exists. AGW Doubt, reigns and rules ATM.

Once again, please can I remind people that in the Earth Sciences conclusions are either supported or falsified by the weight of evidence. Proof only exists in things like pure maths. Do not look for proof in climatology - either pro or against the AGW theory, therefore, Elly. You will not find it. You never will. Look for the weight of evidence instead.

I do very much agree with your comments regarding biofuels. Agricultural land that can grow food should be doing just that. I think that on that one point, regardless of other differences that regulars in here may have, there are very few if any of us who cannot see that biofuels in terms of producing synthetic hydrocarbons equals madness. It is NOT the answer.

Cheers - John


0

#16 User is offline   EllyTech 

  • Group: Frouks
  • Posts: 9780
  • Joined: 11-March 08

Posted --

Thank you John. My idea of proof is indeed, the weight of evidence to reach a tipping point, making logical conclusion fall towards being skeptical. Even black and white are not entirely pure colours, rather, a mixture of all in perfect balance.
0

#17 User is offline   John Mason 

  • Group: Warnings Team Managers
  • Posts: 21863
  • Joined: 04-March 03
  • LocationMachynlleth, Mid-Wales

Posted --

Quote

EllyTech - 17/4/2008 22:43 Thank you John. My idea of proof is indeed, the weight of evidence to reach a tipping point, making logical conclusion fall towards being skeptical. Even black and white are not entirely pure colours, rather, a mixture of all in perfect balance.

Indeed! and we have the liberty to draw our own conclusions, and that's fine! I have no problem with yours disagreeing with mine, so long as you accept mine disagree with yous. Andre and me have a similar relationship.... not on everything bit on some points, certainly!

Cheers - John 


0

#18 User is offline   EllyTech 

  • Group: Frouks
  • Posts: 9780
  • Joined: 11-March 08

Posted --

At no time did I disagree with you here John (you raised disagreement) and neither have I tried to prevent your opinions being assumed either valid or invalid. My point here is, when black or white turn to grey scale - that is proof of a tip in one direction or another. Science would agree that that in itself represents a reason to go over the facts once more to see if more clarity can be made from a once 'said' conclusion. The problem that I see is, some prominent scientists have lowered 'white' to a grey scale but the 'white' science has its' white balance set and sees no grey at all. (this analogy I think has had its life span! now).
0

#19 User is offline   John Mason 

  • Group: Warnings Team Managers
  • Posts: 21863
  • Joined: 04-March 03
  • LocationMachynlleth, Mid-Wales

Posted --

Quote

EllyTech - 17/4/2008 23:21 At no time did I disagree with you here John (you raised disagreement) and neither have I tried to prevent your opinions being assumed either valid or invalid. My point here is, when black or white turn to grey scale - that is proof of a tip in one direction or another. Science would agree that that in itself represents a reason to go over the facts once more to see if more clarity can be made from a once 'said' conclusion. The problem that I see is, some prominent scientists have lowered 'white' to a grey scale but the 'white' science has its' white balance set and sees no grey at all. (this analogy I think has had its life span! now).

Grey scale is business as usual in the science world - I know because for my sins I periodically inhabit it! But it's fun - well it is if you have the required sense of humour! I should hastily add that my speciality concerns the formation of mineral deposits - so the really controversial stuff tends to leave me be!

Cheers - John 


0

#20 User is offline   andre 

  • Group: Registered Climate Users
  • Posts: 4427
  • Joined: 16-July 03

Posted --

it seems indeed that we are dealing with grey scales and I'm the first to admit that, including a certain greenhouse effect depending on the concentration of greenhouse effect, having a very likely tendency to increase temperatures to a limited extend.

However, what I consider deeply flawed, yet the basis of all AGW scare, is positive feedback and tipping points, related to greenhouse gasses. That's exactly why I did such a comprehensive research after the last glacial transition, finding some answers.

I can see clearly now that the steep spikes associated with the glacial termination and the ten-degrees-within-a-decade scare is a misinterpretation of dramatic precipitation changes associated with equally dramatic ocean current changes. We have talked clathrate in the past but it's unclear now whether it was cause or effect. Most likely effect.

Therefore it's crystal clear that those 'tipping points' are neither greenhouse effect nor temperature related and hence there is no reason whatsoever to assume that it will be in the future. As for greenhouse effect under negative feedback, due to the latent energy taken away from the increased evaporation, one degree per doubling CO2 is actually a far fetched maximum. It's more likely around 0,5 degrees and somebody has yet to convince me that such a value has a catastrophical effect rather than a benificial effect on the environment.

Quote

Andy Mayhew - 18/4/2008 03:23

Quote

andre - 7/4/2008 08:59

This is how science goes:

1: We think that increases of CO2 in the atmosphere has strong effects on global temperature, likely stronger than any other effect on climate

Meanwhile some of us consider that it's all correct except the highlighted bit ;) 

That's good. But when I wrote that I was personalizing myself as Jonathan Overpeck or Michael Mann in the mid nineties, when that we-have-to-get-rid-of-the-medieval-warming e-mail was written to David Deming, eventually leading to the dramatic fig1 of the summary for policy makers of the TAR.

 


0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users