There are no roads to Churchill – a town in northern Canada on the shores of Hudson Bay. This remote outpost is known as the polar bear capital of the world. Polar bears have become something of an icon for those concerned that we have a climate crisis. Indeed Al Gore in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, suggested polar bears are already suffering from global warming.
It is warming in Churchill. At least thermometer temperature data from both Environment Canada and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) indicate that it has been warmer since 1998 – but the annual mean is still below zero!
[Click on the charts/graphs for a large/better view]
The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) don’t collect any data as such rather they collate data from other sources. So, I’m curious that they haven’t included the last two years of data from Environment Canada.
I’m also curious to know why the GISS data for this site shows an annual average that is consistently warmer than the Environment Canada data. And why the data gaps? There is no GISS data for Churchill from 1994 to 1996 and also from 1911 to 1931? And why the step change in temperature since 1998 – I didn’t known the Arctic was influenced by El Nino events?
I have previously suggested that in the future, satellite data (as opposed to data compiled from thermometer-based weather stations), will be recognised as more reliable for understanding global temperature trends.
However, there will always be a need for quality data from specific sites.
Churchill appears to have the very earliest records for the near-Arctic and back to 1768. But again, why the discrepancy between GISS and Environment Canada data?
*************************************
The picture of the bear is from the US Fish and Wildlife Service with thanks.
The graph of Churchill Annual Mean Temperatures (1929-2007) based on Environment Canada data was drawn by Nichole Hoskin with data provided via Steve McIntyre – much thanks.
Click on the graphs/charts for a better view.
********************************
UPDATE SATURDAY
Charts rescaled by John S.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
” But again, why the discrepancy between GISS and Environment Canada data?”
Oh, that ones easy. Because the commies have infiltrated the scientists and are planning to take over the world using the IPCC and bring capitalism crashing down, and send everyone to a gulag.
SJT, I don’t believe you.
Oh, so you’re a part of it too, are you?
Jennifer:
Perhaps a simple explanation is available. What appears to be a simple error in data processing maybe a simple defense mechanism to preserve the status quo. Consider the primary effects of producing data which falsifies the AGW theory has on GISS—the billions of dollars funding climate studies would dry up, and they would be out on the streets. When one’s salary is on the line, a nudge here and there is justified in the eyes of government bureaucrats.
They are obviously not scientists, which requires a philosophical self-discipline to seek the truth, aka Sir Karl Popper, regardless of the consequences. A Ph.D does not a scientist make.
Willi
Sorry but Churchll, Manitoba is NOT the Arctic. It’s more than 500 miles south of the Arctic Circle and represents the extreme southernly limit of the range of the polar bear. If you want the Arctic, try places like Inuvik, Alert or Iqaluit.
Well among other things the vertical scale of the EC graph is a lot bigger than that of the GISS graph otoh the horizontal scale of the EC graph is larger than that for the GISS graph. Also, clearly there is smoothing in the EC graph and not in the GISS graph. Also, EC fills in station data that is missing with data from nearby stations. GISS does not for the station data, but, of course, you should have seen that on the EC and GISS web sites. Check whether that was done for Churchill and get back to us. It would also be useful to correct the other things.
Finally, while there are no roads, there is a railroad which makes Churchill one of the busiest ports in Canada during the summer as grain from the prairie is hauled in and shipped out.
Really Jen, I would expect better of a real estate agent or a used car saleswoman.
Like Eli – I am gob stopped – two different graphs – different x and y axes, one data set smoothed…
No checking of site history.
Doesn’t pass the giggle test.
Jennifer: It’s not only GISS that shows an amplified temperature after the 97/98 El Nino. So does AHU MSU:
http://i34.tinypic.com/2cxasl3.jpg
It also shows up in the third version of the Smith and Reynolds SST data (ERSST.v3):
http://i33.tinypic.com/72uaz6.jpg
Gavin Schimdt in a post at RealClimate had this to say: “Whether the warming is from greenhouse gases, El Nino’s, or solar forcing, trends aloft are enhanced. For instance, the GISS model equilibrium runs with 2xCO2 or a 2% increase in solar forcing both show a maximum around 20N to 20S around 300mb (10 km)…The first thing to note about the two pictures is how similar they are. They both have the same enhancement in the tropics and similar amplification in the Arctic.” So El Ninos have the same effect as doubling CO2 or a 2% increase in solar irradiance. CO2 hasn’t doubled. There hasn’t been a 2% increase in solar irradiance, unless there’s been a significant decrease in cloud cover. I guess that leaves El Ninos as the cause of the recent bout of Polar Amplification.
SJT you have lost it see what happens when you get of your prayer mat. How about cuddle up to a cute Polar Bear? They get to a 1000kg and 3.7 metres but they don’t hurt humans. This is the Goracle believe me my son.
Eli and Luke,
You need to study the data a bit more closely!
The graphs/charts give an overview – indicating a similar trend from both GISS and Environment Canada data.
The actual numbers, used to create the charts, are mostly, not always, quite a bit hotter for GISS.
Take 1998: GISS -4.27, EC -7.5
Take 1997: GISS -7.04, EC -13.1
But not so much difference for the last two years:
Take 2004: GISS -8.06, EC -8.8
TAke 2005: GISS -5.84, EC -5.3
Any ideas? Who appart from Environment Canada would GISS be getting their data from? Also why the gaps?
Thanks Bob for the explanation re. El Ninos.
Also Mark, thanks for the tip – re. real Arctic sites. And I will change the title. Cheers,
Did you check about smoothing in the EC case?
Why the large difference in the two measurements in the years 97 and 98, something like 40% to 50%?
How many more records has GISS messed up, even if they are slighty on the high side say 5% the whole of AGW theory is out the window in the cold where it should be.
Jen – most people are disinclined to do much looking when presented with such different graphs and little information.
So if Nicole graphed one – perhaps do both on same scale.
Given your reading of the graph data points as being different which I’ll take at face value ….
(1) do need to know if Env Canada infill gaps
(2) whether we’re looking at a reconstructed station for GISS or a point off an interpolated grid
(3) are data from same stations for sure
So I don’t know what I’m really looking at for starters.
If you do this and it doesn’t add up, one sends an email to ask if there is something basic you’ve missed.
It’s called an initial reccy mission,
Look at Neville go – prepared to hang them no trial. Unimpressive.
JEN,
It’s more professional to say subArctic than near Arctic:) !
Jen, if you’ve got the raw data can you put some trend lines on it? My eye says that the data is almost trendless in the last 50 years or so, but that doesn’t mean it is. And a running average would also be helpful.
SJT,
CPUSA and other organisations in the US and around the world aren’t really Communists??
These organisations haven’t been around for decades??
Their members NEVER have jobs in academia, government, and the military??
You are REALLY starting to be a DENIER!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This may help you compare the two charts.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/churchill_2.png
yeah, Neville, and the Near-Arctic temp record of Churchill is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. See the last three years of Climate Audit posts to grasp how incredibly difficult the Heruclean task of reading thermometers and sorting data has quite recently become for the climatological bureaucracies entrusted with the task.
This is another example of lies, damned lies and statistics. To claim an ‘average’ temperature for Churchill of – 8.0 C is entirely misleading with respect to the actual conditions there. If there was one of a few places in Canada you would not want to live because of the cold, it would be Churchill. The only other civilized, or near-civilized parts that come to mind are Winnipeg and Regina.
It makes no sense whatsoever to graph an annual average for Churchill. The temperatures in nearby Winnipeg are as extreme in the summer as they are in the winter, and to have an average of – 8 C shows how cold it really gets there to offset the high summer temperatures. Winnipeg (aka Windipeg) is known for it’s winds, and you don’t want to be out in one when it’s – 35 C. You would not last more than a few minutes in normal clothing. Those averages are taken by thermometers in sheltered conditions, with no wind chill.
Environment Canada lists the historical range for this time of year for Churchill as being between – 5 C and – 15 C. That’s about right. Toward the end of November, however, it’s like somebody threw a switch and turned it to super-freeze. The temperatures can suddenly drop to – 35 C and often – 50 C. That’s without a wind chill!! With a 50 km/hour wind, the effective temperature can drop to – 100 C, or less.
We are having an uncommonly warm November here in Canada. Even Vancouver, the banana belt of Canada. can expect a dip in temperatures come early November, and we usually get some snow. Right now, there’s hardly any snow on the mountains surrounding Vancouver. There’s nothing uncommon about that up here, we often get mild winters. The last few mornings have had that chill in the air (hovering around freezing – a bit of ice overnight) indicating a movement of air from the Arctic (Arctic air, or an Arctic front).
I don’t trust Environment Canada anymore than I trust GISS. We have a GCM in Victoria, on the west coast, and the operators are activists. Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is associated with them, is right out of the Suzuki-Hansen school of climate bs. One of the GCM’s, I don’t know if it’s Victoria, is making radical and predictions for warming in the future. I regard them as a load of hacks. Amazingly, their wacko predictions are often cited by the IPCC.
Wes George…”See the last three years of Climate Audit posts to grasp how incredibly difficult the Heruclean task of reading thermometers and sorting data has quite recently become for the climatological bureaucracies entrusted with the task”.
Remember too what Gavin Schmidt recently acknowledged, that GISS does not have the funding to keep the records accurately. It’s slowly filtering through the fog in my brain that the IPCC has been a huge waste of time, never mind space.
I agree that the Environment Canada graph/chart as per this post is not the best.
But you will have to wait until tomorrow or Sunday (when I have some time) … then I will graph the Environment Canada data as per the GISS graph. … Or if Nichole is reading this, she might have a go again – at graphing the first chart.
All the same ‘un-smoothing’ is not going to fix the difference in many of the values.
And again the two questions: How does the GISS put their data together? And how would Environment Canada filling in some of the gaps result in the GISS data having a generally warmer trend?
I shall also try and work out how to upload the two data sets. THe GISS one is online, so theoretically is the Environment Canada data – but you may need a password.
And Ann – thanks for the tip re. subArctic. But should it be hyphenated?
I have much to learn!
Jennifer “And Ann – thanks for the tip re. subArctic. But should it be hyphenated”?
I have heard the term sub-Arctic but I have never seen it used in Canada. That’s probably because we have those northern territories like the Yukon and the Norwest Territories that are not Canadian provinces per se. The Arctic is associated with the terirtories and not Canada as a whole.
Most people in Canada live on a strip just north of the US border, where the climate tends to be more moderate. I say it ‘tends’ to be more moderate because the Arctic comes visiting several times a year in the form of very cold ‘Arctic air’. Even on the prairies, where winter is known to be cold in the winter, there’s cold and then there’s COLD. When that Arctic blast suddenly descends, things turn miserable very quickly, even in Vancouver, where the weather is moderated by the relatively warm Pacific Ocean currents.
That’s why terms like ‘sub-Arctic’ don’t mean a lot to us weather-wise. It’s either Arctic or not-Arctic. The sub-Arctic tends to show up as dwarf forrests…the taigas and tundras. The Tar Sands of northern Alberta are located in the middle of that kind of wilderness, leading to bewilderment in my poor mind as to why global warming activists are so concerned about it. If there was no Tar Sands activity, there would be no one there.
Anyone interested in how much the Arctic has warmed, should try living in Regina or Winnipeg for a winter. There’s nothing like a cold blast from the Arctic, even in temperate Vancouver, to remind you that the so-called 0.6 C warming over a century is either a spit in the ocean, or the product of someone’s imagination. Minus 34.4 C doesn’t exactly cheer you up with respect to minus 35 C.
Churchill is technically sub-Arctic but most Canadians would not think of it as such. The Tar Sands in Alberta, and Fort Nelson and Fort St. John in BC, are on a similar latitude, and I have never heard of any of them refered to as being in the sub-Arctic. They are not even refered to as near-Arctic…that’s another world altogether.
“How does GISS put their data together?” That’s the $64 Frankenstein question; Watts has an amusing, but on reflection, sobering take on GISS methodology;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/23/adjusting-pristine-data/#more-3208
And while I like Bob’s checkmate of Schmidt and I agree with his conclusion that El Nino’s are an adequate explanation of heating, the fact is the Arctic is rapidly recooling, as a salutory glance at the latest Cryosphere comparison shows between 26/11/1980 and 26/11/2008; a simply astounding difference.
To Gordon; send me an e-mail and I’ll send you some Australian double strength rum; it’s the only thing for those freezing Canadian winters; GISS warming be damned!
Cohenite,
See if you can get the even stronger rum produced by “The Hoochery” in Kununurra – Spike Dessert really has come up with a winner. Expensive though.
I am trying to also find another snippet of information I noticed this week and promptly forgot – apparently NASA are looking at FTE’s in the Mesophere and the associated crystalisation of ice – their problem is that the mesosphere has no water. But for the life of me I can’t recall where I spotted it.
”
“How does GISS put their data together?” That’s the $64 Frankenstein question; Watts has an amusing, but on reflection, sobering take on GISS methodology;”
You have no idea, do you, Cohenite?
I have never seen such a mish mash of opinion and slurs since I read a piece of Rupert Murdochs fish wrappers.
Take this, for example.
“After reading the article, I wondered what happened to Mr. Huth’s data, and the data collected by the four observers who preceded him. What I learned is that NOAA doesn’t quite trust the data meticulously collected by Mr. Huth and his predecessors. Neither does GISS trust the data NOAA hands it. Following is a description of what is done with the data.”
There is no judgement made of Huth. It is just standard scientific practice, you don’t trust anyone. They are trying to be “objective”, rather than “subjective”. Watts should know that, and uphold it, if he had any integrity.
A reader, John S., has sent me the the two charts/graphs rescaled. See late addition to the above post. And much thanks to John S.
I will nevertheless redraw the graphs – as per my previous message when I stop travelling – and have some more time. Probably tomorrow.
[This morning I am having brunch with my daughter and sister in Sydney – and looking forward to it!]
Idea about what Will? If you want to defend GISS and IPCC climate data that is your business, but do try and make a better effort then asserting that genuine concerns about data collection and then subsequent manipulation of that data is just a slur on the little guy on the ground. I used to think that there were only 2 stages to data presentation; firstly collection, then ‘adjustment’; Watts article makes it plain there are many stages; he just focuses on the GISS stage which is justifiably open to criticism because too many strange things have occurred with GISS; GISS adjustments are generally always up because, as I understand it, they apply knees to approximate step functions in both their interpolations and objectification (?) of raw data; increasing step functions always increase the trend up; you should read the Runnalls and Oke paper on micro-climate adjustments for an alternative approach. In the meantime let’s look at some GISS station data; what do you make of this;
http:data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431042500000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1 (// excluded)
Watt’s article makes clear that the scientific process is a personal affront to the person collecting the data.
Suppose the AGW Industry Data Adjusters around the world, and here in Australia are now getting busy on November’s temp figures.
It is amusing that if we have a hot month, the BoM comes out quickly in the MSM with the figures. (Indeed David Jones, on a previous thread here about 12 months ago, stated that by the last day of the month it was only a matter of hitting the button to get the figures). However,if the month has been much colder then average, it seems to take a lot longer to produce the figures… Can one be excused for suspecting that they are going through the ‘data adjustment’ process?
And wasn’t it sweet with the ‘walk against warming’ in Orange being cancelled last week-end because of snow and zero conditions. The ‘feel gooders’ who participate in these events should have the sense to realise that they are being manipulated by ‘GetUp’, an extremist left win group.
This month was a record rainfall event in my area of the upper Clarence.
Passed the previous Nov record set in 1989 by ~50mm and rising. We are currently 400mm above the yearly average to November.
Church-goer Sid says “However,if the month has been much colder then average, it seems to take a lot longer to produce the figures… Can one be excused for suspecting that they are going through the ‘data adjustment’ process?” – yes – what an old skunk your are – as usual no evidence to back up your venomous bile.
Oh that’s right – what happened to Sid’s rainfall analysis? missing ……
You know Will, I used to think the greens did some good; I went to Franklin; but now I’m convinced the green label is irrevocably tainted by the misanthropy, ideology and corrupt tactics used by green fanatics; without knowing your background I must say the persistent slippery approach you use in debating and, when it suits you, outright misrepresentation really labels you; here is what the article says about Mr Huth and NOAA and GISS; find the personal affront;
“Clearly the data collected at this site is of the highest quality. Five observers committed to their work. No station moves. No equipment changes according to Mr Huth (in contrast to the NOAA MMS records). Attention to detail unparalleled elsewhere. A truly Norman Rockwell image of dedication.
After reading the article, I wondered what happened to Mr Huth’s data, and the data collected by the four observers who preceded him. What I learned is that NOAA doesn’t trust the data meticulously collected by Mr Huth and his predecessors. Neither does GISS trust the data NOAA hands it. Following is a description of what is done with the data.”
Will, your comment above is dishonest.
As a young enviro activist I was introduced to the AGW hypothesis by James Lovelock’s writing. For 20 years I accepted AGW theory as the best explanation of the observed data. Then about six years ago I read the objective arguments against an AGW apocalypse on the Internet and although I didn’t find them fully formed, the criticisms were rational and worthy of inquiry.
What convinced me that we had a serious problem was the aggressive defensiveness anyone asking inconveniently insightful questions received from the climate activists who had emotionally invested in the AGW hypothesis. (see just about any post by Luke, STJ or Bugs Bunny for examples)
Not that I was surprised that enviros as a mob tended towards extremist positions. I worked in Northern California defending old growth redwoods in the early 1980’s with some real thrill seekers, but I had always believed that ultimately environmentalism was at its core an Enlightenment-based movement that sought the truth. I was wrong.
Since then things have gotten much worse. The millenarian siege mentality has spread into the climatological community. Now I sincerely wonder whether the evangelical leadership at GISS really will objectively follow the data wherever it takes them, assuming they haven’t already “adjusted” data and deleted the methodology beyond all hope of recovery.
Climatology as objective transparent scientific inquiry now faces an ongoing crisis of credibility that is worsening as new revelations of poor methods, deceit and error compounded by amateurish cover-ups leak out on an almost a daily basis.
It’s like the early days of the Watergate scandal, only the climate activists have the mainstream media in the tank. But for how long? Hansen, Mann, et al have left a very long and disturbingly unprofessional document trail and they have made a high risk career gamble that the weather will take a random walk their way. If it doesn’t, can they really count on the public to remain ignorant forever?
Will the real denialists please stand up?
Bugga off Wes – “as a young enviro activist” – lordy I hate reformed drunks telling you how it is.
Really you wouldn’t have a clue – you’re just rabbiting on like you used to a as “young activist” from the perspective of age.
Evidence tendered to support your position = zero, rhetorical twaddle = max
Barf ! talk about disingenuous
This sort of comment is simply dogshit
“Climatology as objective transparent scientific inquiry now faces an ongoing crisis of credibility that is worsening as new revelations of poor methods, deceit and error compounded by amateurish cover-ups leak out on an almost a daily basis.”
Anyway Wes – the latest invention is the initial start on RC Wiki which will document the sheer scope and dishonesty of the denialist position. So “poor methods, deceit and error compounded by amateurish cover-ups” indeed !
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki ENJOY !
Great thing the internet ….
“After reading the article, I wondered what happened to Mr Huth’s data, and the data collected by the four observers who preceded him. What I learned is that NOAA doesn’t trust the data meticulously collected by Mr Huth and his predecessors. Neither does GISS trust the data NOAA hands it. Following is a description of what is done with the data.””
That is a complete misrepresentation of what happens. It is not the scientific method to trust or distrust anyone. Mr Huth may be meticulous, but you cannot ‘trust’ him.
I don’t dislike people, I just find the regression to anti science on web sites such as this indistinguishable from creationism and other such anti-science beliefs.
Geez, luke, I don’t get a mention on the RC Wiki list; but then neither do Christy, Franks, Miskolczi, McIntyre, Stockwell, Bob Tisdale, McClean, Quirk….
Just the fact that they created RC Wiki list shows the level of hubris in the AGW camp – and Luke just shows the level of rudeness and sheer bad manners.
Don’t they realise how stupid they look?? We know better than all these scientists/journalists, here’s a list of them – BTW the science is settled and a consensus exists.
I listened to Philip Adams the other night interviewing Dr Peter Helman – Senior Research Fellow at the Griffith Centre for Coastal Management at Griffith University, who has just released a report on the history of storms on the east coast of Australia from 1770 -2008. No matter how hard he tried he couldn’t get Dr Helman to offer some tasty Global Warming Porn. Dr Helman just laughed at him 🙂 It’s worth a listen just for the laugh 🙂
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2008/2427948.htm
SJT
You have no understanding of the scientific method – it’s the data which matter not the personality.
Your AGW belief is best compared with creationism – it is a matter of faith, not scientific fact. If the scientific facts were that obvious, then there would be no sceptics.
And if this website appears to regress to anti-science, that is more from your efforts – you are a scientist either, so it’s not ignorance which is at issue here.
Cohenite: You’re not feeling left out are you? Looks like you are in good company. Jennifer made it though. Congratulations
“You have no understanding of the scientific method – it’s the data which matter not the personality.”
I thought that was what I said? Watt’s is the one saying personalities matter.
“Great thing the Internet”, not because it can be manipulated to silence dissent, but because without the Internet, all we would be allowed to know is what ABC media elites judge fit. There would be few alternative arguments or observations in the mainstream media without an Internet for free and open germination of ideas and debate.
The dissenting light that independent blogs like this one shed upon the rickety AGW artifice wouldn’t exist and the Orwellian tautology of “climate change” would be well along goose stepping us all forward into a brave new dark age. Of course, Luke could get off the dole as a guard loading the cattle cars destined for somewhere beyond the back of Bourke!
Instead, what Toynbee called a “creative minority” imbued with the values of the Enlightenment are logically and with transparent inquiry deconstructing the AGW apocalypse mythology one trope at a time in broad daylight. And all the mighty powers of the grand orthodoxy can’t shut them up or down! Cool thing the Internet.
Everyone is invited to comment, audit the work or critically debate the findings, study the open source codes, peruse the archives or contribute with whatever skillsets they possess…like old fashion science the outcome is not predetermined. Observations aren’t “adjusted” to fit computer climate model forecasts. Taxpayer funded costs: $0.00.
Meanwhile, the AGW priesthood refuse to debate, resist questions or appeals for methodological sources, delete email trails, conceal codes, blacklist colleagues, manipulate data, cherry pick proxies and generally behave like they are very afraid of rational, transparent and honest inquiry conducted with no preconditions or predetermined conclusions. Taxpayer funded costs: Hundreds of millions per year.
The blunt-object method of debate suppression employed by wannabe climate brown shirts, like Luke, is a gravatar expression of the civic and anti-Enlightenment values of the taxpayer funded AGW apocalypse elite they rabidly defend. Luke-a-likes don’t wish for a debate so much as dream for an inquisition.
Great thing the Internet!
Much to the chagrin of Luke, virtual bashing is not as effective in silencing minority expression as the real thing was on the streets of Munich in the 1930’s. Nor will reporting our subversive activities to the RC wiki thought police make climate dissidents disappear as it might have in the Soviet days. Make my day, mate, dob me in too!
No, the only hope of salvaging the AGW apocalypse hypothesis is to test it openly, with transparent methods and prove that it not only conforms to the observed data, but also can offer useful predictions that can then be measured and confirmed as more useful and accurate than any other competing model.
May the best hypothesis prevail.
SJT
Reading your posts you might think you stated that but you can’t seem to link to actual posts or comments – just unattributed extracts.
You are really a waste of time.
Wes,
The real issue is that AGW is not a scientific theory – so trying to counter it with science will not work.
And have a look at the latest Electric Universe production on Nikola Tesla. Ponder about JP Morgan’s attribution about not being able to put a meter on it.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=akM9KNEv_JE&sdig=1
Hi Jan; I’m impressed with the way you and jae and the others are handling Arthur, Eric, Nick etc on the Miskolczi thread; do you think jae’s solution to eqn 7 has legs? And have you found David’s website a bit slow lately; slow, that is, in responding to the cursor? I was going to ask over there but it was taking me an eternity to type anything.
Utter Rot Wessy Woo – how many fields of endeavour as big as this might have a few issues. Take a hike on the high moral ground.
RC Wiki will hopefully expose every skanky denialist argument that has ever been made.
“Reading your posts you might think you stated that but you can’t seem to link to actual posts or comments – just unattributed extracts.”
If you can’t even read Louis, I don’t hold much hope for you.
Hi cohenite: I think jae’s solution has enough legs to get there. There seems to be a bit of confusion (almost universal) over the symbols he used and some folks are getting ratios and absolute values of fluxes mixed up. I think it will start to fall into place once that is sorted out. My cursors is fine I had trouble with that on CA but changed browser an that fixed it there.
“Hi Jan; I’m impressed with the way you and jae and the others are handling Arthur, Eric, Nick etc on the Miskolczi thread; do you think jae’s solution to eqn 7 has legs? And have you found David’s website a bit slow lately; slow, that is, in responding to the cursor? I was going to ask over there but it was taking me an eternity to type anything.”
That is what puzzles me, Cohenite. You can spot a deranged greenie, and they are out there, I have met a few in my time too, but you can’t spot a nutter. Miskolczi is a nutter, his work is so bad it doesn’t even reach the scientific radar. You seem to be caught up in the good/bad dichotomy. That which is not bad, must be good. It’s a little more complex than that.
Well Janama – it’s good to see denialists make fools of themselves and typifies the level of “knowledge” here. Having heard Peter speak I assure you he does believe in AGW. He also believes in substantial natural variability including PDO influences. Your interpretation of Adams trying sensationalise the debate is indicative of the utterly biased rot that you lot love to go on about. Buy the book – you might learn something – http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/105765/SevereStorm.pdf
From the RC_Wiki :
“The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.””
Doesn’t this quote just epitomize the disagreement. We have what is known, Temperature is first, CO2 lags by about 800 years. Next we have the supposition.
Follow the discussion as to what started and what finished this 5000 year warm period. and how was the signal determined. Note that in such a simple system that if you use CO2 to explain temperature, you do not have the degrees of freedom to explain what really happened that made the temperatures go up and then come down.
So therefore, how can one get the signal for CO2?
I realize that there is where the science really gets interesting. However, with the icecore what other data is possible? If you have to use other factors or information, where does this data and the key relationships come from? Is it Be or something?
What was said “From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a “feedback”, much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.
In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.”
So all that is had is a “probable” relationship. Note that it states a “some (currently unknown) process. Then how did they measure that it is half?
Thus applying Occam’s razor, one would conclude that this part of the wiki supports the sceptic’s position. What should have been said was “The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data, or could have been caused by the currently unknown phenomena. Based on the evidence of multiple events such as this, the currently unknown effect is expected to start and stop warming periods, and obviously must be considered, a larger than or equal to effect than CO2. Otherwise, it would not be able to reverse the warming that we attribute to CO2.”
There are some good discussions that those not familiar with the arguments should read including the letter from Jeff which states
“Nor is there any requirement that a single cause operate throughout the entire 5000 – year long warming trends, and the 70,000 year cooling trends.
Thus it is not logical to argue that, because CO2 does not cause the first thousand years or so of warming, nor the first thousand years of cooling, it cannot have caused part of the many thousands of years of warming in between.”
Once again the reduction of the degrees of freedom and the suppositions proposed for the unknown(s) is relevant to the discussion. Once again how do you get the measure of the CO2 signal?
“Having heard Peter speak I assure you he does believe in AGW.”
well he had every opportunity to say so yet he avoided it with side step upon side step.
John: that is a reasonant excerpt from RC Wiki; the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature, and the ‘lag’ is a fundamental flaw in AGW theory. In answer to your question about how do you get the measure of the CO2 signal; a number of papers have removed ENSO and other natural factors like volcanos to presumably leave a CO2 residual; Douglass and Christy have done so;
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
Douglass and Christy did not remove a solar contribution however, and neither did a Trenbarth paper or lucia in her analysis; I look at the issues here;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/temperature-trends-and-carbon-dioxide-a-note-from-cohenite/
Will; “Miskolczi is a nutter”; brilliant analysis! What attracted me to Miskolczi was the fact that he had verified, empirical evidence of atmospheric process which contradicted AGW; he was told he needed to explain that, that is provide a theory, which he has done; his theory is proving resilient despite some teething problems which are being thrashed out at Niche against some pretty formidable pro-AGW opposition; the AGW model has NO empirical evidence at all; after over 20 years, not ONE verified, unambiguous bit of proven evidence; who’s the nutter(s)?
Cohenite an endorsement from yourself on Miskolczi is hardly a recommendation, given your predilection for fring science and non-greenhouse theorists.
More importantly I’m still giggling in anticipation of your analysis of how 400 years of PDO and El Nino correlates with temperature and “builds heat”. LOL
I am utterly amazed by John Pittman’s analysis of the ice age cycles and the dreaded “lag” issue.
How could it be otherwise if you spent 60 seconds thinking about it.
Is a CO2 molecule in the midst of an ice age going to wake and decide to do anything new? LOL.
Of course there would have to be secondary feedbacks initiated with by a solar mechanism – i.e. a change in insolation by Milankovitch mechanisms. The only way you can analyse such complex glaciation is with models (to which your response will be predictable). How else can you understand multiple interacting factors.
(1) insolation changes
(2) Earth starts to warm
(3) oceans outgas more CO2
(4) 2 and 3 continue
(5) an enhancing greenhouse effect progressively kicks in in proportion to the changing radiation and CO2
An greenhouse sensible advocate wouldn’t have it any other way.
Most of modelling done here shows that the Earth doesn’t enter into glaciation unless CO2 falls. But you wouldn’t trust the results.
CO2 can only recycle whatever insolation is present from the Sun or Earth orbital position. It doesn’t produce radiation in insolation !
John your analysis illustrates the remarkably feeble understanding that you guys have for greenhouse.
The glacial cycles CANNOT provide any evidence to closed minded greenhouse cynics. You need a DIRECT correlation. Such as …
what happens in the PETM when you have a relatively massive injection of CO2 in a small space of time. 6C warming !!!!!!!!!!! Or Deccan traps episode. Or today !!!!!!
Cohenite – “his theory is proving resilient” ……… lordy me !
Hey maybe it’s cosmic rays – what happened to that?
When Miskolczi is published in Nature or Science and gets out of the murky blogosphere bilge someone might pay some attention.
Until then Cohers all this just fuels your love of fringe science – while ignoring real publications like Philipona. Oh yea – you didn’t reach the RC Wiki list as you’r enot scary enough (yet – but keep persisting)
Luke, you are just one step short. It is not the models but the combination of the models with as you put it “We find nothing else that explains it.” The models had the signal of CO2 put in them. In fact one of the interesting points is still where is the signal? As developed you have a circular argument where the assumed signal is close to the assumed signal in the model. Using modern CO2 you still have to determine the past signal in order to differentiate it from the CO2 signal.
Luke “such as http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf ?? Here they use data and a correct number of degrees of freedom and get an answer less than the IPCC (no positive feedback).
Well how else does one calculate the impact of 3 non-linear factors (insolation, ocean outgassing of CO2, greenhouse – all varying) on something like the Earth without a model.
The insolation calculation itself comes from some complex mathematics on 3 orbital processes overlapping (eccentricity, obliquity, and precession)
So you can’t even explain the ice age cycles without some considerable modelling.
This is not new – for example evaporation is a combination of radiation, wind, vapour pressure and temperature. You can vary the mix and yet get the same answer for evaporation. So interacting factors are hardly new in climate.
The PETM is really the classic example of a quick injection of greenhouse gases.
What does a “correct number of degrees of freedom” mean? Wow ! – a correct number !!
cohenite: “Will; “Miskolczi is a nutter”; brilliant analysis! What attracted me to Miskolczi was the fact that he had verified, empirical evidence of atmospheric process which contradicted AGW;”
You know one thing that has struck me about Miskolczi’s paper is that apart from a reflexive guffaw from Ray Pierre is the absolute silence from those atmospheric physicists with access to the tools and the knowledge to refute it. Most of the noise has been coming from people barely qualified to understand it. My own knowledge and experience has points in common with atmospheric physics but I’m not an atmospheric physicist and I don’t mind admitting I had a lot of difficulty with the paper. An atmospheric physicist will have no difficulty with it at all.
The other day Steve who has been doing a sterling effort trying to poke holes in it asked of anyone had a particular paper within 24 hours Ferenc had sent off an email to the author and got hold of it. I was struck not only by the rapidity of the response but the cordiality of the accompanying note, the conclusion I’ve reached is that far from being a nutter out on a limb that he is actually highly regarded in that community. The paper itself while it might upset some RealClimate.org politicians it goes a way to solving a very real long term difficult problem for real climate scientists in the wider community and will in time make their work easier than it has been.
Here we go. The latest on Churchill from Enviro Canada:
http://text.www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/forecast/city_e.html?mb-42&unit=m
Suddenly the forecast for Sunday is for – 22 C with windchill to – 32 C. The historical range is – 15 C to -22 C and today’s temperatures are in the low end of that range, not warmer. The temperature has dropped 7 to 8 degrees in a week and it’s not even the end of November. This is typical and it would not surprise me to see a plunge to – 35 C by the end of November.
When people get notions of a warming Arctic, they should visit Churchill this time of year, or try sailing through the Northwest Passage. You don’t even have to go that far north, Winnipeg, Regina and sometimes Edmonton will give you similar temperatures in December and January.
Better take Louis up on that high-proof Aussi rum.
Lukie, my little pawn,
“RC Wiki will hopefully expose every skanky denialist argument that has ever been made,” Ya think?
Really??? That’s a rather big ask considering there is NO SUCH THING AS A DENIALIST ARGUMENT… “denialist argument” is an oxymoron.
If one denies something and can produce an argument (ie, reasoning) then by definition it’s not Denialism! IT’S BLOODY ONE SIDE OF A DEBATE! And repeat after me, Lukie, we don’t want a debate…OK?
AGW apocalypse “Denialism” is an appropriation of the term used to denote neo-Nazis efforts to deny without reason the obvious fact that millions of Jews and were systematically exterminated by Nazis in WWII.
Denialists have NO ARGUMENT BY DEFINITION, you moron! Jezuz, it’s bloody hard to find competent minions nowadays…
One does NOT “argue” with a Denialist. In the EU the police arrest Denialist scum and toss them in prison. Why do you think RC Wiki is handing out yellow stars with a big D on ’em, Lukie?
THE DEBATE IS OVER because AGW doom is as settled a fact of nature as the fate of the Jews at Auschwitz. The coming climate apocalypse is settled future history by IPCC consensus. Get with the pogrom, dude!
When referring to the sinister conspiracies the Denialists weave never call them “Denialist arguments.” PULEEEEZE.
It not only reveals that you’re semi-literate hack, worse, if Denialist Pigs possessed the ability to reason some one might MISTAKE THEM FOR HUMAN BEINGS!
Unfortunately, human beings in Australia are awarded certain civil liberties, such as the right to free speech unmolested by blacklisting. I know, I know, it’s recklessly stupid, but there it is.
Idiotic misuse of language, which tends to humanize the Denialist Pigs, risks putting the RC Wiki pogrom in a rather questionable light. You know, something like making a public list of all the gays in public education might be seen to be. So you see how intolerable a little bit of illiteracy is when defending Orwellian authoritarian statism? Hmmmm??? Unctuous dolts like you put the whole rhetorical artifice at risk!
Use the correct form: “Denialist Lies.”
Or play it safe–stick to monosyllabic ad hominem grunts spiced with links to non sequiturs abstracts you haven’t read anyway. Don’t try to get fancy or you might find yourself in the RC Wiki re-educational gulag sitting next to some ancient tobacco lobbyist.
Have a nice day, my oleaginous little pawn 😉
Hugs, Dr. Evil
PS, Stop Climate Change Now!
Luke, what a typical bit of warmer rationalising.
There is some vague possibility that the process you, & your mate, Pittman describe above could have happened. It’s pretty bl@@dy vague, as there is little chance you could get enough CO2, quickly enough to keep the warming process going. It is more logical to believe the process that started the warming, continued the warming, & any CO2 increase came along for the ride.
Just because you, & your mates want the cause to be CO2, & you have a totally unproved hypothesis implicating CO2, does not make it so. It’s just your wish list dream as yet.
To help you understand, I’ll put it into an engineering context.
We all know, that if an internal combustion engine runs out of oil, it will blow up.
Therefore, to apply your an your analysis to engineering, if an engine blows up, it must have run out of oil. This is not necessarily the case.
Just for you, I once spun a GT B Ferrari, through 12 revolutions, at 125 MPH. At 7.30, one dark winter’s night, at the Surfers Paeadise raceway the car in front of me blew up, spitting a chunk of conrod out through the sump. To prove he had not run out of oil, he then spred 3 & 1/2 gallons of the stuff all over the road I was about to use.
For me, this proved that there is more than one likely cause for any happening, & to chose the one you prefer, & then try to prove that choice, is likely to lead to error.
Luke wrote: > RC Wiki will hopefully [sic] expose every skanky denialist argument that has ever been made.
Which of course implies that every non-skanky denialist argument that’s ever been made remains as intact as before. And that is true. In fact, I compliment you, Luke, on your uncharacteristic accuracy here (despite your characteristically sloppy solecism). Specifically, I compliment you on pointing out, albeit implicitly, that the RC Wiki you’re so enthusiastic about cannot “expose,” as you say, the overwhelming fact that rule by special interest, leviathan-sized bureaucracies, and the establishment of worldwide centralized planning, as explicitly endorsed by, for example, Kyoto (et al) with respect to a wide variety of essential means of production, will ever, in a billion years, be able to replace the efficacy and celerity with which technology advances under the system of full private ownership and free exchange.
This RC Wiki, in which you’ve obviously invested a good deal of misbegotten hope, will also never be able to expose the non-skanky denialist argument (and I trust you’ll permit me the use of your felicitous phrase) that it is sheer madness to imagine that the thinking and planning of a handful of elites could ever be substituted for the thinking and planning of hundreds of millions of people cooperating under the voluntary division of labor and the price system. Or the incontrovertible fact that no governmental bureau imaginable, even one with an army of super-genius planners, could organize a fraction of the factors that go into complex economies.
Luke, the reason that this argument is non-skanky and can therefore never be exposed by Real Climate’s Wiki — or, for that matter, Fenton Communication and their “multi-million-dollar message machine,” also known as Environmental Media Services, without whom realclimate.org would not exist — is elementary: it’s an impregnable argument. It cannot be exposed because there’s nothing to expose. It is a simple fact of human existence that no government and no person has rightful authority over the person or property of another — not to any degree, not for any reason, and that even includes your darling here: “climate change” — because the person and property of each and every human being is inalienable, in this sense:
Persons unaccustomed to attach exact meanings to words will say that the fact that a man may be unjustly executed or imprisoned negates this proposition [of inalienable rights]. It does not. The right is with the victim nonetheless; and very literally it cannot be alienated, for alienated means passing into the possession of another. One man cannot enjoy either the life or liberty of another. If he kills ten men he will not thereby live ten lives or ten times as long; nor is he more free if he puts another man in prison. Rights are by definition inalienable: only privileges can be transferred. Even the right to own property cannot be alienated or transferred, though a given item of property can be. If one man’s rights are infringed, no other man obtains them; on the contrary, all men are thereby threatened with a similar injury (Isabel Paterson, God of the Machine, 1943).
And that, finally, is what this whole climate change (non)issue reduces down to: the inalienable right to life and property, or not.
Now if you’ll excuse me, all this talk of skank and non-skank has given me a boner.
From Luke: What does a “correct number of degrees of freedom” mean? Wow ! – a correct number !!
It means you are doing science, and have a way to solve the problem. Without the ability to separate the past natural warming from the CO2, any claim that CO2 is the driving force deserves sceptism. If you cannot separate the signal (not even the IPCC argues it was not warming unforced by CO2 before recent times), then what you have are beliefs or a circular argument. That means your tool, the computer models is not fine enough to make the determination. It may indicate such things as that THEIR (the model’s)explanation requires CO2 to have the ice ages. That does not mean it is true. It is a possibility.
Tripe Hasbeen – you just forgot to mention about 50 years of radiation physics in the bargain. Oh darn says Hasbo – I thought it was just all a correlation –
BTW I once had a ride (not a drive) in a Lamborghini Urraco – was impressed doing 140 – but more impressed when I realised it was an imperial units speedo.
John – what an entirely silly argument – maybe climate is caused by little green men. Maybe cosmic rays. Maybe it’s Jupiter.
The modelling work is all far from beliefs. You have a complex system with interactions and feedbacks – e.g. a melting ice cap would cause a change in albedo which would need to be calculated – so the modelling takes the best science on solar forcing, aerosols, greenhouse physics, land use, etc etc etc and tries to understand the climate – one issue being the relative role of CO2 versus solar impact on temperature.
One of many issues.
Love your Douglass & Christy paper – this stuff wouldn’t survive peer review outside of the protected embrace of E&E.
e.g. “Climate models define a sensitivity parameter λ relating ΔF and ΔT” – ummm – NO they don’t. Sensitivity is an emergent property of the simulation not a parameter.
Gotta laugh at the usual conspiracy stuff “worldwide centralized planning,” – bullsheeet – does it even remotely look even close. You have to be joking mate.
The old “Fenton Communication” scam – jeez you are desperate – are you against free speech? Are you one of the people trying to silence the rational science effort?
Go the RC Wiki – lets post up every skank denialist and ruse argument that’s ever been made in all their glory. A whole library of sophistry and lies for the public to see. What a collection.
Luke “The old “Fenton Communication” scam”
You seem to know a lot about thes things but isn’t RealClimate one of their scams?
Free speech is fine Luke I’m all for it and I suspect that since Think is posting here that he is too but don’t you think that people and organisations like RC.org should be honest about who they are representing?
Hasbeen,
I remember that spin and that 275 GTB. Great car! Was it a Volvo that blew up in front of you? Was that Bill Brown’s car? 1967 12 hour race?
“You know one thing that has struck me about Miskolczi’s paper is that apart from a reflexive guffaw from Ray Pierre is the absolute silence from those atmospheric physicists with access to the tools and the knowledge to refute it. ”
It’s because it is so bad, there is no need to even raise an eyebrow at it. They don’t need tools, it’s own ignorance of physics refutes itself.
sjt: “t’s because it is so bad, there is no need to even raise an eyebrow at it. They don’t need tools, it’s own ignorance of physics refutes itself.”
This raises an interesting question: How would you know? In the past I’ve noted a singular lack of understanding on basic physics on your part. The paper actually works quite well that you or perhaps Ray Pierre don’t understand it seems to speak more of you two than the paper.
BTW my dogs know their paws aren’t 30C warmer than their noses do you?
Jan – I’m sorry I made an error – I meant “the old denialist skunk Fenton Communications scam” which we’re been over “X” times before. Gee do you think they pay all those independent persons from many countries like oil companies do for denialists. Or perhaps do they just run their server. I suppose you have a copy of their accounts and contract agreement do you?
Jan on the physics story I’ve noted a singular lofty arrogance on your part which has never attempted to explain anything. Or build a bridge in an argument. Perhaps we could read some of your climate papers on atmospheric physics to brush up?
“This raises an interesting question: How would you know? In the past I’ve noted a singular lack of understanding on basic physics on your part. The paper actually works quite well that you or perhaps Ray Pierre don’t understand it seems to speak more of you two than the paper.”
That’s funny, I noticed a singular inability to even agree on what basic physical terms mean, from your debate with Arthur Smith. Me and Ray? I’m pleased with the compliment, but, as I have said before, I am well aware of my limitations. Perhaps you should be more aware of yours, too. Miscolczi’s paper has been shredded at landshape, in several ways. The only problem is, the people who support it don’t seem to realise the fact.
Thanks Jan for reminding new readers that Sjt knows less about physics than your dogs. I recall that Sjt once stated that one day wind mills would work 24/7/365 when climatologists figured out how to channel the wind…Uh, huh…O…K….
ThinKing Man, best post of the day! Please repeat often. Perhaps it is true that the only real aristocracy is that of the intellect. Doubt Shjt will agree with that…
Note to Luke, our favourite intellectual peasant, from an old Chinese proverb which actually rhymes cutely in Mandarin:
Have a weak back?
Don’t carry heavy burden.
Weak of mind?
Don’t carry heavy burden.
Shallow in thought?
Carry other man’s heavy burden!
Go figure, Luke… Clue: You is a pawn of forces you can not possibly comprehend.
Hey, at least you got the gravatar right!
http://landshape.org/enm/kirchhoff-law-miskolczi-part-3/
sjt: “That’s funny, I noticed a singular inability to even agree on what basic physical terms mean, from your debate with Arthur Smith.”
Agreement would have been cinch had Arthur realised that he had in fact created an equilibrium model but that is as they say another story.
“Perhaps you should be more aware of yours, too. Miscolczi’s paper has been shredded at landshape, in several ways.”
Since you really aren’t aware of your limitations and you usually get it all backwards that’s high praise indeed.
BTW Still waiting for his ‘students’ refutation promised in March. Maybe they know better.
luke; I’m always thrilled when you get technical; “sensitivity is an emergent property of the simulation not a parameter.” The immediate refutation of this is manifest in AR4 which allocates a specific forcing to CO2 doubling and a temperature parameter of 2-4.5C, most likely scenario, 3C; this is unequivocal in the modelling, although there is a range of estimates which range up to 9C; lucia has shown that for the last ten years even a parameter of 2C falls out of the 95% confidence band which is another parameter; an “emergent property” is one which is the product of a system not one particular indice of the system; AGW is entirely dependent on one indice, CO2, therefore the forcing from CO2, as expressed in temperature is not an emergent property despite the ludicrous attempts by IPCC to create an enhanced greenhouse dependent on positive feedback from water.
On another matter, I have already given you a PDO chart from 1480 onwards and you are still sqawking about PDO and 400 years; why are you doing this luke; is it because you are insensitive?
You’ll note SJT that Jan never explains anything. All you’re going to get are quips.
Cohers – there is no “sensitivity” parameter – what you get is a product of the interaction. It’s an emergent property. There is no dial on the models called “sensitivity”.
You having discounted all previous work you might find water vapour feedback as improbable – so I look forward to your refutation paper in Nature or Science. As I’ve said before – whatever is happening – the denialists eill be the last to know. In any case there’s a lot of major circulation changes that are more disturbing than your addiction to a GMST which you say doesn’t exist anyway.
But rest assured Hadley are working on it – matters decadal – a massive work plan carried on in the absence of all your “assistance”.
Still waiting for your explanation of temperature over 400 years with PDO – you now have 400 years time series – not a cherry pick sample size of 1.5 cycles. Golly it’s a wonder we’re not boiling now as those Los Ninos and PDO events have “built heat”. LOL.
Mate my arm is aching – I’m holding out out for this simple graph from you … LOL
Beware the ides of “cycles”….
“Agreement would have been cinch had Arthur realised that he had in fact created an equilibrium model but that is as they say another story.”
Arthur couldn’t even get you to agree to standard definitions of physics, after that he gave up. It reminded me of the Monty Python argument sketch. A nice way of avoiding any debate of the actual science, by refusing to even agree on the standard definitions that science gives us.
PDO doesn’t build heat, it recycles it; you seem incapable of understanding this. You say;
“”You have discounted all previous work you might find water vapour feedback as improbable”
I presume you mean work which shows that WV acts as a +ve reinforcement; 2 things; which “work” would that be? And secondly, here is a paper which confirms Miskolczi in respect of atmospheric WV levels, both RH and SH, and it’s not in EE;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007/JD008431.shtml
The Abstract says; “Although the estimates of T are admittedly first-order, they offer a conceptual perspective on the dynamics of energy exchange between terrestial systems and the atmosphere, where the carbon cycle is essentially driven by solar energy via the water cycle intermediary”.
Sounds like Spencer and Braswell as well.
Try again;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008431.shtml
Cohenite, get this idea into your head.
Forcing.
That’s it. The paper you reference is not talking about forcings.
SJT despite the reductio absurdism of little green men, I , and I am willing to bet a good beer that Louis, find your thought that modern science is a belief system rather than a scientific system more than a little interesting.
Explains quite much about your postings.
Well if PDO just recycles heat – it will be hard to build and maintain a century of warming trend eh? Now how’s that 400 year time series going ….
Sorry SJT, it was Luke’s comment not yours. Sorry, I should have known from the avatar.
What “century of warming trend”? And where did you get a cap small enough to go over your big toe; at least, I presume that is your big toe in your gravator space?
SJT: “Arthur couldn’t even get you to agree to standard definitions of physics, after that he gave up.”
Arthur could not get me to agree to his unusual definitions he should have given up sooner. All due respect SJT but I don’t think you know what is standard and what is not. G&T know it better than both you and Arthur it seems but then they’ve been doing it longer thanboth of you put together.
Luke: “ou’ll note SJT that Jan never explains anything. All you’re going to get are quips.”
You wouldn’t know an explanation if it bit you on the bum.
SJT…”Cohenite, get this idea into your head. Forcing. That’s it. The paper you reference is not talking about forcings”.
It would be very helpful for discussion if you’d try to be less arrogant.
The term ‘forcing’ cannot be found in a dictionary in the context implied in climate science. There’s a good reason for that: forcing is a concept applicable only to computer model inputs. It applies in mathematics, but there is no such thing in nature, or the real world, as a forcing.
The concept is used in electronics theory. If you set up an electronic amplifier as an equation, you can ‘force’ it to respond ‘theoretically’ by inputing forcing functions such as the unit impulse function. You can also model that on a computer, but you had better not count on a real amplifier behaving as predicted by the model. The real amplifier has to be tweaked to approach the desired output.
You seem to be so caught up in model theory that you have lost the ability, if you ever had it it, to observe directly. You have little tolerance for studies that don’t fit your idea of the world as a model. You demonstrate an inability to consider atmospheric phenomena and studies without the comfort of your model-based ideals.
I expect a smart-assed answer from you, or a flame, if I get one, but I’d be pleasantly surprised if you responded with some intelligence rather than stock quotes. Are you capable of letting go of your jargon, such as ‘forcings’, and talk in terms of real phenomena? Are you even capable of thinking in terms of how CO2 interacts with the atmosphere without running off to computer model theory as presented by the high priests like Schmidt and Perrhumperdink?
jan pompe “SJT: “Arthur couldn’t even get you to agree to standard definitions of physics, after that he gave up.””
I was disappointed in Arthur’s defense of his model. As I pointed out to him, receiving no response, everything appeared kosher till he suddenly reverted to “there’s a difference in incoming radiation versus outgoing radiation, therefore it ‘must’ be a layer of CO2 causing it”. Talk about leaps of faith.
I also made several other points with respect to the G&T paper that went unanswered. One of the questions was why he picked out the greenhouse theory part of the G&T paper and ignored all the other excellent points they made. For example, G&T explained that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant applied only to a pure blackbody radiator, and that neither the atmosphere nor the surface can be considered as such. They also queried Rahmstorf’s ‘net energy balance’ as an explanation for how a cooler atmosphere can warm the surface, pointing out that his theory contradicts the laws of thermodynamics.
G&T also pointed out that no laboratory evidence existed to assume that CO2 has the ability to warm the atmosphere via greenhouse theory to the claimed 10 to 25%, depending on who you ask in the AGW community (Lindzen claims 3% max, including other GHG gases). They pointed out the obvious, that the gas is far too rare to accomplish that, but even if it could warm the atmosphere that much, it would be a new super-insulator.
Arthur deserves respect for having obtained his Ph.D in physics, but he should have realized he did not have the same depth of theoretical physics background as G&T. That arrogance seems to be a hallmark at RC, however, since other contributors there, like Stefan Rahmstorf, insist on taking on icons in the field. Rahmstorf took on Lindzen, even though the latter has over 40 years experience in atmospheric physics, and, of course, got his butt kicked. Even Schmidt, a mathematician, has had a go at Lindzen, claiming Lindzen is old-school while Schmidt’s computer model pseudo-science is ready for text books.
Another RC contributor, William Connolley, has taken shots at Fred Singer on Wikipedia. Remember that Connelley is a computer programmer and Singer has an awesome resume in atmospheric science. I thought it was pretty arrogant of Arthur to put our that paper and his performance here didn’t change my mind. Then again, arrogance reigns supreme at RC.
“icons in the field” LOL
LOLZ …
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L20704, doi:10.1029/2008GL035333, 2008
Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008
A. E. Dessler, Z. Zhang, and P. Yang
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas, USA
Abstract
[1] Between 2003 and 2008, the global-average surface temperature of the Earth varied by 0.6°C. We analyze here the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations. Height-resolved measurements of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) are obtained from NASA’s satellite-borne Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS). Over most of the troposphere, q increased with increasing global-average surface temperature, although some regions showed the opposite response. RH increased in some regions and decreased in others, with the global average remaining nearly constant at most altitudes. The water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, with an average magnitude of λq = 2.04 W/m2/K, similar to that simulated by climate models. The magnitude is similar to that obtained if the atmosphere maintained constant RH everywhere.
Received 13 July 2008; revised 16 September 2008; accepted 19 September 2008; published 23 October 2008.
“I was disappointed in Arthur’s defense of his model. As I pointed out to him, receiving no response, everything appeared kosher till he suddenly reverted to “there’s a difference in incoming radiation versus outgoing radiation, therefore it ‘must’ be a layer of CO2 causing it”. Talk about leaps of faith.”
He never said that. I think you need to re-read what he said.
“G&T also pointed out that no laboratory evidence existed to assume that CO2 has the ability to warm the atmosphere via greenhouse theory to the claimed 10 to 25%, depending on who you ask in the AGW community (Lindzen claims 3% max, including other GHG gases). They pointed out the obvious, that the gas is far too rare to accomplish that, but even if it could warm the atmosphere that much, it would be a new super-insulator.”
No one has claimed CO2 alone can make a big difference. You really need to get out there and read some more.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
And part II.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii
“The term ‘forcing’ cannot be found in a dictionary in the context implied in climate science. There’s a good reason for that: forcing is a concept applicable only to computer model inputs. It applies in mathematics, but there is no such thing in nature, or the real world, as a forcing.”
Unbelievable. I can’t believe the stupidity in that claim.
I have a pot of water on the stove. I turn on the stove. The temperature in the pot of water rises. There you go, a forcing.
luke; Minschwaner is a co-author of the Dessler paper; why did you leave him off? Perhaps because he also co-authored a paper noting RH was declining; Dessler is contradicted by 40 years of NOAA data showing incontrovertible evidence that SH is declining everywhere except near the surface; there is also a major problem in that your favorite, pan evaporation, has been declining for 30 years; so where does the water come from for the near surface rise in SH; from the oceans courtesy of that variation in upwelling adjunct to PDO shift with consequent SST increase, causing both a slight increase in surface SH only and outgassing of CO2 from the ocean. Dessler has other issues apart from “q”; he regards T as both a proxy for latitude, thus vindicating Pielke in respect of S-B differentiated OLR, and the cause of the increase in both Ta (which as the Santer disgrace shows is not happening) and q. So q, which is not happening, is being caused by Ta which is also not happening. The usual mess.
It’s going to be a cold winter in Churchill . . .
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/saisons/image_e.html?img=sfe1t_s
Say, I’ve got a great idea! Why don’t our resident alarmists Luke and ShJT come on over for a visit to Churchchill in the new year to test out their theory of accelerating, catastrophic and humungous warming? Reminds me of a family acquaintance who paid a visit over the Christmas holidays back in 2002. It was a particularly cold winter with temperatures at night without windchill at or below -20C. And that was in Toronto, one of the warmer parts of the country. The poor dolt was from Broome of all places – he didn’t know what hit him!
So let’s see what happens to Luke and ShJT shall we? Do they end up as human popsicles or polar bear poo? Not a chance right, given the PBs are going extinct and due to global warming, Churchill is now on the Hudson “Riviera”!
“So q, which is not happening, is being caused by Ta which is also not happening. The usual mess.”
The mess is your inability to understand the science. No wonder you get confused.
SJT…”I have a pot of water on the stove. I turn on the stove. The temperature in the pot of water rises. There you go, a forcing”.
Show me anywhere in the field of physics where heat applied to a liquid, raising its temperature, is refered to as forcing. Google it and the only references you will find about forcing is in model-based climate science and mathematical models in general.
Forcing is a conceptual term used primarily to describe the effect of applying an abnormal signal to a mathematical equation. In electronics, an amplifier is defined with sine and cosine waves and those are an amplifier’s natural signals. Sometimes you want to force a response, so you inject a square wave, and the abrupt changes (impulses) in the square wave cause the system to oscillate. That’s an undesirable condition in an audio amplifier so steps have to be taken to dampen the oscillation. The same applies to spring-mass systems.
There is no natural phenomenon known as forcing, other than applying a force to a mass. Water boils because it’s kinetic energy is increased, not because it is forced. The water molecules become agitated due to the increased kinetic energy and the water boils. If you were going to model a pot of water boiling, you’d be correct to talk about forcing but you need to understand that the real world has no forcings.
The climate is not forced other than in a climate model. That’s where modelers have really messed up climate science, by imposing their mathematical jargon on it. Like it or not, climate science falls under the umbrella of physics and mathematicians have no business in that field. As G&T tried to explain, the greenhouse effect is not recognized in physics literature. It is a peculiarity of certain climate scientists, none of whom can explain it adequately without corrupting the laws of thermodynamics.
It’s about time the IPCC stopped making a fool of itself by dabbling in computer modeling and got back to directly observable data.
“Charts rescaled by John S. ”
So it take it we all agree the original story was a non event.
“There is no natural phenomenon known as forcing, other than applying a force to a mass. Water boils because it’s kinetic energy is increased, not because it is forced. The water molecules become agitated due to the increased kinetic energy and the water boils. If you were going to model a pot of water boiling, you’d be correct to talk about forcing but you need to understand that the real world has no forcings.”
I don’t get it. Mathematicians are allowed to use the term ‘forcing’, electronics engineers are allowed to, but you have decided climate scientists aren’t allowed to? Who appointed you judge and jury.
The concept is simple enough. If you have a system in balance, and you perturb it, you get a change. I can force the temperature higher in a pot of water, I can turn up the sun and make the earth hotter, I can turn it down and make the earth colder.
This bears repeating, over and over again…
“G&T also pointed out that no laboratory evidence existed to assume that CO2 has the ability to warm the atmosphere via greenhouse theory to the claimed 10 to 25%, depending on who you ask in the AGW community (Lindzen claims 3% max, including other GHG gases). They pointed out the obvious, that the gas is far too rare to accomplish that, but even if it could warm the atmosphere that much, it would be a new super-insulator.”
Ya’d think a 30-year old hypothesis based on some pretty fundamental assumptions about physics and chemistry would have reams of laboratory experimental evidence to back it up? Especially since it’s a matter of life or apocalypse.
Luke’s only reply is to diss the authors. That’s pretty much all he and Sjt seem to offer to these debates nowadays. The Kill-the-Messenger Fallacy.
I wonder if that is a convincing argument to those of us watching and reading from the side lines?
““G&T also pointed out that no laboratory evidence existed to assume that CO2 has the ability to warm the atmosphere via greenhouse theory to the claimed 10 to 25%, depending on who you ask in the AGW community (Lindzen claims 3% max, including other GHG gases). They pointed out the obvious, that the gas is far too rare to accomplish that, but even if it could warm the atmosphere that much, it would be a new super-insulator.””
It’s a load of ******. 10 to 25% of what? The claim by itself is nonsense.
SJT “Mathematicians are allowed to use the term ‘forcing’, electronics engineers are allowed to, but you have decided climate scientists aren’t allowed to? Who appointed you judge and jury”.
SJT…it’s not that complicated. It’s not about being allowed to use it or not being allowed to use it, it’s about basing climate science entirely on computer models that are immature and not yet accurate. That’s what the IPCC has done to the exclusion of other data that suggests otherwise and it’s what you seem to do. You leave no room for alternative explanations about what is going on in the atmosphere.
I have no issue with using the term ‘forcing’ as long as it’s not offered as basic, proved, physics. I don’t like it personally because models are only of passing interest to me. It would be nice if they become accurate one day but right now I get a bit niggled when people insist on basing climate science on them. I wish sometimes you’d step back and try to observe the atmosphere from more than one angle.
It’s not going to do either of us any harm if in the long run either of us is proved to have been completely wrong. It would be nice to see you get away from the party line over at RC and operate on your own. I realize that likely wont happen.
You might notice that I never claim it is cooling. I don’t know that, nor do I know whether warming will pick up again. All I know, based on UAH satellite data, is that no net warming has taken place for over 10 years. I’m very curious as to what’s going to happen. If you get hung up on model theory, however, you have to take it on faith that warming ‘must’ resume. There lives depend on that over at RC, many of them work in that field.
SJT “It’s a load of ******. 10 to 25% of what? The claim by itself is nonsense”.
Funny enough, the 25% figure came from Gavin Schmidt. He was ridiculing Lindzen’s 3%. Schmidt even separated clouds from water vapour. The 10 to 25% is an estimation of how much CO2 has contributed to raising the Earth’s temperature due to the Greenhouse Effect.
Wes George “Ya’d think a 30-year old hypothesis based on some pretty fundamental assumptions about physics and chemistry would have reams of laboratory experimental evidence to back it up”?
It seems like a simple experiment, doesn’t it? Create an environment, fill it with well mixed gases in the ratio they are found in the atmosphere, irrdiate them with broad spectrum radiation and see what kind of heat they emit and in what IR bands.
Do they do that…nooooo. They use equations from ideal gas experiments and plug them into a computer program as part of a generalized differential equation.
G&T are theoretical physicists and they have not only never heard of CO2 behaving in the manner ascribed to it by AGW theory, they have never heard of many of the other theories used in climate science. It’s amazing how the Stefan-Boltzman constant, which was intended for measuring blackbody radiation in a laboratory environment, has been arbitrarily applied to an atmosphere and surface that is nowhere near a blackbody.