GOODBYE air pollution and smoky chimneys, hello brighter days. That’s been the trend in Europe for the past three decades – but unfortunately cleaning up the skies has allowed more of the sun’s rays to pierce the atmosphere, contributing to at least half the warming that has occurred.
New Scientist Environment: ‘Cleaner skies explain surprise rate of warming’
NEW YORK (Reuters) – U.S. environmental regulators quietly published a draft study on Thursday that linked global warming to higher levels of smog that could harm human health, a report green groups said stood in contrast to the Bush Administration’s slow movement on climate change.
The draft report published by the Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register said, “Climate change has the potential to produce significant increases in near-surface (ozone) concentrations in many areas of the U.S.”
Reuters Environment: ‘Study links global warming to more smog’
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I’m in on this save the Earth movement. From now on, I’ll do my part to pollute so that we can block the sun and stop the warming.
See. I knew all along that the sun caused global warming, but it took a team of scientists to verify that. Government money put to good use….
Woody – you couldn’t have cocked that up more. Did you even read the article before raving? No wonder there are earthquakes.
It’s the positive feedback! Revealed at last.
Here it is 5:15 in the afternoon.The sky is still obscured by smoke (which makes for a pretty pink tinged sun which you can look at without a sense of danger of going blind.) The newspaper forecasted 97 degrees, the thermometer reads 87.
Just like yesterday, the smoke has erased 10 degrees.
I was thinking it might be possible that the paper, which is mostly sympathetic to the consensus view of global warming, might be joining in on a bit of Hansen-esque number fluffing with their temp predictions.
Not so. The Bee predicted 108 yesterday for the town of Placerville, which lies on a plateau in the Sierra foothills just outside of the influence of the smoke, and 108 is what Pacerville got.
Hey, fear not, all good things DO come to pass.
Take my word for it, there is an extremely high probability that in the next few years some ‘scientists’ will publish an exhaustive report, based on some totally brilliant tools called GCMs which will show that anthropogenic global warming WILL burn the bejeesus out of the vast Russian steppes.
Mind you, the precision of those predictions will not be outside two standard deviations from the pre-existing climate averages for the steppes.
But, who cares, stuff it, if Luke doesn’t understand it, but still believes in it, it is absolutely bound to happen, post-modernist style.
This is turn will mean that the resulting dust storms comprised of the fine prairie loess soils on the steppes, together with the prevailing east to west winds (remember Chernobyl) will sweep Russian dust pollution right across Europe.
And, hey presto, Europe will cool again (although not with a precision of better than 95%, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more ;-).
Wonderfully, this was was all predicted, not by that medieval crank Nostradamus but by Voltaire in his wonderful book Candide, written more than 200 years ago:
Pangloss: “Everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds”.
“GOODBYE air pollution and smoky chimneys, hello brighter days. That’s been the trend in Europe for the past three decades – but unfortunately cleaning up the skies has allowed more of the sun’s rays to pierce the atmosphere, contributing to at least half the warming that has occurred.”
I don’t get it. The IPCC has said for years that aerosols had created a temporary cooling effect, and that because they are short term, the effect has temporarily masked the long term, persistent effects of AGW. For some reason, it is assumed here that the scientists knew nothing about all that, and that this is new knews that they were too stupid to be aware of.
The abysmal level of ignorance here never ceases to amaze.
“I don’t get it.”
That hardly comes as a surprise to the rest of us…
Isn’t this all just a rehash of the ‘Global Dimming’ that was “discovered” the day after 9/11 — something equally as well understood as ‘Global Warming’, apparently.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml
“Isn’t this all just a rehash of the ‘Global Dimming’ that was “discovered” the day after 9/11 — something equally as well understood as ‘Global Warming’, apparently.”
Global dimming was researched well before 9/11, 9/11 just gave scientists a unique opportunity to measure the effects aerosols.
Once again, ignorance rules the day.
SJT
“Once again, ignorance rules the day.”
OK, OK, already, we know you are ignorant, why do you have to remind us over and over?
SJT
Wrap your mind around this. Organized firefighting didn’t exist until the 20th century.
All though time when there were major forest fires people pretty much got the heck out of the way and let em burn. Here in California we have had over a thousand wildfires in the last few weeks. Most all of them were lit by lightening; ie natural causes. Not too much of the wood has burned when compared to historic California wildfires prior to 1800. Back then 4 million acres would burn in an average year, that’s more timber then burned across the entire United States during the 1990’s.
Back during the little ice age the cooling planet would have ensured lower overall precipitation. Add to that stew uncontrolled wildfires, with the incident smoke and particulate matter in the air.
Isn’t that a negative feedback? Wouldn’t that be enough to exasperate already chilled global conditions?
“Global dimming was researched well before 9/11..”
Wasn’t this what your goofball Flannery was rambling on about the last time he went off the reservation?
Sorry … I forgot. He seems to spend most of his time off the reservation. I recall he had some delusional idea about burning sulphur to create this ‘global dimming’.
What these 2 reports illustrate is the merging by the AGW camp of 2 disparate things; CO2 and pollution, with the result that you cannot now read or listen to an AGW advocate saying CO2 unless they are also saying pollution in the same breath.
SJT; your logic or lack thereof astounds me; the ozone was not masking global warming but solar heating.
Clear skies cool at night and heat during the day. But not all aerosols are created equal, some cool the surface while heating the atmosphere?:
We found that atmospheric brown clouds enhanced lower atmospheric solar heating by about 50 per cent. Our general circulation model simulations, which take into account the recently observed widespread occurrence of vertically extended atmospheric brown clouds over the Indian Ocean and Asia3, suggest that atmospheric brown clouds contribute as much as the recent increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases to regional lower atmospheric warming trends. We propose that the combined warming trend of 0.25 K per decade may be sufficient to account for the observed retreat of the Himalayan glaciers
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/abs/nature06019.html;jsessionid=8CC4584344D976C99B98782F86E184BA
Brown clouds of pollution over South Asia have multiplied solar heating of the lower atmosphere by 50 percent, finds new research by scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California-San Diego.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2007/2007-08-01-02.asp
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0110chinahaze.html
We show that including anthropogenic aerosol changes in 20th century simulations of a global climate model gives increasing rainfall and cloudiness over Australia during 1951–1996,
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JD007712.shtml
Cripes – intelligent comments from Wes – what next ! Maybe others might join in? Gads.
The paper under discussion in the lead says:
Aerosol and cloud effects on solar brightening and the recent rapid
warming
Christian Ruckstuhl,1 Rolf Philipona,2 Klaus Behrens,3 Martine Collaud Coen,2
Bruno Du¨rr,4 Alain Heimo,2 Christian Ma¨tzler,5 Stephan Nyeki,6 Atsumu Ohmura,1
Laurent Vuilleumier,2 Michael Weller,3 Christoph Wehrli,6 and Antoine Zelenka4
Received 9 April 2008; accepted 22 May 2008; published 24 June 2008.
[1] The rapid temperature increase of 1C over mainland
Europe since 1980 is considerably larger than the
temperature rise expected from anthropogenic greenhouse
gas increases. Here we present aerosol optical depth
measurements from six specific locations and surface
irradiance measurements from a large number of radiation
sites in Northern Germany and Switzerland. The
measurements show a decline in aerosol concentration of
up to 60%, which have led to a statistically significant
increase of solar irradiance under cloud-free skies since the
1980s. The measurements confirm solar brightening and
show that the direct aerosol effect had an approximately five
times larger impact on climate forcing than the indirect
aerosol and other cloud effects. The overall aerosol and
cloud induced surface climate forcing is +1 W m2 dec1
and has most probably strongly contributed to the recent
rapid warming in Europe. Citation: Ruckstuhl, C., et al.
(2008), Aerosol and cloud effects on solar brightening and the
recent rapid warming, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L12708,
doi:10.1029/2008GL034228.
So they are saying that the magnitude of the warming is greater than expected from greenhouse theory but probably related to an improvement in air quality over Europe. So all good stuff.
Philipona had an earlier paper that illustrated that the increase in cloud free longwave was close to greenhouse theory.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L03202, doi:10.1029/2003GL018765, 2004
“Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect”
The Rotstayn paper quoted by Wes is interesting in that the increase in rainfall comes from a change in atmospheric circulation patterns from the Asian haze, not so much the action of that haze on NW WA.
Hmmm…
Don’t recall reading this item in the “Alarmist Age”:
“Mysterious California Glaciers Keep Growing Despite Warming
MOUNT SHASTA, Calif. — Global warming is shrinking glaciers all over the world, but the seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta’s flanks are a rare exception: They are the only known glaciers in the continental U.S. that are growing.” – 9 July 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378144,00.html
Gee what a try-on – see how many bazzillion hits you get when you type “MOUNT SHASTA glacier global warming” into Google. Such a secret (not!).
And why ? well wait long enough and they’ll be gone too. http://www.springerlink.com/content/a3581383141m4126/
“They are the only known glaciers in the continental U.S. that are growing”
Hmmm…
Mt. St. Helen’s – that’s still in continental US, isn’t it ?
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/united-kingdom/TEE93VG4CJ5C6A947
Apr 23, 2008
Mount St. Helens’ Glacier Growing
“We’ve all been surprised at how little melt has actually happened”
A glacier inside the crater of Mount St. Helens is apparently one of the few glaciers in the world that is actually growing . via Geology News
(http://www.springerlink.com/content/a3581383141m4126/)
ROTFL – (dated August 2006) — two years out of date? That’s your best shot?
As usual – a day late and a dollar short.
luke; I don’t know what you are so happy about;the Ruckstuhl and Philipona paper is saying that, apparently, aerosols and their particulate, cloud formation capacity is not relevant to warming, but that they have an albedo capacity similar to, but less than low-level clouds;
“the team found that radiation dropped only slightly on cloudy days, suggesting that the main impact of aerosols is to block sunlight directly.”
The ‘dropped’ should be decreased, and by that I presume that they mean that the decrease caused by clouds is greater than that caused by aerosols.
The feedback from clouds found in both this and the earlier Philipona paper apparently does 3 things; firstly, it contradicts Spencer’s theories, and those of our good friends, Svensmark and Friis-Christensen; 2ndly, it makes no mention of CO2; and 3rdly, it does not deal with variations in TSI during the study period.
BTW, your assumption that the Guilderson paper I linked with the Great Pacific Climate Shift McLean paper is supportive of AGW is quite wrong; Guilderson is a known AGW advocate and his forlorn ‘suggests’, ‘resembles’, ‘mays’ and ‘conceiveablies’ that the contemperaneous climate effects of increased temps and El Nino conditions, and indeed the cessation of the upwelling, are AGW caused is egregious; the issue still remains as to whether the upwelling cessation is part of, caused by, or causes the PDO phase shift; McLean did not address this issue, and Guilderson certainly doesn’t.
“A glacier inside the crater of Mount St. Helens is apparently one of the few glaciers in the world that is actually growing .”
if you can’t understand something as obvious as the nose on your face, you’ve found the perfect place to come to. 🙂
Sorry SJT – did you say – “one of the few glaciers in the world that is actually growing” what was that again? Are you saying that Ivankovitch is saying “one of the few glaciers in the world that is actually growing”. I just wanted to make sure.
ROTFL ! LMMFAO !!
(and the Ivankovitch dude is complaining about information that isn’t published July 2008 – give a break tossa – relevance is till relevant)
Spencer – so what? How cares. Quite a way from tropical MJOs to Switzerland.
Svensmark – hee hee …; CO2 yuh – read the first paper mate; TSI – what variations – how many watts what?
“the issue still remains as to whether ….” yes indeed eh? squeeze harder … a Great Paciific Shit may be possible. Just think all things hangs on “the Australia’s greatest climate data analyst “Dr’ J McLean and Icecap”. Woo hoo. Google hits on the term “GPCS” for science papers = zilch.
Luke and SJT,
when you only study glaciers that are retreating it always comes as a surprise when there are reports of glaciers growing!! Then there IS the FACT that glaciers generally have been retreating since the LIA!!
Also, I thought the aerosol cooling effect was minimised after about 1960!! Amazing how the story keeps changing with each new study!! I guess without humans to create aerosols the earth would have already been toast seeing as how we only contribute a tiny amount of that nasty CO2 that hasn’t managed to melt the Antarctica yet and has turned its back on the Arctic!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Funny how all that European heating up doesn’t seem to have allowed them to grow crops at elevations as high as they did in the middle ages yet!!
Darned INCONVENIENT I say!!
Luke, when are you going to invest in Wine Growing in the British Isles MATE!! They used to you know. You could get in on the ground floor before anyone else!! All you have to do is BELIEVE!!! (and wearruby slippers and click your heels 3 times)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh you mean the time when they were growing a few grapes but the rest of the world was ravaged by drought. HAHAHAHAHAHA –
And you’re a bit of a dope aren’t you Kitty-Litter – what part of the word Europe and aerosol studies don’t you understand. You’ll enjoy reading how other total idiots like you have buggered up and miscast this paper. Twit !
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=581
HAHAHAHAHA – and thanks for playing.
And what do you mean – “they used to”. They’ve been growing there for quite a while HAHAHAHAHA
Depends on varieties. markets and all manner of things
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_from_the_United_Kingdom
Anyway we prefer our own plonk instead of Chateau Bin Piss with added radioactive fallout.
Off you go now KittyLitter – careful as you go. Toddle off.
luke; I did read Philipona’s paper; there is no mention of CO2; it’s all aerosols; aerosols block TSI so that ground measurements of TSI are reduced; when the aerosol concentration decreases the measurement of TSI increases with, as the paper assumes, a consequent increase in temp; the paper notes aerosols declined 60% from 1986-90 while solar irradiance under cloud-free skies measured an increase, as shown in the 2007 paper, of 1.3 +- 0.7 Wm-2dec-1; the Max Planck Institute shows that TSI peaked in 1978 and has been on the ebb ever since; the lads at skeptical science can take you through it;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Philipona is saying that aerosols block the heating effect of TSI not that TSI has changed; Philipona also says that H2O vapor provides a positive feedback to aerosol cooling; something another paper has found;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1995/95JD02166.shtml
H2O vapor and clouds are moderators of climate forcers, in both ways; as I have said before the natural feedbacks dominate man’s puny efforts; either from aerosols (which seem to have more impact than CO2) or CO2.
luke; you are being deliberately evasive and obtuse about the GPCS; I have provided you with the Hartmann and Wendler peer-reviewed paper on the GPCS; they note the PDO shifted from -ve to +ve in 1976 (it had been -ve from ’51-75;); mean annual and seasonal temps for the +ve phase (from ’77 onwards) were up to 3.1degC higher than for the -ve phase; that’s higher world-wide, even in sunny Switzerland where Philipona has been running around confiscating spray cans.
McLean and Quirk note the ’76 switch as indicated by the reversal in the SOI index; as well as PDO they note the Pacific Event, the partial cessation of deep-water upwelling which was measured in the 2 peer-reviewed papers I gave you, one by Guilderson, who is a warmist and tries dismally to blame these events on AGW; all McLean and Quirk do is note that there were 2 things happening here; the SOI and PDO reversal and the upwelling; what is beyond dispute is that global temps went up markedly after ’76, which has consequences for base periods covering that area, and, as a result of that base period corruption, really makes any claim that temps have gone up during the 20thC problematic. The questions which remain are; is the upwelling cessation part of the PDO; does the upwelling cessation cause the PDO shift; or are the 2 things unrelated with the upwelling cessation adding a temp increase boost to the intrinsic temp increase of the PDO phase shift.
That should be aerosols declined 60% from 1986-2005
Cohenite – type “Great Pacific Climate Shift” into Google Scholar. The use of Great is a contrarian try-on implying a one-off or rare event! When McLean publishes in Journal of Climate instead of a denialist comic we might look at it. And thanks for ignoring all the other climate literature. Like Barnett’s paper where temperature profile is changed in ALL oceans.
A couple of papers with a dozen “ifs” is not a theory. “Dismally” is just your little hobby horse spin attempt. A brick does not make a wall. Although you can throw them though windows.
Cohenite – you don’t have anything significant in TSI at all to explain those sort of “local temperatures” changes.
Cohenit – you so immersed in subtle spin that you can’t even see it – “peaked in 1978” But look it’s flat for most of the study period – nice try on !
The first Philipona paper shows an increase in cloud free downwards longwave close to greenhouse theory. I love the way you guys are “exclusivists” – IT MUST be this OR that. More than a single variable and you go spack. The paper simply shows the complexity of interactions on local scales.
“when you only study glaciers that are retreating it always comes as a surprise when there are reports of glaciers growing!! Then there IS the FACT that glaciers generally have been retreating since the LIA!!”
Look up cherry picking. It doesn’t surprise me at all that a few are growing while most are receeding. The rate of change of the retreat is what is interesting, it’s accelerated in the the last century.
luke; I’m not saying that TSI in itself is responsible for the temp ‘increases’; Philipona is saying that a reduced atmospheric aerosol content allowed previously blocked solar irradiance to contribute to heating;
“The strong AOD decline and consequent solar brightening apparently led to the steep temperature rise at the end of the century”
Philipona goes onto say;
“the observed aerosol stabilization after 2000, which ends solar brightening, suggests REDUCED temperature rise in the new century that is just due to greenhouse warming.”
A couple of things about that; all measures of TSI show decline in the early part of the 21stC, so this is not a factor of stabilized aerosol blockage; in fact Philipona seems to be saying that aerosols are neutral, which leaves CO2, which is increasing; the point about that is that temp is NOT increasing in the 21stC; so CO2 forcing is not sufficient to counter reduced TSI.
As to Barnett; his 2005 paper says: “A warming signal has penetrated into the world’s oceans over the past 40 years. The signal is complex, with a vertical structure that VARIES widely by ocean”; certainly his penetrating warming signal has gone to bed over the last couple of years;
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/publications.html click on the 2008 Willis, Lyman, Johnson and Gilson paper, “In situ data biases and recent ocean heat content variability”
Since 2006, ARGO has found ocean cooling and the deep southern oceans are cooling, and have shown no warming since the satellites began; Barnett’s 2005 model suffers from the defects of his 2001 paper; which is the exclusion of all other external forcings, ENSO, PDO NAO, solar; the only external forcings, in addition to the internal ocean forcings used by Barnett, were anthropogenic GHG’s, mainly CO2 and sulphate; as a result his models conclude that the slight warming after the 70’s was due to GHG’s! Pity he didn’t read McLean’s paper.
“if you can’t understand something as obvious as the nose on your face..”
You pair of numb-nuts never cease to amuse me – which one is Laurel and which is Hardy?
But thank you for proving the point I was making – namely, that facts are completely irrelevant to the AGW cause. You would not think it would have been a great effort to do a simple Google search (as Hardy did) to verify that they were not in fact “the only known glaciers in the continental U.S. that are growing”. Or for that matter, why restrict themselves to continental US?
Too lazy – or too stupid?
A couple of things to add to what Luke and Cohenite have been saying.
It is ironic that Luke should be quoting a statement from Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate as a reference so soon after he explicitly rejected the use by David Stockwell at Niche Modeling of a method for assessing the significance of the findings of the recent draft Drought Exceptional Circumstances report which has been explicitly and strongly endorsed and used by Gavin. When pressed Luke replied with the usual childish ‘denialist’ labellling spouting gobbeldegook showing he doesn’t even understand that GCM runs are routinely compared with the mean of any real world parameter for (say) regions (at various scales) AND the KNOWN observed coefficient of variation of that parameter from the long term record. I doubt he even knows what frequency distributions are.
With respect to the papers by Philipona et al. I’d simply point out that due to the timescale covered there is nothing about such papers which do or can support the range of IPCC(2007) projections and the papers are only good for showing what the general effect of recent reductions of certain types of aerosols over Western Europe is.
The measurement of long wave radiation measurements either at altitude on mountains, by balloon-based sonde and even satellite is necessarily subject to numerous numerical adjustments prior to use, principally as a consequence of difficulties with humidity gradients over the wave path and thus have been subject to much discussion and dispute over many years.
Even the now notorious (?) Miskolczi has been involved as a long recognized expert on IR spectrometry in the atmosphere e.g.
Miskolczi F. and R. Guzzi, 1993: Effect of Nonuniform Spectral Dome Transmittance on the Accuracy of Infrared Radiation Measurements Using Shielded Pyrradiometers and Pyrgeometers. Appl. Opt., 34, pp 1598-1605.
Rizzi, R., Matracardi, M. and Miskolczi, F. 2002: Simulation of uplooking and downlooking high-resolution radiance spectra with two different radiative transfer models. Appl. Opt., 41(6), 940-956
The gossip amongst physicists is that Miskolczi was actually making a good living in the US (after moving there from Italy), as a consultant to NASA etc on spectrometry until he fell foul of Hansen’s AGW group for criticizing spectral aspects of sonde and satellite spectrometry soundings. Interestingly, this led to a number of discrete changes being made by NASA in recent years e.g.:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/gxx67438367xv731/
But before Luke is tempted to put mouth into gear before engaging brain and slag me off for making these observations (which I had told him about elsewhere – but water off a duck’s back as you know), he would be well advised to checked whether Philipona and/or his associates at ETH Zurich reference Miskolczi (or indeed know him).
“Since 2006” – ROTFL !
Miskolczi – looks like his latest paper has croaked to me. Next.
I see you’re now into averaging apples, oranges and avocadoes. Sheesh. So tell us – most of the time Gavin is wrong but if it suits you he’s right. Mate you couldn’t lay straight in bed.
Somehow Cohenite I don’t think Tim Barnett reads E&E. I wonder why.
When in doubt try incoherence (clearly wasn’t up to the Swahili ;-). Anything to hide the lack of education.
Look like we’ve got a case of Dunning-Kruger effect here.
Steve; a good take on the Miskolczi brou’haha is here;
http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm
What I like about Miskolczi is that he offers 2 constraints to the AGW atmospheric model and incremental CO2 heating; Kirchhoff and the Virial Theorem, so that, as I understand it, radiative and thermal balance are the order of the day; Jan Pompe did an excellent description of the kinetic and potential energy ingredients of the Virial component at a post recently in exchange with eli rabett.
My point about the Philipona papers (and Barnett for that matter) was that whenever a ‘model’ paper comes along with a conclusion about AGW being manifest the main forcing is to do with constraining either the data or the model parameters so that conclusion can be achieved. I don’t want to be glib because the models obviously potentially serve a purpose, but you would think with AGW being such a dominant phenomenon that the contortions would not be necessary.
Actually Steve I am miffed – why:
For someone who has just ad hom’ed me after you received a previous answer that you did not understand.
Stockwell is probably a genius – but that doesn’t give him the right to drop kick CSIRO and imply conspiracy without some fair initial inquiry. Frankly after the discourteous way he blogged it I wouldn’t be surprised if they bit bucket his emails. (But that’s just me being punchy).
So that was point #1.
Point 2 is why pick 95% confidence interval. The implications of errors either way could be worth billions.
Point 3 is I wondered about the statistical implications of testing single GCM runs vis a vis an ensemble (not sure?) of different GCMs. And even what statistical test would be appropriate. Parametric vs non-parametric tests even.
Point 4 – is that it’s a discussion paper and not the final word.
Point 5 – the Treasury knives have always been out for Exceptional Circumstances dollars. For about the last 15 years actually. It is of some pith and moment to know if the probability distribution has changed and I wish you guys would give him more serious consideration to this serious practical policy problem.
I see the issue is getting nastier by the minute with Lee Kernaghan buying in !
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/12/2301976.htm
http://www.leekernaghan.com/site.php
NOT HAPPY Steve !
luke; doesn’t Koutsoyiannis compare the benefits of parametric versus non-parametric, to the detriment of the models?
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850
Well Luke, it is nice to see you have returned to speakly coherently and logically at least!
Point 1. I submit the authors of draft Drought Exceptional Circumstances actually had a distinct community responsibility to produce the sort of table that Stockwell did. It is then a poor comeback to simply cane Stockwell for doing it.
Point 2. And while they were at it, they (the authors) should then have compared the outcomes with both the 95% and 67% confidence levels so that everyone could see just how their predictions performed for various degrees of confidence. I submit they had a responsibility to do just that and the fact they did not is just symptomatic of the general arrogance that tends to bedevil both CSIRO/BOM climate studies and the AGW camp in general. Look, I spent 11 years as a ANSTO senior research scientist. I was the 1st to unequivocally detect Chernobyl radionuclides in Australia (in weeds of all things). Speaking totally hypothetically, if I had produced a report even at draft stage, saying e.g. Chernobyl fallout would never cause risk of Cd-137 rising to harmful levels in (say) mutton (sheep being a known accumulator), without doing the proper stats, I would have got fried not only by the environmental lobby but some other scientists.
Point 3. Unless I am missing something, the outcomes of single GCM runs for the various regions described in the report have been tested by Stockwell against in the (draft report) reported existing climatic parameter (soil moisture, temperature and rainfall) average and their coefficients of variation for those regions. I don’t think it is a case of comparing a mean outcomes and coefficients of variation from an ensemble of GCM runs. I may be wrong. But regardless, it doesn’t matter because these days there are well established statistical procedures for doing valid quotient tests for a variety of pairs of skewed and non-skewed frequency distributions in e.g. medical research etc e.g. Fieller Theorem.
Point 4. Ditto criticism.
Point 5. When you say: “It is of some pith and moment to know if the probability distribution has changed and I wish you guys would give him (sic) more serious consideration to this serious practical policy problem.” despite the typo, I think (hope) I know what you mean and I agree 100%. With billions of dollars involved, surely the stats should be there even at draft level, and ultimately be beyond reproach?
Correction: Cs-137
Actually cohenite, there are very much sounder blogs such as Niche Modeling and physicsforums where Miskolczi’s theory is deconstructed bit by bit (as it should be)and looked at very closely by people who actually know and enjoy the relevant math. Jam Pompe who blogs here is one of the people who has taken part in that discussion in a creditable way. I am not a physicist (chemothermodynamics is my real non-human love) but my take on these discussions is that Miskolczi’s theory has some some apparent conceptual flaws which mean that so far it hasn’t really ‘got up’ as a serious contender to conventional AGW theory. That is not to say that Miskolczi is not a serious researcher with a decent suite of papers behind him – he is. But the nature of physics is that for the theory to be credible the math has to hold up against the body of current physical thinking and Miskolczi’s may not. Part of the problem is also Miskolczi’s English. However, we should not underestimate his theory because it impressively fits some features of the real world atmosphere.
I am much more interested in Roy Spencers’s work, see:
http://climatesci.org/2008/07/10/special-guest-seminar-at-cu-by-roy-spencer-july-17-2008global-warming-recent-evidence-for-reduced-climate-sensitivity/
and the related fact that the global oceanic averages of satellite CERES data during 2000 through 2005 which reveals a net (SW+LW) feedback parameter of around 8 W m-2 K-1.
This may be at least partly a result of effects I have raised regarding the effect of cyanobacterially induced films/monolayers on ocean surface albedo, low level cloud formation, humidity, etc. It is a fact existing GCMs reproduce low level cloud densities over the ocean very poorly indeed. You will recall I have shown that the period 2000 – 2006 has been characterized by a sharp rise in the cyanobacterial productivity of the great Southern Ocean in toto to now match that of the Southeast Pacific Gyre – one of the most oligotrophic and cyanobacterially productive patches of open ocean on the planet. FYI I am slowly preparing a follow-up article for this blog on that right now using further CO2 data through to the end of the 1st quarter 2008 just released to me by NOAA a few days back.
1. Not really for that sort of document. And he shot first without seeing if he could garner a response.
2. I don’t know what they may or may not have done stats wise. Yet to be determined. AT least give them the benefit of the doubt initially.
3. We’re arguing with them about whether all GCMs are considered equal. On what basis do you average the lot and do what sort of test of significance – I say again – I’m uncertain. So does that sound like Dunning-Kruger to you? And are they single runs of each GCM or an ensemble grouping for each GCM? And as you say yes there are specialised stats – so I’m simply reflecting whether ripping in like Stockwell has done, is enough without knowing more details. All of which I told you in Swahili previous.
5. Well let’s hear some discussion of how one might approach such as an issue. A “not optional” climate issue. Decisions need to be made – how? on the basis of what Steve ? So for a change I’d be happy to hear your advice as “acting policy officer on watch”.
What data sets and approaches can we consider? The policy officer only has to specify the methods – not actually do them !
SO what shits me about all the discussion on blog in the last few months is that decisions on urban water supply, drought, Murray Darling need to be made. On what basis do we make those decisions.
So the reaction from your guys is to put the boot into the CSIRO and BoM science then walk off the field. This is what really pisses me off.
Well sorry. That doesn’t help much. The job is still on the table.
Would be good in the history of the blog besides just dropping ad hom crap on each other (which is fun sometimes) to actually have a go at suggesting what ought be done policy wise (given your collective superior opinions, life experience and vast intellect). {barf}
There are stacks of reasons to be critical of CSIRO’s approach – but you can play games to kick them out of the stadium on AGW politics or participate. Even getting enough compute time is an issue (although as all good bloggians here know they’re just swimming in loot while quaffing feine weine and caviar).
Steve; thanks for the link to Spencer; he has been polishing this idea for some time; one of the things I took from Philipona’s papers is that water in its various atmospheric forms, can or does act as a -ve feedback to both warming and cooling; I’ll have to burrow through Spencer’s papers to see if he considers this, or whether he concentrates on the negative feedback to warming only. One thing though, Spencer is often held up as a so-called pro-AGW scientist who believes in anthropogenic warming; if he does he must believe that this sourceof warming is very small.
As to Miskolczi; I have followed the discussion about him on Stockwell’s excellent blog, and at Climate Audit, which featured some vigorous critiques, and also at Anthony Watts; I thought Miskolczi stood up pretty well and I especially have regard to how the implication of negative feedbacks is being borne out as your studies show, and especially in respect of atmospheric H2O in its various forms; in this respect this paper is interesting;
http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/library/Minschwaner_2004.pdf
And Ken Gregory does a good job in summarising this aspect of Miskolczi;
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Efect.htm
Sorry; that Ken Gregory link is this;
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm
CSIRO did reply
http://landshape.org/enm/drought-exceptional-circumstances-reply/#comments
Yeah, I saw that. Let’s see what Stockwell makes of the significance tests.
Yes a very impertinent hanging judge previous post from Stockwell who thinks that CSIRO are there at his beck and call. Which country is he from again? I note he had the decency to suspend judgement pending further consideration.
But lah de dah as they say … (Annie Hall)
So Steve – what’s your science input for policy response on EC then? Got anything practical to add besides side swipes? Let’s hear it ! (fair dink question)
Assessing past diversity of life and how it changed over time requires assembly of a database of the many individual and diverse studies of fossils. Previous studies on first and last occurrences of marine invertebrates had showed an increase in diversity following the Cambrian explosion and particularly since about 100 million years ago.
Alroy et al. (2008) have now analyzed a new compilation of more than 3 million specimens resolved to the genus and species level. In contrast to older analyses, the data support a Jurassic increase and imply that the increase in diversity in the Cenozoic (65.5 Ma to the present) was not particularly high relative to earlier times.
Phanerozoic Trends in the Global Diversity of Marine Invertebrates
Science 4 July 2008:
Vol. 321. no. 5885, pp. 97 – 100
DOI: 10.1126/science.1156963
Across the Jurassic (approx. 145 – 215 My) the best estimates of average global temperatures are that they started at around 23 V, were sustained at 21 C for most of the era and then declined to to 16 C at the end of the era. The present average global temperature is about 14.6 C.
Across the Jurassic the best estimates of atmospheric CO2 levels are that they started at about 1900 ppmv, declined to 1200 ppmv and then rose through a maximum of 2500 ppmv before declining near the end of the era to approx. 2300 ppmv. It is noted these CO2 levels all lie below the thermodynamic Saturation Indices of aragonite and calcite for the above temperature range.
Think geologically, act calmly, cultivate serenity, meditate frequently…
Yes, lets hear it:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
So nothing to offer eh? Such is the way of sceptics – all fun no responsibility. As I suspected.
When the predicted future climatic variation is hardly different from that which has applied in just the very recent past i.e. since Europeans came here and kept records, not to mention the greater variations of the last few thousand years, it is very hard to take your gimme ‘policy response to EC’ seriously.
It is all a question of mindset. You embrace ‘concern’, ‘alarm’ and ‘fear of catastrophe’ like a long lost cuddly toy. One would think that you’d been raised exclusively on a diet of Woody Allen movies!
It amazes me how the poor of the world couldn’t give a damn about the ‘impending climate catastrophe’ while back in the unreal developed world such as Australia there is veritable host of AGW alarmists seemingly hell bent on turning (Mel Brook’s 😉 “High Anxiety” into global religion!
From the perspective of a somewhat older man, I say humans have been intimately engaged in a precarious relationship between agriculture and natural climate variation ever since the rise of civilization, a history which, by comparison, does rather make the concerns of your current mindset rather transient.
But whatever.
If there really are going to be significant elevations of temperatures, reductions in rainfall and soil moisture over a number of major regions of Australia this is going to have to be a subject of lengthy informed debate, not just endless hand wringing.
It also means we should be exploring major land use changes such as broad scale reforestation, the use of kangaroos etc for range farming, regional shifts in crop cultivation to e.g. the Gulf country.
If they are such useful tools as you say this should also mean the systematic application of climate models to exploring ways of ameliorating this such as a river re-directions and maybe even a permanent reflooding of Lake Eyre with seawater.
However, you can bet most of these notions will run into more hailstorms (sorry, sand storms) of greenie nay saying. More neuroticism….. The people will eventually become completely exhausted and that will be that.
Dear Nominated Policy Officer On Watch,
Thank you for your emotional brief and concern for my deteriorating mental condition, including alarmism-o-philia.
However this does not address the issue at hand on determining a rationale for future EC and water allocation processes in the nominated region.
I shall inform the Minister that your first attempt was “less than perfect”.
Failure to produce a better brief by COB will necessitate termination of your consultancy.
Regards
Chief Policy Wallah
Ah acronyms e.g. EC for ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ and new-speak e.g ‘this does not address the issue at hand on determining a rationale for future EC and water allocation processes in the nominated region’.
Rationale – is this not the base of meaning for a course of action? So you’d like me to help you build yet another construct of warm chair waffle on top of a tissue-thin base of meaning and thus solve the problems of the nation’s agriculture?
Those who can, do, those who can’t, write memos to their higher-ups. The skeletons of Franz Kafka and George Orwell are thus enabled to spin ever so very slightly faster in their graves.
But thank you for your memo revealing you are likely just another little bureaucrat embedded way down there somewhere in ‘the great pyramid of all bureaucrats’.
No Steve – all just a whopping big cop-out and pox of word games. So you’ve walked away when confronted with a real problem – which I’ve found almost universally on this blog. Thanks we’ll do our best without you – just don’t complain what you get then. And so endth the lesson.