Re: Global Warming Supported Via SDN Tactics
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:31 pm
So just to get this clear in my addled brain; "SDN tactics" is just another way to say "arsehole"?
Starfleet Jedi Forum
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/
The claim that CO2 can create higher temps has some persuasive arguments behind it, but as yet there is no evidence in the real world that CO2 -> higher temps. If anything, we've seen higher temps in advance of CO2 rises, historically, not to mention the assorted warmings that had absolutely no relationship to CO2 whatsoever.Jedi Master Spock wrote:In the big picture, though, the case for man-made global warming is strong, and it's been getting stronger every year as more data becomes available. We know exactly how CO2 can trap additional heat, from how it interacts with different frequencies of light. We know exactly where extra CO2 is coming from. We don't know where it's all going - there are some unexplained (and irregular-seeming) absorption mechanisms that make things difficult to model. We also know that ocean pH is shifting, which, as I mentioned previously, I find more alarming than temperature shifts.
I read that a few days ago. RealClimate's response is incredibly weak . . . understandable, since CRU is indefensible.I recommend reading RealClimate's take on it if you would like to have a balanced view after the WSJ article (and RealClimate has actually posted a link to what seems to be the e-mails in question, no "hack" required), but the fact of the matter is that the facts themselves remain independent of the techniques used to argue for them.
Geologically, the consensus is that CO2 has played a more minor role in climate in the past... because its rate of change has been low. Geologically, there's been a tendency for a time lag. On the historical level, there's been a tendency for what we might like to call a geologically negligible period of lag. There's almost certainly a measurable time lag in the paleoclimate data, suggesting that in the past, CO2 levels have mainly reinforced existing temperature shifts rather than initiating them... but if there's a statistically significant time lag in the historical-timescale data, it's on a level that we wouldn't be able to measure in the paleoclimate data.2046 wrote:The claim that CO2 can create higher temps has some persuasive arguments behind it, but as yet there is no evidence in the real world that CO2 -> higher temps. If anything, we've seen higher temps in advance of CO2 rises, historically, not to mention the assorted warmings that had absolutely no relationship to CO2 whatsoever.
Sporadic correlation? It's a remarkably strong correlation the last I heard.Put simply, there is a theoretical mechanism, and sporadic correlation, but no evidence of causation (and evidence against).
The tree ring cores are hardly the only pre-1960 data used to draw inferences. There's also ice core data.I read that a few days ago. RealClimate's response is incredibly weak . . . understandable, since CRU is indefensible.
For instance, the HARRY_READ_ME file is glossed over as issues "presumably fixed", yet you can see in the file itself that this can't be so.
The "hide the decline" by not using the particular tree ring data after 1960 because it doesn't match the preferred station data adjustments is defended on the grounds that someone suggested not using it in a paper, with no explanation as to the mechanics of how it could be wrong. And yet we're supposed to keep using those same hand-selected 12 tree ring cores for everything prior to 1960 with no reservations? It doesn't even make internal sense, much less making sense in regards to its contradiction with their adjusted station data.
"Just"? I would say that it's likely the very worst of it.And their CRU data accessibility point is the same Jones-stated BS he concocted as an excuse in the e-mails, which is fabulous.
And, of course, there's no mention whatsoever of the sloppy code that doesn't work correctly, unknown data sets, fudge factors, knowingly made up information, hard-coded fake tweaks that make the earlier times cooler and later times warmer, and all the other bones of contention. And that's just from HARRY_READ_ME!
He seems alarmed that a climate research group would get $22 million in grants since 1990.In short, the RealClimate defense is one of those moments where the appearance of a response is considered more important than a lack of response, even though the response they gave is a lack of response.
The deeper you go into the released data, the more alarming it gets. The RealClimate response can only work if (a) you're already full of the RealClimate Kool-Aid or (b) you've only given the ClimateGate data a passing blush.
Here's some fairly in-depth notes on the matter. It's a long thread but there's a lot of excellent information and links and quotes from other sources, making it a pretty good (albeit chronologically-sorted) overview of the event.
I'm not aware of any studies that manage such fine distinctions over the history of the past millions of years. That is, if we look here . . .Jedi Master Spock wrote:Geologically, the consensus is that CO2 has played a more minor role in climate in the past... because its rate of change has been low.2046 wrote:The claim that CO2 can create higher temps has some persuasive arguments behind it, but as yet there is no evidence in the real world that CO2 -> higher temps. If anything, we've seen higher temps in advance of CO2 rises, historically, not to mention the assorted warmings that had absolutely no relationship to CO2 whatsoever.
Frankly, what we're hearing from some of these folks just doesn't mesh with reality. I'm sure there are a lot of good climate scientists out there, but considering how many flaws, many of them intentional, that there are in the accepted wisdom on various matters, I'm not predisposed to accept things just on their say-so. The charts above, for instance, do not bear out such claims, so either I'm just being a dumbass layman who is failing to see the magic nuances in the lines that counterintuitively show their claims to be true, or their claims are as yet unproven.Sporadic correlation? It's a remarkably strong correlation the last I heard.Put simply, there is a theoretical mechanism, and sporadic correlation, but no evidence of causation (and evidence against).
Of course. My point was apparently unclear. It is not that the tree rings were the only source, but that it didn't make sense to continue to rely on them pre-1960 if they fail post-1960. If they are an accurate proxy then they ought to be accurate the whole time. If they are demonstrably inaccurate over a long period (e.g. the last 50 years), then unless you can explain very clearly why they are inaccurate over that period but no others you should drop them from your list of useful proxies.The tree ring cores are hardly the only pre-1960 data used to draw inferences. There's also ice core data.The "hide the decline" by not using the particular tree ring data after 1960 because it doesn't match the preferred station data adjustments is defended on the grounds that someone suggested not using it in a paper, with no explanation as to the mechanics of how it could be wrong. And yet we're supposed to keep using those same hand-selected 12 tree ring cores for everything prior to 1960 with no reservations? It doesn't even make internal sense, much less making sense in regards to its contradiction with their adjusted station data.
There are in-program remarks that are being looked through, as well, in assorted .pro and other files."Just"? I would say that it's likely the very worst of it.And that's just from HARRY_READ_ME!
For the most part I concur, though it is a distressingly large group that was involved, and they were the main source of the claim of man-made global warming and the UN's main go-to guys. It is no accident that Gore relied on Mann's hockey stick for his exclamation point.Right now, I'm assuming that the CRU group and its co-authors are the exception, rather than the rule, in attempting to subvert the peer review process.
That's just it . . . for AGW, they were the rule. There's a lot of other/tangential stuff done elsewhere by good climate scientists, I'm sure, but you won't find that Jones and the gang had a lot of competition . . . and what competition they had usually worked off the same adjusted datasets. (For instance, Jones dissed GISS info, but IIRC 95% of their recent data was taken from GISS adjusted data which was then de-adjusted (ponder that) and re-adjusted.)If it's the rule, then we have a much more serious problem.
I think his alarm is based on the fact that their output is so crappy for the money they get.He seems alarmed that a climate research group would get $22 million in grants since 1990.
Perhaps I should have said the "archaeological" time period. The time lag in the ice core data is interesting, and the subject of a lot of work. RealClimate talking about Al Gore and ice core graphs.2046 wrote:I'm not aware of any studies that manage such fine distinctions over the history of the past millions of years. That is, if we look here . . .
. . . I don't know of any point on that chart (except the wee last pixel or two) where we've really got a good idea of variations over a timespan of, say, a century. That is, I don't know that our scan resolution is good enough to be able to make a distinction between long-term and short-term events on a theoretical level. Even superior-looking temperature charts (see link below) are based on just 17,000 or so adjusted readings, which over about 525 million years works out to an average of almost 31,000 years between individiual datapoints. And yes, I'm sure it's not a perfect even spread, but still.
Current rate of carbon change: 1-3 ppm per year (about 2 per year average).However, the chart itself is interesting merely because there is very little correlation between temperature and CO2. Indeed, looking at about 180 million years ago, we see CO2 go apeshit with no apparent temperature rise even to the earlier temperature high at 248, but instead a drop in temperature a few million years later, with a drop in CO2 coming afterward. Also, there's the huge temperature drop at 440, with CO2 dropping only after the temperature recovery was already underway.
Even using this temperature chart, the aforementioned superior-looking one which is rather less flat, you can see that 150 million years ago did not feature correlation.
I point that out not to be a cherry-picker (because there's that spot around 280 that looks like a CO2-preceded temperature bump), but because there's a contradiction.
"But I said low rate of change," you might retort. Okay, sure, but the Azolla event was supposed to have happened over 800,000 years as the Azolla plant in what is now the arctic sequestered teratonnes of CO2 and led to a drop in temperature, it is said. The amount of CO2 taken out of the system in this way is said to have dropped the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from 3500ppmv to 650, a factor of five. And the cooling that supposedly resulted took millions of years . . . 35 million or so by some estimates as to when the northern pole took to icing over.
We only have CO2 changes this rapid in the recent historical record. In which the correlation is pretty strong... unless the data available are false.So long-term changes due to rapid CO2 changes are claimed in the science, but only on certain occasions. Certainly I'm seeing no indication of rapid CO2 changes leading to rapid temperature changes.
Thirty years ago, climate science was too young. Twenty years ago, people weren't wholly sure about what was going on. Ten years ago, it started to get very convincing. Now, at this point, there's a lot of certainty.Don't get me wrong . . . I understand that the atmosphere is complex, and that determinations on past temp events are complicated all the more by issues like the continents refusing to stand still, volcanism, changes in the biological tapestry, and so on, but what I'm seeing from where I sit is that we don't know enough yet to conclude that we ought to be attempting to create a steady-state atmosphere and expending exhaustive resources to do so.
Climate science is simply too young. Hell, the whole concept of the Azolla incident is only a couple of years old.
I think the Grumbine page is pretty nice. Wish he'd posted the spreadsheet he used, though.Frankly, what we're hearing from some of these folks just doesn't mesh with reality. I'm sure there are a lot of good climate scientists out there, but considering how many flaws, many of them intentional, that there are in the accepted wisdom on various matters, I'm not predisposed to accept things just on their say-so. The charts above, for instance, do not bear out such claims, so either I'm just being a dumbass layman who is failing to see the magic nuances in the lines that counterintuitively show their claims to be true, or their claims are as yet unproven.
However, if you have someplace to point me where these strong correlations (especially regarding short-term incidents) are demonstrated, please let me know. Unlike the CRU guys, I am open to having my mind changed if the evidence warrants.
Yeah, grandfathered permits are kinda crap. You have a motivation to increase emissions leading up to the permit issuance stage when they do it that way. If you issue tradeable permits on the theory that the market will assign an appropriate value to them and reduce overall emissions by distributing the load appropriately between more and less efficient producers, you should be auctioning them all in the first place.I think his alarm is based on the fact that their output is so crappy for the money they get.
That's a drop in the bucket compared to lobbying money. Contrary to AGW alarmist claims, a lot of the corporate lobbying is to get themselves on the right side of legislation, so as to make a lot of money if cap-and-trade goes through.
The "follow the money" act is a good idea if you're suspicious of motives. It's usually a pretty good tell-tale when it comes to bad science. You look at who's spending money to put out the study and who's spending money to publicize it.But then, I hate lobbyists even if I agree with their position, so the whole "follow the money" act means little to me, and is usually used purely for ad hominem purposes.
Given the 800-1000 year time lag of CO2 as seen in CO2 increases plotted against temperature over the past few hundred millennia, in addition to the period 1940-1980 when the temperature and CO2 did not correlate (plus the past decade, actually), I would agree that CO2 is not an initiating factor of global warming.Jedi Master Spock wrote: And, on top of that, it's usually an amplifying factor rather than an initiating factor.
But that's my point.We only have CO2 changes this rapid in the recent historical record. In which the correlation is pretty strong... unless the data available are false.So long-term changes due to rapid CO2 changes are claimed in the science, but only on certain occasions. Certainly I'm seeing no indication of rapid CO2 changes leading to rapid temperature changes.
No one's denying possible correlation during certain times, merely causation. You can look at a chart of the past 400,000 years and see that Antarctic ice core CO2 and O18 are within one another's ballpark (albeit with CO2 delay), and as shown previously in the big orange graph there was a sporadic correlation over the more recent geological timescales (albeit not a direct one). On the other hand, over the past decade there's been none.Here is the demonstration of the most primitive of all techniques - the simple linear regression of the recent "historical" CO2 with temperature. Which isn't quite what the IPCC uses, but it underlines things very sharply. Plot historical temperatures with historical CO2 levels, and you get a strongly monotone trend. Plot historical temperatures against historical CO2 levels, and track the strength of the correlation over time, and you find that the last half dozen decades show a much stronger correlation than the previous century.
Consensus is not reality, and from what I'm seeing most of the numbers claiming numbers of scientists in either direction are highly variable anyway. So I see no need to pay attention to such things. Evidence should be the guide, not claims about a crowd.And that's the picture that today's climate scientists - about 95% of them, anyway, which is actually a remarkable amount of agreement considering how new the field is and how politically charged it is - are painting.
Thank you for the excellent display of AGW alarmism.CO2 plays a natural "amplifier" role in climate changes, but normally does not drive the change, because there are no major natural fast-rate forcings of CO2. However, during the last industrial century, humankind has forced CO2 into the system quickly. About halfway through the 20th century, the normal short-term CO2 dampers and climate dampers started hitting capacity.
And I will repeat that the climate shift - as alarming as warming is for those living near the coast, or on small islands, or as alarming as precipitation pattern changes are for those living in the areas getting short-changed, or as alarming as sharply cooling Europe (if the Gulf stream shut down due to overall global warming, as some have suggested) might be, the most alarming part of the CO2 picture is the ocean pH shift.
IMO, it's terribly understated in the media, because it cannot be understood simply in terms of direct impact on humans. Sea life is a very important part of the ecological system.
Undeserved certainty, because it's still too young. Thirty years ago they said we were going into an ice age. Twenty years ago James Hansen predicted that New York 2009 would be a hot half-sunken high-wind hellhole, and made assorted wild claims to Congress that haven't come true. Ten years ago alarmists were predicting the same old fiery death and sea level rises as early as 2010.Thirty years ago, climate science was too young. Twenty years ago, people weren't wholly sure about what was going on. Ten years ago, it started to get very convincing. Now, at this point, there's a lot of certainty.
Do you realize those two graphs have timescales going the opposite direction?2046 wrote:Given the 800-1000 year time lag of CO2 as seen in CO2 increases plotted against temperature over the past few hundred millennia, in addition to the period 1940-1980 when the temperature and CO2 did not correlate (plus the past decade, actually), I would agree that CO2 is not an initiating factor of global warming.
CO2 Concentrations
Inst. Temp Record
Which is why models are required. We're dealing with a "new" situation. Never before has CO2 concentration been increased at this sharp of a rate for year after year.But that's my point.
1. The 'scan resolution' of the past is not adequate to support the claim of rapid changes in CO2 forcing rapid temperature increase.
Strangely, the data 1960-present has no such trouble... nor the data of the whole record. The correlation is there.2. The data from the present (e.g. 1940-1980, or post-2000) is not adequate to support the claim of rapid changes in CO2 directly forcing rapid temperature increase.
The ice core data has a similar correlation as the old historical data... about a third of the variance. It shows, in other words, the same "amplifying" relationship.3. Slower-change correlations indicated by the available data from the past do not show changes in CO2 forcing temperature increases.
"Now" is demonstrating the point. Temperatures are still on the whole tracking fairly well with CO concentrations on the historical record.So to make the claim that now is a special case which proves the point is rather odd, since now doesn't prove the point and there's no other known proof of said point, unless I'm missing it somewhere.
More limited ranges aren't a good thing. We have an established non-CO2 related peak in 1998 related to El-Nino, which brought temperatures well above the "norm" we would expect only from a predicted CO2 effect.No one's denying possible correlation during certain times, merely causation. You can look at a chart of the past 400,000 years and see that Antarctic ice core CO2 and O18 are within one another's ballpark (albeit with CO2 delay), and as shown previously in the big orange graph there was a sporadic correlation over the more recent geological timescales (albeit not a direct one). On the other hand, over the past decade there's been none.
Except strangely, we have a nice strong correlation over the whole historical record. Where it's weak is when we take a selected subset of the data (see the details on the Grumbine site; the correlation over the entire historical record is not far from the correlation of the last 50 years. It's only that if we separate the last 50 years, the correlation drops. Curiously, we also have a major increase in the quality of data in the last 50 years.)You can also get correlation with solar activity, geomagnetic activity, and assorted retarded things like US wars. And hey, don't worry . . . if correlation fails at one point, you either pick a more helpful period to work with, or monkey with the data a la CRU, or monkey with the graphing technique.
Other causes, unfortunately, have by and large failed to account for a small fraction of the temperature variance.Consensus is not reality, and from what I'm seeing most of the numbers claiming numbers of scientists in either direction are highly variable anyway. So I see no need to pay attention to such things. Evidence should be the guide, not claims about a crowd.
(e.g. From January 2009 there's a survey responded to by 157 people who identified themselves as climatologists and 97% said they thought human activity is a significant factor in altering the mean temperature of the planet. But of course, that can be spun both ways, because even I think human activity is a significant factor in altering the mean temperature of the planet. I may not think it's as significant as folks like James ('Jail the Deniers!') Hansen, but I don't think we have no real effect. I just think other causes far outweigh us. And note that there was no mention of CO2 in that survey.)
Not particularly. You're still missing the main point.Thank you for the excellent display of AGW alarmism.
The "current cooling" - which is to say, the temperature basically remaining static following the 1998 El Nino - still represents on the instrumental record a warming from the past... and still represents part of a powerful correlation of CO2 with temperature, and implicates CO2 not simply as a symptom, but a contributor. Again, CO2 serves as an amplifier; we know how that works. Hotter temperatures release more carbon, more carbon traps that little bit more radiation, which we know straight from its emission/absorbtion spectrum.These guys flaked out completely when the current cooling occurred,
Thank you for illustrating the point I was making. As you can see, the period I described is as I described it.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Do you realize those two graphs have timescales going the opposite direction?2046 wrote:Given the 800-1000 year time lag of CO2 as seen in CO2 increases plotted against temperature over the past few hundred millennia, in addition to the period 1940-1980 when the temperature and CO2 did not correlate (plus the past decade, actually), I would agree that CO2 is not an initiating factor of global warming.
CO2 Concentrations
Inst. Temp Record
Here's what you get if you superimpose and rescale them:
Here's the point of logical departure between us, besides the definition and meaning of correlation. You state the threshold hypothesis as if it is proven and understood, but it isn't. Hell, look here:Now, that's flux, not concentration, but you can see that starting around a half-century in the past, human emissions and temperature start moving in lockstep. Before that? It's noisy as all get-out. If you want to see the correlation there, you have to actually throw it into a spreadsheet. It's a lot weaker, but it still exists.
So what changed? We hit some key threshold of output past the ability of the global ecosystem to damp it. It's a phase transition. We expect those.
So we know where it comes from but not where it goes? Isn't where it goes part of that whole threshold thing you just stated as fact?One of the big puzzles is that there's a lot of CO2 that has gone missing, and they haven't tracked down exactly what's making it disappear.
But we do know, to a pretty good degree of precision, exactly what CO2 does while it's in the atmosphere and exactly where it comes from.
I see, relative to a smooth growth curve, two local "dips" in carbon flux. The first, bottoming out around 1942ish, is followed by a temperature trough. From 1960 onwards, when we have good data, the human emissions curve peaks and dips ever-so-slightly behind.2046 wrote:Thank you for illustrating the point I was making. As you can see, the period I described is as I described it.
I just stated as a probable hypothesis. It's not known to be a fact; it's inferred.Here's the point of logical departure between us, besides the definition and meaning of correlation. You state the threshold hypothesis as if it is proven and understood, but it isn't. Hell, look here:
So we know where it comes from but not where it goes? Isn't where it goes part of that whole threshold thing you just stated as fact?One of the big puzzles is that there's a lot of CO2 that has gone missing, and they haven't tracked down exactly what's making it disappear.
But we do know, to a pretty good degree of precision, exactly what CO2 does while it's in the atmosphere and exactly where it comes from.
And the variability of the carbon sinking? That's a known unknown. It's being looked for.I'm sorry, chief. "There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
The data does interlock quite nicely... at least, on the big picture scale of things. We know several things beyond any reasonable doubt:I can tell you're sold on AGW and I'm hearing you say the same words that are said and with the same veracity, but there's just not enough fact behind it for me. The data just doesn't interlock as nicely as is claimed, and contrary examples are blissfully ignored. Hell, you yourself just stated correlation during all times, which we know ain't so. Not only are things being claimed as truth by AGW folks that were hypothesized a short time ago and as yet are undemonstrated and unverified, but the scandal that has emerged shows us that even the best AGW modeling is crap and, quite simply, full of lies.
Really? No. What we have is enough evidence to say that we have caused warming and ocean acidification.The burden of proof is on AGW. The science is not settled, and the debate has scarcely begun. When it can be shown accurate beyond a reasonable doubt and starts making worthwhile predictions that actually pan out, we can reconvene. However, right now we're just talking in circles, because you're saying everything's proven by a science that can't do squat and I'm showing you holes both geologically and short-term and exactly when it hasn't done squat and we're just not getting anywhere. It's a waste of time.
In my opinion, we should make no major policy changes, and we should give climate science time to grow and learn and shake off the whack-jobs currently running amok within it. Perhaps there will be more information in 2020 or so, at which point the world can reconsider, but for now there just isn't much there there . . . just wild claims and lots of insistence without evidence.
Not the dip; the part you call a trough. I'm considering them as the same basic event, hence describing the period 1940-1980.Jedi Master Spock wrote:I see, relative to a smooth growth curve, two local "dips" in carbon flux.2046 wrote:Thank you for illustrating the point I was making. As you can see, the period I described is as I described it.
Because the science was too young ... they saw a recent trend and flipped out. Nowadays, the science is too young ... they see a recent trend and are flipping out.Now, you seem concerned with the period of 1940-1980. Have you ever wondered why, back then, there was some wondering about whether or not global cooling was going to be a problem?
We're talking completely cross purposes here, you know. You're seeing a short-term "lockstep" and I'm talking about the two major deviations comprising 50 out of the last 100 years and we're not getting anywhere. Frankly, your methods are flawed, and I can tell you why.If I compare the ice core data to the Manua Loa data from 1959-1978 (which is where I could get overlapping data), I get that in a typical year, the ice core data is off by 30% in estimating the flux of carbon. The ice core comes up 1.6 ppm short (about 2%), so it's not too bad on a coarse time scale, but for anything less than a 5-10 year period, it's pretty crappy.
I went and I plotted the data out in a spreadsheet. If I used some splined ice core data, which I found clicking through the links on the carbon flux graph on Wiki, against the instrumental record, I get a -0.16 correlation between the rate of change of CO2 concentration and temperature. CO2 rising, TA falling. If I used the Manua Loa rate data against the instrumental record, I get a +0.74 correlation. If I use cumulative CO2 instead of the rate, I go up to +0.89. Which is, for a chaotic system, pretty much lockstep.