How would you score the AGW debate -- IF?

[mamooth]

Somethings smoking.. But I would not call models that are tuned to proxies and proxies that are tuned to models -- a gun..

It has nothing to do with models. It has to do with direct measurements of the heat flux. If no model existed anywhere, it would still be a smoking gun. GHG's are doing exactly what AGW theory said they'd do.

And contrary to your assertion, there is AMPLE evidence of natural perturbations that are capable describing a LARGE portion of the temperature forcing. I've mentioned Nicoli Scaffeta as one who simple took the accepted Surface Temp record and EASILY showed a 60 year cycle that is attributed to planetary motion.

Curve fitting is not science. I could probably find a way to match up climate to Super Bowl Wins, but that wouldn't be science. You need a mechanism, and Scafetti fails to give one. That's why his theory is commonly called "climastrology."

What's more, unlike the mainstream models, Scafetta's model fails completely at hindcasting. Scafetta's 60 year cycle simply fails totally prior to 1600. Why didn't it hold before then? Who knows. It's just magic.

With enough terms, you can fit a curve to any set of data. But outside of your data set, it will fall apart completely. That's what Scafetta did.

Just as there are feedbacks associated with the GHG theory -- there are auxilliary effects to primary solar effects. Including cloud creation from hi energy radiatio interaction with the "window" thru spectral changes and a lot of other science that is being relegated to "whacko" deniers and ignored because it is not politically correct.

Svensgard was discarded because his theory was proven to be completely wrong. He predicted one thing, the opposite happened. There is no observable link between cosmic rays and cloud cover. Sure, cosmic rays can create nucleation particles, but it doesn't matter, because there's no shortage of dust to serve the same purpose.

So how would you score the 1990 to 2020 debate IF other forcing functions turn out to play a major role, but the additional GHG still ENHANCE -- but not CAUSE the warming?

I don't know how to call that a "score". Whatever, 50/50. We wouldn't care about a score. We'd just be very happy for the earth. We aren't invested emotionally or financially in AGW theory, so we'd love to be shown to be half-wrong.

 

[flacaltenn]

There WAS an explanation given for the Scarfetta model. And the fact that it doesn't hindcast past the 1600s is because tree rings are not thermometers. Neither are mud sediments or bug parts. I largely stay out of all that historical proxy stuff because it's purported importance far exceeds it's accuracy. If someone can show a simple extracted periodic event from the modern era over 3 or 5 cycles -- I'm interested.

I only get interested in proxy record stuff when major climate scientists get caught creating hockey stick generators or someone left out the ancient grape inventory in Greenland..

Your assertion that the models don't matter conflicts with you observation that the physics of GHG theory is in complete synergism with our fascination on that SINGLE number of GATemp. Because the forcing function for CO2 is ENTIRELY dependent on a model of climate sensitivity to convert that to temperatures. And it almost certain that the answer to NONE OF THIS lies in a few simple numbers.

So --- I'm wagering we're ALL in for some science fun and frustration over the next decade as we refine our understanding of WHY there is a detectable warming. And I just wanted to halt the horseshit normal public discourse and test how we'll all feel when the inevitable better understanding is achieved. It's been DELAYED for sure by FOCUSING on certain political agendas, but it won't ever be halted and the guilty hauled in front of the tribunal.. Tho -- that's really what the public debate has become --- hasn't it???

 

[Old Rocks]

It is you 'Conservatives' that are trying to haul people in front of public tribunals for doing science.

 

[Katzndogz]

AGW is a total hoax designed to force industrialized nations into some sort of global welfare program for third world nations to make sure they never become industrialized.

 

[flacaltenn]

AGW is a total hoax designed to force industrialized nations into some sort of global welfare program for third world nations to make sure they never become industrialized.

That's a perfectly legitimate statement. But yet -- it IS warming. And we need to completely understand the cause and effect.. We're being handicapped by the focus on carbon and not enough cred is given to other causes.

Even the Mission Statement of the IPCC states that they are investigating MAN-MADE causes to the warming -- thus putting a lock on the scope of the inquiry.. They are not INTERESTED in other facts and theories.

So -- we'll get to an understanding slower, but the time will come when both sides get a historical review of their "on the field" performance... Perhaps -- that should motivate both sides to get down to facts and science and away from litigating policy in the guise of science.

 

[mamooth]

There WAS an explanation given for the Scafetta model.

Yep. In the musical "Hair".

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then heat will fill the planet
And love will steer the stars

And the fact that it doesn't hindcast past the 1600s is because tree rings are not thermometers.

It eventually predicts temps below absolute zero when it hindcasts. I don't think that's a proxy problem.

Neither are mud sediments or bug parts. I largely stay out of all that historical proxy stuff because it's purported importance far exceeds it's accuracy. If someone can show a simple extracted periodic event from the modern era over 3 or 5 cycles -- I'm interested.

That's nice. It's still pseudoscience. It doesn't even match the temperature very well, behind 180-out-of-phase in several spots. And as every statistician knows, you can fit a polynomial curve to anything if you just pick enough variables.

In real science, you propose the cause _first_. You don't go cherrypicking and curve-fitting, and then try to shoehorn in a cause in later.

I only get interested in proxy record stuff when major climate scientists get caught creating hockey stick generators

If you're going to embrace conspiracy theories, it's harder to take you seriously.

Your assertion that the models don't matter conflicts with you observation that the physics of GHG theory is in complete synergism with our fascination on that SINGLE number of GATemp. Because the forcing function for CO2 is ENTIRELY dependent on a model of climate sensitivity to convert that to temperatures. And it almost certain that the answer to NONE OF THIS lies in a few simple numbers.

Yep, there's no simple equation that translates GHG levels to heat radiation out of the earth. You have to put it into a model.

However, the models work. That's why they have credibility. They hindcast successfully. They forecast succesfully. They explain the observed physical phenomenon, no handwaving, fudging or conspiracy theories required. Your theories don't do any of that. Therefore, it's not logical to abandon theories that work in favor of them.

 

[flacaltenn]

There is not just one natural series identified for climate change. There are several as Scarfetta points out. And it does not phase me that it predicts back extreme cold periods given the several hundred milleniums of ice ages that the planet recently experienced and the inaccuracies of our proxy science.

THe 60 year cycle was not just found in the temp record, but it is also clearly visible by inspection in the AMO and PDO ocean cycles. And I do believe that we've underestimated the amplifications of this forcing function and overestimated the "climate sensitivity" to CO2. And YES it is based on the alignment and cyclic operation of our little solar system. Not enough energy in relative planetary motion to affect the solar output? You want a wager on that?

We'll do that another day. But there is also a 1W/m2 forcing just from TSI since 1700 that is forbidden to be spoken. Whenever it gets brought up -- the alarmists drag out the short-term Sun Spot cycles and hide the longer trend which accounts for about 40% of the forcing function we're looking for to explain the surface temp record.. Don't look there -- see nothings' recently happened !!!

It truly worries me when the models are as "perfect" as claim.. After you attempted to slam dunk your side by declaring that the models are not neccessary for you to prevail..

It worries me because there are direct admissions of the weaknesses of the modeling that's been done.

http://www.environment.arizona.edu/...verman/rockstrom-etc-liverman-2009-nature.pdf

Most models11 suggest that a doubling in
atmospheric CO2 concentration will lead to a
global temperature rise of about 3 °C (with a
probable uncertainty range of 2–4.5 °C) once
the climate has regained equilibrium. But these
models do not include long-term reinforcing
feedback processes that further warm the climate,
such as decreases in the surface area of
ice cover or changes in the distribution of vegetation.
If these slow feedbacks are included,
doubling CO2 levels gives an eventual temperature
increase of 6 °C (with a probable uncertainty
range of 4–8 °C).

2 --> 4.5 ?? 4--> 8 ?? WTF? And the big question is - now that the models are tuned to match the surface record -- what do you think will happen when those longer term feedbacks are included? Think they will still be "right on"? Think they will hindcast correctly? Or will they require more tuning?

My concerns are pretty deep. Particularly because of the studies that DON'T find the expected warming in places where it should exist. Like in the high troposphere in the tropics or in the Desert SW over the past 80 years AT NIGHT and CONTROLLED for Water Vapor.

In fact -- not being able to control for water vapor is a real killer for me because of the spectral overlap with CO2. CO2 forcing is based on a simple log relationship that saturates on it's own at some point. And with the spurious distribution of water vapor it likely saturates much faster. It's a bad gas to claim as the primary climate forcing function..

Glad you're so comfortable with the team you picked. I guess in terms of my little mental/moral excersize here -- you'll choose to stick with the home team all the way to the cellar. And maintain that smug superior swagger even when your science has been severely modified.

ME? I'll get on board when the political sponsors of this Inquisition come to me and PLEAD for 200 new nuclear power plants to FIX IT.. That's when I'll know they feel threatened enough to act on their "theory". Until then -- it's an excuse to confound the public by declaring Carbon Public Enemy #1 and build moral cases for international redistribution.. BUT the science goes on.. And it's NOT settled.

 

[Old Rocks]

I first was introduced to the concept of GHG driven global warming in the mid-60's in a Geology class. The physics of absorption was discussed, and there was discussion of what the effects might be. Effects that seemed distant at the time, in fact, not predicted to happen until the end of the 21st century. However, toward the end of the 20th century, we started seeing a rapid increase in the warming. An increase that was denied vitrolically from the right. As the century progressed, and the permafrost in Alaska started to show effects of the warming, it was stated that this was a local affect by those that wished to deny that GHGs created warming.

Then came 1998. And suddenly, it was no longer that warming was not occuring, but that it was part of a natural cycle. A natural cycle that would end, and it would cool down once again. But then we started seeing really differant weather. From the 2003 heat wave in Europe, to 500 year floods that started occuring on a decadel basis. Still the claim was that CO2 was not the cause, and that it would start cooling soon, and the Arctic Ice would start to expand.

Now we had a double La Nina in 2011, at the time of a very quiet solar cycle, TSI lowest it had been in years. That should have created a very cold year. Instead, it was the ninth warmest on record.

So now you wish to say, "Well, maybe the GHGs do contribute a bit to the warming, maybe even as much as 50%. But, it will saturate soon, so there is nothing to worry about."

Your constant moving of the goal posts pretty much demostrates that your case is deeply flawed. The people that understand more than anybody else, atmospheric physicists and research meteorologists, are stating that the more CO2 and other GHGs we add, the greater the consequences will be. I think that I find more validity in their statements that those of deniers on an internet message board.

You fellows constantly harp on the fact that the present understanding does not allow accurate prediction of details. Yet, the climatologists have been stating that since the paper on climate by the National Academy of Science in 1975. However, after 1980, they were stating that we were going to have a warming earth, and that the effects were going to visible in weather extremes and on the cryosphere. In the meantime, the side of denial stated that they were unequivocally wrong. The climatologists were correct, we are seeing a very strong warming, but they missed the sensitivity of the cryosphere and the weather to that warming.

The melt of the Arctic Sea Ice at present is greater than was predicted of 2050. The weather extremes we have seen in the last year were predicted for our grandchildren. In other words, the 'alarmists' did miss on their predictions. They were far too conservative.

But, you still want to prevent any action from being taken to prevent further increases in the GHGs in the atmosphere, so now the message is, "Well, yes, GHGs do have an effect, but it is one that diminishs as they increase, so no problem. No need to change anything." And, as a corollory of that, no need to prepare for the consequences of even the present level of GHGs in the atmosphere.

Same ol', same ol'. Not going to play your game. Pretty damned clear what the problem is, and what should be done about it. Pretty damned clear that people like you will prevent anything being done until the problem creates several catastrophes. And then you will blame the people that have been trying to warn you of the problem. That is the politics of your game.

 

[mamooth]

There is not just one natural series identified for climate change. There are several as Scarfetta points out.

That's not a cause, so no one cares. Scarfetta's work shows one of the blatant hallmarks of pseudoscience, the deliberate use of fuzzy secondhand data instead of readily available firsthand data. If you're going to posit some mysterious cosmic ray influence, the honest way to go about it would be to use cosmic ray measurements, and show the correlation to climate results. Despite your conspiracy theory claims, scientists have done that, and found no correlation, hence why the theory isn't held in high regard.

Does Scarfetta work in the same honest fashion? Nope. He muddies the waters as much as possible with his mysterious climastrological cycles, and handwaves about some cosmic ray connection from that. Why doesn't he just look at the cosmic rays directly?

But there is also a 1W/m2 forcing just from TSI since 1700 that is forbidden to be spoken.

What an absurd claim. No scientist ignores TSI in any fashion.

Whenever it gets brought up -- the alarmists drag out the short-term Sun Spot cycles and hide the longer trend which accounts for about 40% of the forcing function we're looking for to explain the surface temp record.. Don't look there -- see nothings' recently happened !!!

Everyone associated with the science, as opposed to the conspiracy theories, has no idea of what you're babbling about.

My concerns are pretty deep. Particularly because of the studies that DON'T find the expected warming in places where it should exist. Like in the high troposphere in the tropics

You're only about 5 years out of date there.

or in the Desert SW over the past 80 years AT NIGHT and CONTROLLED for Water Vapor.

You mean controlled for your strange misconceptions on how water vapor should act? You forgot that caveat.

In fact -- not being able to control for water vapor is a real killer for me because of the spectral overlap with CO2. CO2 forcing is based on a simple log relationship that saturates on it's own at some point. And with the spurious distribution of water vapor it likely saturates much faster. It's a bad gas to claim as the primary climate forcing function.

A major misunderstanding of how saturation works. Do some homework. At this point, I'm not going to waste hours working to educate you, unless you pay me up front. I only work for free for those who have demonstrated a willingness to learn.

Glad you're so comfortable with the team you picked. I guess in terms of my little mental/moral excersize here -- you'll choose to stick with the home team all the way to the cellar. And maintain that smug superior swagger even when your science has been severely modified.

Looks like someone's gotten upset because his SacredScripture was challenged.

ME? I'll get on board when the political sponsors of this Inquisition come to me and PLEAD for 200 new nuclear power plants to FIX IT.. That's when I'll know they feel threatened enough to act on their "theory".

You were supposed to not do the political ranting, so you could keep pretending to be "independent" and "skeptical". Oops, the cat is out of the bag now.

There are almost no "independent" denialists anywhere. Almost every single one of them is a right-wing political cultist, spending their days twisting science to justify their quasi-religious cult's beliefs.

 

[flacaltenn]

I have no misconceptions about the saturation of narrow absorption bands of both CO2 and water vapor. Nor do I have misunderstandings of the ELEGANCE and SIMPLICITY of looking for Global Warming in a DESERT at Night-time. Because the 2 confounding factors of heating and water can be taken out and controlled for.

Everywhere you look in this debate -- you see cherry picked numbers and alarmists with blinders on.. The IPCC IGNORED the long term trend TSI in favor of tabling every form of natural forcing. They even favored a correction to satellite TSI that the very group who designed and calibrated the sensor rejects. All because the satellite was measuring a small continuous increase in TSI for recent decades.

Cherry -- picked like the proxy data. Cherry-picked like the Climate Sensitivity numbers. Cherry picked like the 100 studies on the MWPeriod. NOTHING shows up in the IPCC tribunal unless it fits their mission of IDENTIFYING MAN-MADE Global Warming..

As far as Scaffetta methods -- they are perfectly sane. My stronger suite is in signal and image processing. And I don't go creating models to find elusive hidden signals and features in the data. I do EXACTLY what Scafetta did -- which is to USE THE AVAILABLE data and run spectral, statistical and other tools over it.. And to IGNORE that kind of analysis and put your faith wholely in models that can't be accurately tuned is nutty.. Just like the lead NASA guy believing in 20,000 thermometers over one coherent satellite sensor.

Have at it.. Support the hysteria.. You're obviously not interested in the consequences of being wrong..

 

[Old Rocks]

OK. You wish to have a nice debate with points and counter points and scoring based on premises of logic that have nothing at all to do with the real world.

In the real world, we are establishing a new record for the minimum of Arctic Ice this week. In the real world, we have had three years of major crop losses in breadbaskets around the world due to extreme weather events. In the real world, the last fifteen years have seen a doubling of the number of billion dollar weather disasters compared to the prior fifteen years.

And the only thing that has changed in a major way are the amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere.

 

[skookerasbil]

OK. You wish to have a nice debate with points and counter points and scoring based on premises of logic that have nothing at all to do with the real world.

In the real world, we are establishing a new record for the minimum of Arctic Ice this week. In the real world, we have had three years of major crop losses in breadbaskets around the world due to extreme weather events. In the real world, the last fifteen years have seen a doubling of the number of billion dollar weather disasters compared to the prior fifteen years.

And the only thing that has changed in a major way are the amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere.

In the real world of most........shit happens. Like all the time. You adapt and move on.............which is what the modern industrial world has been doing quite well for about 160 years. Stop worrying Ray...........there are far more pressing real things to deal with NOW that have nothing to do with the climate.

 

[flacaltenn]

OK. You wish to have a nice debate with points and counter points and scoring based on premises of logic that have nothing at all to do with the real world.

In the real world, we are establishing a new record for the minimum of Arctic Ice this week. In the real world, we have had three years of major crop losses in breadbaskets around the world due to extreme weather events. In the real world, the last fifteen years have seen a doubling of the number of billion dollar weather disasters compared to the prior fifteen years.

And the only thing that has changed in a major way are the amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere.

You misunderstood the excersize. The emphasis was not on scoring the current debate. I'll leave that to Skookerasbil -- he's doing a fine job of that.. The emphasis was on how each side was gonna "feel" when they inevitably look back at the debate. And what the historical recording of the current debate was gonna look like.

Because the odds are that the science is NOT settled and we're gonna learn quite a bit that makes some of the current arguments look Medieval. The more the sides turn this into a pissing contest -- the worse it's gonna look in the near future..

For instance the Nobel council is likely gonna regret a couple of their choices.. And politicians who claimed the "debate is over" are gonna want those words back because history is gonna make them look officious and stupid..