Leaking Siberian Methane

[skierinvermont]

huh? Thats not what I was asking at all.... the point was the relation to Co2 as a base.

The below is a direct quote of your response to Don's post. If you were not asking for a source, perhaps you should not have begun your post with the phrase "Can you give me a source for this?"

Coefficients of determination (CO2 and temperature anomalies):

10-year moving average: 0.981

Annual averages: 0.819

The lower figure is not surprising, as synoptics play a larger role in annual anomalies.

Can you give a source for this? I assume it is based on computer model results for warming based upon Co2 & its properties...along with hypothesized results/interactions in the atmosphere, right?

[BethesdaWX]

I feel there is alot of error in your post, especially what I've highlighted in red. There is no evidence of Natural forcings loosing influence, because they've all been so warm for so long.. the fact that our warming has followed Solar to a Tee (I'll get to that later in the post). I'm not interested in computer model Co2 Scenarios using the properties of the molecule to base the warming off... that has nothing to do with how the atmospheric end result will work out... there is no doubt in my mind that Co2 is rising, that has never been my argument. We cannot experiment with Co2 like a Chemist can experiment with a Chemical, because our atmosphere is too complex. As you can see, what we've based our recent warming off has been disproved through OBS of depicted warming/change.

Any warming we've seen can be explained through natural causes, such as GCC, Oceans, Solar, & Data Measurement Changes. There is no Co2 warming needed to match our current global temperature. Temps in the MWP were almost 1C above those of today, and that was completely solar Caused. No, I'm not talking about debunked Hockeysticks, the simple fact that Both the Arctic & Antarctic had Less ice in the MWP than we have now...the fact that Global Treelines were Higher, & the fact that trees were growing where our glaciers have just retreated from. Again, if solar can do that...why can't todays solar do something similar? Its about the same.

Again....Satellite Era alone, 100% of this can be explained through Solar & Ocean. Sure, we could peg Co2 as a Cause as well... but that doesn't change the fact that it Could be explained 100% naturally.

Again......Natural Cycles have Gone warm.

NOAA's image... you can see the Immense dominance being shown by El Nino since the PDO went warm.

Then account solar for the Long Term... & theres your warming.

Again, the MWP coincided with high Solar Activity, as did the RWP, & The Modern Warming. The LIA coincided with Low Solar Activity.

I'm a firm believer that Solar Activity is responsible for more than 95% of our observed warming trend since the LIA,.

GCC's lowlevel decrease is a major warming factor, changes in WV that we've seen are completelyt representative of those LL changes, so its not what one would consider a "cooling" factor. Whatever is causing these changes in GCC is another HUGE factor.... the only reasonable explanation is GCR, 3% decrease in the CC definitely have nothing to do with CO2 increase

Here is why Observed warming has not fit in line with what would be expected of Co2 warming... there correlation being shown from models (explanation derived from Co2, as progged by GISS & the AGW hypothesis) in exactly how this can correlate to Co2.

In what we derive from, our Computer models are based upon the theory that Co2 is the underlying cause, & the feedbacks have been knowingly waaayyy to positive for a long time....observations confirm that the supposed reasoning for our current warming are not true, based on observation

What was modeled was Co2 based.... what was observed was Natural Based!

This simple problem accounts for more than 75% of "predicted" warming....the warming that has occured with all drivers warm can account for previous enhancement.

Adding on here. Yes, the warming we've seen is explained through natural processes.

Main point in this addition.....

NASA /NOAA are already in error in the measurement processing, as any notion given that we use divergent data, modeled, as "observation", is not true. Yes, there will always be deviations in the data, but that doesn't pose an ulterior motive for misconduct in data analysis.

Bottom line, when we come down to it, there are uncertainties,but none are removed through the poor handling of data, its a simple excuse to "massage" the data

[BethesdaWX]

The below is a direct quote of your response to Don's post. If you were not asking for a source, perhaps you should not have begun your post with the phrase "Can you give me a source for this?"

What are you talking about? I explained what I meant 3 times to you.... "taking things out of context"...

Ahem.. Climategate

[skierinvermont]

Its not a skeptic website nor a warmist website, its has GISS, HADCRUT, & all the warmist models on there.

Now, select "Clouds"...... and you have the satellites being used. Can you name it? You can do it

It is a skeptic website. In the section titled "climate reflections" the author of the website explains how, in his distinguished opinion, the IPCC is wrong. Regardless, this is not a proper source as it does not indicate where the data was published, how it was collected, what the accuracy of it is etc.

FYI its not "new" published, breaking news data, its been measured for 31 years, what are you talking about.

That is irrelevant. Who updates the data? Where does it come from? Where was it originally published 31 years ago? Has any study been done to test the accuracy of the data?

Linking to skeptics websites or collections of images is not proper sourcing. That just tells me what I already knew.. you found it on the INTERNET which of course is a highly reputable source.

I have reason to believe that some or all of the data is inaccurate, considering it contradicts figures found in IPCC and the references therein which show generally rising water vapor over the last 30 years.

[BethesdaWX]

It is a skeptic website. In the section titled "climate reflections" the author of the website explains how the IPCC is wrong. Regardless, this is not a proper source as it does not indicate where the data was published, how it was collected, what the accuracy of it is etc.

That is irrelevant. Who updates the data? Where does it come from? Where was it originally published 31 years ago? Has any study been done to test the accuracy of the data?

Linking to skeptics websites or collections of images is not proper sourcing. That just tells me what I already knew.. you found it on the INTERNET which of course is a highly reputable source.

Epic Fail

All the data is there.....You need to read!

You need Help I see......

here

Diagram showing monthly variations in total global cloud cover since July 1983. During the period of observations, the total amount of clouds has varied from about 69 percent in 1987 to about 64 percent in 2000. The annual variation of the cloud cover follows the

annual variation in atmospheric water vapour content, presumably reflecting the asymmetrical distribution of land and ocean on planet Earth. The time labels indicate day/month/year. The variation of different types of clouds can be seen in the diagram below. Data source: The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP). The ISCCP datasets are obtained from passive measurements of IR radiation reflected and emitted by the clouds. Last data: June 2008. Last figure update: 14 June 2009.

Dude, its there if you read into the site... the site is objective, using all Data... GISS, HADCRUT, & explaining everythintg thats on there.

I know you dislike Objective sites.... but you need to READ!

THE INTERNATIONAL SATELLITE CLOUD CLIMATOLOGY PROJECT..... ok?

[donsutherland1]

Can you give a source for this? I assume it is based on computer model results for warming based upon Co2 & its properties...along with hypothesized results/interactions in the atmosphere, right?

-Maybe a time period used for this measurement?

-What forcings were involved/considered in determining the final result?.....Such as Solar Cycle, Cloud Cover, Volanoes, AMO/PDO & the resulting ENSO changes, Multi Century Ocean Current Changes?

-Now,maybe source of Measurement, weighting of the natural drivers invloved, etc?

- And maybe which models were used to make the determination of the supposed correlation?

My post above addresses why our observed warming is by no sure means Co2 related, and why our observed warming is possibly 95%+ Solar/Naturally caused.

The entire theory that Co2 has caused our recent warming can be questioned heavily through simple OBS.

Thankyou

Data is from the spreadsheet posted earlier. Forcings included AMO, PDO, ENSO, Solar, AO, and CO2. In this case, CO2 was the sole independent variable.

The following shows actual temperature anomalies vs. predicted anomalies (natural forcings only) and predicted anomalies (natural forcings + CO2):

The more inclusive set of forcings is almost identical to the actual temperature anomalies. Unless one can find another natural variable or variables that can supplant CO2 among the set of forcings and provide a similarly strong fit, one cannot discount the contribution CO2 may be having.

[BethesdaWX]

Data is from the spreadsheet posted earlier. Forcings included AMO, PDO, ENSO, Solar, AO, and CO2. In this case, CO2 was the sole independent variable.

The following shows actual temperature anomalies vs. predicted anomalies (natural forcings only) and predicted anomalies (natural forcings + CO2):

The more inclusive set of forcings is almost identical to the actual temperature anomalies. Unless one can find another natural variable or variables that can supplant CO2 among the set of forcings and provide a similarly strong fit, one cannot discount the contribution CO2 may be having.

Thankyou for the response

This however wasn't what I asked for... I asked for the Data (raw numbers) of forcings from Solar, AMO/PDO/ENSO/GCC/Volcanoes/DOC, etc.. & how they are implemented... & what model was being used. Also, how the forcings on "sinks" effect would be helpful.

My post earler on explained why our current warming cannot be tied to Co2, and why it is naturally caused. Models cannot estimate how the atmosphere inter-correlates, since solar has caused much more massive variations..only 9 centuries ago, & even more so during the MWP. The formulas do not account for how that was posible, because they cannot take all factors into account. Models not only are based on the flawed formulas, but they've also been proven to mis-represent feebacks, overblowing warming predictions by 75%, as I referenced above.

[WeatherRusty]

Thankyou for the response

This however wasn't what I asked for... I asked for the Data (raw numbers) of forcings from Solar, AMO/PDO/ENSO/GCC/Volcanoes/DOC, etc.. & how they are implemented... & what model was being used. Also, how the forcings on "sinks" effect would be helpful.

My post earler on explained why our current warming cannot be tied to Co2, and why it is naturally caused. Models cannot estimate how the atmosphere inter-correlates, since solar has caused much more massive variations..only 9 centuries ago, & even more so during the MWP. The formulas do not account for how that was posible, because they cannot take all factors into account. Models not only are based on the flawed formulas, but they've also been proven to mis-represent feebacks, overblowing warming predictions by 75%, as I referenced above.

Don has done a statistical correlation analysis. He could have used the number of graphs you have posted in the past few days in place of CO2 concentration. It doesn't matter what the properties of the variables are to do this. It's a pure numerical analysis of correlation, not a test of the physical quantities.

Bethesda, it's OK to admit you don't know everything about everything.

[donsutherland1]

While correlation analyses are certainly interesting Don, and basically show what one would expect (CO2 explains much of the warming especially late century), a more accurate and precise picture of cause and effect can probably be formed just looking at the theoretical physics behind the warming. The statistics are complicated and can obscure a cause and effect relationship especially when you start using many different competing variables.

Given we have satellite measurements showing a very large net energy imbalance on the planet over the last 30 years, and given that these same measurements show declining radiation escaping the earths atmosphere specifically at the wavelengths absorbed by CO2, one can therefore attribute the large energy imbalance and therefore the surface warming to CO2. The energy imbalance of our planet is due to less and less radiation escaping the earth's atmosphere specifically at those wavelengths absorbed by CO2. I feel that this establishes causation far better than a statistical study can, though it is interesting to see the results of such an ANOVA.

I completely agree, Skierinvermont.

I used the correlations strictly because it appeared that the theoretical physics was under contention and I wanted to proceed at the issue from another direction. The energy imbalance tied to increasing atmospheric CO2 is well-documented in the research. The role that imbalance plays in the observed warming clearly helps explain that warming. In the end, both the consistency between the statistical evidence and the theoretical physics makes a strong case that the increasing atmospheric CO2 has contributed to the observed warming that has been underway. That some uncertainties and unknowns exist does not negate that case.

IMO, the overwhelming burden of proof rests with those making the case that CO2 has played little or no role in the observed warming. They need to find an additional natural forcing or forcings that, when added to the body of natural forcings excluding CO2, provides comparable explanatory power to the current set of natural forcings + CO2. They need to overcome formidable barriers presented by the principles/theories of physics. To sidestep part of the "physics problem," they need to provide evidence that perhaps the satellites cannot reliably measure the radiative imbalance (but then that would also undermine the reliance on satellites to measure temperatures e.g. UAH dataset). That is far from an enviable position to be in.

[skierinvermont]

Epic Fail

All the data is there.....You need to read!

You need Help I see......

here

Diagram showing monthly variations in total global cloud cover since July 1983. During the period of observations, the total amount of clouds has varied from about 69 percent in 1987 to about 64 percent in 2000. The annual variation of the cloud cover follows the

annual variation in atmospheric water vapour content, presumably reflecting the asymmetrical distribution of land and ocean on planet Earth. The time labels indicate day/month/year. The variation of different types of clouds can be seen in the diagram below. Data source: The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP). The ISCCP datasets are obtained from passive measurements of IR radiation reflected and emitted by the clouds. Last data: June 2008. Last figure update: 14 June 2009.

Dude, its there if you read into the site... the site is objective, using all Data... GISS, HADCRUT, & explaining everythintg thats on there.

I know you dislike Objective sites.... but you need to READ!

THE INTERNATIONAL SATELLITE CLOUD CLIMATOLOGY PROJECT..... ok?

First you linked me to this:

http://www.leif.org/research/files.htm

Then you linked me to this:

http://www.inesad.ed...mm_20090323.htm

buried with this is a link to this:

http://www.climate4you.com/

buried within that is a link to the actual source of the data:

http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/index.html

Next time, don't send people on a which hunt. Link them to ISCCP directly.

[BethesdaWX]

Don has done a statistical correlation analysis. He could have used the number of graphs you have posted in the past few days in place of CO2 concentration. It doesn't matter what the properties of the variables are to do this. It's a pure numerical analysis of correlation, not a test of the physical quantities.

Bethesda, it's OK to admit you don't know everything about everything.

huh? I'm just asking for the raw data, why does that bother you?

In reality, when I see one sided science with blatent misconceptions...I'm going to offer something ulterior explaining why it is potentially in error.

All this really is is Dueling Hypothesis.................One of us is gonna win, one of us is Gonna Lose.

FYI Rusty... the data I posted cannot be changed around to support Co2, because that data is what disproved the Co2 causation in the first place.

[BethesdaWX]

First you linked me to this:

http://www.leif.org/research/files.htm

Then you linked me to this:

http://www.inesad.ed...mm_20090323.htm

buried with this is a link to this:

http://www.climate4you.com/

buried within that is a link to the actual source of the data:

http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/index.html

Next time, don't send people on a which hunt. Link them to ISCCP directly.

No.

Dude, if you wanted the data, you could have got it yourself... by actually reading the links... it would take you 1 minute. I'm not your servant.

Your "witch-hunt" was unwarrented if you'd actually look at what I give you, instead of repsonding 30 seconds later without even LOOKING for the source......you expect me to post it seperately when its already there?

[donsutherland1]

Thankyou for the response

This however wasn't what I asked for... I asked for the Data (raw numbers) of forcings from Solar, AMO/PDO/ENSO/GCC/Volcanoes/DOC, etc.. & how they are implemented... & what model was being used. Also, how the forcings on "sinks" effect would be helpful.

Mine was a completely statistical assessment. I did not use such models as the GCM to simulate relationships.

My post earler on explained why our current warming cannot be tied to Co2, and why it is naturally caused.

I'm not suggesting that natural factors haven't contributed to the observed warming. I am suggesting that there is statistical evidence that CO2 also contributed (setting aside the argument over what variable contributed most). That the natural forcings + CO2 predicted temperatures is almost indistinguishable from the actual temperatures while natural forcings alone is not as closely correlated suggests that CO2 has contributed. Given its heat-trapping properties, it would be startling if CO2 made no contribution whatsoever.

Models cannot estimate how the atmosphere inter-correlates, since solar has caused much more massive variations..only 9 centuries ago, & even more so during the MWP. The formulas do not account for how that was posible, because they cannot take all factors into account. Models not only are based on the flawed formulas, but they've also been proven to mis-represent feebacks, overblowing warming predictions by 75%, as I referenced above.

There are certain factors that are beyond modeling. If one or more of those factors unfolds, the trajectory of climate change would be altered. If , let's say, Yellowstone were to blow its top, the climate would be dramatically altered. But that would be the least of humanity's problems. A dramatic shift in solar behavior would be another issue. And, of course, models are representations. They are not perfect. Nonetheless, they can provide important insight. Improved models will provide even more insight.

[donsutherland1]

I'm just asking for the raw data, why does that bother you?

The raw data can be found at:

AMO: http://www.esrl.noaa...on/amon.us.data PDO: http://jisao.washing.../pdo/PDO.latest R3.4: ftp://ftp.cpc.ncep.n...s/sstoi.indices AO: http://www.cpc.ncep....ent.ascii.table Solar Flux: http://www.esrl.noaa...tion/solar.data CO2: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa..../co2_mm_mlo.txt GISS: http://data.giss.nas...GLB.Ts+dSST.txt UAH: http://vortex.nsstc....t2lt/uahncdc.lt

[skierinvermont]

No.

Dude, if you wanted the data, you could have got it yourself... by actually reading the links... it would take you 1 minute. I'm not your servant.

Your "witch-hunt" was unwarrented if you'd actually look at what I give you, instead of repsonding 30 seconds later without even LOOKING for the source......you expect me to post it seperately when its already there?

I expect you to link to something that confirms the data not some random website which contains only a collection of images and no links, or the second site you linked to which was about Bolivian glaciers (not cloud cover). The first "source" you linked me to was a complete dead end. The second was something completely unrelated.

You'll notice that when Rusty or I provide sources usually we provide the primary source, the study it was drawn from etc.

[BethesdaWX]

Mine was a completely statistical assessment. I did not use such models as the GCM to simulate relationships.

I'm not suggesting that natural factors haven't contributed to the observed warming. I am suggesting that there is statistical evidence that CO2 also contributed (setting aside the argument over what variable contributed most). That the natural forcings + CO2 predicted temperatures is almost indistinguishable from the actual temperatures while natural forcings alone is not as closely correlated suggests that CO2 has contributed. Given its heat-trapping properties, it would be startling if CO2 made no contribution whatsoever.

There are certain factors that are beyond modeling. If one or more of those factors unfolds, the trajectory of climate change would be altered. If , let's say, Yellowstone were to blow its top, the climate would be dramatically altered. But that would be the least of humanity's problems. A dramatic shift in solar behavior would be another issue. And, of course, models are representations. They are not perfect. Nonetheless, they can provide important insight. Improved models will provide even more insight.

Thankyou for the acknowledgement.

I agree on the fact that Oscillations such as the AMO/PDO, etc, are not responsible for the warming we've seen long term. Solar is another story, the Medieval Max & the Modern Max were somewhat similar, and global temps were similar as well between the two. If there was extra Co2 warming involved now, it there would be higher Treelines now, Less Ice, etc. The opposite has been true in our modern warm period, where we have lower global treelines, more Ice, & colder temperatures overall in the NH. There is little data in the SH, but we do know that the West Antarctic Ice sheet was hit by the MWP.

The Issue at hand is not if warming correlates to Co2, its if Co2 is causing the warming or not. Thye properties of Co2 programmed into models with assumptions of our atmosphere do not mean Co2 is causing the warming.... this is what bothers me.

My post above explains some of the issues in this modeling

Thankyou

[skierinvermont]

I completely agree, Skierinvermont.

I used the correlations strictly because it appeared that the theoretical physics was under contention and I wanted to proceed at the issue from another direction. The energy imbalance tied to increasing atmospheric CO2 is well-documented in the research. The role that imbalance plays in the observed warming clearly helps explain that warming. In the end, both the consistency between the statistical evidence and the theoretical physics makes a strong case that the increasing atmospheric CO2 has contributed to the observed warming that has been underway. That some uncertainties and unknowns exist does not negate that case.

IMO, the overwhelming burden of proof rests with those making the case that CO2 has played little or no role in the observed warming. They need to find an additional natural forcing or forcings that, when added to the body of natural forcings excluding CO2, provides comparable explanatory power to the current set of natural forcings + CO2. They need to overcome formidable barriers presented by the principles/theories of physics. To sidestep part of the "physics problem," they need to provide evidence that perhaps the satellites cannot reliably measure the radiative imbalance (but then that would also undermine the reliance on satellites to measure temperatures e.g. UAH dataset). That is far from an enviable position to be in.

OK great, I wasn't sure quite what your angle was since we don't see you post in here very often. Thanks for the contribution.. I have largely forgotten how to do an ANOVA and it would have taken me a while to figure out how to do it again. You must be very familiar with how to do and interpret analyses like this quickly since most of your posts are full of substance that would take me much longer to generate and interpret.

[BethesdaWX]

I expect you to link to something that confirms the data not some random website which contains only a collection of images and no links, or the second site you linked to which was about Bolivian glaciers (not cloud cover). The first "source" you linked me to was a complete dead end. The second was something completely unrelated.

You'll notice that when Rusty or I provide sources usually we provide the primary source, the study it was drawn from etc.

I never supplied you with the 1st link. Everythying is explained to you if you read. I'm trying to get you to read. I want you to read through the page, analyzing, learning, & responding with info that makes sense for once

Today, it would have taken you 1 minute to find it if you would read.

Read

[skierinvermont]

I never supplied you with the 1st link. Everythying is explained to you if you read. I'm trying to get you to read. I want you to read through the page, analyzing, learning, & responding with info that makes sense for once

Today, it would have taken you 1 minute to find it if you would read.

Read

Yes you did. You are lying.

http://www.leif.org/research/files.htm

It is one thing to read through a relevant studies and data that you have linked to. It is entirely another to sift through irrelevant blog postings you have linked to to find more links which link to more links which link to the original data. That's a which hunt. I asked for a link to the original data publishing. If you don't have it that is fine. I will find it myself. Just don't link me to random irrelevant websites that send me on a which hunt and claim you have provided a source for your data. That is not properly sourcing your data.

[BethesdaWX]

Skier, all the links were about cloud cover. Quit with the BS.

[BethesdaWX]

Yes you did.

It is one thing to read through a relevant studies and data that you have linked to. It is entirely another to sift through irrelevant blog postings you have linked to to find more links which link to more links which link to the original data. That's a which hunt. I asked for a link to the original data publishing. If you don't have it that is fine. I will find it myself. Just don't link me to random irrelevant websites that send me on a which hunt and claim you have provided a source for your data. That is not properly sourcing your data.

Dude, that was over a month ago..not the same discussion..you had asked where you could find the image.

You dont read anyway, what does it matter... the source was at the bottom of the image,which I showed again today.

[donsutherland1]

OK great, I wasn't sure quite what your angle was since we don't see you post in here very often.

I read far more than I post in the climate change forum. Nonetheless, I do try to keep abreast of the issues. Occasionally I might jump into a thread.

[WeatherRusty]

Thankyou for the acknowledgement.

I agree on the fact that Oscillations such as the AMO/PDO, etc, are not responsible for the warming we've seen long term. Solar is another story, the Medieval Max & the Modern Max were somewhat similar, and global temps were similar as well between the two. If there was extra Co2 warming involved now, it there would be higher Treelines now, Less Ice, etc. The opposite has been true in our modern warm period, where we have lower global treelines, more Ice, & colder temperatures overall in the NH. There is little data in the SH, but we do know that the West Antarctic Ice sheet was hit by the MWP.

The Issue at hand is not if warming correlates to Co2, its if Co2 is causing the warming or not. Thye properties of Co2 programmed into models with assumptions of our atmosphere do not mean Co2 is causing the warming.... this is what bothers me.

My post above explains some of the issues in this modeling

Thankyou

Do you dispute the finding that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 creates a forcing of 3.7W/m^2 in the real atmosphere? Line-by-Line computer codes give this result and are based on the US Air Force HITRAN DATABASE detailing how infrared radiation propagates through the atmosphere.

If the 3.7 figure is close to reality, then it is a rather simple back of the envelope exercise to compute the warming given at Earth's surface from both the Planck constant and the Stephan-Boltzmann equation. We get a bit less than 1.2C of warming directly from the 3.7W/m^2 at equilibrium before considering any feedbacks to the initial warming.

[BethesdaWX]

Do you dispute the finding that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 creates a forcing of 3.7W/m^2 in the real atmosphere? Line-by-Line computer codes give this result and are based on the US Air Force HITRAN DATABASE detailing how infrared radiation propagates through the atmosphere.

If the 3.7 figure is close to reality, then it is a rather simple back of the envelope exercise to compute the warming given at Earth's surface from both the Planck constant and the Stephan-Boltzmann equation. We get a bit less than 1.2C of warming directly from the 3.7W/m^2 at equilibrium before considering any feedbacks to the initial warming.

I've stated my case on this several times, Computer model results are Hypothesis, based upon our limited understanding & estimations on how the atmosphere works, plain and simple. Its by no means proof that Co2 is warming the atmosphere.

I prefer to go by Current Observations and physical evidence, not past reconstructions & computer modeling, Big difference there. For example, the smaller glaciers on both poles during the MWP, & the higher Global Treelines......& how they coincided with High Solar Activity. Now.......Current OBS have already called all Co2 modeling into question (as I posted on the previous page), and the debate is just getting started here. The fact is, we cannot properly estimate Solar & the effect it has on our complex atmosphere through millions of feedbacks & inter-relations, as well well as more terrestrial impacts, as in, feedback to feedback, or cause effect.

And yet, these model results are flying around this forum like they're fact!

Can you accept that Skeptics & Warmists will usually disagree on the matter, and that either sides hypothesis could be proven wrong eventually?

[WeatherRusty]

I've stated my case on this several times, Computer model results are Hypothesis, based upon our limited understanding & estimations on how the atmosphere works, plain and simple. Its by no means proof that Co2 is warming the atmosphere.

I prefer to go by Current Observations and physical evidence, not past reconstructions & computer modeling, Big difference there. For example, the smaller glaciers on both poles during the MWP, & the higher Global Treelines......& how they coincided with High Solar Activity. Now.......Current OBS have already called all Co2 modeling into question (as I posted on the previous page), and the debate is just getting started here. The fact is, we cannot properly estimate Solar & the effect it has on our complex atmosphere through millions of feedbacks & inter-relations, as well well as more terrestrial impacts, as in, feedback to feedback, or cause effect.

And yet, these model results are flying around this forum like they're fact!

Can you accept that Skeptics & Warmists will usually disagree on the matter, and that either sides hypothesis could be proven wrong eventually?

Skeptics don't have a hypothesis. All they do is dispute the peer-reviewed science.

What is the skeptics's hypothesis?

Galactic Cosmic Rays

Undefined natural cycles

The Sun

Ocean cycles

Corrupted data

Political agenda

Unscrupulous Climate Scientists

No real warming at all

Bogus computer modeling

etc.

[BethesdaWX]

Skeptics don't have a hypothesis. All they do is dispute the peer-reviewed science.

What is the skeptics's hypothesis?

Galactic Cosmic Rays

Undefined natural cycles

The Sun

Ocean cycles

Corrupted data

Political agenda

Unscrupulous Climate Scientists

No real warming at all

Bogus computer modeling

etc.

What a dipsh*t post.

You want to know? Its simple

We have 3 groups. Warmists, Skeptics, & Lukewarmers. Skeptics hypothesis is that our current warm period is not due to GHG emmisions.... the Warmists Hypothesis is that GHG Emissions are the Cause of our Warm Period. Lukewarmers either have no opinion, or are a mixture of the two. Does that help?

[stellarfun]

I suspect this profile fits at least one poster in this thread.

A seminal case study by Festinger found, paradoxically, that evidence that disconfirmed religious beliefs increased individuals’ tendency to proselytize to others. Although this finding is renowned, surprisingly, it has never been subjected to experimental scrutiny and is open to multiple interpretations. We examined a general form of the question first posed by Festinger, namely, how does shaken confidence influence advocacy? Across three experiments, people whose confidence in closely held beliefs was undermined engaged in more advocacy of their beliefs (as measured by both advocacy effort and intention to advocate) than did people whose confidence was not undermined. The effect was attenuated when individuals affirmed their beliefs, and was moderated by both importance of the belief and open-mindedness of a message recipient. These findings not only have implications for the results of Festinger’s seminal study, but also offer new insights into people’s motives for advocating their beliefs.

"When in Doubt, Shout! Paradoxical Influences of Doubt on Proselytizing"

David Gal and Derek D. Rucker

Psychological Science October 13, 2010

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/10/12/0956797610385953.abstract

[BethesdaWX]

[salbers]

I've stated my case on this several times, Computer model results are Hypothesis, based upon our limited understanding & estimations on how the atmosphere works, plain and simple. Its by no means proof that Co2 is warming the atmosphere.

I prefer to go by Current Observations and physical evidence, not past reconstructions & computer modeling, Big difference there. For example, the smaller glaciers on both poles during the MWP, & the higher Global Treelines......& how they coincided with High Solar Activity. Now.......Current OBS have already called all Co2 modeling into question (as I posted on the previous page), and the debate is just getting started here. The fact is, we cannot properly estimate Solar & the effect it has on our complex atmosphere through millions of feedbacks & inter-relations, as well well as more terrestrial impacts, as in, feedback to feedback, or cause effect.

And yet, these model results are flying around this forum like they're fact!

Can you accept that Skeptics & Warmists will usually disagree on the matter, and that either sides hypothesis could be proven wrong eventually?

I haven't seen any physical explanation as to why the 3.7 W/m**2 forcing wouldn't be occurring with the CO2 increase. In fact there is observational evidence showing this in ground based measurements of increased downward IR radiation done in Europe IIRC.

As several of us have mentioned, satellite measurements show a radiative imbalance. While I'd qualify this to mean there is a disequlibribrium, rather than an absolute warming, it does indicate the trend is toward getting warmer.

It is true that changes in cloud cover are also radiative forcings. These have been accounted for by the IPCC in its uncertainty estimates. While present they aren't large enough to be really masking the CO2 forcing, especially as time goes on and the CO2 forcing gets larger.

Let's recall the thread topic is methane forcing. As it turns out the aersol and cloud changes probably are the right amount to cancel out the methane radiative forcing, leaving the CO2 contribution to dominate.

[BethesdaWX]

I haven't seen any physical explanation as to why the 3.7 W/m**2 forcing wouldn't be occurring with the CO2 increase. In fact there is observational evidence showing this in ground based measurements of increased downward IR radiation done in Europe IIRC.

As several of us have mentioned, satellite measurements show a radiative imbalance. While I'd qualify this to mean there is a disequlibribrium, rather than an absolute warming, it does indicate the trend is toward getting warmer.

It is true that changes in cloud cover are also radiative forcings. These have been accounted for by the IPCC in its uncertainty estimates. While present they aren't large enough to be really masking the CO2 forcing, especially as time goes on and the CO2 forcing gets larger.

Let's recall the thread topic is methane forcing. As it turns out the aersol and cloud changes probably are the right amount to cancel out the methane radiative forcing, leaving the CO2 contribution to dominate.

There is no physical evidence as to why it would be either, thats the point, all this can be debunked through OBS. We estimate Co2 forcing results in the atmosphere based on computer modeling, we don't use hypothesis to prove that Co2 is causing the warming, when the warming can be explained naturally. We can trumpet how the warming correlated to Co2 all we want, we can trumpet the properties of Co2, but how it behaves in the atmosphere is not withstanding, no matter how "complex" our models are. We're on the low end of the predictions from the IPCC...even with every driver warm for so long....just wait until 2035, this fight will be over.

I'm not interested in computer model Co2 Scenarios using the properties of the molecule to base the warming off... that has nothing to do with how the atmospheric end result will work out... there is no doubt in my mind that Co2 is rising, that has never been my argument. We cannot experiment with Co2 like a Chemist can experiment with a Chemical, because our atmosphere is too complex. As you can see, what we've based our recent warming off has been disproved through OBS of depicted warming/change.

Any warming we've seen can be explained through natural causes, such as GCC, Oceans, Solar Activity & Data Measurement Changes. There is no Co2 warming needed to match our current global temperature when natural drivers are taken into account. Temps in the MWP were almost 1C above those of today, and that was completely solar Caused. No, I'm not talking about debunked Hockeysticks, the simple fact that Both the Arctic & Antarctic had Less ice in the MWP than we have now...the fact that Global Treelines were Higher, & the fact that trees were growing where our glaciers have just retreated from. Again, if solar can do that...why can't todays solar do something similar? Its about the same.

Again....Satellite Era alone, 100% of this can be explained through Solar & Ocean. Sure, we could peg Co2 as a Cause as well... but that doesn't change the fact that it Could be explained 100% naturally.

Resized to 96% (was 700 x 431) - Click image to enlarge

Again......Natural Cycles have Gone warm.

NOAA's image... you can see the Immense dominance being shown by El Nino since the PDO went warm.

Then account solar for the Long Term... & theres your warming.

Resized to 67% (was 1000 x 367) - Click image to enlarge

Again, the MWP coincided with high Solar Activity, as did the RWP, & The Modern Warming. The LIA coincided with Low Solar Activity.

I'm a firm believer that Solar Activity is responsible for more than 95% of our observed warming trend since the LIA,.

GCC's lowlevel decrease is a major warming factor, changes in WV that we've seen are completelyt representative of those LL changes, so its not what one would consider a "cooling" factor. Whatever is causing these changes in GCC is another HUGE factor.... the only reasonable explanation is GCR, 3% decrease in the CC definitely have nothing to do with CO2 increase

Resized to 76% (was 880 x 506) - Click image to enlarge

Resized to 76% (was 880 x 658) - Click image to enlarge

Here is why Observed warming has not fit in line with what would be expected of Co2 warming... there correlation being shown from models (explanation derived from Co2, as progged by GISS & the AGW hypothesis) in exactly how this can correlate to Co2.

Resized to 66% (was 1022 x 707) - Click image to enlarge

In what we derive from, our Computer models are based upon the theory that Co2 is the underlying cause, & the feedbacks have been knowingly waaayyy to positive for a long time....observations confirm that the supposed reasoning for our current warming are not true, based on observation. 2/3 of the warming in the modeling is feedback derived, & that has been put into doubt.

What was modeled was Co2 based.... what was observed was Natural Based!

This simple problem accounts for more than 75% of "predicted" warming....the warming that has occured with all drivers warm can account for previous enhancement.

So, the notion that our warming is Co2 based does NOT FIT! There is no derivation from Co2 directly, other than an end result of more powerful forcings, such as solar, oceans, & GCC.