Snow_Miser Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 first, please show me where I've said I'm a "warminista"? Whenever, wherever, someone loves Hansen, most likely, they're a warmingista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 The amount of warming is the issue, and hypothesis, though. and hypothesis are disproven all the time. If we miss one feedback, then everything is screwed Indeed, which is why it is good to have a variety of opinions represented. Within the field of climatology there is active disagreement about the amount of warming that will occur and articles peer-reviewed articles are written and reviewed by scientists on different ends of the spectrum. This does not, however, include the opinion that AGW is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 Indeed, which is why it is good to have a variety of opinions represented. Within the field of climatology there is active disagreement about the amount of warming that will occur and articles peer-reviewed articles are written and reviewed by scientists on different ends of the spectrum. This does not, however, include the opinion that AGW is false. AGW very well could be false. All it takes is one simple error the spectral analysis of CO2. I don't believe it is false, but many other do. However, that doesn't make them kooks just because they disagree. Theres a difference between "less likely to be correct", and "kooks". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Over the past decade+, there has been net cooling on RSS and UAH, when the trend was supposed to be a +0.18C/decade. UAH includes the poles, RSS includes most of the N pole, None of the S pole which has been COOLING My whole point in posting this smash hit thread, was that science is uncertain, and that changes will be made, and need to be made. False. UAH shows a rate of warming around +.08C/decade over the last 10-12 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 False. UAH shows a rate of warming around +.08C/decade over the last 10-12 years. Not when MAR 2011 is added. As for ENSO removal...AGAIN, its not Just ENSO If we could figure out how exactly to adjust for IPO, QDO, PDO, AMO, Global SST, Global Cloud Cover/GCC, LLCC, M/ULCC, Volcanism, IOD, HLB, NAO/AO/AAO, QBO, NAM, Global Sea Ice, Global Snowcover, TSI, and Deep Ocean currents/speed, MJO, all little drivers.....Then we could remove for ENSO easily. Its not Just removing ENSO from the trend...its everything that infects the trend, which Tamino does not do. If we could measure GCC for example, we could probably determine alot more just on the one scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 How about -The paper hasn't been through the scientific process We're not going to discuss the potential scientific 'validity' of the paper, because 1. the bolded above, 2. none of us is probably qualified, and 3. there are several other red flags that signal this as a kook article (i.e. CO2 causes cooling? Really?). best post of the thread. I like to try and sift through the arguments but when it comes down to it none of us are qualified and this forum really should just consist of posting of the latest scientific literature and data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Not when MAR 2011 is added. As for ENSO removal...AGAIN, its not Just ENSO If we could figure out how exactly to adjust for IPO, QDO, PDO, AMO, Global SST, Global Cloud Cover/GCC, LLCC, M/ULCC, Volcanism, IOD, HLB, NAO/AO/AAO, QBO, NAM, Global Sea Ice, Global Snowcover, TSI, and Deep Ocean currents/speed, MJO, all little drivers.....Then we could remove for ENSO easily. Its not Just removing ENSO from the trend...its everything that infects the trend, which Tamino does not do. If we could measure GCC for example, we could probably determine alot more just on the one scale. Actually when we don't correct for ENSO we find an extremely rapid warming trend of .22C/decade over the last 11 years. Which just goes to show how sensitive the trends are to start date (because of ENSO). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 Actually when we don't correct for ENSO we find an extremely rapid warming trend of .22C/decade over the last 11 years. Which just goes to show how sensitive the trends are to start date (because of ENSO). Yes, but you have to remove more than just ENSO If we could figure out how exactly to adjust for IPO, QDO, PDO, AMO, Global SST, Global Cloud Cover/GCC, LLCC, M/ULCC, Volcanism, IOD, HLB, NAO/AO/AAO, QBO, NAM, Global Sea Ice, Global Snowcover, TSI, and Deep Ocean currents/speed, MJO, all little drivers.....Then we could remove for ENSO easily. Its not Just removing ENSO from the trend...its everything that infects the trend, which Tamino does not do. If we could measure GCC for example, we could probably determine alot more just on the one scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 In this case, since we are comparing data to Hansen's projections, I think it's a conflict of interest to use Hansen's data. Especially with a graph that ends in 2005, a year that GISS had considerably warmer than other sources. I'll create a graph based off the methods described in his paper tonight. I'm quite confident the CO2 is right about on track for Scen B but the methane is way below. I'll convert methane into CO2 units using their relative strengths as GHGs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 AGW very well could be false. All it takes is one simple error the spectral analysis of CO2. I don't believe it is false, but many other do. However, that doesn't make them kooks just because they disagree. Theres a difference between "less likely to be correct", and "kooks". How could it be false? You're saying a heat-trapping gas doesn't trap heat? Why do you think Venus is so damn hot, for god's sake? You have a thicker atmosphere, the planet gets hotter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Yes, but you have to remove more than just ENSO If we could figure out how exactly to adjust for IPO, QDO, PDO, AMO, Global SST, Global Cloud Cover/GCC, LLCC, M/ULCC, Volcanism, IOD, HLB, NAO/AO/AAO, QBO, NAM, Global Sea Ice, Global Snowcover, TSI, and Deep Ocean currents/speed, MJO, all little drivers.....Then we could remove for ENSO easily. Its not Just removing ENSO from the trend...its everything that infects the trend, which Tamino does not do. If we could measure GCC for example, we could probably determine alot more just on the one scale. I'm not removing for anything. The trend is .22C/decade over the last 11 years. You want to claim cooling by using selective start dates, well then I am going to claim rapid warming by using selective start dates too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 someone needs to jump in and save bethesda That would be like someone trying to jump in and save the Titanic in 1965. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 I'm not removing for anything. The trend is .22C/decade over the last 11 years. You want to claim cooling by using selective start dates, well then I am going to claim rapid warming by using selective start dates too. I'm not doing either, overall, we have flatlined. Removing for ENSO is only part of the issue, so you cannot really claim warming or cooling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Actually when we don't correct for ENSO we find an extremely rapid warming trend of .22C/decade over the last 11 years. Which just goes to show how sensitive the trends are to start date (because of ENSO). Have you ever stopped to wonder why the original AGW hypothesis references the year 2100???? Why wasn't the hypothesis crafted to predict the climate at a shorter lead time, if AGW/Climate Change/??? is ALREADY be portrayed as contributing (or is indirectly attributable) to: extreme weather, rapid sea level rise, rapid warming, rapid glacial retreats, etc. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 As you are well aware, though, they differ after the early 2000s. Again, two issues with that graph: only GISS data, and ending in 2005. Scenario B goes up since 2005...roughly another .2C. But HadCRUT+UAH warmed more in the 90s, so it cancels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 That would be like someone trying to jump in and save the Titanic in 1965. I could have saved the Titanic FYI it wasn't 1965 dumbass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 Have you ever stopped to wonder why the original AGW hypothesis references the year 2100???? Why wasn't the hypothesis crafted to predict the climate at a shorter lead time, if AGW/Climate Change/??? is ALREADY be portrayed as contributing (or is indirectly attributable) to: extreme weather, rapid sea level rise, rapid warming, rapid glacial retreats, etc. ? Because its not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 I'm not doing either, overall, we have flatlined. Removing for ENSO is only part of the issue, so you cannot really claim warming or cooling. No most start dates indicate warming. Depending on your start date you will find a trend between -.05C/decade to +.25C/decade over the last 8-14 years. The average is around +.08C/decade. And this is on UAH which has been colder than all other tropospheric sources in the long run (STAR, radiosonde, RSS). Only by choosing a very specific and biased start date does one find a cooling trend. But of course, nobody expects any better from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 No most start dates indicate warming. Depending on your start date you will find a trend between -.05C/decade to +.25C/decade over the last 8-14 years. The average is around +.08C/decade. Wrong 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 1998, 2010, all show cooling. 1999, 2000, 2001, 2006, 2008, 2009, show warming. Doesn't change this If we could figure out how exactly to adjust for IPO, QDO, PDO, AMO, Global SST, Global Cloud Cover/GCC, LLCC, M/ULCC, Volcanism, IOD, HLB, NAO/AO/AAO, QBO, NAM, Global Sea Ice, Global Snowcover, TSI, and Deep Ocean currents/speed, MJO, all little drivers.....Then we could remove for ENSO easily. Its not Just removing ENSO from the trend...its everything that infects the trend, which Tamino does not do. If we could measure GCC for example, we could probably determine alot more just on the one scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 How could it be false? You're saying a heat-trapping gas doesn't trap heat? Why do you think Venus is so damn hot, for god's sake? You have a thicker atmosphere, the planet gets hotter. The problem is, is how broad the definition of the AGW hypothesis has become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scuddz Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 I could have saved the Titanic FYI it wasn't 1965 dumbass :facepalm::facepalm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 Missed the Pun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scuddz Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Missed Pun? No, you missed just about everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 No, you missed just about everything as in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 I'm not removing for anything. The trend is .22C/decade over the last 11 years. You want to claim cooling by using selective start dates, well then I am going to claim rapid warming by using selective start dates too. The funny thing about this is that even going from Nina to Nino (1999 to 2010), that .22C/decade trend is still pretty close to the expected warming over 11 years. Not really "rapid" compared to projections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scuddz Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 That would be like someone trying to jump in and save the Titanic in 1965. As in, it's too late to save you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Based on the semi quick reading of the paper, the hypothesis seems to basically state that the emissivity of the atmosphere as a whole, drops a little in response to an addition of a slightly lower (standalone) emissivity number of CO2......please, someone correct me if I'm wrong on that summary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 The funny thing about this is that even going from Nina to Nino (1999 to 2010), that .22C/decade trend is still pretty close to the expected warming over 11 years. Not really "rapid" compared to projections. Indeed, it most certainly has been lower than the long term trend the last 8-12 years. I think this is mostly explained by the solar cycle and maybe -PDO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Well, based on my first quick skim of the article, there's one blatant error that stands out to me. They claim that the earth receives 1368W/m2 of solar energy but that the IPCC says the earth only receives 341W/m2 and that the IPCC is wrong. The 1368 is what you find for a satellite in space receiving 24 hours/day of sunlight. The 341W/m2 takes into account the curvature of the earth and the fact that half of the earth faces away from the sun. Oops. They forgot about night time and the curve of the earth. Don't expect this to be showing up in any peer-reviewed journals any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 As in, it's too late to save you. I could do it right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.