University of Wollongong Study confirms natural emission is responsible for 90% of the Earth's atmospheric acidity.

[BethesdaWX]

I have difficulty finding references to formic acid as a GHG.

Good for you, this a forum to discuss more than GHGes, even if that were my goal which it isn't Mr. Literal.

[BethesdaWX]

Guys please stop the name calling towards Bethesda. It is completely ameaturish and unnecesary. No one believes the BS that is being spewed. And if they do, what on Earth could you possibly say that would change their minds?

Thanks a ton, but it's fine, really, shows who has more maturity and confidence in the scientific method.

What what BS would you be referring to? In scientific discussion we're open and honest with thoughts and opinions.

[BethesdaWX]

"The energy argument is not valid for highly nonlinear complex systems such as the coupled atmosphere-ocean-cryosphere-biosphere. It is well known that complex systems can behave chaotically, i.e., follow very different paths after the smallest change in initial or boundary conditions, or in response to the smallest perturbation. In a highly nonlinear system with large reservoirs of latent energy such as the atmosphere-ocean-biosphere, global redistributions of energy can be triggered by very small inputs, a process that depends far more on their spatial and temporal pattern than on their magnitude."

The equalibrium feedback time is longer than 10 years. The system likely will behave differently depending on initial conditions. A small perturbation can lead to a larger response than produced by the initial forcing.

If we add 3.7w/m^2 of forcing to the climate system (a small purtibation raising the expected black body temperature response by 1.2C) we should expect a non-linear system like the coupled atmosphere-ocean-cryosphere-biosphere to respond somewhat like it has in the past to such a forcing. Because the system is starting from a new set of initial conditions it is unlikely we can pin down the exact equalibrium response, but boundary condition experiments (modeled symulations) can put us in the general ballpark. Our best estimates of climate sensitivity place the equalibrium response somewhere between 2C and 4.5C.

So there is uncertainty in how the climate system (complex system) will respond. That does not mean the system is truely chaotic however. A truely chaotic system would be completely unknowable, with no predictability whatsoever. There would be no repeatable, stable patterns in the atmosphere. The goal of science is to understand the underlying rules which govern the reproducable patterns, and once you do, you can make predictions of future outcomes. One such rule is that if you add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere you will warm the Earth's surface.

I do understand and agree with the quotation.

Ok then to get sensitivity don't just use the thermal portion of the budget, use the ENTIRE budget to compare the value that CO2 adds to get sensitivity since on part of that will be recognized thermally.

[BethesdaWX]

Four quick points:

1. Given the outcomes of the BEST study, I have confidence that NCDC and GISS are reliable data sources.

2. Standardized temperatures from GISS and NCDC have diverged somewhat in recent years. However, the divergence is not statistically significant. It might well have more to do with the overly short period of time being measured than issues concerning either GISS or NCDC's data set.

3. GISS extrapolated Arctic temperatures yield an error of 0.05°C (95% confidence level). The extrapolations might provide the best means of estimating overall Arctic temperatures given present technology and methodology short of installing instuments throughout the Arctic (won't be done for obvious reasons).

4. Temperature variation is assumed to be normally distributed. Hence, 30-year periods are the base for statistical analysis. Shorter periods might not be representative.

1. How does BEST study at all improve confidence in GISS? BEST is an outlier by 3 standard deviations which exceeds the peer-reviewed maximum error bars allowed on the 4 of the cooler more in-line datasets...not good, and uses only a select group of stations with relatively poor coverage (likely to fit the trend muller desires, honestly, the paper was published after a media blitz which is never supposed to happen!). I don't see how it is worth mentioning here but of course it is only mentioned by those supporting AGW theory.

2. HADCRUT3, NCDC, UAH, and RSS have all diverged from GISS and BEST, I think to weight datasets equally the best thing to do would be to take a UAH/RSS mean, and a GISS, HADCRUT3 [with arctic infilling], and NCDC mean, and when you do that you'll see the Satellites and the surface data match up very well if not carbon copy eachother, which is a good sign IMO that the data is good.

3. I don't mind GISS extrapolating the Arctic, but I don't like GISS'es larger areas with no data over the globe, that is the problem, mcuh more extrapolation. NCDC has more data that GISS but HADCRUT3 has the most data avaiable on a global scale, highest resolution, and is the dataset favored by the IPCC AR4 report. So what I think could be done there is use HADCRUT3 with UAH or GISS substitution into the Arctic region.

4. True, but data-systems like GISS that deviate from the pack are not wisely to be used in the scientific method unless there is a reason to discredit other datasets with published error bars.

5. What gets me is, I'm willing to combine all datasets to get a mean, representating analysis abiding by the scientific method, while those on the warm side of the debate stick with the warmest datasets possible just because they fit their opinion base, whether or not they are correct. When it comes down to it most on the warm side of the debate will only use the data that fits the hypothesis of AGW and will ignore better datasets and/or methods, and that irks me in a wierd way. My opinion.

[donsutherland1]

What gets me is, I'm willing to combine all datasets to get a mean, representating analysis abiding by the scientific method, while those on the warm side of the debate stick with the warmest datasets possible just because they fit their opinion base, whether or not they are correct.

Have you standardized the datasets e.g., starting at the earliest common date for which data is available for the various datasets. Afterward, you would need to construct the 90%, or better 95% confidence intervals, for each of the standardized datasets. Then, one would know whether there really has been a statistically significant divergence. I did it with NCDC vs. GISS and found a modest divergence, but not a statistically significant one.

If a statistically significant divergence exists, clearly it would be worth noting. That would not necessarily mean that UAH or Hadley was superior to NCDC or GISS, just that a statistically signficant difference existed. A more detailed examination of the datasets in question would be required to determine which dataset or datasets had problems. Some of that task might require more observation to see if the divergence was merely temporary or something inherent in the dataset (e.g., methodological or measurement problem).

[BethesdaWX]

Have you standardized the datasets e.g., starting at the earliest common date for which data is available for the various datasets. Afterward, you would need to construct the 90%, or better 95% confidence intervals, for each of the standardized datasets. Then, one would know whether there really has been a statistically significant divergence. I did it with NCDC vs. GISS and found a modest divergence, but not a statistically significant one.

If a statistically significant divergence exists, clearly it would be worth noting. That would not necessarily mean that UAH or Hadley was superior to NCDC or GISS, just that a statistically signficant difference existed. A more detailed examination of the datasets in question would be required to determine which dataset or datasets had problems. Some of that task might require more observation to see if the divergence was merely temporary or something inherent in the dataset (e.g., methodological or measurement problem).

I did one awhile back, and found there is no statistically significant deviation between GISS and everything else, but without doing one I can already tell there is a statistically significant diversion between BEST and everything else. But knowing that all datasets have peer reviewed error bars that close much of the gap between eachother (except BEST) this is why I chose to go with the mean trend and not risk larger error.

GISS doesn't have the global coverage that HADCRUT3 does, however HADCRUT3 unfortunately doesn't include much of the Arctic, so that would have to be done before the trend can be taken verbatim, in my opinion, which is why either substituting UAH in place would work, or extrapolating.

[donsutherland1]

I did one awhile back, and found there is no statistically significant deviation between GISS and everything else, but without doing one I can already tell there is a statistically significant diversion between BEST and everything else.

I'm not using the BEST temperature constructions. I'm only noting that the BEST study concluded that the GISS and NCDC datasets are robust.

If you found no statistically significant divergence between GISS, NCDC, HADCRUT3, UAH, etc., then it's premature to argue that any one of those datasets should be ignored. Furthermore, we don't even know whether the differences you cited are a problem with either or both datasets in question. GISS and NCDC have advantages over UAH in that they go back for more than a century. In theory, UAH has an advantage in that it has wider coverage, but satellite data has limitations. Unless evidence emerges that UAH is, in fact, superior (and that evidence would have to be statistically significant), I don't think one can argue that UAH is better.

[BethesdaWX]

link to the paper? I can't find it on the JGR page.

The BEST analysis/verification paper or the BEST initial findings+study paper? Doesn't inspire confidence given how few stations are actually used (on the order of 15-20% of total stations).

[BethesdaWX]

I'm not using the BEST temperature constructions. I'm only noting that the BEST study concluded that the GISS and NCDC datasets are robust.

If you found no statistically significant divergence between GISS, NCDC, HADCRUT3, UAH, etc., then it's premature to argue that any one of those datasets should be ignored. Furthermore, we don't even know whether the differences you cited are a problem with either or both datasets in question. GISS and NCDC have advantages over UAH in that they go back for more than a century. In theory, UAH has an advantage in that it has wider coverage, but satellite data has limitations. Unless evidence emerges that UAH is, in fact, superior (and that evidence would have to be statistically significant), I don't think one can argue that UAH is better.

I never claimed GISS is wrong, but that it would be safer by the scientific method to 1) use the mean of all datasets, and 2) Take note that GISS has larger extrapolations over the globe versus everyone else. It could still be right, but we don't know and the mean poses less risk at more significant error at the chance that GISS is too warm, same for HADCRUT3 being colder.

UAH's published error bars are just over +/-0.05C/decade, So are RSS'es, only RSS is cooler so if anything UAH may be too warm which is why Roy Spencer is still investigating reducing the anomalies after 2008 which is when the AQUA radiometer began showing signs of wear and tear.

[BethesdaWX]

the Muller JGR paper that you refernced in the part I quoted. you referred to it as "published" so you must have a link to it.

I believe it was published by 'Nature', I know it was published somewhere but I haven't read it admittedly, only watched the live presentations by Muller and the media blitz, and it's likely behind a paywall, but I'll look for it.

I do know the basic method behind the station choices though, and it isn't something I would gun for in support of any theories I lend support to.

[donsutherland1]

Doesn't inspire confidence given how few stations are actually used (on the order of 15-20% of total stations).

The study relied on sampling. Well-constructed samples can provide useful information.

[BethesdaWX]

the paper was submitted to JGR-Atmospheres. it hasn't been published yet. yet you blather on with total crap critiquing something that you haven't read read, and you don't actually know what it is. but if Anthony Watts is against it, you're against it.

this is why your posts really don't belong in this forum.

Utter Nonsense, the main findings and results of the study were presented via public press release, which I watched and recorded. The initial findings are online too, and the methods behind them. Quit talking out of your a**. And the most fantastic aspect here is that it'll BE published after a media firestorm. I could care less where or when it will be published, if it is, because the study deviates from peer reviewed error bars in all other datsets, and the man behind the study has said some rather outlandish claims about what people should believe based on his results.

As for Watts, I don't know him nor do I agree with most of his opinions, but even if I did unfounded critisism is not the place here in the CC forum. Heck I bet I have more credentials than Watts at this point in areas of relevant study. Ranting with no scientific basis.

Enough please? Thanks

[BethesdaWX]

The study relied on sampling. Well-constructed samples can provide useful information.

Samples vs coverage, error bars may actually be less in samples if the samples are representative of a global climate state. And if the study did not deviate by 3 standard deviations from the peer reviewed error bars of all other data systems I would take it more seriously, not that it matters what I think. In this case it is likely well overblown inmy eyes, but while it can't be proven that this is the case by the scientific method, it also should not be used as evidence by the scientific method until further analysis is done.

Furthermore the fact that it will likely be published after media firestorm reduces my respect towards Muller significantly. I'm only a met/particle physics student, but I can still have an opinion on this, not saying It is fact but that it is my opinion that the BEST study should not be taken seriously right now.

I used to be a hardcore believer in AGW theory until I got into particle physics and climate, ironically if you do the same I think you'll have a changed opinion too. There is a reason there are so few phycisists in and with the IPCC/AGW movement, the problem lies in the total energy budget of the Earth Climate System, where thermal versus the total net budget should be taken into account. If you do the latter, with the kinetic, electric, and thermal portions of the budget, our CO2 increase adding energy (in the explanation form of W/m^2) is not nearly enough to influence a measurable trend in temperature, while changes in albedo force 10+W/m^2 in variations on a yearly scale. The +AO is an example of a significant decrease in albedo efficiency.

[BethesdaWX]

you don't agree with Watts yet the 2 things you keep saying--the fake uproar over the publicity of the study as the paper was being submitted, and the parrotting of the "deviations from error bars"--are 100% Watts propaganda. that's not science.

Whaaa? Peer reviewed error bars on the data systems that BEST got their data from in the first place are not scientific? Peer review then must not be scientific, nor can BEST be scientific if the error bars in datasets are not scientific. Gotcha You are incredibly clueless when it comes to science.

And I never said anything about an 'uproar', that is your own stupid nonsensical fabrication. But you don't blitz to the media then send the paper to be published afterwards, sorry. As someone who works in the peer review process you should know this. I know many who have been active in the peer review process and this is an agreed fact.

[BethesdaWX]

there was no media firestorm! they simply made their findings available as they submitted the paper. that doesn't guarantee that it will sail through peer review.

Are you kidding? It was reported all over, on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and the Washington Post even. I call that media firestorm.

They gave a freaking PRESS RELEASE!

[PhillipS]

Whaaa? Peer reviewed error bars on the data systems that BEST got their data from in the first place are not scientific? Peer review then must not be scientific, nor can BEST be scientific if the error bars in datasets are not scientific. Gotcha You are incredibly clueless when it comes to science.

And I never said anything about an 'uproar', that is your own stupid nonsensical fabrication. But you don't blitz to the media then send the paper to be published afterwards, sorry. As someone who works in the peer review process you should know this. I know many who have been active in the peer review process and this is an agreed fact.

The BEST project has been a model of the scientific method.

The BEST team is made up of high-caliber scientists from several fields. Including a Nobel Laureate. The team has worked under the auspices of the University of California at Berkeley, a top-tier research institution.

They have been completely transparent in their methodology for analysis. All parties had opportunity to comment on their approach. (Remember, Watts said that he was ready to accept their results - until they contradicted his biases)

They have made all of the data used.available for others to use to replicate their findings. In the months since they released thier draft reports for open review nobody has come forward with any substantive criticism. If you feel there are glaring errors in the BEST analysis - provide a link to support your opinion.

The BEST team put the draft reports on-line to open the review process to anybody with access to the internet. This prevented any possible allegation of 'pal-review'.

And each of the BEST reports has been submitted for formal peer-review and publication.

It would be great if all research teams were this open and transparent.

[BethesdaWX]

The BEST project has been a model of the scientific method.

The BEST team is made up of high-caliber scientists from several fields. Including a Nobel Laureate. The team has worked under the auspices of the University of California at Berkeley, a top-tier research institution.

They have been completely transparent in their methodology for analysis. All parties had opportunity to comment on their approach. (Remember, Watts said that he was ready to accept their results - until they contradicted his biases)

They have made all of the data used.available for others to use to replicate their findings. In the months since they released thier draft reports for open review nobody has come forward with any substantive criticism. If you feel there are glaring errors in the BEST analysis - provide a link to support your opinion.

The BEST team put the draft reports on-line to open the review process to anybody with access to the internet. This prevented any possible allegation of 'pal-review'.

And each of the BEST reports has been submitted for formal peer-review and publication.

It would be great if all research teams were this open and transparent.

This isn't about being open and transparent, this is about scientific conduct. Sure, no one would or should critisize their stations of choice, but it is the fact that their dataset is not representative of the globe, because they use so few stations compared to what is necessary for a global measurement. Their stations of choice show more warming, but the globe doesn't because the stations picked in various climate zones do not reflect the trends over say, the Oceans, Sahara desert, so on and so forth.

The BEST data system should not and is not being taken in a global manner. Do you wonder why they deviate from the well respected data systems by 3 standard deviations!? This is why.

[BethesdaWX]

that's not uncommon. nor is it against the policies of JGR:

http://www.agu.org/p...uidelines.shtml

you're way too focused on the wrong things in this forum.

It is uncommon in climate science and when it comes to a hypothesis by the scientific method it is extremely poor conduct, thats just how it is. 'Hey, I'll take my armageddon hypothesis, send it to the media, and then have it peer reviewed!'...laughable.

I'm only focused on scientific conduct, the scientific method, and trough debate by many opinion groups with varying hypothesis. That is all. You don't come here to discuss science, so how can you even think about telling me that I'min the wrong forum? [incorrectly, of course].

So if you want to debate scientifically with me, fine, otherwise responding to me will just drag the forum down, and it is clear what the source of the problem really is.

[BethesdaWX]

it's not uncommon in climate science as that journal publishes tons of climate stuff.

'publishing tons of climate stuff' [however that is intended to be interpreted] is irrelavent, never has there been and/or should there have been a large freaking press release to various sources before publication. Find me one paper that featured a large press release before publication and was accepted. That is not peer review standard, sorry. Snd you know it too. I can go back and find your own quotes saying this, I believe. Want me to pull them up?

the problem is you're not focused on reality. the reality is that there was nothing wrong with how the BEST team publicized its results.

Problem is you're plain wrong, you don't scream to the media sending out articles on how "new results confirm we're warming and that you shouldn't be skeptical of AGW theory" when no rational skeptics deny the warming anyway, and the data used to assert this is not globally representative! And yet I bet you do not know the recommended # value of stations per 50km to get an adequate global measurement.

yes--your posting of crap from Watts, your use of papers you haven't even read to buttress your non-science based opinions, for starters. this thread is a good example of something that should not have been posted in this forum.

100% utter BS from you yet again, which is why you can't provide evidence...you don't know enough about climate science to call anyones scientific opinion "non-science based" which makes this funny, but I challenge you to explain how any "opinions" I have are "non scientific". Do it or can it.

But you won't, because you can't. You know for a fact that you stand no chance debating scientifically with me, you have no education in particle physics or climate/atmospheric science. So you throw personal attacks my way. Guess what,it ain't working, and you're obvously not 'working' either like you should be right now.

I can tell you right now you're not and won't get anywhere with this game you're playing.

[jbcmh81]

Is there such a thing as climate discussion without all of the massive ego on both sides?

[BethesdaWX]

Is there such a thing as climate discussion without all of the massive ego on both sides?

On my side, yes. I have offered to use a mean of all datasets in analysis even if some don't support my stance, am not set to personal attack like has been done to me, or any of the sort. Others insist on using data that fits their opinion base, and attacking me because they do not have scientific responses in return to my rebuttal to their choice of scientific conduct. Read back and see the personal attacks I have been recieving from the usual bunch.

"becky"

"stupid denier"

"crap spinner"

It gets unmoving, and it shows where honest intentions are and where they aren't.

[BethesdaWX]

why didn't you make your comments to the authors and JGR's Editor-in-Chief back in October?

I'm sure I'm not the only one. It is a pointless excersize for a busy student.

[PhillipS]

Is there such a thing as climate discussion without all of the massive ego on both sides?

Sadly, it appears that Bethesda is more interesting in trolling the various threads in the CLimate Change forum than in civil technical discussion. No matter what the thread topic he/she will post the same cut and paste fringe nonsense and then attack anyone who points out the errors. I don't have a clue as to why Bethesda acts this way - it would take someone with more expertise than me in abnormal psychology to diagnose his/her condition.

As you may know Bethesda has been banned before for his/her unseemly behavior towards others. I can only hope that the moderators are paying attention.

[WeatherRusty]

Bethesda,

You are not here to discuss science. You are here to argue against establishment science and anyone who addresses it. You take issue with every post made by someone you declare pro-AGW. You argue against mainstream climate science with your opionion and you push it so hard and so self righteously that you appear to stand out on an island by yourself. If you were addressing real science you would be able to back up every claim with peer-reviewed literature. You have no bussiness calling others non-scientific when it is you who pushes unsubstantiated hypothesis with little supporting evidence.

[BethesdaWX]

Bethesda,

You are not here to discuss science. You are here to argue against establishment science and anyone who addresses it. You take issue with every post made by someone you declare pro-AGW. You argue against mainstream climate science with your opionion and you push it so hard and so self righteously that you appear to stand out on an island by yourself. If you were addressing real science you would be able to back up every claim with peer-reviewed literature. You have no bussiness calling others non-scientific when it is you who pushes unsubstantiated hypothesis with little supporting evidence.

Rusty,

You are wrong. There is no 'establishment' science, there is no 'settled', here in climate science, at least if you follow the scientific method, and there is plentiful countering evidence and hypothesis. Have have backed myself up with peer reviewed literature constantly, would you like to see some? If so ask to see it, and do not drum up false claims and accusasions as is common with your side of the debate. It shows weakness on your own part.

I have responded to your claims, which you can't seem to respond to, in that the total additions to the energy budget due to CO2 influence needs to be compared to the entire planetary energy budget, not just the thermal portion...it is all sourced by the sun...who would argue this that is not the case? Can you not see why all the energy given to the Earth System by the Sun would need to be taken into account?

And the fact that one theory can explain the flatlining in temps to the exact year, while the other cannot, is also something you haven't responded to.

[BethesdaWX]

Sadly, it appears that Bethesda is more interesting in trolling the various threads in the CLimate Change forum than in civil technical discussion. No matter what the thread topic he/she will post the same cut and paste fringe nonsense and then attack anyone who points out the errors. I don't have a clue as to why Bethesda acts this way - it would take someone with more expertise than me in abnormal psychology to diagnose his/her condition.

As you may know Bethesda has been banned before for his/her unseemly behavior towards others. I can only hope that the moderators are paying attention.

No, you're the one who is trolling threads and shouting insults + false accusations at everyone, look at your above post. It is tiring too, and I'm beginning to lose patience with it. I encourage everyone to read the read from start to finish and see where the insults are coming from.

"becky"

"stupid denialist"

"fringe crap"

"denial"

None of these words are scientific, and they do not belong here in the CC forum. You are constantly rambling and trashing threads with insults and irrelavent science. I'm tired of it, dude.

[BethesdaWX]

This is what I mean.

I just googled the three words "bethesda" "is" "moronic" and got:

About 4,060,000 results (0.31 seconds) So it must be true by your standards, right?

Bethesda = pseudo-science = Infinity

you've revealed that you don't know how to use google effectively - well, it is so sad and pathetic I feel sorry for you.

abnormal psychology to diagnose his/her condition.

Frivolousz even states:

Guys please stop the name calling towards Bethesda. It is completely ameaturish and unnecesary.

And Frivolousz21 is 100% right. I've been the one attacked.

[Srain]

Is there such a thing as climate discussion without all of the massive ego on both sides?

Yes, there is...

[BethesdaWX]

I'd love to see you start a thread, post 3 of your assertions, and back each up with multiple peer-reviewed citations.

Assertions on what? Make a specific request and I will ablige.

[BethesdaWX]

how is opening up your work, proof, and data to public scrutiny a negative action? that's all the BEST group did.

No, the BEST crew has done all of this before the paper has been published:

-Massive press conference/press release to all sorts of news outlets

-presented the findings to Congress

-Claimed scientists should not be skeptical of AGW

Before the paper has been published. Sorry, you just don't do that.