Climate Change Banter

[SVT450R]

I would not be able to succeed in a traditional masters in science path. Regardless, my biggest strength is gathering/connecting information others have built and I believe I do this better than most.

 

I think I understand the climate system better than most, especially versus someone who only holds a mathematical degree, but it was accomplished on my own time and on my terms. I believe self-education is the new frontier, especially with the rising costs of college.

 

Everyone has their place in this field of study. I posted about educating/giving internet to impoverished African Americans in the PR forum and got slammed by everyone for being racist. It's not a one-way street, lol.

 

My goal here is to make it easier for people without credentials to have a voice, because they should be valued to some degree depending on what they can deliver.

[AvantHiatus]

Since nobody cares about climate science, that bar is pretty damn low? Agreed? Time will tell who was on the money, no need to make rush judgments.

[blizzard1024]

Blizzard, you know the CFSv2 is not meant to be used for climate trends.  NOAA, which runs the reanalysis dataset, unequivocally documents that fact in the peer reviewed paper about the data set.  Joe Bastardi and co are CLEARLY misusing it for decadal trends.

 

I'll give you a meteorology analogy- Using the CFSv2 for climate trends is like trying to extrapolate an 84 hour NAM run for a snowstorm 5 days out.  It's not what the model is intended for.

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010BAMS3001.1

 

 

 

The direct measure surface datasets (GISS, HadCrut4, NOAA, and JMA) all have much lower uncertainty than the reanalysis or satellite data.  Thus, those datasets should be the bellweather of climate change statistics and research.   I don't really know what else to say on this topic at this point.

 

 

How come the RSS UAH CFS2 and radiosonde agree so well??? And show less warming????how come. How come the cloud cover data correlates really well to the observed temp trends between 1983-2009. How come water vapor in the upper troposphere has declined. All this stuff is discounted because climate scientists have the scientific method all wrong.

 

CO2 increases means warming and more water vapor ....therefore every dataset than does not show this must be wrong. There models are based on this premise. The surface data is the best???That is laughable. 70% of the ocean covers the Earth and we know to a high degree of confidence what the ocean temps were 120 years ago??? or Arctic sea ice extent??? wow. this is delusional. You people need help and training in the real scientific method.

 

 

 and I respond to constructive criticism fine. You folks just hurl insults and ad hominem attacks at those who are not "believers" like you. This science has become a complete joke. 50 years from now things won't be much different maybe a little warmer but nothing that man can't adapt too.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I would not be able to succeed in a traditional masters in science path. Regardless, my biggest strength is gathering/connecting information others have built and I believe I do this better than most.

Not surprised

In all seriousness, it would probably help you. Treat yourself with dignity and respect. Give it a try before jumping to conclusions like that.

I think I understand the climate system better than most, especially versus someone who only holds a mathematical degree, but it was accomplished on my own time and on my terms. I believe self-education is the new frontier, especially with the rising costs of college.

You might think that now, but you lack the perspective that only a legitimate education can give you. It shows, at times, too.

[nflwxman]

How come the RSS UAH CFS2 and radiosonde agree so well??? And show less warming????how come. How come the cloud cover data correlates really well to the observed temp trends between 1983-2009. How come water vapor in the upper troposphere has declined. All this stuff is discounted because climate scientists have the scientific method all wrong.

 

CO2 increases means warming and more water vapor ....therefore every dataset than does not show this must be wrong. There models are based on this premise. The surface data is the best???That is laughable. 70% of the ocean covers the Earth and we know to a high degree of confidence what the ocean temps were 120 years ago??? or Arctic sea ice extent??? wow. this is delusional. You people need help and training in the real scientific method.

 

 

 and I respond to constructive criticism fine. You folks just hurl insults and ad hominem attacks at those who are not "believers" like you. This science has become a complete joke. 50 years from now things won't be much different maybe a little warmer but nothing that man can't adapt too.

They don't.  Quite simply stated.

 

Seriously, what is your motivation?  There are a several things to be skeptical about in climate science, but you keep picking the losing arguments.  Try working on ECS or TCR instead.  I'd gladly have those debates with you.  This is nonsense though.

 

SOC, I expect a detailed rebuttal from you on Blizzard's post, since you are an academic.  

[StudentOfClimatology]

They don't. Quite simply stated.

Seriously, what is your motivation? There are a several things to be skeptical about in climate science, but you keep picking the losing arguments. Try working on ECS or TCR instead. I'd gladly have those debates with you. This is nonsense though.

SOC, I expect a detailed rebuttal from you on Blizzard's post, since you are an academic.

Are his posts really worth responding to? The various CFS reanalyses weren't designed to observe global temperature, but are there mostly as a result of the methods employed to improve initialization schemes. No one should be using it for measure climate change.

[StudentOfClimatology]

How come the cloud cover data correlates really well to the observed temp trends between 1983-2009.

Let me guess, would this be the data derived from the ISCCP? Remember, the error potential on that dataset is very large..a full 1.5 standard deviations per each side of the trend-line. Using it to determine trend(s) in cloud cover alone, not to mention cloud cover by altitude, isn't smart or scientifically sound.

How come water vapor in the upper troposphere has declined.

This is far from certain. There is conflicting data amongst the four primary sonde reanalyses and many satellite suites as well.

CO2 increases means warming and more water vapor ....therefore every dataset than does not show this must be wrong.

What makes you think H^2O feedback is a linear process? The forecasted increases that matter all occur above 700mb, and there are a slew of factors that can alter mid/upper tropospheric H^2O content, including long term changes to the Brewer-Dobson circulation, aerosol production, solar forcing on O^3 photodissociation, etc.

The surface data is the best???That is laughable. 70% of the ocean covers the Earth and we know to a high degree of confidence what the ocean temps were 120 years ago???

The very satellite networks/sounding units that you personally employ to measure global lower tropospheric temperatures also measure SSTs. This data is fed into both NCDC and HADCRUT4. Why don't you trust those datasets?

GISS is the only surface dataset that employs ERSST3 as its primary source for ocean skin temperatures. This detracts from GISS's value, especially along land/sea boundaries and at the poles.

[FloridaJohn]

 and I respond to constructive criticism fine.

 

I see no evidence of this. You have yet to build any argument (credible or otherwise) to back up your statements. When presented with conflicting data, you simply ignore it. Where are the studies, reports, etc. that back up you assertions? For that matter, where have you been proven wrong and admitted it? What I have seen is when you get backed into a corner, you disappear from the forum. 10-12 months later you reappear with the same debunked arguments as before, without any new data.

[AvantHiatus]

Brewer-Dobson hype! 

[blizzard1024]

Let me guess, would this be the data derived from the ISCCP? Remember, the error potential on that dataset is very large..a full 1.5 standard deviations per each side of the trend-line. Using it to determine trend(s) in cloud cover alone, not to mention cloud cover by altitude, isn't smart or scientifically sound.

This is far from certain. There is conflicting data amongst the four primary sonde reanalyses and many satellite suites as well.

What makes you think H^2O feedback is a linear process? The forecasted increases that matter all occur above 700mb, and there are a slew of factors that can alter mid/upper tropospheric H^2O content, including long term changes to the Brewer-Dobson circulation, aerosol production, solar forcing on O^3 photodissociation, etc.

The very satellite networks/sounding units that you personally employ to measure global lower tropospheric temperatures also measure SSTs. This data is fed into both NCDC and HADCRUT4. Why don't you trust those datasets?

GISS is the only surface dataset that employs ERSST3 as its primary source for ocean skin temperatures. This detracts from GISS's value, especially along land/sea boundaries and at the poles.

This is true but since 1979 not the late 1880s!!!!  There is considerable uncertainty in how much the Earth has warmed and only the surface stations which have been tampered with in many ways  show the most warming. Again, anyone who does not put credence in the satellite data has their head in the sand. The whole AGW theory is going down. I admit there likely will be some warming...but not enough to overwhelm natural forces. CO2 is just a minor GHG. It is clouds and water vapor that rule the greenhouse effect.  Deep convection in the tropics and ocean currents dominate the climate system and always will.  They need to defund climate change studies and focus climate scientists on forecasting seasons. That is what would help society the most....  

[blizzard1024]

I see no evidence of this. You have yet to build any argument (credible or otherwise) to back up your statements. When presented with conflicting data, you simply ignore it. Where are the studies, reports, etc. that back up you assertions? For that matter, where have you been proven wrong and admitted it? What I have seen is when you get backed into a corner, you disappear from the forum. 10-12 months later you reappear with the same debunked arguments as before, without any new data.

 

You just puppet what the IPCC says.... think for yourself if you have the ability to.

[nflwxman]

You just puppet what the IPCC says.... think for yourself if you have the ability to.

You are very belligerent for holding such a minority view. Don't forget, even the satellite datasets you prop up show significant warming since 1979. Hardly enough to suggest the AGW "theory" is going down in flames.

[FPizz]

I would not be able to succeed in a traditional masters in science path. Regardless, my biggest strength is gathering/connecting information others have built and I believe I do this better than most.

I think I understand the climate system better than most, especially versus someone who only holds a mathematical degree, but it was accomplished on my own time and on my terms. I believe self-education is the new frontier, especially with the rising costs of college.

Everyone has their place in this field of study. I posted about educating/giving internet to impoverished African Americans in the PR forum and got slammed by everyone for being racist. It's not a one-way street, lol.

My goal here is to make it easier for people without credentials to have a voice, because they should be valued to some degree depending on what they can deliver.

Hahahah!

[blizzard1024]

You are very belligerent for holding such a minority view. Don't forget, even the satellite datasets you prop up show significant warming since 1979. Hardly enough to suggest the AGW "theory" is going down in flames.

 

 

.1C / decade  or 1C per century is significant??  Have you ever studied paleoclimatology??? This is hardly anything out of the ordinary in the Earth's climate history.

[AvantHiatus]

No, the base periods don't need to be the same. 

 

If the slope is negative or positive, the datasets are divergent. If the slope is zero, the datasets are not divergent.

 

The graph shows long periods of divergence, as well as short sharp divergences. This fact would be completely unchanged if you put the two on the same baseline.

[blizzard1024]

I see no evidence of this. You have yet to build any argument (credible or otherwise) to back up your statements. When presented with conflicting data, you simply ignore it. Where are the studies, reports, etc. that back up you assertions? For that matter, where have you been proven wrong and admitted it? What I have seen is when you get backed into a corner, you disappear from the forum. 10-12 months later you reappear with the same debunked arguments as before, without any new data.

 

 

I build arguments and if it doesn't fit your preconceived notions about the climate system you folks hurl insults ad hominem attacks etc.

The skeptical side in me is the scientist in me. None of what you folks on this forum have presented anything that would convince a skeptic like me that the world is in trouble from rapid climate change. I have said this before...I can see a maybe another 1c of warming spread out over at least 100 years or more....TCR. This would have minimal impact on the climate system. There is not enough land ice...glaciers... to abruptly change ocean currents which abruptly change climate. Below is a graph of the ice accumulation rate over Greenland from the ice core. The climate system was chaotic until the Holocene when the land ice disappeared.

 

 

To think a trace gas that is a minor GHG will somehow throw this whole system out of balance is a stretch. Computer models give us an idea that if you increase an external forcing like CO2 you will get some warming. I agree with that. But the feedbacks?? Models are horrible with feedbacks....I use models almost everyday. I understand NWP well.... So to bet the farm on these climate models is like in winter putting forecast out for a major snowstorm 15 days from now for a major nor'easter because the models are indicating it. And then having making people prepare NOW!!!  This is why so many METS are skeptical of climate science forecasts.

[dtk]

I build arguments and if it doesn't fit your preconceived notions about the climate system you folks hurl insults ad hominem attacks etc.

The skeptical side in me is the scientist in me. None of what you folks on this forum have presented anything that would convince a skeptic like me that the world is in trouble from rapid climate change. I have said this before...I can see a maybe another 1c of warming spread out over at least 100 years or more....TCR. This would have minimal impact on the climate system. There is not enough land ice...glaciers... to abruptly change ocean currents which abruptly change climate. Below is a graph of the ice accumulation rate over Greenland from the ice core. The climate system was chaotic until the Holocene when the land ice disappeared.

 

GISP220k.png

 

To think a trace gas that is a minor GHG will somehow throw this whole system out of balance is a stretch. Computer models give us an idea that if you increase an external forcing like CO2 you will get some warming. I agree with that. But the feedbacks?? Models are horrible with feedbacks....I use models almost everyday. I understand NWP well.... So to bet the farm on these climate models is like in winter putting forecast out for a major snowstorm 15 days from now for a major nor'easter because the models are indicating it. And then having making people prepare NOW!!!  This is why so many METS are skeptical of climate science forecasts.

Weather modeling is fundamentally different than seasonal modeling, much less climate modeling.  Also, the fact that you use CFSR (CFSv2 ICs) to make some of your arguments makes me think that you do not in fact understand NWP and DA well.

 

By the way, one of the reasons you see a significant change in the CFSv2 near surface temperature has to do with the fact that the model and resolution actually changed for the component that is used in the data assimilation cycling (from T382 to T574 spectral truncation).  The two changes that occurred were sometime in 2008 and then in late 2009, I think.  This has huge implications as the physics are not necessarily guaranteed to behave the same way, and the precipitation changes can lead to changes in surface hydrology and soil moisture.  In fact, I think NCEP may have even discovered an unexpected, significant change in the initialization of snow cover/depth after the 2009 modification which has H U G E implications for "monitoring" of T2m. 

 

To clarify, the prediction model in CFSv2 remains frozen....the component that changed is the driver for data assimilation cycling.  This was done in an effort to be forward thinking with the end goal of merging GDAS and CDAS analyses in order to create a single set of coupled initial conditions for both weather and seasonal prediction.

[PhillipS]

I build arguments and if it doesn't fit your preconceived notions about the climate system you folks hurl insults ad hominem attacks etc.

The skeptical side in me is the scientist in me. None of what you folks on this forum have presented anything that would convince a skeptic like me that the world is in trouble from rapid climate change. I have said this before...I can see a maybe another 1c of warming spread out over at least 100 years or more....TCR. This would have minimal impact on the climate system. There is not enough land ice...glaciers... to abruptly change ocean currents which abruptly change climate. Below is a graph of the ice accumulation rate over Greenland from the ice core. The climate system was chaotic until the Holocene when the land ice disappeared.

 

GISP220k.png

 

To think a trace gas that is a minor GHG will somehow throw this whole system out of balance is a stretch. Computer models give us an idea that if you increase an external forcing like CO2 you will get some warming. I agree with that. But the feedbacks?? Models are horrible with feedbacks....I use models almost everyday. I understand NWP well.... So to bet the farm on these climate models is like in winter putting forecast out for a major snowstorm 15 days from now for a major nor'easter because the models are indicating it. And then having making people prepare NOW!!!  This is why so many METS are skeptical of climate science forecasts.

 

Do you understand that the most recent data value in the GISP2 ice core is 1855?  The last point is 95 years before the present, and the present was defined as 1950 by Dr Richard Alley, who led the ice core analysis team.  So the plot you posted leaves off the most recent 160 years or so of the temperature record.  That is the period during which most of the AGW warming took place so your plot is disingenuous at best.  A better, more accurate, paleoclimate reconstruction would be either Marcott 2013, or Kobashi 2013 (though Kobashi is N hemisphere, not global).

 

[Polar Vortex 2014]

Sorry, this is kind of off topic, but this is the banter thread. I sometimes wonder if we're not all victims of a false dichotomy on global warming. The only two viewpoints ever presented are the mainstream science POV and the denialist POV. The 1-2% lunatic fringe who say climate change isn't occurring is routinely trotted out to spew their disinformation. Yet, surely, on the converse, there must be at least 1-2% of scientists who reject the mainstream science - not because they deny global warming, but because they believe it's going to be much worse than the mainstream POV. This is hypothetical, because I can't even confirm that such a fringe view exists. It  is simply never presented if it does exist.

 

I guess that brings up the following questions: Why is it that the deniers always say the models are wrong? And, further, why is that a reason to defund the research? Models can be wrong, but that doesn't mean they can only be wrong in one direction. What if the models are underdoing future climate change? Shouldn't the shortcomings in the models be a reason to increase funding, not decrease it?

[AvantHiatus]

I wouldn't be so quick to rule out the possibility of abrupt climate change, especially on a regional scale, as certain tipping points are reached.

Yes, true story. You miss nothing

 

[blizzard1024]

Do you understand that the most recent data value in the GISP2 ice core is 1855?  The last point is 95 years before the present, and the present was defined as 1950 by Dr Richard Alley, who led the ice core analysis team.  So the plot you posted leaves off the most recent 160 years or so of the temperature record.  That is the period during which most of the AGW warming took place so your plot is disingenuous at best.  A better, more accurate, paleoclimate reconstruction would be either Marcott 2013, or Kobashi 2013 (though Kobashi is N hemisphere, not global).

 

 

 

This plot  is even more disingenuous because it combines ice core data which is coarse by nature with the HACRUT data. Two different datasets. The warming that has occurred in this ice core analysis is between 1855 and 1950...before CO2 would even have much of a chance to influence the climate. So this chart says the recent warming likely has another cause.

[blizzard1024]

Sorry, this is kind of off topic, but this is the banter thread. I sometimes wonder if we're not all victims of a false dichotomy on global warming. The only two viewpoints ever presented are the mainstream science POV and the denialist POV. The 1-2% lunatic fringe who say climate change isn't occurring is routinely trotted out to spew their disinformation. Yet, surely, on the converse, there must be at least 1-2% of scientists who reject the mainstream science - not because they deny global warming, but because they believe it's going to be much worse than the mainstream POV. This is hypothetical, because I can't even confirm that such a fringe view exists. It  is simply never presented if it does exist.

 

I guess that brings up the following questions: Why is it that the deniers always say the models are wrong? And, further, why is that a reason to defund the research? Models can be wrong, but that doesn't mean they can only be wrong in one direction. What if the models are underdoing future climate change? Shouldn't the shortcomings in the models be a reason to increase funding, not decrease it?

 

You obviously have no idea how complicated the Earth's climate system is. To think we have it modeled well enough to make major changes in energy sources is very arrogant by mankind.

[Polar Vortex 2014]

You obviously have no idea how complicated the Earth's climate system is. To think we have it modeled well enough to make major changes in energy sources is very arrogant by mankind.

 

You missed the point of my post. I acknowledge the possibility that the models are wrong, but suggest it could be that they are underestimating future climate changes. It seems the range of ideas is always constrained on the "worst case" side by the models; yet, their are no similar constraints on the "best case" scenario. There maybe such a constraint in the scientific literature, but not in the popular debate.

[blizzard1024]

You missed the point of my post. I acknowledge the possibility that the models are wrong, but suggest it could be that they are underestimating future climate changes. It seems the range of ideas is always constrained on the "worst case" side by the models; yet, their are no similar constraints on the "best case" scenario. There maybe such a constraint in the scientific literature, but not in the popular debate.

 

 

Ok Misunderstood what you were saying. My thoughts are that the models are overdoing the warming. I have seen many atmospheric models overdo non-linear feedbacks often. I forecast weather so I have a lot of experience in evaluating model data and performance. The CFSV2 as a model has a major warm bias as it always seems to eventually go to a blow torch mode over the course of several months. Of course this is a totally different kind of model than they use for global climate change.

[PhillipS]

This plot  is even more disingenuous because it combines ice core data which is coarse by nature with the HACRUT data. Two different datasets. The warming that has occurred in this ice core analysis is between 1855 and 1950...before CO2 would even have much of a chance to influence the climate. So this chart says the recent warming likely has another cause.

 

Nope, you're wrong again.  Marcott et al is a multi-proxy reconstruction, not ice core only like your plot.  So it is both more representative of global temperature changes and it runs up to where it can be merged with the instrumental temperature record.  This is why it gives an accurate indication of global temperature trends for the past 10K years.

 

The only reason to use GISP2 ice core record without providing the contextual meta-data is if you are trying to deceive the readers.  

Was that your intent?

[StudentOfClimatology]

Do you understand that the most recent data value in the GISP2 ice core is 1855? The last point is 95 years before the present, and the present was defined as 1950 by Dr Richard Alley, who led the ice core analysis team. So the plot you posted leaves off the most recent 160 years or so of the temperature record. That is the period during which most of the AGW warming took place so your plot is disingenuous at best. A better, more accurate, paleoclimate reconstruction would be either Marcott 2013, or Kobashi 2013 (though Kobashi is N hemisphere, not global).

That Marcott et al study depicting Holocene climate variability is at odds with ~80% of the peer reviewed literature in the paleoclimate arena. The consensus is the globe was at least 1 degree centigrade warmer during the Holocene climate optimum than it is now.

The best global climate proxies are in fact the isotope ratios found in ice cores. Not only are they preserved better via the lack of biological decay, but they represent a process that takes place from the equator to the pole itself.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Nope, you're wrong again. Marcott et al is a multi-proxy reconstruction, not ice core only like your plot. So it is both more representative of global temperature changes and it runs up to where it can be merged with the instrumental temperature record. This is why it gives an accurate indication of global temperature trends for the past 10K years.

That's bullcrap. Try telling any paleoclimatologist that we're warmer now than we were during the Holocene optimum..you'll get all sorts of funny looks.

[AvantHiatus]

That's bullcrap. Try telling any paleoclimatologist that we're warmer now than we were during the Holocene optimum..you'll get all sorts of funny looks.

We'll be blowing past that very soon if we haven't done it already. There is only so much you can interpret from paleo and exact numerical measures of global temperature in small intervals is not one of them.

[StudentOfClimatology]

We'll be blowing past that very soon if we haven't done it already. There is only so much you can interpret from paleo and exact numerical measures of global temperature in small intervals is not one of them.

Yes, we'll eventually surpass the Holocene climate optimum. We'll need to warm at least 1 - 1.5 degrees centigrade, though.

[AvantHiatus]

Yes, we'll eventually surpass the Holocene climate optimum. We'll need to warm at least 1 - 1.5 degrees centigrade, though.

That would be borderline mid Pliocene temps. I want what your smoking.