TonyT
Member
Why is it so difficult to access the latest Ocean Heat Content data ?
Does the following chart accurately show Ocean Heat Content up to 2010 ?
Can anyone suggest the conversion between Ocean Heat Content in 10^22 Joules and Ocean Temperature in degC ?
Buzzman
Member
Roy Spencer's so-called "argument" regarding the influence of cloud formations has been thoroughly debunked in *peer reviewed* scientific journals, and is best explained in layman's terms on the Skeptic Science website.
Theis website was awarded a 'Eureka Prize' for advancing the understanding of the issues and facts around MMCC.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Eureka_Prize_Winner_2011.html
Like I said in my previous - stop reding the crap and start reading the science.
Roy Spencer is a moron. End of.
TonyT,
First of all I would like to let you know my appreciation of your interest and most of all about the polite way you present yourself.
In theory the conversion is simple.
Temperature difference = change in heat/(heat capacity*mass)
But it gets very difficult.
Your graph shows not absolute heat but the change of the ocean heat content in relation to an arbitrarily selected zero point. The same is true for temperature.
So we are talking about differences in temperature and differences in heat.
Also there is a layering of water of different temperatures in the ocean and a variation of temperatures in various places.
Talking about heat(differences!) makes much more sense than talking about temperature (differences) because the heat difference is just the total of all heat differences whereas the temperature difference (or temperature anomaly) is the average of all these temperature differences.
Actually heat differences are calculated from temperature differences because heat cannot be measured directly. What has been measure were thousands of individual temperatures and by a complicated process all these different temperatures were converted into the single number for heat (difference) or heat anomaly.
To answer your question short. Sorry, in this regard I am a bit like an eunuch, I know how it goes but I cannot do it. There is no simple answer.
Jeffbloggs
Member
I concur with S2S.
The calculation is difficult. The measurements are difficult. The interpolation of data is difficult. Especially in trying to collect accurate data from the ocean, and at depth. And a theory to combine all these difficulties is "difficult" in it's very "nature".
Hence the whole debate on how accurate, or as some put it, "how likely" could the impact be, based on what we "think" has been. To many variables for my taste. It remains a pursuit of "possibility" and not of the "truth" (ie how does it actually work, without bias).
I don't think we as a species have enough knowledge of the ocean and weather systems to make such a prediction with any accuracy. But I still believe action is required for a multitude of other reasons. Those reasons are clear, and mostly even easier to quantify and definitely easier to justify! 
On a positive, as a follow up on my post regarding the Climate Commission visit earlier in this thread, the CEO has emailed me for a chat and more info on Biogas. I will have to make an effort to present the case for Biogas. But I am cautiously optimistic about some progress, even with Government bodies...
Jeffbloggs
Member
Buzzman
Without wanting to digress too far off topic (unlikely I know!), I would like to mention a few things regarding your extensive posts on the previous page, in regards to "truth" and "media".
I can accept the notion that the public, especially those un or ill-informed, are susceptible to media fed "truth". A good story is harder to disprove than the truth, and far easier to believe to boot! 
I can also agree that any persons perception of "truth" is based on previous knowledge and understanding. Or as you put it; a "common truth" or "common sense".
I also completely agree on the lack of "responsibility" and a demented pursuit of "individual rights" without regard of the consequences such juvenile actions entail.
However, in that regard I must point out that you are not exempt from these "cultural perceptions of truth" and having a go at skeptics (or denialists), from your own perception of "truth", does not lend any more credibility to your own arguments, especially if you can truly accept your own cultural heritage...
My point is that one must always maintain an open mind. There might be more than one perception of truth, but only one truth nevertheless.
We only decide what is "truth" for ourselves by faith, we "believe" what we think is "true".
Some people just suffer from a more severe case of "blind faith".
(I'm not implying you more than me btw!)
PS Maybe we should have our own thread to discuss further...instead of hijacking another one...again!!
Regards
JB
Buzzman
Member
JB...oh, go bag your head!!!
At least when I 'nail my colours to the mast' I still have my eyes open, unlike the denialists and creationists.
I know I am as fallible as the next person, but what really gets up my nose is that denialists with zero formal background in climate science are given "equal" credibility by the sensation-seeking media.
This is EXACTLY the sort of circumstance where the notion of "freedom of speech" gets tripped up by the notion of "individual and collective responsibility".
At the risk of immediately losing the argument let me risk censure by contrasting the "right to be heard" demanded by the denialists, and the "common sense" that what is being said should either not be heard or, at the very least, given far less weight....
The problem for the 'average person' with either less intelligence, shorter attention spans, or an inbuilt tendency to believe conspiracy theories, is that science and scientific principals are not easy subjects to get to grips with.
Even scientists struggle with it.
And in the 30-second-media-sound-bite it is well nigh impossible to explain, never mind examine in detail, complex scientific issues - like MMCC.
I blame the media entirely for its utterly self-interested sensation-seeking that enables such miniscule 'minority views' to be given any column inches or airtime at all.
It is oh, so easy to 'bag the other side' in a 30-second sound bite, as the Mad Monk demonstrates almost daily.
Or, as I have provocatively done here, 'name call' those with whom you disagree...
It's FAR easier for me to say "Monckton is a moron. End of." rather than go into a 500-word essay carefully dissecting his arguments and rebutting every one of his so-called points.
So to save me the trouble, I just point people towards Skeptical Science and tell them to read the science. On SkS the science is presented in either 'easy', medium' or 'full-on' versions, depending on one's level of scientific knowledge and interest.
The other issue is complacency. Those who ARE convinced by the science tend to sit on their hands and wait for the rest of the world to catch up - apart from a few like John Cook and Haydn Washington who wrote a book debunking denialists....
If the REST of us got up on our hind legs and told the ABC, Channel Nine, The Daily Mirror or whomever that we did NOT want to hear from those with seriously divergent views, they would naturally respond by self-censoring.
That is, after all, how views, beliefs and ideas are circumscribed in our human society - by what is considered 'acceptable' by the majority.
In this case, the majority of climate scientists, and in fact, scientists generally, who all agree that the science IS compelling.
Ergo, only THOSE opinions should be given the imprimatur of "the truth" and other views should, rightly, be regarded with not just scepticism but outright contempt - or, being kind, at the very least treated with serious doubt.
And, as such, given proportionately LESS 'media coverage' than they currently receive.
Frankly I believe the media has a responsibility, which it is shirking, to not just 'report' whatever crap someone wants reported, but to *critique* [ie: critically investigate] what is being said and by whom and for what ulterior purpose.
Interestingly, Haydn Washington in a recent interview by HG Nelson stated that a recent study of the brain activity of 'conservatives' and 'liberals' (that is, lefties, not Liberals), showed that the 'conservative brain' is hard wired for fear, and the 'liberal brain' is far more forward thinking and rational.
Guess the 'science' is just proving what some of us have know for years! LOL
And on that note......
Jeffbloggs
Member
Buzz lol.
I'm glad I know your sense of humor, otherwise certain monkey descendants might be offended! 
I can only say we should be more concerned with where we are going rather than being obsessed with where we have been. We can't change our past. But the future is a open book, full of possibilities. We just have to learn to let go of our "sinful" and corrupted pasts.
But I still must insist on dissecting your augmentative style. In one sentence you say:
"It's FAR easier for me to say "Monckton is a moron. End of." rather than go into a 500-word essay carefully dissecting his arguments and rebutting every one of his so-called points.
So to save me the trouble, I just point people towards Skeptical Science and tell them to read the science.
and then you say:
"The other issue is complacency. Those who ARE convinced by the science tend to sit on their hands and wait for the rest of the world to catch up"
Are you sure that you aren't being too complacent in not pursuing any other theories? Maybe our first mistake will be greater than our last?
But I do agree on the point of who gets heard is just the loudest (media), but rarely the soundest of mind, and that people mostly have too much choice of lunacy.
But how do we distinguish between one man's psychotic deformities that is considered "reality", and another man's simple brilliance of pure ingenuity?
This I am afraid is a dilemma that can only be overcome with faith.
A faith that is all to often completely misplaced and results in actions of pure irresponsibility. (ie the belief in money)
Any money based incentive to combat any proposed MMCC is morally corrupted simply by association, by using the common negative desire to "save money" that enables further greed. It's time we learnt to save ourselves as "natural humans" and not try to sustain dead men's ideologies.
We need to learn to give freely, not take forcibly.
Regards
JB
(PS I'll be leaving this thread to the "scientific evidence" now, no more off-topic posts! Sorry guys)
TonyT
Member
s2s
Thanks for your affirmation.
Also thanks for starting this thread and for your valuable contributions.
By developing and promoting the now discredited hockey-stick chart, the formally qualified expert Michael Mann, the IPCC and Al Gore all betrayed my trust in experts.
I now look for trustworthy measured data and use that data to understand how global temperature is changing and whether the data shows that people are causing those changes.
We are being told that “the science has been settled by the experts”, that we should believe what the experts tell us and that we should stop asking questions and “move forward”.
Science is never settled. Accurately measured data that does not fit a theory will always destroy that theory.
This thread provides an opportunity for me, as one participant, to work out what I believe by sharing what I understand as we all use the web to collect, examine and discuss the data and the science.
Experts are important contributors to my understanding but eventually I must decide for myself what I believe and what actions I will take based on those beliefs.
Experts can provide only parts of the answer.
Also, like me, experts are human, they can be biased and they can be wrong.
An Expert is a specialist in a single discipline. In my experience that expertise often comes with a limited understanding of the whole. The hockey-stick demonstrates that there is no correlation between expertise, intelligence, morality and wisdom. These human attributes are completely independent !
Climate Change is complex and it covers too many disciplines for anyone realistically to claim expertise across all areas.
The role of an expert is not to tell me what to believe or how to vote. I am responsible for doing the work and using my own wisdom, intelligence, experience and intuition to review and evaluate the data (including material provided by experts) and coming to my own decisions.
In a democracy, ideally we value and respect free speech and discussion and we each vote to determine how we will act collectively.
Before Al Gore's film “An Inconvenient Truth”, like most scientists, I believed that mercury-in-glass thermometers were not sufficiently accurate to detect a trend as small as 0.5 degrees C per 100 years.
I remember the media scare in 1970 about the Global Cooling that had been measured between 1940 and 1970. The Global Cooling scare preceded subsequent increases in global temperature that were measured between 1970 and 2000.
Like millions of people, I was completely conned by the IPCC and Al Gore's clever marketing and their use of Michael Mann’s now discredited hockey stick chart. That chart removed the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age deliberately to frighten me that current temperatures and rates of temperature rise exceed historical values that we will soon reach a disastrous “tipping point”.
Like most viewers, I was trusting because I was not expecting to be misled by the experts.
After much research since then, the data shows me:
a. When compared with history, present global temperatures are not unusually high and the rate of change of temperature has not been unusual.
Chart 1
Source
http://junksciencearchive.com/Hide_the_decline.html
b. Since the year 2000, global temperatures have stopped increasing.
Chart 2
I must learn how to reduce the size of this chart
Please use the slider at the bottom of the screen to scroll and view the right hand side of Chart 2.
Source
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/HadCRUT3-1850.html
c. Since 2003 global ocean heat content has stopped increasing
Chart 3
Source
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
and
d. I can find no data that shows that man-made CO2 is the main driver of global temperature.
The data in Chart 2 (above) shows that there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature.
Chart 2 shows that for the thousand years between 1900 and 2011 atmospheric CO2 has increased in every successive year (monotonic) and in each year CO2 has increased more than in the previous year (exponential).
Global Temperature has not followed an increasng monotonic exponential pattern like CO2.
(1) for the 30 years from 1940 to 1970 temperature dropped while CO2 increased.
(2) for the 30 years from 1970 to 2000 the rate of temperature rise was the same as that between 1900 to 1940. Between 1970 and 2000, CO2 concentration rose at a rate much higher than the rate at which it rose between 1900 and 1940.
(3) for the 11 years from 2000 to 2011 temperature has not been rising while CO2 has been rising at its highest-ever rate.
e. Global climate seems to be affected most by the sun.
I have just started to research this topic.
f. The output from computer models has been mis-used to cause public alarm by showing excessively high estimates of future global temperatures.
Chart 4
Source
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208
I have studied what John Cook says on his Skeptical Science website
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy
I find his site to be well-resourced and full of information but it is heavily biased.
The site uses half truths and cherry-picking of the data.
This is demonstrated by what is omitted in its discussion of Mann’s hockey stick chart when compared with
The global warming/ MMCC science is well understood by those trained to understand the data and the choice to believe or not is unscientific but understandable. The point is it may not matter as other human behaviours are likely to impact sooner causing accelerated damage to our environment and having a self limiting result which will perhaps end the argument. Earth 1 : humans 0.
That outcome may be here sooner than we think.
dbindoff
Member
TonyT, have you seen the american institute of physics presentation on the Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Since you appear to be in agreement about the ramping of CO2 in the system, the history of the physics surrounding the issue may shed some further light for you on why it is already determined that we will get more heating for many many years as a result of the (alarmingly) high levels of CO2 already present, regardless of these very, very short term arguments about statistical interpretations of the data (take a look at the aip chart of heat at the end also )
TonyT
Member
dbindoff
Thanks for the new link.
That site looks interesting and I look forward to exploring it !
The data shows that atmospheric CO2 is increasing and that we humans are significant contributors.
The data in Chart 2 of my previous post shows that CO2 concentration does not control global temperature.
Historic geological data shows that without any contribution from humans, CO2 levels have been higher in the past than they are now.
TonyT,
I cannot really follow your argumentation. You are mixing opinion and facts quite randomly. For instance by stating :"...the now discredited hockey-stick chart..."
you formulate the opinion of a few into the description of a fact. I have demonstrated already in this thread that the 'hockey stick' is still supported by various independent measurements and that it is still confirmed by peer reviewed papers.
About cherry picking by scepticalscience: What is cherry picked? All statements are usually backed up by links to scientific peer reviewed papers.
If you trust publications by junkscience more, then this is your personal right to do so. But these do not have scientific credentials but are essentially opinion pieces. In the link you supplied they started the hockey stick attack even with a song!
I also wonder what kind of scientist you are. Your approach of handling of data and trends appears quite naive to me, not scientific at all. I am a scientist (chemist) and I know my limits. I cannot take on the interpretation of raw climate data myself. And I doubt if you have the capabilities to handle the interpretation and conversion of raw data into reliable trend data. One example is this:" ... d. I can find no data that shows that man-made CO2 is the main driver of global temperature. ... The data in Chart 2 (above) shows that there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature. ..." - truly naive
or this:" Since 2003 global ocean heat content has stopped increasing" - No scientist would read this from the graph you relate to.
After all your complaints about misleading experts I am really surprised how you then demonstrate 100% trust into what some windy authors (to say the least) are postulating.
Buzzman
Member
For those incapable of distinguishing 'garbage science' from real science, please follow the bouncing ball:
TonyT said:
a. When compared with history, present global temperatures are not unusually high and the rate of change of temperature has not been unusual.
ANSWER: Wrong, actually. Because in the PAST it has been only 'natural forces' causing climate and temperature changes. But as any good climate scientist knows, the global climate responds to whatever is 'forcing' it at the time. Right now, human activity is the principle forcing factor. We are causing it, it is up to us to prevent this.
TonyT said:
b. Since the year 2000, global temperatures have stopped increasing.
ANSWER: Well, wrong actually. For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.
TonyT said:
c. Since 2003 global ocean heat content has stopped increasing
ANSWER: Utterly wrong. Levitus (2009) clearly demonstrates that the most recent ocean measurements show consistent warming.
TonyT said:
d. I can find no data that shows that man-made CO2 is the main driver of global temperature.
ANSWER: You may not be able to, but then, you're probably looking under rocks - or maybe on denialist websites - and we all know there is no real 'science' there!. Real scientists have done the research and it has been assessed by the IPCC. There are many lines of evidence indicating global warming is unequivocal, and that humans are responsible.
TonyT said:
e. Global climate seems to be affected most by the sun.
ANSWER: Well, derrrrr!!!! It's where all energy in this solar system comes from, ultimately. But, for the record, according to the actual measured science, in the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.
TonyT said:
f. The output from computer models has been mis-used to cause public alarm by showing excessively high estimates of future global temperatures.
ANSWER: Well, no actually. As TonyT himself states, science is not fixed, so the 'models' which are used to calculate the "likely range" of temperature changes as a result of MMCC have a lower and an upper limit. Giving an answer as a "range" is perfectly normal and acceptable in the scientific community.
If we are in fact alarmed as a result, then so be it. Perhaps that might encourage people to respond appropriately by changing their behaviours and emitting less CO2.
TonyT said:
"I have studied what John Cook says on his Skeptical Science website
I find his site to be well-resourced and full of information but it is heavily biased."
ANSWER: Well, derrrr!! He states right there, at the top of the page, that his site is for "debunking the myths of the denialists" - and it does an excellent job of this. And, as TonyT says, it's well-resourced, informative, and contains ACTUAL SCIENCE from peer-reviewed and accepted scientific papers.
TonyT said:
"The site uses half truths and cherry-picking of the data."
ANSWER: Absolutely false. Every statement on the Skeptical Science website is firmly backed by the actual science from actual climate scientists and is referenced.
The cherry picking is what is done by the denialists, as in most of TonyT's so-called 'arguments'.
TonyT said:
"This is demonstrated by what is omitted in its discussion of Mann’s hockey stick chart"
ANSWER:The "hockey stick" describes a reconstruction of past temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years using tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature (Mann 1999). The reconstruction found that global temperature gradually cooled over the last 1000 years with a sharp upturn in the 20th Century. The principal result from the hockey stick is that global temperatures over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years.
A critique of the hockey stick was published in 2004 (McIntyre 2004), claiming the hockey stick shape was the inevitable result of the statistical method used (principal components analysis). They also claimed temperatures over the 15th Century were derived from one bristlecone pine proxy record. They concluded that the hockey stick shape was not statistically significant.
They were wrong.
An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.
All of the above responses are backed by ACTUAL science from ACTUAL climate scientists, are peer reviewed, published and double-checked.
And, like s2s, I refuse to give any credibility to the posts of TonyT by continuing this somewhat one-sided 'debate'.
They are not only not worth reading they are blatantly denialist and largely peddle the falsehoods of the 'denialist' industry.
Why TonyT takes up the baton for these already debunked views I can only speculate.
But as I'll get into trouble with JB if I say what I really think, this time, I'll keep my views to myself.
As should TonyT.
I like this topic. I am very interested in climate change. I try to observe it.
I put an item on Page 2 of the thread, showing how some of my data matches data from one of the recognised key global data sets (GISS).
http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/2190/page/2#post-21029
This shows a pattern of global warming moving in large fits and starts that demand explanation. Climate scientists seem hardly to have got started on an explanation of this pattern.
Unfortunately, no participants in this forum seem the slightest bit interested.
However, I'll press on.
At Manilla, NSW, in the last nine years:
ALL DAYS OF THE YEAR TRENDED COOLER:
NEARLY ALL NIGHTS OF THE YEAR TRENDED WARMER
(Latest Knappenberger graphs)
Graphs of this type were pioneered by Knappenberger et al. 2001:
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/17/c017p045.pdf`
They show, for a chosen sequence of years, how the trends of temperature differ between the coldest days (or nights) of the year, the hottest ones, and all those in between.
I have chosen to analyse data in nine-year blocks. I compared the three nine-year blocks ending August 2008, August 2009 and August 2010 in two Posts on another forum:
http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/3785/Re_Observations_of_climate_var#Post3785
http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/884837/Re_Observations_of_climate_var#Post884837
Graph No. 1 here shows trends in daily maximum temperature (“Days”).
In the earlier period (blue) there was a trend to cooler days in the cooler half of the year, and trends to warmer days were grouped at the boundary between summer and spring or autumn. In the later period (red) ALL days of the year, without exception, trended cooler. Summer days cooled at about -0.15 degrees per year; winter days cooled at about -0.05 degrees per year.
This graph is less "interesting" than earlier graphs: temperature trends for the hottest days and the coldest days are not much different from those of the mean, which would appear even in the simplest analyses.
Graph No. 2 shows trends in daily minimum temperature (“Nights”).
As in the previous year's graphs, the new curve (red) is almost the same shape as the earlier one (blue), but each trend has moved: in the negative direction this time. Earlier, the move was in the positive direction. In fact, the trends for the nine-year period ending August 2011 are close to those for the period ending August 2009. The middle period, ending August 2010, was a time of maximum warming of nights at Manilla.
Throughout the periods considered (beginning 1999), the hottest summer nights have consistently trended cooler than other nights of the year. The cooling trend of mid-summer nights reached an extreme of -0.28 degrees per year in the nine-year period to August 2009. The following nine-year period to August 2010 was the period when most nights of the year were warming at their extreme rate (about +0.15 degrees per year). In that period mid-summer nights were still cooling, but at only -0.12 degrees per year.
These graphs have no predictive value. One could find out if the observed trends have affected peoples lives. Cooler summer days might have reduced sun-screen sales and office air-conditioner load: cooler winter days have surely reduced solar gain in solar-passive houses. Warmer winter nights may have reduced heating costs; cooler mid-summer nights may have required less air-conditioning in bedrooms
Buzzman
Member
And as any good climate scientist would tell you, results from a single recording station are NOT in the slightest bit indicative of what is happening on a global scale.
It's that kind of 'cherry picking' of specific stations and time periods that the denialist camp uses.
Not suggesting for one second that Cat is a denialist!!
So, useful data for local 'weather' predictions, but unless the data was recorded as per the scientific meterorological 'standard' and then compared and contrasted with all the other 'stations', alas, not very helpful for this 'debate'.
But great data, Cat, just the same.
TonyT
Member
In this tennis game called life
this return ball may cause strife.
When it comes to Global Heating
the drum that Buzzman has been beating
might in fact be self defeating.
So listen up, my little sweetling.
(Humour and verse from my better half)
In his post at
http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/2190/page/5#post_content
Buzzman said:
a.
"... in the PAST it has been only 'natural forces' causing climate and temperature changes. But as any good climate scientist knows, the global climate responds to whatever is 'forcing' it at the time. Right now, human activity is the principle forcing factor. We are causing it, it is up to us to prevent this."
ANSWER:
Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
However, the data in Chart 2 of my post at
http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/2190/page/5#post_content
shows that CO2 is not the principal factor that is affecting global temperature.
Roy Spencer has suggested that water and clouds might be the main driver of global temperature. (www.drroyspencer.com)
It may be that computer climate models have failed correctly to predict global temperatures since 2000 because the models include incorrect assumptions about water and clouds.
Buzzman said:
b.
"For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005."
ANSWER:
On the right of Chart 2 the HadCRUT3 temperature data does not support this statement.
Buzzman said:
c.
"Levitus (2009) clearly demonstrates that the most recent ocean measurements show consistent warming."
ANSWER:
The data in Chart 3 is updated from Levitus (2009) and the data now extends to March 2011.
The data on the right of Chart 3 shows that since 2003 global ocean heat content has stopped increasing.
Buzzman said:
d.
"You may not be able to, but then, you're probably looking under rocks - or maybe on denialist websites - and we all know there is no real 'science' there!. Real scientists have done the research and it has been assessed by the IPCC. There are many lines of evidence indicating global warming is unequivocal, and that humans are responsible."
ANSWER:
Cheap jibes, derogatory labels and un-supported statements may be amusing but they are not evidence.
To convince me please show me the data.
My understanding is based on Chart 2 and my logic is recorded in my earlier post.
Buzzman said:
e.
"Well, derrrrr!!!! It's where all energy in this solar system comes from, ultimately. But, for the record, according to the actual measured science, in the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions."
ANSWER:
To convince me, please show the data.
Buzzman said:
f.
"As TonyT himself states, science is not fixed, so the 'models' which are used to calculate the "likely range" of temperature changes as a result of MMCC have a lower and an upper limit. Giving an answer as a "range" is perfectly normal and acceptable in the scientific community.
If we are in fact alarmed as a result, then so be it. Perhaps that might encourage people to respond appropriately by changing their behaviours and emitting less CO2."
ANSWER:
As shown in Chart 4, measured temperatures have fallen outside (below) the range predicted by the models.
Similar data is presented by Akasofu (2010) in his paper that can be downloaded from
http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3217&JournalID=69#abstract
Buzzman said:
“All of the above responses are backed by ACTUAL science from ACTUAL climate scientists, are peer reviewed, published and double-checked.’
ANSWER:
When peers are small in number and they all know one another they can become a closed clique. Their behaviour can resemble the behaviour of members of any fundamentalist group. People can be ostracized and bullied for holding views different from the party line.
To a fundamentalist their view is “obviously” correct, questions are “stupid” and “questioners” must be forced into line.
During the Inquisition questioners were burned at the stake.
With research and increasing understanding of the climate data I have changed sides and I am coming to a view that is different from the party line that is being marketed by the Climate Science Establishment.
If I am wrong it is argument based on data that will convince me.
In Buzzman’s response about Mann’s hockey stick chart he mentions papers by McIntyre (2004) and Wahl (2007) that are worth reading.
The controversy over the hockey-stick chart is discussed at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Buzzman says:
“Why TonyT takes up the baton for these already debunked views I can only speculate.”
ANSWER
Flawed science can never be a useful foundation from which to develop good policy.
About the hockey stick: citation from the wikipedia link posted above:
"... A study of the changing climate of the Arctic over the last 2,000 years, by an international consortium led by Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University, was published on 4 September 2009. They examined sediment core records from 14 Arctic lakes, supported by tree ring and ice core records. Their findings showed a long term cooling trend consistent with cycles in the Earth's orbit which would be expected to continue for a further 4,000 years but had been reversed in the 20th century by a sudden rise attributed to greenhouse gas emissions. The decline had continued through the Medieval period and the Little Ice Age. The most recent decade, 1999–2008, was the warmest of the period, and four of the five warmest decades occurred between 1950 and 2000. Scientific American described the graph as largely replicating "the so-called 'hockey stick,' a previous reconstruction".[144] ... "
TonyT said: "Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
However, the data in Chart 2 of my post at
http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/2190/page/5#post_content
shows that CO2 is not the principal factor that is affecting global temperature."
This conclusion is naive and wrong.
You cannot just compare two series of raw data. The climate system is much more complicated. The usual way to deal with this is to convert the individual factors like solar radiation, green house gas concentrations, cloud cover, aerosol and many others in 'forcings' and use these forcings and the heat capacity of the atmosphere, the sea and the land to calculate a temperature trend. This temperature trend can then be compared to actual data in the past.
If this calculation is done with the inclusion of the forcings of green house gases we get a pretty good match with existing data. If the same calculation is done without factoring in the forcings from green house gases, The model data in about the last 50 years are clearly below the real data.
To me this is one of the most significant indications of climate change caused by humans.
dbindoff
Member
TonyT, did you have a thorough look at the american institue of physics reference I gave you?
Last I heard you were going to, but in the next breath you declare "The data in Chart 2 of my previous post shows that CO2 concentration does not control global temperature."
which indicated to me that you were not very open to exploring new ways of understanding and integrating the 'data'. If you go through all the history of the physics presented there and the questions which have been dealt with over a very long time, you may be able to better understand why the science has converged to near unanimity. Let me know if you have any questions.
From a purely personal viewpoint, it flummoxes me why a society which depends palpably on the foundations of mathematics and physics for its very survival, when it is presented with a statement by physics that 'this is very nearly certainly black' , turns around and says 'no, I think it is a little whiter than you said - so I'll ignore your conclusions'.
The additional slur that 'you are just a fundamentalist group akin to Inquisitioners' is breathtaking, unmitigated gall, I'm afraid.
If you are assaociated with a 'party line' I think you should disclose it.
Disclosure: I am a swinging voter historically, I could not vote Liberal under current leadership and policies.
sun2steam
I am afraid I get hung up when I get to:
"If this calculation is done with the inclusion of the forcings of green house gases we get a pretty good match with existing data."
I have been looking for such a "pretty good match" for years without finding one. When I do, I may agree with you that:
"To me this is one of the most significant indications of climate change caused by humans."
Can you give a reference that matches model to data?
dbindoff
Member
Catopsilia,
there is one here at the end of the hyper linked article,
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
Also, i don't have a reference but the general trend according to the models, as I have heard anecdotally is that the warming trend will be seen in higher nighttime minima moreso than higher daytime maxima, which is broadly what you seem to have seen in your data series.
Thongdam
Member
TonyT's posts on this thread bear all the hallmarks of postings (under various derivations of Tony) that appear on other discussion boards on which I spend some time. The rhetoric, language and line-of-argument tactics are very familiar - ignore counter arguments, repeat what has already been rebuffed, dismiss 'experts' while relying on Watts, Spencer, Carter et.al. - with the aim of hijacking the thread.
For Catopsilia:
Figure 4: Simulating the Earth's temperature variations, and comparing the results to measured changes, can provide insight into the underlying causes of the major changes.
A climate model can be used to simulate the temperature changes that occur both from natural and anthropogenic causes. The simulations represented by the band in (a) were done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. Those encompassed by the band in (b) were done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and an estimate of sulphate aerosols, and those encompassed by the band in (c) were done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings included. From (b), it can be seen that inclusion of anthropogenic forcings provides a plausible explanation for a substantial part of the observed temperature changes over the past century, but the best match with observations is obtained in (c) when both natural and anthropogenic factors are included. These results show that the forcings included are sufficient to explain the observed changes, but do not exclude the possibility that other forcings may also have contributed. The bands of model results presented here are for four runs from the same model. Similar results to those in (b) are obtained with other models with anthropogenic forcing. [Based upon Chapter 12, Figure 12.7]
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
TonyT
Member
dbindoff
I wish that Google had led me earlier to the excellent history site that you have provided
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
As "a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions" exploring this site and its links is adding perspective to my understanding.
Since Gore's film, most "warmists" are not "questioning accepted opinions". They are "convinced".
For the reasons mentioned in earlier posts I am "un-convinced" (sceptic)- but I keep looking !
TonyT
Member
S2s
The charts that you have presented show outputs from climate models that have been calibrated so that the output data matches closely with the measured temperatures.
These climate models were built using assumptions about man-made CO2 and about each of the other variables that are believed to affect global temperature.
As long as future measured data keeps matching with the data predicted from a model, it is POSSIBLE that the assumptions and the numerical values that have been used in the model MAY be valid.
However, a match between values that have been predicted from a model and values measured at a later date is NOT PROOF that the assumptions that were used to build the model are correct.
COMPUTER MODELS
Experience has taught me to distrust the output from any computer model. Instead I trust the measured data.
Like respect, trust is earned over time. Trust can be lost very quickly. Once lost, trust is extremely difficult to re-gain.
Repeatedly I have been badly affected when computer models have been mis-used to give outputs that support a faulty theory: “rubbish-in” always gives rubbish out.
A computer model can be mis-used to produce any desired output.
The output from a computer model depends on the skill of its developer and on the skill of the user of the model.
The output also depends on the integrity of the person using the model. Money (including any possible loss of income) can be used deliberately or inadvertently to undermine integrity.
The temptation to misuse a computer model so that it outputs and supports a desired result can be irresistible.
The data that is output from a computer model is typically powerfully convincing to people who have not themselves used models. This can be because the output looks impressively complicated and the output was produced by an “Expert” using a computer.
In reality, a computer model is no less fallible than is any other tool that was made by people.
Based on what I have experienced, I will always trust measured values before values that have been output from any model in support of a theory.
CLIMATE COMPUTER MODELS
A climate model is built based on theories and assumptions that are included as mathematical equations.
A climate model can be adjusted easily to give any desired output. It is calibrated by adjusting the numerical values that are used in the equations so that the output from the model matches the measured data.
When future measured data is different from the output that was predicted by a model, the model’s theories, assumptions and equations may be wrong or the calibration may be wrong or both may be wrong.
To model climate is extremely complex and many of the assumptions being used are “best guesses”. The understanding about the effects of water vapor and of clouds is limited. Since 2000, measured global temperatures have been falling below the alarming high temperature ranges that have been predicted by the climate models.
dbindoff
MY QUESTIONS are:
Q1. Between 2000 and 2011, have global temperatures been the highest that they have been since the first humans (? 40,000 years) ?
In his film “An Inconvenient Truth” Gore used Mann’s (? discredited) hockey stick and he deliberately mis-used data from ice cores to convince me that current global temperatures are at unprecedentedly high levels.
The “Climategate” emails spurred me to question the content of Gore’s film.
From my recent research, Bob Carter at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=channel
and others convinced me that current global temperatures are NOT unusual.
Now from the Climate history website
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
I have learned that a temperature reconstruction by Loehle is used by the “unconvinced”.
However, the “convinced” reject the work by Loehle and by Lundqvist to prefer reconstructions built by several other researchers including Mann.
How do I decide which I will believe ?
Q2.From 1970 to 2000 has the rate of temperature rise been higher than it has been since the first humans (? 40,000 years) ?
Q3. Between 2000 and 2011, has the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere been the highest that it has been since the first humans (? 40,000 years) ?
Q4. From 1970 to 2011 was the rate of increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere higher than it has been since the first humans ?
Q5. Since 2000 the additions by humans of CO2 to the atmosphere have caused the measured concentrations of CO2 to be higher than at any time since 1970.
Why is it that since 2000 global temperature has not risen at the high rate that was predicted by the climate computer models ?
Q6. As has been suggested by Akasofu and others, what is the likelihood that earth has begun a (? 30 year) period of global cooling that will be similar to what was measured between 1940 and 1970 ?
Q7. What is the likelihood that the introduction of a Carbon Tax in Australia will have any impact on reducing global warming ?
TonyT, what have the internet, an autopilot, GPS, large areas of science, the 'raw data' you use, most cars, google, nuclear reactors, a moon lander, computer games, astronomy, economics, banks, ATO and many others in common? They use computer models.
The existing computer models for climate are not perfect and are necessarily fed with inaccurate simplifications but they are the best we have at the moment and are under permanent peer review.
Any scientist finding and publishing flaws in the system will immediately get significant gains to his reputation. This is keeping the systems permanently improving and up to date.
I find it amazing that most people advocating against climate change and who show their distrust of computer models have no problem whatsoever to use for instance ice core data or other proxies to determine temperatures. These are nothing but computer models. Also all global temperature data are not raw data but the result of computer models.
