Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 10881 - 10900 of total 20264 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 14, 2013 - 12:48pm PT
I take it you are no fan of string theory and the multiverse Ed. Proof of the multiverse, however, exists on the pages of this very thread. I.E.- You guys see the trends of more severe winters in many regions of the globe, cold temp records far outpacing warm records, Antartic and now Arctic ice expansion, slight decrease in global average atmos. temps over the last 10-17 years, decrease in sea surface temps, the slowing of sea level rise to almost imperceptible levels,historically low levels of tornado, hurricane, and fire events, world record low temps in Antartica of -135.7f and world record low temps in Siberia pf -96.1f in 2013, snow on the pyramids,in Israel, in the south american tropics, in Australia during the summer, people dying of cold related events in the thousands, and much more- as proof of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. We, on the other hand, see it as a natural shift to a cooler global climate caused by natural variations in the primary drivers of climate change, specifically and primarily as a result of substantial weakening in solar activity. There you have it-two universes. Which is real, or do they both exist, much like interpretations of historic events? EDIT: i see from your post below that you deny ignorance in science and scientists, that all is known and knowable.Sometimes your foolishness is astounding Ed Hartouni.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Dec 14, 2013 - 01:28pm PT
How many aspects of modern society depend on correct computation?
Here's a few:
-all aspects of the internet
-integrated circuit design
-aircraft design
-vehicle design
-skyscraper design
-highway & tunnel design & construction
-particle colliders
-rocket launches
-communication satellites
-communication network packet switching
-financial transactions
-weather prediction
-manufacturing
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 14, 2013 - 01:37pm PT
My life, which i don't care to fully share, has been an exercise in careful examination of the best route forward and often deferring to expertise of true professionals.It has worked for me time after time after time in building and business. Climate science, which is still more unproven theory than practical application, lacks the true expertise of practicing professionals. I engage here because the solutions of the non problem advanced by you proponents; taxation, limited mobility, forced retreat from industrialization and abandonment of our proven energy production system, among the more extreme suggestions ,would be disastrous for my family and the population as a whole. After 20,000 plus posts it is more apparent than ever that AGW is an over hyped problem looking for a predetermined solution- propaganda directed towards an ideological goal.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Dec 14, 2013 - 10:23pm PT
and the predictions are 1988 models and scenarios...


Oh sketch and here I thought you might be coming to this discussion honestly. Now you're in Ricky land making up sh#t.

So sad....

DMT
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 15, 2013 - 11:05am PT
Chiloe, you should talk to some of the solar scientists at the convention, maybe Leif Svalgaard from Stanford.

I haven’t met Leif but have heard about his work on bias in historical sunspot records. IIRC correctly, removing that bias lead Leif (and others) to conclude that the supposed “modern maximum” in sunspots was a measurement artifact. And that recent minima may not be any higher than the Maunder Minimum once believed to trigger the Little Ice Age? These corrections incidentally seem to undermine claims that recent warming reflected increased solar activity. Leif has also written about measurement-based (downward) corrections for an index of total solar irradiance (TSI PMOD). He organized sessions at last week’s AGU that sound related to this work.

Has Leif published articles specifically about climate? I haven’t worked with sunspot data though his analysis certainly looks reasonable. I did look casually at TSI, and can show you one way that a Svalgaard-suggested correction works out there.

According to my notes (I’d double check this if publishing), Leif suggested adjusting TSI PMOD index as follows. Let’s call his correction tsi_Sval:

tsi_Sval = tsi_pmod - (.002836*t) + (.00093266*t^2) - (.00010134*t^3) if t > 0

In this equation,

t = year - 1996

The cubic adjustment lowers TSI numbers for recent years.

Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 15, 2013 - 11:08am PT
How does that correction affect our understanding of climate? Some pages back I mentioned an AGU talk given last week by Judith Lean, building upon the Lean & Rind (2008) paper in which they used multivariate statistics to model surface temperature as a function of solar, volcanic, ENSO and anthropogenic factors. Foster & Rahmstorf (2011) subsequently updated and extended this work with an empirically-derived lag structure. I was impressed by the elegance of the L&R/F&R approach and, being skeptical, decided to try reproducing something like it for myself. One difference I checked out was the impact of a Svalgaard-adjusted TSI.

Volcanoes affect surface temperatures directly by injecting aerosols into the stratosphere, where they block sunlight and so cool the surface. “Aerosol optical depth” at upper left in the graph below captures this effect, showing the impacts of El Chichon and Pinatubo eruptions. Unadjusted TSI is at upper right, a multivariate ENSO (El Nino/Southern Oscillation) index is lower left, and globally averaged CO2 anomaly at lower right. Global surface temperatures are, to a substantial degree, the consequence of all four of these factors acting together. The lower ENSO (persistent La Nina conditions) and, less importantly, the TSI of recent years are largely responsible for the ballyhooed “pause” in surface temperature rise.

climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Dec 15, 2013 - 11:42am PT
So based on your graphs above it would seem a reasonable prediction that within the next 5 to 10 years we should see a pretty steep hike in Global average temperatures as TSI looks to begin climbing again?

Seems interesting that global average temperatures have remained fairly high with that dip in TSI.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 15, 2013 - 11:46am PT
Excellent presentation Chiloe, but you forgot the under ballyhooed solar amplification effects caused by large variations in UV radiation, reduced solar magnetism and increased aerosols from cloud nucleation seeds, reduced solar wind speed and coronal mass ejections, etc. etc. Svaalgard was the one solar scientist i knew was there. He is calling for a prolonged reduction of solar activity over the next cycles, just like many, many other solar scientists. He seems to indicate an even deeper minimum for the 23/24 low than others estimated. No wonder there was a distinct dip in the global temp anomaly during the 2008-2009 solar low. You are sounding downright reasonable Larry in the assessment that the transition to a colder global climate you called "The Pause" has roots in natural mechanisms. Keep up the good work brother!
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Dec 15, 2013 - 11:49am PT
The current TSI cycle is considered to be near it's maximum. That's why it's unusual, as it's much lower then most of the recent cycles.

The high of the last cycle occurred during the 'pause', so it has little effect on temps.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 15, 2013 - 11:51am PT
No shet Sherlock.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 15, 2013 - 11:54am PT
We can build statistical models that take all four factors into account (per L&R/F&R). The graph below compares observed (NOAA) and model-predicted surface temperatures, using an ultra-simple model with this form:

y[t] = b0 + b1x1[t-1] + b2x2[t-1] + b3x3[t–1] + b4x4[t-1] + u[t]

where

y[t] is the global surface temperature anomaly for time (month) t.

x1 to x4 are four predictors: AOD, TSI, ENSO, CO2.

u[t] represents the disturbance at time t, which is related to the lag-1 disturbance (u[t-1]) and to lag-1 and time t random errors (e[t-1] and e[t]):

u[t] = ru[t-1] + pe[t-1] + e[t]

All this reads better with Greek letters and subscripts, which I use in the book but haven’t tried to reproduce here.



Coefficients (b1-b4) on all four predictors, and (r and p) on the autoregressive and moving-average terms, are statistically significant. This model explains 77% of the variance in monthly surface temperatures Feb 1980 through Dec 2010 (the data available when I ran this analysis a couple of years ago). Unadjusted TSI has a modest but statistically significant net effect on global surface temperature: about 0.061 degrees per w/m^2 of TSI.

As you will have guessed if you followed this discussion, running the same model using Svalgaard’s adjusted TSI instead of TSI PMOD leads to similar results -- identical, in fact, to three decimal places: the solar effect is still 0.061 degrees per w/m^2 of TSI. A graph would be visually indistinguishable from the one above. The strongest effect in either model comes from the CO2 index. Second-strongest is multivariate ENSO. TSI (adjusted or not) comes in third.

Besides its robust and interpretable results (which are broadly consistent with physical models that take weeks to run on a supercomputer), this simplified statistical approach has the fine quality that anyone who knows ARMAX regression can brew it on their own desktop computer. Change anything you think should be changed, and see for yourself just what happens!
WBraun

climber
Dec 15, 2013 - 12:00pm PT
Take a vacation Bruce.

You're obsessed and possessed ......
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Dec 15, 2013 - 12:02pm PT
Wait a sec. TSI is currently at a maximum point in it's period? But much lower than normal maximum?

I generally stay out of this thread so I am a bit behind I suppose.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 15, 2013 - 12:09pm PT
TSI is currently at a maximum point in it's period? But much lower than normal maximum?

Yes, Svalgaard has said something to the effect that no one alive today has experienced such a low solar maximum. As I understand it, recent historical variations in TSI may have a relatively weak direct effect on climate -- as suggested by the model above. They could act as an external driver, however, that kicks off greenhouse feedbacks which magnify the indirect impact on climate.
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Dec 15, 2013 - 12:10pm PT
Thanks Chiloe. This thread just became very informative.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Dec 15, 2013 - 01:31pm PT
Like the so called bread basket of Nevada won't fail right along with us. That's California water those folks are using.

You're welcome Nevada.

The article is the biggest no-duh moment of the day so far, tho, for anyone with even a cursory knowledge of western desert mining of fossil aquifers knows. That's basically Colorado and west to the ocean.

As new patterns emerge we'll just have to see. But the delta will die before people leave the state so too will farming. Until the oil runs out then the boomtown will be bust.

DMT
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 15, 2013 - 03:01pm PT
Good posts Ed and Chiloe! Getting down to fewer and smaller bones to pick. Mainly overvalues of co2 sensitivity and undervalues in solar modulations and the still not completely understood amplifiers
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Dec 15, 2013 - 05:41pm PT
Sketch,you started that set of snow maps at 2003.The NOAA has those maps dating far further back than that.

Why are you starting at 2003?

Do you really think that set tells any real story,when you could go back ,way further and tell a completely different story.

Picking data ,taking it out of context with the undeniable truth of the full story,Aye?

wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Dec 15, 2013 - 08:11pm PT
Sketch,I have used that [snow coverage maps] information for years as a tool for BC skiing,probably since I have owned a computer.

For some reason,I swear,one could go back and study maps from the 80's.I will agree ,you can not access that now.

I am going to find out why.

But ,whilst it is still Fall,our biggest snows[see lake effect] always occurred BEFORE the solstice.
The reason being Lake Erie and Lake Ontario would stay open[ice free] for that period roughly,and the active lake effect storms/squalls[as what is happening right now here]would energize.

Once the lakes would freeze the storms could not pick up enough moisture to proceed.




edit;the undeniable truth is ,it used to snow alot more during this period in just my lifetime.I will post up.

climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Dec 15, 2013 - 08:17pm PT
Sketch even if we accept your "disproof"

Did you notice that even your disproof is showing a continuous increase in global temperature?

SO you wish to argue the rate of change. Fine.. Just for shits and giggles I'll concede you your point.

From my point of view (based completely on your post) I'll just thank god maybe there is still a chance we have more time to stop millions of people from being hurt needlessly by AGW.
Messages 10881 - 10900 of total 20264 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews