Climate Change, Part III

[Capt Phil]

Probably not that scientific but works for me! This morning I woke up with my sweetie cuddled up next to me and I asked her what was up... she said she was cold, so that was enough scientific evidence for me... Phil

[Sam Plan B]

Some folks says the planet is warmin'
And some says a chill is in store,
Well I says that warmin' ain't harmin'
Cause winter here chills to the core.

If the pole ice all melts, it's a bessing,
If Greenland competes with Kew West,
If the oceans all rise I'm confessing,
With my draft, deep water's the best.

Now some folks they whing in the Summer,
While others complain in the Fall,
I half think it's dumb leading dumber,
And deeper is better, that's all.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

You've made a number of points. It's difficult to answer them all in a single post, so I will initially stick with the solar activity issue. As I have time I may come back to your other erroneous conclusions.

First I want to point out a small piece of trivia that may or may not be relevant to the discussion. On the web page that you referenced in your attachment it gave a brief introduction to the author. It said "Roy Spencer, PhD, climatologist (not solar scientist, which you seem to think is an important distinction), author, and former NASA scientist." Now isn't it curious that he considers himself a FORMER NASA scientist. Maybe it mean nothing. Maybe it means something.

Second, I want to re-post the text part of your attachment:
The important part to notice is that these satellites are measuring tropospheric temperatures, not surface temperatures. Why is that important to global warming? Because, ultimately, it is surface temperatures that matter most, not tropospheric temperatures. So your assertion that the tropospheric temperatures follow the sun spot patterns may or may not be relevant to whether surface temperatures also follow sun spot activity.

Next I will post an article which gives a little history of the interpretation of those tropospheric satellite readings. Note that Roy Spencer and co-author John Christy are specifically mentioned.

Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

As you can see, the bulk of climate scientists now think that tropospheric temperatures match both land temperature readings, subsequent satellite readings, and theories of atmospheric physics.

Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest theory which fits ALL the data is most likely the correct one.

I don't think you are intentional making a mistake by being an AGW skeptic, but I do think that you have not kept up the latest scientific research.

As a spread trader, you, more than most, ought to know that your first loss is usually your cheapest loss. Right now you are digging yourself in deeper and deeper.

Some corrections:

1. I didn't reference Spencer as a solar scientist but as a climatologist. The links to the stories on the effects of solar radiation on climate refer to solar scientists. Two subjects covered, two separate sources.

2. You seem confused about where the troposphere is located. We live in the troposphere. It extends from the surface to around 25,000 feet. If it isn't warming, it's hardly rational to insist that the earth is warming. Because of your misunderstanding of what the troposphere is, the balance of your thoughts on this are irrelevant. If this is an indication of your understanding of basic science, I don't know what to say, other than you can't know much about climate science if you don't understand the terms.

3. The criticisms of Spencer's papers published in 1992 were substantive, as shown by the very data Spencer just posted in July of this year. You can see a spike in the temps. The AGW flak site quoted from deals with data up to 2006 - and in 2006 John Christy was fully prepared (as a good scientist) to acknowledge that as of 2006 a warming trend could be seen. However, with more data that trend is gone and you are left with the .17 of a degree of warming since 1980 indicated. Curious, but are you being intentionally dishonest in using quotes from 2006 to prove something about data available in 2013, or are you just honestly confused?

4. Who is the 'bulk of scientists' you refer to? This corrected data has only become available in June of this year, when, and as noted, the AMSU-A satellite data was eliminated from the dataset based on 'spurious warming' measurements. By the way, it wasn't Exxon who removed this invalid data, it was NOAA. Did this 'bulk of scientists' react to this data in 90 days all falling in line, or are you just exaggerating?

5. Occam's razor is a useful paradigm when considering multiple possible explanations for why something is happening. However, when the something, in this case global warming, is shown not to be happening, you can keep Occam's razor in the drawer. It isn't needed.

Bottom line, the gist of your rebuttal is based on rote transfer of a definition of the troposphere from Skeptical Science which is incorrect, coupled with a selective ignoring of the data after an analysis in 2006, coupled with skipping over the point that prior data was polluted by spurious readings, now eliminated as of June of this year.

Pretty much par for the course for AGW promoters.

p.s. as a spread trader, I am a serious student of predictive models, as well as building them in healthcare for a living. If I had a model that performed as poorly as current climate change models have performed, I'd be broke.

[Nikolina]

Thank God there's a "joke thread"

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

And you think I have trouble with math?

Atmospheric CO2 is around 400 ppm. 96% comes from natural causes, or 384 ppm. 4% from manmade sources, or 16 ppm. ............

No wonder you're so confused.

Crumbs. And I'm confused?

4% is time based, not atmospheric amounts. The previous posts on cumulative increases seem to have went over your head, your numbers are massively out.

" It was 280 ppm in pre-industrial times, and has risen to 400 ppm (parts per million) as of May 2013,[3] with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources.[4]"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbo...9;s_atmosphere

And risen from about 320ppm since 1960.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata...2_data_mlo.png

384ppm is *not* from natural causes.

That's so obvious it's hard not to suspect you're somehow feigning ignorance on purpose.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by conachair

Crumbs. And I'm confused?

4% is time based, not atmospheric amounts. The previous posts on cumulative increases seem to have went over your head, your numbers are massively out.

" It was 280 ppm in pre-industrial times, and has risen to 400 ppm (parts per million) as of May 2013,[3] with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources.[4]"

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And risen from about 320ppm since 1960.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata...2_data_mlo.png

384ppm is *not* from natural causes.

That's so obvious it's hard not to suspect you're somehow feigning ignorance on purpose.

The 4% is the amount of CO2 from manmade sources over a year's time compared to natural sources. Unless you postulate the magic CO2 molecule you seem to suggest, then CO2 is CO2 and if in any given year only 4% is from men, then the total CO2 in the atmosphere is going to be pretty close to 4%.

But, since it doesn't appear that we've warmed for 30 years based on the NOAA satellite data, it probably doesn't matter. Even you should be able to understand that with the increase in atmospheric CO2 you cite and no warming, the correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and climate change is non existent.

For an example of strong correlation, consult the graph below which correlates sunspot number to global temperatures. Not bad, huh?

p.s. Don't get me wrong, correlation does not mean causation. To suggest that would be a scientific sham and the only discipline I know of where you get away with that is climate science. There, you create a model that does not predict what happens, then when the predictions fail, go back and tweak your assumptions so your new model now correlates to reality. Then you claim causation based on your jiggered model's correlation to reality. Wish I was a climate scientist. In my field, the standards for proof are much higher.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

The 4% is the amount of CO2 from manmade sources over a year's time compared to natural sources. Unless you postulate the magic CO2 molecule you seem to suggest, then CO2 is CO2 and if in any given year only 4% is from men, then the total CO2 in the atmosphere is going to be pretty close to 4%.

Just to be completely sure, are you saying that as of 2013, only 16 ppm of the approx 400ppm co2 in the earths atmosphere is down human activities?

Simple question, yes or no?

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

For an example of strong correlation, consult the graph below which correlates sunspot number to global temperatures. Not bad, huh?

Even Antony watts threw that one out.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/0...hange-anomaly/

From the comments..

"The author indeed does “averaging” of data (he is using sunspots monthly values, not daily values, in his calculations) and also rounding of data (he uses sunspot monthly data as provided by NASA, and NASA rounds it to 1 decimal position). To verify the robustness of the “reconstruction”, I have added random noise to the monthly sunspot number. A noise of between -0.05 and +0.05 to the monthly SSN, so that it would be hidden in NASA’s rounding of the SSN that gets published. And then I’ve recalculated the whole graphic several times. I get enormous differences with every plot (every recalculation of the random noise for all months). I insist, this “study”, this curve fitting exercise, cannot be called anything but crap."

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Happy to have you reference where I have oversimplified, misinterpreted or lied. That would give me a chance to correct the record. But I'm going out on a limb and presuming you won't take me up on my offer. Fact based analysis doesn't seem to much appeal to you....

Misrepresentation:
- raising Climategate, as if it actually has been been shown to be an issue of substance. or wasn't judged to not materially affect the data or the conclusions drawn from them... 4 times now
- in the same spirit, implying that Al Gore's integrity, motives or presentation are less than credible. Another face-card from the denier pack
- Saying that there's been no benefit from wind-generation
- "climate 'science', which is a political movement, not a scientific one. " Riiight.

Lie:
- "all those climate scientists you feel so protective of should continue to be taken seriously if they continue to insist, contrary to the data, that the earth is a) warming, and b) it's all mankind's fault."

falsehood underlined. No-one has said that that I'm aware of, nor is that part of the consensus.

You are deft with the data, with a more rigourous approach than I could muster. Yet maybe it's just good googlin' .. so don't hide your light under a bushel... are you a 'scientist' or not? I particularly want to know why your insight trumps that of the 95%. You should publish.

I'd like to think you are a scientist, and could really lead us somewhere, but the fact that you reference so many of the above-listed deniers' "stations of the cross" suggests otherwise.

My particular axe to grind, my only real point to pressing on here, is that the integrity of a branch of science and their conclusion re AGW are under attack by ... lobbyists. And the attacks are succeeding. No doubt they'll send you a nice basket at Christmas.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by conachair

Just to be completely sure, are you saying that as of 2013, only 16 ppm of the approx 400ppm co2 in the earths atmosphere is down human activities?

Simple question, yes or no?

Simple answer, yes.

And before you make a fool of yourself, don't yell at me. The data comes from an AGW fan site, newscientist.com, here: Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

They list 770 gigatonnes from natural causes and 26 gigatonnes from all those surplus people you are concerned about. True, that's only 3.3%, but I've been rounding up to give you a break. Newscientist theorizes that of the 26 gigatonnes produced by humans, only 60% is absorbed by carbon sinks, which is how AGW fans come up with the dubious proposition that manmade CO2 is the cause of all increased CO2. They base this leap in logic by tweaking two variables of their model. First, how much carbon-14 is measured in the atmosphere. They say that carbon-14 enrichment in the atmosphere "can be explained by burning fossil fuels". Well, it can, but it can also be explained by solar radiation bombarding carbon atoms and producing isotopes. Choosing to ignore that is dishonest because it doesn't take into account all possible variables.

Second, they use enrichment in the ratio of atmospheric carbon-12 to carbon-13, claiming that this can be explained by fossil fuel burning. Well, yes, but it can also be explained by natural causes, for example what type of food is available to sea critters, who contribute to dissolved CO2 when they die. In both cases of carbon-14 and carbon-13, a heating of the earth can drive these changes. If you want to jigger your climate model, you ignore these other drivers, and voila, all the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is man made. Ka-ching, more grant money.

Be that as it may, carbon emissions are what they are, and manmade sources are only around 4%.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by conachair

Even Antony watts threw that one out.

Sunspot Cycle and the Global Temperature Change Anomaly | Watts Up With That?

From the comments..

"The author indeed does “averaging” of data (he is using sunspots monthly values, not daily values, in his calculations) and also rounding of data (he uses sunspot monthly data as provided by NASA, and NASA rounds it to 1 decimal position). To verify the robustness of the “reconstruction”, I have added random noise to the monthly sunspot number. A noise of between -0.05 and +0.05 to the monthly SSN, so that it would be hidden in NASA’s rounding of the SSN that gets published. And then I’ve recalculated the whole graphic several times. I get enormous differences with every plot (every recalculation of the random noise for all months). I insist, this “study”, this curve fitting exercise, cannot be called anything but crap."

Typically dishonest. It wasn't Anthony Watts who wrote the above, it was some guy called Nylo. Who could be you for all I know.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

My particular axe to grind, my only real point to pressing on here, is that the integrity of a branch of science and their conclusion re AGW are under attack by ... lobbyists. And the attacks are succeeding. No doubt they'll send you a nice basket at Christmas.

Well grind away, but please be aware that in every branch of science except climate 'science', calling a correlation validation for a model is laughed at. They're interesting and worthy of additional study, but they are not worthy of claiming causation. The "attacks are succeeding" because their models keep failing, no matter how much they tweak them.

Now the embarassing NOAA data showing virtually no warming in the face of increasing CO2 so even their sorry correlation is kaput. Geesh, these guys just can't get a break.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Simple answer, yes.
...........

Be that as it may, carbon emissions are what they are, and manmade sources are only around 4%.

As has been pointed out already, that's time based, not cumulative.

You state that out of approx 400ppm co2 in the atmosphere 384 are due to "natural" sources and 16 down to human activities.

In the world of science that's just plain wrong. Ignoring any arguments about exact percentages your entire understanding of cumulative increases appears completely flawed.


"Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned."

Yet delfin will question it.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Typically dishonest. It wasn't Anthony Watts who wrote the above, it was some guy called Nylo. Who could be you for all I know.

It would be dishonest without the " From the comments.." part.

Anthony Watts agreed the piece was not robust.

"Personally, I think the readers have it right. While interesting, this is little more than an exercise in curve fitting. – Anthony"

[bobofthenorth]

Not that long ago there was a worldwide scientific consensus that the world was flat.

It is possible to draw a strong correlation between the number of Baptist preachers and the number of prostitutes in large cities but it seems unlikely that either the preachers or the whores are causative.