Global Warming Concensus Broken

[Josh Cryer]

A very wise observation. I was wondering if any one would catch it.

Meh, I caught it but I am disillusioned and didn't want to say anything.

I still hate that we aren't getting squat from the review panel. *sigh*

[djolds1]

Now MSimon is saying the data is wrong. Anyone who believes global warming exists should not look at the data because it is misleading.

The very fact that you used the word "denier" earlier is concerning, Josh.

"Denier" is a noun of faith. "Skeptic" is a noun of honor in science.

Duane

[djolds1]

I find this debate fascinating. Josh - Simon is not (in the recent post at least) saying that. He is claiming:

(1) (implicitly) solar heat input has a dominant effect on global temperature trends

Interesting how you ignore the PDO data and indeterminate sign of water vapor inputs, Tom.

(5) Re the two data series Simon is arguing that recently we have entered a cooling trend which is not predicted by the models and which will cause divergence over next few years.

In other words he is looking at very recent data.

Of course, his argument here is equally unsubstantiated. AGW is about trends 50-100 year away. 10 years gives some (not much) idea of whether models are correct on this timescale. 1 or 2 years gives effectively no information.

The predictions of useless models are useless by definition. Simon can at least cite hard data. The IPCC has computer generated trend lines created using models with >100 free variables.

Duane

[tomclarke]

djolds1 -

I get the impression you think I am engaged on one side of this debate with a whole load of assumptions.

I was replying where I had something relevant to say. I am not ignoring anything. I don't see it as necessary (or truthful) to rebut points made when I don't know about them.

That does not mean that I always agree with points I don't comment on - in fact there are some points I don't comment on (Talldave's a while ago) which I clearly disagree with but just did not at the time comment.

There are other points e.g. PDO, WV multiple, where I have not carefully read both sides and therefore have nothing to say.

I recommend all of (very long comments, but if you read through them and the coments on comments you get a good idea about what is and what is not):
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... te-models/

This page answers a lot of the statistical issues about overfitting. I would have to check the models themselves to verify that what is said here is true but if it were not you would expect the peer-review process to correct the errors. So my previous comments about testing models were based on misunderstanding. I know a little about models and testing them, and overfitting, Bayesian stats etc - so I can say that the realclimate page above contains a convincing explanation of what the models do and don't predict and how they can be tested using historical data. The key issue being that they are physical models and the "tweak parameters" are inferred from physical data independent of and mostly orthogonal to the global temperature time series that is being modelled.

Now from your post I suppose you want to make some point about PDO data & indeterminate sign of WV multiple. Please make it, but preferably with detailed and (if possible) peer-reviewed arguments (you can find almost anything on the web if you look). I can access most scietific papers if you give me a reference.

Perhaps something that would also help. If we post an argument that consists of:
"they (some group pro or anti AGW) says this but are wrong because..." could the statement that we are refuting be referenced?

In the case of pro-AGW arguments realclimate is probably a decent place to cite for the argument you want to refute. I am not sure where would be the most authoritative (least tendencious) source of anti-AGW arguments.

Best wishes, Tom

[Maui]

The very fact that you used the word "denier" earlier is concerning, Josh.

"Denier" is a noun of faith. "Skeptic" is a noun of honor in science.

I would consider a skeptic in the honor of science one that raises questions about elements of a theory which can't be explained or that raises other possibilities for observed phenomenon.

Choosing to only accept data that suits your point of view, and building a case around ideology rather than judicious consideration of the various theories and interpretations is not in the honor of science. In this case, the conclusion is based on "faith" that mainstream science if a fraud and that in the end it will all be proved wrong.

So for many AGW "skeptics" (and, yes, some supporters as well), I think "denier" is very appropriate.

[MSimon]

The best place for arguments about faulty data and bad math is Climate Audit with a good secondary reference being SurfaceStations.org.

Also Pielke's Blog is good with plenty of peer reviewed information.

Here is a nice bit from the Pielke blog by Roy Spencer:

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assumes that there are no long-term natural sources of energy imbalances in the Earth’s radiative budget that would cause natural periods of global warming or global cooling. But recent satellite evidence suggests that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) does indeed change the Earth’s energy balance. When that PDO-related forcing is put into a simple climate model, along with the 100-year history of the PDO, a global temperature history results which is very similar to that observed, including 75% of the centennial temperature trend. This suggests that the IPCC’s claim of high confidence in global warming being manmade is misplaced.”

http://climatesci.org/2008/12/12/an-upc ... cillation/

===

Is Climate Science really open?

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4314

===

We are now at 21 days with no sunspots, it will be interesting to see if we reach a spotless 30 day period and then perhaps a spotless month of December.

From the data provided by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) you can see just how little magnetic field activity there has been. I’ve included it below with the latest available update from December 6th, 2008:

What I find most interesting about the Geomagnetic Average Planetary Index graph above is what happened around October 2005. Notice the sharp drop in the magnetic index and the continuance at low levels.

This looks much like a “step function” that I see on GISS surface temperature graphs when a station has been relocated to a cooler measurement environment. In the case of the sun, it appears this indicates that something abruptly “switched off” in the inner workings of the solar dynamo. Note that in the prior months, the magnetic index was ramping up a bit with more activity, then it simply dropped and stayed mostly flat.

Currently the Ap magnetic index continues at a low level, and while the “smoothed” data from SWPC is not made available for 2008, I’ve added it with a dashed blue line, and the trend appears to be going down.

As many regular readers know, I’ve always pointed out the sharp drop in 2005 with the following extended period of low activity as an odd occurance. Our resident solar astronomer Leif Svalgaard disagrees with this. But I’d also like to point out that this was the time when global sea level as measured by the JASON satellite and reported by the University of Colorado began to lose its upward trend.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/09/2 ... in-a-funk/

====

http://surfacestations.org/

**

and note: as bad as the American system of surface stations is re: climate measurements, it is acknowledged the best and most continuous record in the world.

Which is why - although the record is short - I like the satellite data for the last 30 years of global temps.

===

BTW peer reviewed papers are supposed to make their data available as well as computer codes so replication and finding code errors is possible. The scientists in the pro-AGW camp are rather notorious (not all of them) for not doing this in a timely fashion as required by the peer review process. Often a Freedom of Information request is required to extract the data and codes. And the Climate Journals are notorious for not enforcing their policies re: data and codes. It makes me suspicious.

Also let me add that aerospace engineering design reviews I have participated in are much more rigorous than most of the Climate peer review I have seen.

We note the same effect in re: Polywell. Diverse minds from diverse disciplines bring more to the table and the issues get more thoroughly hashed out.

Case in point - Art Carlson as a sceptic has put the Polywell on a firmer foundation by trying to rip the science apart. Currently I put my position close to his. There may be something there but there is not enough data to reach a firm conclusion.

[Maui]

The fact that a well known phenomenon like the PDO was left out of the climate model tells me that the modelers are not being honest.

I'm trying to find some information about the IPCC reports and PDO. But my first inclining is that if they truely do not include it in their models (I'm skeptical about this claim-- but I'll reserve judgement until I do some more research), it is because it is the sort of thing that can't be timed with any decent accuracy in the long term. Since the point of the IPCC's report is long-term affect on climate, they likely don't consider it useful to ponder short-term forcings on tempertaure such as PDO El Nino, La Ninia, and volcano eruptions. Not only can they not be accuratly timed, but in the long run they are irrelevant since the effects are only short term.

This is exactly why 1, 5 and probably even 10 year trends taken on their own are irrelevant to any AGW debate. If you look at the past 150 years, there are are many periods of cooling that may very well coincide with PDO-- but that doesn't effect the trend in the long-term:


Now, if you want to debate the validity of this graph, that's a different story. I'd be happy to look at any links or studies you have that dispute that temperatures are rising over the past century or so.

And none of the models predicted the no heating for 10 years we have had. Nor did they predict the cooling phase we are entering.

Models without predictive power are garbage.

I take it you missed the graph I posted on page 2 that showed 4 different agencie's satillite temperature measurements super-imposed on the IPCC's predictions?

The only way you can claim there has been no warming over the past 10 years is:
A) You displute the measurements off all agencies.
B) You use the temp spike in 1998 as a starting point rather than looking at the overall trend.

So that I can better refute you claim, is your reasoning A or B?

Finally, as you can see, outside of the IPCC's 1990 prediction that did not properly factor in aerosoles, their predictions have clearly not been "garbage".

[MSimon]

When there is so much conflicting data and science to call the sceptics deniers smacks of religion and associated charges of heresy.

It really puts the AGW crowd in a bad light.

Of course elevating science to religious status is nothing new. It is why the old order often has to die out before new ideas can take hold.

This is nothing new. Einstein didn't like the fact that his theories led to indeterminacy. And yet here we are today with indeterminacy on a firmer foundation than ever. He didn't like "spooky action at a distance" and yet that is on firm ground too. We may not have the right why but the what has been well confirmed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_ ... _(physics)

So deniers are nothing new in science. In fact they are the foundation of true science. Believers of course are impediments.

There are facts and there are explanations. Facts are usually on firm ground (except there are believers there too - Millikan's work on the charge of the electron being a case in point. Over the years we have edged closer to the true value deviating a bit at a time from Millikan's result because few wanted to get a number "far" from Millikan's - since he was so "obviously" correct.) Explanations change as better ideas come along. So is it the Sun or CO2?

The experiment is now going on. We will know in 5 or 10 years.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/14/e ... rt-issued/

Bias in data and explanations are not unknown in science.

[Maui]

The fact that a well known phenomenon like the PDO was left out of the climate model tells me that the modelers are not being honest.

Still trying to dig up info regarding PDO and climate models... though as I mentioned in my last post, since PDO can't be accurately timed, it probably doesn't make sense as a variable in long-term climate models.

However, here are some excerpts from the IPCC's 2007 report on the topic:

Large-scale climate variations, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and NorthAtlantic Oscillation (NAO), are occurring at the same time as the global climate is changing. Consequently, many natural and managed systems are being affected by both climate change and climate variability. Hence, studies of observed changes in regions influenced by an oscillation may be able to attribute these changes to regional climate variations, but decades of data may be needed in order to separate the response to climate oscillations from that due to longer-term climate change.

In addition, inter-decadal variation in pH (Pelejero et al., 2005), storm activity (Goldenberg et al., 2001) and sea surface temperatures (Mestas-Nunez and Miller, 2006) linked, for example, to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation, make it more complicated to discern the effect of anthropogenic climate change from natural modes of variability (Section 1.3.4). An analysis of bleaching in the Caribbean indicates that 70% of the variance in geographic extent of bleaching between 1983 and 2000 could be attributed to variation in ENSO and atmospheric dust (Gill et al., 2006).

As in the North Atlantic, many long-term biological investigations in the Pacific have established links between changes in the biology and regional climate oscillations such as the ENSO and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) (Stenseth et al., 2002). In the case of the Pacific, these biological changes are most strongly associated with El Niño events, which can cause rapid and sometimes dramatic responses to the short-term SST changes (Hughes, 2000). However, recent investigations of planktonic foraminifera from sediment cores encompassing the last 1,400 years has revealed anomalous change in the community structure over the last few decades. The study suggests that ocean warming has already exceeded the range of natural variability (Field et al., 2006).

[Maui]

When there is so much conflicting data and science to call the sceptics deniers smacks of religion and associated charges of heresy.

It really puts the AGW crowd in a bad light.

Yes, "deniers" on both sides put their respected "sides" in a bad light. So we should not only work to make sure we are not "deniers" (ie, actually consider arguments from the "other side") and also realize that just because some supporting a particular side may be a "denier" does not say anthing about the science supporting that particular side. In other words, the imputus is on all of us to separate the "heresy" from the science.

So deniers are nothing new in science. In fact they are the foundation of true science. Believers of course are impediments.

Skeptics that back up thier skepticism with peer-reviewed science are the foundation of true science. Those that cherry pick data that suits their ideology while ignoring any studies that dispute the results they are prejudiced puts science in a bad light and I think its fair to call them "deniers".

Explanations change as better ideas come along. So is it the Sun or CO2?

The experiment is now going on. We will know in 5 or 10 years.

Or we won't. The science on AGW is not going to be any more absolute in 5 or 10 years that it is now. But the fact is that as more and more studies have been conducted on AGW, the stronger the consensus is that humans are indeed contributing to GW. And there will also continue to be questions raised about these studies and some data that will be found to be inconsitent with the current thinking. Maybe this will lead to a later belief that humans are not precipitously contributing to global warming. Certainly, we need to conduct studies to validate or refute all other proposed influences on the long term climate.

But we can not wait until all questions are answered and all skeptics are silenced before taking steps to mitigate damage we think we are doing. The questions will never all be answered. There will always be skeptics.

Planning transition to AE has many benefits beyond just the climate. And there's nothing to say we can't put these plans on hold if the science on AGW is found to be flawed.

But in the meantime let's be prudent and consider the science as a whole, not just the cherry picked data the supports your clame. Namely, please respond my above objections to your claim that there has been no warming over the past decade and the IPCC's prediction have been all wrong.

Thanks.

[gblaze42]

NASA did a study in 2003 showing that a global greening has taken place over the 20 years between the 1980's to 2000.

See here, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... green.html

Their stance is that the growth is caused by global warming.

It would be interesting, though, to see just how much extra C02 is released from plant respiration and obvious increase of biomass decay that this increase would cause, considering that it is a substantial ~20% increase!

I have not seen this factored in on GW calculations.

[Maui]

It would be interesting, though, to see just how much extra C02 is released from plant respiration and obvious increase of biomass decay that this increase would cause, considering that it is a substantial ~20% increase!

I have not seen this factored in on GW calculations.

Plants aborb CO2, instead of releasing it. The models do take this into account-- plant life is actually a negative feedback in that as temperatures warm and leads to more plant life, the extra plant life helps to soak up the CO2.

However, like all components of the models, they are always being refined. For example:

Current models used in the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change do not account for nitrogen processing, and probably exaggerate the terrestrial ecosystem’s potential to slow atmospheric carbon dioxide rise, the researchers say.

...

In the face of global climate change, world leaders are in need of models that can reliably predict how land use and other human activities affect atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Deforestation and the burning of coal and oil increase atmospheric carbon dioxide and contribute to global warming.

Growing plants take carbon dioxide from the air and store it as carbon in their tissues. This means that plant growth – especially that of trees – can help reduce the effects of rising carbon dioxide levels, which contribute to global warming.

Scientists have struggled for decades to build computer models that accurately predict how plants and soils will respond to rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

[MSimon]

I rather liked this. Emphasis mine.

Large-scale climate variations, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and NorthAtlantic Oscillation (NAO), are occurring at the same time as the global climate is changing. Consequently, many natural and managed systems are being affected by both climate change and climate variability. Hence, studies of observed changes in regions influenced by an oscillation may be able to attribute these changes to regional climate variations, but decades of data may be needed in order to separate the response to climate oscillations from that due to longer-term climate change.

Which is the IPCC's way of saying - climate change or natural variation? We have no clue.

Of course predicting the PDO into the future may be unwise. But certainly it can be subtracted from the past. A link and a quote I posted above indicates that the PDO may account for as much as 75% of the warming attributed to CO2 increases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_de ... scillation

* 1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a "warm" phase.
* 1946: PDO changed to a "cool" phase. [See the blue section of the graph on the right]
* 1977: PDO changed to a "warm" phase.[3]
* 1998: PDO index showed several years of "cool" values, but did not remain in that pattern.[4]
* 2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific Decadal Oscillation.[5]

In all cases in the 1900s, PDO "regime shifts" were related to similar changes in the Tropical ocean.

Note the correlation between the PDO and warming and cooling phases of the "climate".

The PDO was First found in 1997.

[Maui]

Which is the IPCC's way of saying - climate change or natural variation? We have no clue.

To some degree, yes. (allowing that you are exaggerating the meaing a bit). Can we be agreed, then, that the IPCC acknowledges the unknown PDO and other phenomenon represent?

A link and a quote I posted above indicates that the PDO may account for as much as 75% of the warming attributed to CO2 increases.

I read this link, but I would like to see a graph of this data. It seems to me the 75% could be interpreted a number of ways. What exactly is that measuring? Overall, after each PDO cycle, if the temperature is warmer than it was at the start of the cycle, it would seem to indicate that once the PDO is subtracted, a clear upward trend in temperature would be present. For example, in 1946, the PDO was supposedly in the same point in the cycle we are now, yet we are considerably warmer that in 1946.

And, for the record, from what I read so far, Pielke appears from what I've read so far to be a good example of one who raises constructive skepticism and supports his assertions with good research. At the same time, for all his criticism of the IPCC, he does not dispute AGW as a whole. See his comment on this page:

On “the conclusion was made that the ‘balance of evidence’ supported the notion of ongoing human-caused climate change.”, the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers.

[MSimon]

Pielke does attribute some of the warming to humans.

But if you study his site he is not in the CO2 camp (very much). He thinks it is more a function of land use. He says that aspect of warming is under studied. He has studied it some himself.

http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-311.pdf

Here is Pielke on models:

First, there are always tunable parameters within each parameterization, and there are always quite a few more than one or two.

In my class on modeling, the students have documented the number of tunable parameter for a range of parameterizations, and 10 and more are common for each individual parameterization (e.g. see the class powerpoint presentations at ATOC 7500 for my most recent class).

Second, the only basic physics in the models are the pressure gradient force, advection and the acceleration due to gravity. These are the only physics in which there are no tunable coefficients. Climate models are engineering codes and not fundamental physics.

The framework of all climate models is illustrated in one of my powerpoint talks for weather models (see slides 3 and 4);

Pielke, R.A., Sr., 2003: The Limitations of Models and Observations. COMET Symposium on Planetary Boundary Layer Processes, Boulder, Colorado, September 12, 2003.

http://climatesci.org/2008/11/28/real-c ... te-models/

Worth reading the whole thing. He gives links which I have omitted in the above.

You can read more about his estimation of the usefulness of climate models here:

http://climatesci.org/category/climate-models/