Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

[pourdeac]

With Buzz, you refuse to look at his past to acknowledge that what's happening now is par for the course.

That's not remotely true. I was the first to dig up those past rebounding problems, and pointed out that it was better both the year before and the year he left. I have issues with him not winning at Colorado.......with two NBAers on the team. The road losses are a problem. I would have never hired the guy based on his record.

 

[Lectro]

http://www.climategate.com/michael-mann-intellectual-property-transparency

Plenty of peer problems with Mann. He has a goodly group of people who consider him a mean spirited fraud.

Here is a Climategate excerpt from the leaked emails --
On February 13, 2006 when the National Research Council of the National Academies of the United States invited British climatologist Keith Briffa to appear before its enquiry in Washington, D.C., Briffa wrote Mike Mann. In CRU leaked email 1139835663 we see how Mann leans on Briffa to attend:

Briffa: “IN STRICT CONFIDENCE I am sending this for your opinion. To be frank, I am inclined to decline. What do think? Presumably you and others are already in the frame?”

Mann remains keen for his co-conspirators to be in the frame. He responds:

Mann: “ I think you really should do this if you possibly can. The panel is entirely legitimate, and the report was requested by Sherwood Boehlert, who as you probably know has been very supportive of us in the whole Barton affair. … Especially, with the new Science article by you and Tim I think its really important that one of you attend, if at all possible.”

If one is wondering about Mann’s definition of “legitimate,” he quickly erases any doubt:

Mann: “The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing this, and the other members are all solid. Christy is the token skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check: So I would encourage you to strongly reconsider!”

So, it seems Mann is implying that “solid” means “alarmist friendly” and so there is little risk for Briffa in appearing before it. However, Briffa’s lack of confidence is manifest:

Briffa: “Thanks for this, but after a lot of soul-searching this weekend, I have decided to decline the invitation.”

Keith Briffa won’t come to the States to testify for Mann because Briffa fears Mann’s tree-ring “trick” to erase past warming would be exposed. If this happens then the comparatively moderate warming of the late 20th century will be interpreted as yet another natural episode of natural climatic variation. Here’s Briffa’s take on it:

Briffa: “I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.“

This is a remarkable admission that undermines the entire argument propounded publicly by Briffa, Mann and their colleagues that global warming was “unprecedented.”

Good ol’ Mike responds to this catastrophic development:

“I walked into this hornet’s nest this morning! Keith and Phil Jones have both raised some very good points. And I should point out that Chris Folland, through no fault of his own, but probably through me not conveying my thoughts very clearly to the others, definitely overstates any singular confidence I have in my own [Mann and co-workers’] results.”

In other words, Mann, too, privately admits he has no confidence in his own conclusions! While no one knows Mann’s weasel propensities to fiddle the numbers better than respected Canadian climate analyst and statistician, Steve McIntyre.

Mann shows a lack of belief in his own ideas as others are distancing themselves from him. In this instance a British Climatologist declines to attend a conference with Mann ostensibly to avoid any questions relating to tree ring data from the Medieval Warm Period. Scientists have demonstrated that the MWP was as warm or warmer than today and Mann's colleague says as much in the article.

It means the 20th century is not an anomaly. We had a very similar and cyclical period a mere 1000 years ago. AGW supporters have aggressively and mendaciously attempted to downplay and isolate this data which is viewed as critical.

 

[pourdeac]

if by "backtracking on their views" means "revising climate models based on the newest/based data available, sure. go nuts, bro.

You sort of got that half right. The science is making them backtrack and is absolutely creating doubt and changing viewpoints.

Climate scientists made 100s of assumptions in their models, left out a lot of natural climate drivers in their assessments, and totally ignored a lot of confounding data/results..they biased their views. As the climate science moves forward...which I think is what you mean to say with this comment "revising climate models based on the newest data available"....those assumptions are getting undermined, the variability in the models increases creating larger and larger error, and they are slowly accepting the fact the confounding data is legit, like the solar forcing data. The science is forcing them to unbias their views. You seem to assume the science is just honing the model towards greater confidence in CO2 but its having the opposite effect.

That's irrefutable bro. I've pointed it out comparing prior reports to the current one.

And yes, what climate scientists are doing is ALL just tweaking a model. I've done pretty high level computational modeling (large molecules, proteins, receptors, dynamic, ab initio, CoMFA) since the 1980s. Modeling is not really science, it's a tool of science used to guide scientific experimentation. 99% of the time it's fails with much accuracy because of all the assumptions you have to incorporate. They use models to gain some insight based on all those assumptions, but it's not really science.

Science means disproving the null hypothesis (in this case CO2 has no effect on climate), which is never done in any climate research because it's all modeling. They can build a model in which CO2 as the complete driver. They can build a model with solar as the complete driver. They can probably build one correlating temp change to bigfoot sightings. They built one proving snowball earth, which we discussed on here a couple of years ago. But they can't determine scientifically which is correct. It's impossible to do with pure modeling. One has to run actual experiments. In most every other field, if there is no experimentation along with the modeling....we call it "hand waving". The modeling often gets trashed.

I'm OK with calling it science to describe what is going on, but it's not really science per se.

but not a single one of those scientists will back off of the idea of human influenced climate change. "doubt" (or ongoing study) in the system is not a condemnation of the system.

10 years ago you would have said "not a single one of those scientists will back off the idea that humans caused 100% of warming in the 20th century".....yet they nearly all did.

No one believes that humans absolutely can't or don't influence climate change, the issue is level of influence. That has changed dramatically. In 2001 they believed man caused 100% of the problem in the 20th century, since 1890. Now they believe it was one of 4 drivers during that time period (solar, aerosols, volcanic, CO2) and have no confidence that CO2 was greater than the other 4 until the late 1970s. They totally backed off their original theory. That's not just some tweak to their model, that's a major reversal.

 

[ONW]

You sort of got that half right. The science is making them backtrack and is absolutely creating doubt and changing viewpoints.

Climate scientists made 100s of assumptions in their models, left out a lot of natural climate drivers in their assessments, and totally ignored a lot of confounding data/results..they biased their views. As the climate science moves forward...which I think is what you mean to say with this comment "revising climate models based on the newest data available"....those assumptions are getting undermined, the variability in the models increases creating larger and larger error, and they are slowly accepting the fact the confounding data is legit, like the solar forcing data. The science is forcing them to unbias their views. You seem to assume the science is just honing the model towards greater confidence in CO2 but its having the opposite effect.

That's irrefutable bro. I've pointed it out comparing prior reports to the current one.

And yes, what climate scientists are doing is ALL just tweaking a model. I've done pretty high level computational modeling (large molecules, proteins, receptors, dynamic, ab initio, CoMFA) since the 1980s. Modeling is not really science, it's a tool of science used to guide scientific experimentation. 99% of the time it's fails with much accuracy because of all the assumptions you have to incorporate. They use models to gain some insight based on all those assumptions, but it's not really science.

Science means disproving the null hypothesis (in this case CO2 has no effect on climate), which is never done in any climate research because it's all modeling. They can build a model in which CO2 as the complete driver. They can build a model with solar as the complete driver. They can probably build one correlating temp change to bigfoot sightings. They built one proving snowball earth, which we discussed on here a couple of years ago. But they can't determine scientifically which is correct. It's impossible to do with pure modeling. One has to run actual experiments. In most every other field, if there is no experimentation along with the modeling....we call it "hand waving". The modeling often gets trashed.

I'm OK with calling it science to describe what is going on, but it's not really science per se.

10 years ago you would have said "not a single one of those scientists will back off the idea that humans caused 100% of warming in the 20th century".....yet they nearly all did.

No one believes that humans absolutely can't or don't influence climate change, the issue is level of influence. That has changed dramatically. In 2001 they believed man caused 100% of the problem in the 20th century, since 1890. Now they believe it was one of 4 drivers during that time period (solar, aerosols, volcanic, CO2) and have no confidence that CO2 was greater than the other 4 until the late 1970s. They totally backed off their original theory. That's not just some tweak to their model, that's a major reversal.

You might consider the level of influence, but plenty of people don't one way or the other.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

this is why i don't engage your posts, pour. you have it fixed in your mind that adjustments to models and reevaluation means it's a hoax or it's all bad science, when if you actually talk to people in those fields, it's not even a question about influence, only of speed. I know how "science works" and how climate research works. If in your opinion doing field work, doing experiments along with modeling isn't science, then no one is doing science. Maybe it's your background but you come at this from such an oddly narrow angle.

 

[Lectro]

Captain. I'm gonna provide an excerpt from Storch which illustrates the problem sceptics have with the ever shifting explanations. Storch is a deeply respected scientist and member of the IPCC. Here he expresses his own bafflement at the stagnating of temperatures these last 16-17 years.

Storch: "So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year."

In the last sentence he lays out the quandary for the IPCC. It is early 2013 when he is making these remarks.He knows there is an important pr battle ahead with the IPCC's late 2013 release.


I expect to hear the heat has gone into the deep ocean (Southern Hemisphere -- explains Turney's Antarctic expedition which was meant to "prove"melting has been caused by the theoretical deep ocean warming). Turney's mission was to validate the deep ocean speculation. I have read his latest twisting and attempts to re-tell the tale. His web blog claimed otherwise. Turney had claimed alarming amounts of melting had taken place and was looking for signs of eminent disaster. He found Ice, and an ass load at that. Now he is spinning,saying the ice is thick but only in certain regions.

 

[Lectro]

WF keeping faith ....

" What matters is that Antarctic ice sheets expand as the Earth warms. We know this. It’s well documented. And they’ll continue to expand — at least, up until the Earth has warmed so much that all ocean currents stop, and the seven seas turn into a stagnant cesspool of pee-warm saltwater, with billions of dead fish floating on the surface.
Not that we’ll smell them, because we’ll have died in the first century of a million-year drought."

Somebody stayed at a Holiday Inn Express... apparently there is one on Patmos.

Hesus Kristy that is some mighty fine brimstone...

 

[Lectro]

Captain.... some more from Storch you may not have amplified:

Storch: "Those are also still difficult. For example, according to the models, the Mediterranean region will grow drier all year round. At the moment, however, there is actually more rain there in the fall months than there used to be. We will need to observe further developments closely in the coming years. Temperature increases are also very much dependent on clouds, which can both amplify and mitigate the greenhouse effect. For as long as I've been working in this field, for over 30 years, there has unfortunately been very little progress made in the simulation of clouds.


Acknowledging the failure of the models...and at the end of the passage he must be tipping his hat to Henrik Svensmark and Jasper Kirkby's for the confirmation of research at CERN.

 

[BigTreeDeac]

this is why i don't engage your posts, pour. you have it fixed in your mind that adjustments to models and reevaluation means it's a hoax or it's all bad science, when if you actually talk to people in those fields, it's not even a question about influence, only of speed. I know how "science works" and how climate research works. If in your opinion doing field work, doing experiments along with modeling isn't science, then no one is doing science. Maybe it's your background but you come at this from such an oddly narrow angle.

It is his background in combination with an apparent ignorance of what science actually is. He is a chemist so he comes from an analytical field in which everything must be experimentally determined. For some reason, he has confused that aspect of chemistry with what science actually is. Science isn't about "disproving the null hypothesis", that is what experimental design is. Science is about observing a phenomena (some do it by experimentation others by observing their surroundings) and seeking to explain it (again some of this involves experimentation). To have such a narrow view of what science is makes me think he is only a scientist per se. Epidemiologist everywhere must be pissed because they don't sit at benches and do research. Evolutionary biologists are just BS spewers because they can't evolve bacteria into humans at a bench. Cosmologists, what fucking jokes they are just sitting around pondering the origins of the universe but not actually making universes in their labs to prove how the universe was made. Please let me know if I should continue to list the myriad scientific fields that are apparently bullshit just because you have deemed hard experimentation the only way science can be conducted.

eta: Pour, please spend some time designing the definitive laboratory experiments that climate scientists should be performing to directly prove humans have contributed to changes in the climate. I will allow you to limit the scope of the experiment to the global effects of humans in the past century. No models, no assumptions, no nothing...just pure experimental design in which you control every variable and are able to make definitive, quantifiable conclusions. Should be easy for a scientist of your acumen.

 

[Lectro]

You may read this as a bit of "tweaking here and there" but Storch is saying if in a few years we've seen no further rise in temperature then we will be forced to scrap the old models.

Storch: "If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations."

Of course, now the whole thing has been thrown to the bottom of the seas where we have no sensors just several "it's very possible(s)"from a couple of Goddard Physicists.

Give me a fucking break, eh. Then Turney shows up to prove the rank speculation and his ass gets trapped in ice. The crew is nervous about ever being funded again so they better come up with a "plausible excuse" (not unlike their theoretical efforts). So the crew sat around and captain-cook'd up some bullshit "well,we went out and capt. told us to be back by dinner.." -- ohh forget it... it's fucking unreadable for anyone with an iota...

 

[Spot the Wonder]

I'll repost this directly out the 2013 IPCC report.

Continental-scale surface temperature reconstructions show, with high confidence, multidecadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950 to 1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the mid-20th century and in others as warm as in the late 20th century. With high confidence, these intervals were not as synchronous across seasons and regions as the warming since the mid-20th century. Based on the comparison between reconstructions and simulations, there is high confidence that not only external orbital, solar and volcanic forcing, but also internal variability, contributed substantially to the spatial pattern and timing of surface-temperature changes between the Medieval Climate Anomaly and the Little Ice Age (1450 to 1850). [5.3.5.3, 5.5.1]

They are saying they are now highly confident that recent warming is not unprecedented.

You're either an epic troll or have no clue that you're not nearly as smart as you think.

First, let me translate what the above quote means, since you have no idea. It simply states the some regions (regions, not global) were as warm then as mid to late 20th centruy. Not at all a shock. The MWP was not global, it was restricted to the northern hemisphere, hence regional. And by the way, that quote is almost word for word from a 2009 paper by, you guessed it, Michael Mann.

We used a global climate proxy network to reconstruct surface temperature patterns over this interval. The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally.


But here's what the IPCC does say about the current climate. You don't need to look too hard, it's on page fucking 2.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

 

[93Deac]

Christ, you guys need to let this go. The data is not there to support passionate argument on either side. There is evidence that the climate is changing, and there is evidence that we do not understand the critical mechanisms involved. There is significant question how closely current models actually match real world data, and there are accusations that the raw data was/is being manipulated inappropriately. The injection of big money and politics has further muddied the water, with claims of "settled science", "alarmists" and "deniers".

Only a handful of posters on this thread are trained to understand the scientific literature, although I don't know if we actually have any PhD level climate researchers.

Despite these ambiguities, everybody is going tribal over their interpretation of another writer's interpretation of the primary literature (which is the product of another group's interpretation of the massaged data)... essentially arguing over a partial understanding of very partial data. That isn't science. That is faith. So nobody should be intransigent or closed-minded about this. The truth isn't yet known.

 

[ONW]

I eagerly await Lectro's reply...

 

[Lectro]

I eagerly await Lectro's reply...

That's pretty much all I have ever argued.

It is not "settled science" and those who doubt the alarmist-pseudo-John the Divine antics are not "deniers"...

I await your response, good man.

 

[Lectro]

http://australianclimatemadness.com/2013/10/07/rapid-increase-in-ocean-heat/

Link shows the highly dramatized Nucitelli graph supposedly showing a massive heating of the oceans -- even though we don't have the sensors necessary to make such assessments!

But that's all good...as Bigdoubleoaktree basically implied...'we don't have time to test every idea in a real world situation'. We must go with our best guess, take a stab at it, give it the old college try and most certainly mandate changes measured in the $trillions and based on what?

What does this graph show? A catastrophically rapid increase in ocean heat content?

When global surface temperatures started levelling off, and then continued to plateau, it was a real blow to the alarmist cause. How could they claim that global warming was an urgent problem that needed trillions of taxpayer dollars to fix when the temperatures showed otherwise?

How could they retain their cushy roles on UN- and government-funded climate organisations, jetting round the world staying in five-star hotels at the taxpayers’ expense, whilst all the while imploring the rest of us to scale back our unsustainable and polluting lifestyles?

Here’s the alarmists’ thought process: Where’s the missing heat? Our models must be right (no doubt there), so it must be hiding somewhere. Somewhere we can’t measure it. Deep in the oceans!

And because of the much larger heat capacity of water compared to air, the differences in temperature would be of the order of hundredths of a degree. Which is conveniently impossible to measure accurately.

Which is why ocean heat content is the buzzword du jour.

 

[Lectro]

Some running commentary on the Nucitelli graph...

Here are a few responses of literally hundreds of dread deniers:

"The Nucitelli graph is certainly a fantasy.
I’m at 19°S 146°E. Our prevailing airflow (60-70%) comes off the western Pacific ocean. The waters to the north and east of us are among the warmest in the world. So what’s the last 20 years here been like? Mid 1990s, sure, a few hot spells, but nothing comparable since then. Mid 2000s on, pretty much flat, last 3 years or so, cooler. Noticeably cooler.
I think there are two causes of this foolishness. The first is the Trenberthian “missing heat”, probably derived from the 23% of alleged back-radiation in his thermal model. With up to 650W/m2 coming down for a large part of the year, we would have noticed this if it occurs. We haven’t. It doesn’t. The second is the mapping of global average temperatures derived from most of the climate models, that show the same area of ocean heating up, because they are driven by the false cause/effect of CO2 increase and temperature increase built into the initial parameters.
There is a direct relationship between the sea temperature out there and the frequency and intensity of cyclones, the majority which form in those waters and many of which track south and west. Nothing unprecedented has occurred, and there is certainly no evidence of cyclones being more common. The reverse in fact."

Lew Skannen on 7 October, 2013 at 8:38 pm
"Also worth noting that there are about 3000 buoys to measure this heat. This means that each buoy has to measure the temperature of about 300,000 cubic kilometres of ocean to an accuracy of 0.01C. No problem…"

"The apparent increase in ocean heat content might be a simple case of more and better measurements recording something over time that was already there before. It’s a type of confirmation bias, you simply get more or denser measurements of something over time, carefully pre-selected to confirm your pre-conceived bias in the first place."

"This often happens in science regarding new measurements and new data, you hear someone has found an increase in something but which often turns out that they have simply learnt to measure something better. The same thing occurred with hurricane intensity, tornado intensity etc; when viewed against a broader range of data and techniques, this showed that the initial data which might have suggested an increase over time was simply an artefact of better measurement techniques. The same likely goes for ocean heat content, but unfortunately this wont be known probably for decades, meaning we will likely hear that the oceans are going to ‘doom us all’ for a few decades more or so, until someone eventually proves that nothing has actually changed in the oceans, and it was an artefact of the measuring technique, or density, or data manipulation of the sampling itself. The graph above is quite possibly a complete fantasy."

"Even if the ARGO buoys didn’t have the sensor microleak problems that affected depth measurement accuracy (and thereby temperature at depth accuracy) their temperature (at depth) accuracy is no better than 0.1 degree Celsius with normal pressure sensor offset drift over time giving a false warming indication."

"There is evidence AGAINST any missing heat. N.G. Loeb et al, Nature Geoscience 2012, DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1375 find that the heat uptake by the oceans as measured by ARGO and earlier ship bathythermometers is pretty much exactly equal to the imbalance in outgoing radiation as measured by satellites over the past 20 years. The results are somewhat dependent on assumptions in the data treatment but everything is out in the open and makes sense. So missing heat will not only need to be missing, it may even violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, having materialized wraithlike from nothing.

"Also very interesting is the fact that the measured imbalance is only 0.5 watt/square-meter, far less than the computed 2.3 watt/square-meter we are supposed to have jacked into the atmosphere. This means that, assuming the forcing calculations are correct, we have accommodated most of the forcing to date in the climate system. It further means that future atmospheric global warming from the imbalance will be about 0.4 deg C if the climate sensitivity is 3 degrees for doubling (doubling = 3.7 watt/square-meter) or about 0.1 deg C if the sensitivity is 1 degree for doubling. I would bet on the latter."

"Here is a nice perspective of Ocean Temperature changes since 1955 (surface, 0-700 metre, 0-2000 metre) and then what they will get to in the year 2100.

The 0-2000 metre ocean will increase from 0.065C today to 0.22C in the year 2100. It is (not quite) relentless but it is certainly negligible.

It is being used extensively by the pro-warmers now because they can chart it as a line going up (by squeezing the X-axis scale to +/-0.05C) and it provides a certain amount of solace to the followers. But it is far lower than previously predicted and far lower than what would provide for substantial warming."

 

[Strickland33]

Lectro, what's the end game of the climate change conspiracy? Who stands to benefit? What are the stakes?

 

[Lectro]

Lectro, what's the end game of the climate change conspiracy? Who stands to benefit? What are the stakes?

I don't see a "conspiracy" as you put it...that would be something outlandish like saying "the government can listen in on all of our conversations and collect all of our communications and create a file summarizing each citizens thoughts, desires, working status, sexuality, etcetera, etcetera."

 

[Lectro]

http://www.sciencebits.com/AR5-FirstImpressions

Nir Shaviv's first impression of AR5

An excerpt from the brilliant young astrophysicist / cosmoclimatologist:

"One of the statements which wonderfully exemplifies the absurdity of the new report is this paragraph discussing the climate sensitivity in the summary for policy makers. They write:

“The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence) 16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing.”

Now, have you noticed something strange? According to the AR4 report, the "likely equilibrium range of sensitivity" was 2.0 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling. According to the newer AR5 report, it is 1.5 to 4.5°C, i.e., the likely equilibrium sensitivity is now known less accurately. But they write: “This assessment reflects improved understanding”. How ridiculous can you be?"

 

[Strickland33]

I don't see a "conspiracy" as you put it...that would be something outlandish like saying "the government can listen in on all of our conversations and collect all of our communications and create a file summarizing each citizens thoughts, desires, working status, sexuality, etcetera, etcetera."

OK, fine. If the mainstream of scientific research is completely wrong and there is an industrial complex of sorts sustaining the perpetuation of this incorrect information in the academy, government, pop culture, etc. What's the end game? Who stands to benefit? What are the stakes?