Page 19 of 228 FirstFirst ... 917181920212969119 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #181
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    I was trying to leave the climate change thing alone, but I can't, so I'm just going to quickly give my $0.02 reply and that'll be it from me. I just don't have the time or desire to completely address the walls of text. The vast majority (if not the entirety) of the points in Josh's posts are copied from three sources: Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, and I think there were a couple points in there from Judith Curry. Feel free to google them and read their posts directly, and if you are so inclined google a few of the copious number of responses to their criticisms.

    I don't agree with Josh's analysis.

    While Josh is correct that some GISSTEMP climate stations are ill positioned, it shouldn't have a significant effect on measuring the change in temperature. If a station starts hot and stays hot it won't substantially affect measurements of change. NASA is working on improving station siting. If you don't just toss the GISSTEMP data out of hand, this is what the measurements and models look like.. The notion that poor station placement would generate exactly the kind of warming signal expected by physical models is silly. There are also measurements of sea ice loss, water level increase, ocean acidification, and a host of others which generally agree with the models. If you focus on the satellite data from 20 to 20 degrees latitutude, that is a known problem which has been under discussion for a long time (see the article above, or as another example here).

    To josh's point on forcing, he may be right, that particular criticism seems possible and maybe even likely. It is acknowledged to be an uncertainty in most of the literature and people are working to reduce it. But if there is an error there it is a matter of degree, not existence. It is possible the timescale of serious impact is slightly longer than we expect it to be, but I don't see a potential small change in timescale as even substantial enough to avoid an aggressive policy approach. Frankly, it would just be a godsend.

    Back to work.
    Last edited by PBSteve; 11-12-2017 at 05:32 PM.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  2. #182
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    174
    After reading all that have been said before I came pretty much to the same conclusion. Between Steve and Gordon there's really not much to add, and I don't have the expertise (nor the time) to really dive deep into the actual studies, but I'm pretty sure none of us really do?
    I did google about Josh's sources and had ran into some if not all of them previously (bad memory for names). So yeah, Watts is TV/radio meteorologist.. (this would by the way be "ad hominem" since I'm using the person to discredit the content)
    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/
    https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts

    One way to approach the credibility subject is to see the amount of peer reviewed literature the so called sceptics have published.
    Convenient source, but I'm pretty sure it hasn't been updated since 2011. But that's what I got for now as I need to get to bed to get some sleep before I need to go to work.
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/pee...edskeptics.php

    Cern CLOUD experiment doesn't really change the basic principle it just makes the science more accurate.
    As I understand it, it may cause the estimations to be revised down some (a good thing), but it does not change the basic principle that humanity is driving the problem.
    I'm sure all of you have read the criticism about the missing factors of the experiment.
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/cer...termediate.htm

    About accuracy criticism of the climate models.
    https://skepticalscience.com/climate...-argument.html

    Also as I understand it the satellite data has its own problems.
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/sat...e-advanced.htm

    Not going to dive into that page of 400 studies. But I'll just say that if I were, I'd first check how many are actually published in actual curated peer reviewed platform.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27...Peer_Review%3F

    Good night.

  3. #183
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    If a station starts hot and stays hot it won't substantially affect measurements of change.
    The problem is it doesn't start hot and stay hot. Normally it was sited in the small town, and as the town expanded, it went hot. Or it was moved, often to the airport. In addition there is dirt roads turning to pavement, fields turning to new building, from horse carts to cars.

    Originally those were all sited at CRN-1/2 locations. They had to be, it was in the original guidelines. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/u...DocumentD0.pdf Section 2.2.1


    Then they varied over time. Here iswhat the CRN1- through -5 mean:

    Table 1. Climate Reference Network Classification for Local Site
    Representativitya
    Class Description
    1 Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with
    a slope below 1/3 (<19?). Grass/low vegetation ground cover
    <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from
    artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings,
    concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of
    water, except if it is representative of the area, and then
    located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the Sun
    elevation >3 degrees.

    2 Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding
    Vegetation <25 centimeters. Artificial heating sources within
    30 m. No shading for a Sun elevation >5?.
    3 (error 1?C) ‐ Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating
    sources within 10 meters.
    4 (error ≥2?C) ‐ Artificial heating sources <10 meters
    5 (error ≥5?C) ‐ Temperature sensor located next to/above an
    artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot,
    or concrete surface
    The two first picture examples were one that stayed sited well, and another that was surrounded by a fire station, with a parking lot, AC Units and related interference. They are 30 miles apart. One shows cooling, one shows warming. With a 30 mile difference, the major factor is one remained in a rural setting, another in an urban setting. To counter the Urban Heat Island (UHI) they just took -.2 degrees from about 1978 for urban areas and that was it.

    The big part you miss is the difference in the warming trends of CRN-1/2 sites vs CRN- 34 and -5:

    These long‐term systematic variations among CRN
    classes of USHCNv2 stations lead to significant differences
    in the long term trends (Figure 10). The unadj and tob
    average temperature trends are about twice as large when
    estimated from CRN 5 stations as from CRN 1&2 stations;
    the CRN 5 tob trend difference is statistically significant and
    appears to be completely unrelated to differences in the
    distribution of stations.
    As with the 1979?2008 period, the
    adj trends are nearly identical, but the trend magnitude is
    much smaller for 1895?2009 than for 1979?2008. In contrast,
    the diurnal temperature range trend differences are statistically
    significant whether or not homogeneity corrections
    have been applied. The adj CRN 1&2 diurnal temperature
    range trend is almost exactly zero, while the adj CRN 5
    diurnal temperature range trend is about −0.5?C/century. The
    adjustments only reduce the trend difference between CRN
    1&2 and CRN 5 by half, while the adjustments have a larger
    effect on the CRN 1&2 and CRN 3&4 trend differences.
    Sites that are properly situated, CRN-1/2, show about half the warming as sites that are CRN-3/4 and 5.

    The notion that poor station placement would generate exactly the kind of warming signal expected by physical models is silly.
    I didn't say it would generate exactly anything, please quote me instead of making strawmen up. I am really well too versed in this discussion to accept false positions I didn't even hint at as my own. I just said that the flaw in the GISS surface station siting is what led me to take a skeptical position.

    That being said - the Fall et al paper shows, my opinion or not, that there is a significant difference in the warming result of well sited and poorly cited stations, and most stations are poorly sited. Hence, I don't really like the GISS dataset, which really is the NOAA dataset the underlies all of the data for GISS and HADCRUT and any surface station based dataset. It is the significant portion of that database.

    AND, for the unteenth time, (this is reading comprehension time, pay attention, this will be on the test) THEY ALL SHOW WARMING. Skeptics are not saying there is NO warming - just not the amount, nor rate of warming as projected, or as sssumed.

    Here, let me fix this for you:

    Josh is correct that more than 80% of the GISSTEMP climate stations are ill positioned, and it does have a significant effect on measuring the change in temperature.
    You're Welcome!

    __________________________________________________ ___________

    Laku: I don't pay much attention to Skeptical Science. He has a bias and is willing to try and write scientific papers to lie. It is sad really if you are familiar with rebuttals of Cook's papers. We have been down this road in this thread already. For example, where he talked about peer reviewed papers, in your first link? It says Lindzen has 8. Lindzen has over 240. He also was a lead author on the 2001 IPCC Chapter 7 report: "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks", partially because he wrote most of the science of the middle troposphere.

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...ationsRSL.html

    Current climate science is built on his work from the 1960s forward.


    He also stated Dr Richard Tol had 0. Which is funny. Because, in the Cook et al. paper, (where he claimed 97% of papers support AWG) Dr Tol had this to say:

    Tol: "WoS lists 122 articles on climate change by me in that period. Only 10 made it into the survey.

    I would rate 7 of those as neutral, and 3 as strong endorsement with quantification. Of the 3, one was rated as a weak endorsement (even though it argues that the solar hypothesis is a load of bull). Of the 7, 3 were listed as an implicit endorsement and 1 as a weak endorsement.

    ...from 112 omitted papers, one strongly endorses AGW and 111 are neutral"
    On Skeptical Science . com, Cook says Tol has 0 peer reviewed papers. In his now retracted study, he claimed Tol had 10 papers. Tol has 122 peer reviewed articles during that period alone.

    This could be done for a good portion of that page. I can go on and on and on. Most likely for every link from Skeptical Science.

    Cook lies. Simple as that. Please find a difference reference. I don't have time to cover the total load of continuous BS this guy produces.

    That being said, to give you an idea of where I sit on this: I remember when Anthony Watts started blogging. Lots of the early stuff was really good. I read his first blog post when it came up. Like, first 100 people. It was on the difference of readings on different stevenson screen painting techniques and the related result. I have followed it off and on for a while. It is a remarkable piece of work as a whole. It can not idly be dismissed if you are familiar with the blog as a whole.

    My research started before his blog. I watched it grow.

    I remember when Dr Curry was a AGW supporter. I read her blogs when she started talking to a skeptic, and how that affected her position. I remember when Roy Spencer started blogging.

    My research predates a lot the whom are now the bad guys. I remember when they just started their positions, started speaking up. I know this subject. I had 6,000 hours in years ago - I had no clue how many I am up to now.

    nd I don't have the expertise (nor the time) to really dive deep into the actual studies, but I'm pretty sure none of us really do?
    I did pretty exhaustively at a point. There is really so much for either side to pick from that a person not doing a deep dive into the data, not challenging their own prejudice, not looking for the other side and to see how it adds up, can still spend hundreds of hours and not have to change their mind. You have to be skeptical, contrarian at heart, to even find the path I found. And I was there before Cook, or Watts, or Curry, or any one besides Roy Spencer. But then, he helped invent the Satellite Temperature record. Per wikipedia:

    Roy Warren Spencer (born December 20, 1955)[1] is a meteorologist,[2] a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.[3][4] He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.[3][4]

    He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award.[4]
    But hey, just disregard him also, like Watts or Curry. They are deserters from the proper Party Line, and must be shamed.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 11-12-2017 at 11:50 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  4. #184
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    174
    Ok. First of all, you missed that those are climate change sceptical paper numbers, not their whole production. It was late and I worded it poorly.
    This resource shows how many peer-reviewed papers have climate skeptics published that deny or cast doubt on human caused global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Cook lies. Simple as that. Please find a difference reference. I don't have time to cover the total load of continuous BS this guy produces.
    Well.. the internet doesn't agree with you. Not that internet is infallible though.
    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/skeptical-science/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science


    You might want to consider that instead you're the one that has a bias. At least on the light of majority of the science that is more than likely.
    Especially considering that you have apparently invested a lot of time in this, which would not be surprising to cause cognitive dissonance on anyone so invested.



    Documentation and Assessment of Results

    The analysis method was fully documented in Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), including quantitative estimates of the error in annual and 5-year mean temperature change. This was done by sampling at station locations a spatially complete data set of a long run of a global climate model, which was shown to have realistic spatial and temporal variability. This however only addresses the error due to incomplete spatial coverage of measurements.

    As there are other potential sources of error, such as urban warming near meteorological stations, many other methods have been used to verify the approximate magnitude of inferred global warming. These methods include inference of surface temperature change from vertical temperature profiles in the ground (bore holes) at many sites around the world, rate of glacier retreat at many locations, and studies by several groups of the effect of urban and other local human influences on the global temperature record. All of these yield consistent estimates of the approximate magnitude of global warming, which reached about 0.8?C in 2010, twice the magnitude reported in 1981.

    GISS Homogenization (Urban Adjustment)

    One of the improvements ? introduced in 1998 ? was the implementation of a method to address the problem of urban warming: The urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped. This preserves local short-term variability without affecting long term trends. Originally, the classification of stations was based on population size near that station; the current analysis uses satellite-observed night lights to determine which stations are located in urban and peri-urban areas.
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

    And it's not like those are the only measurement sites on the globe..



    Anyhow. As Schwarzenegger puts it. "I don't give a damn if you believe in climate change." There're still plenty of good reasons to get out of fossil fuels regardless.

  5. #185
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Ok. First of all, you missed that those are climate change sceptical paper numbers, not their whole production. It was late and I worded it poorly.
    I get wording things poorly - shoot, I have been bad at both my typing and reading comprehension in this thread plenty. And, I do enjoy the back and forth. I have to hand you and Steve some credit, you are a bit better at the discussion than most.

    Even then, my example of Dr. Tol shine through here.

    On the SS page, Cook says 0. Then, in his 2013 paper, he says 10. Then the good Doctor says he wrote 122 papers that during that period that should have been included in the survey, and even of the 10 in the survey...well, you saw it.

    How ever you dice it, that is a large body of work. In fact, far more than 0.

    Here is an older piece (2014) that has a list of peer reveiwed papers, well....:

    Counting Method: Only peer-reviewed papers are counted. Supplemental papers are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers, these are italicized and proceeded by an asterisk ( * ) so they are not confused with the counted papers.

    Supplemental papers include (but are not limited to): Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Discussions, Erratum, Rebuttals, Rejoinders, Replies, Responses, Supplemental Material, Updates and Submitted papers.
    http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html

    Then I linked to another batch of peer reviewed papers before, 400 just from this year alone, over 100 that linked solar output through proxies to climate cycles.

    Here is another from 2015: http://notrickszone.com/250-skeptic-....ic3WjAu5.dpbs

    There is just volumes, thousands really, of skeptical papers that did pass peer review.

    And that is just in the last few years. Initial work on stuff around climategate and related also are rather damning.

    _________________________

    You might want to consider that instead you're the one that has a bias. At least on the light of majority of the science that is more than likely.
    Especially considering that you have apparently invested a lot of time in this, which would not be surprising to cause cognitive dissonance on anyone so invested.
    About 5 years ago I think I would have been more gracious on this point. The problem is due to the duration of time I have spent on the topic we have had enough time go by where we can see if the predictions of the skeptics vs the predictions of the AWG sort have come true.

    The climate has, annoyingly, followed through as skeptics believed. The chart showing the deviation of the models vs the empirical data is an example of this. Also the predictions about ice coverage, no more snow in the UK, well, just about all of them were wrong. And now we even have a paper with Mann as a signer that basically agrees with the skeptics position, and the forcing issue.

    If you want, here is a long post from a reader on WUWT which covers a rather comprehensive list of failed AWG predictions that failed. He has the links if you want to research it

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/...e-predictions/

    2001 IPCC TAR (AR3) predicts that milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms, see here.

    2014 Dr. John Holdren, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy for the Obama administration said: “a growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues.” See here.

    Reality check: By predicting both milder winters and colder winters the probability of getting it right increases. Now, to cover all possibilities they simply need to predict no change in winters.
    2000 Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, predicts that within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” See here.

    2001 IPCC TAR (AR3) predicts that milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms. See here.

    2004 Adam Watson, from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Banchory, Aberdeenshire, said the Scottish skiing industry had no more than 20 years left. See here.

    Reality check: 2014 had the snowiest Scottish mountains in 69 years. One ski resort’s problem was having some of the lifts buried in snow. See here.

    Reality check: Northern Hemisphere snow area shows remarkable little change since 1967. See here. The 2012-2013 winter was the fourth largest winter snow cover extent on record for the Northern Hemisphere. See here.
    2007 Prof. Wieslaw Maslowski from Dept. Oceanography of the US Navy predicted an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer 2013, and said the prediction was conservative. See here.

    2007 NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally predicted that the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer in 2012. See here.

    2008 University of Manitoba Prof. David Barber predicted an ice-free North Pole for the first time in history in 2008, see here.

    2010 Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC predicts the Arctic will be ice free in the summer by 2030, see here.

    2012 Prof. Peter Wadhams, head of the polar ocean physics group at the University of Cambridge (UK), predicted a collapse of the Arctic ice sheet by 2015-2016, see here.

    Reality check: No decrease in September Arctic sea ice extent has been observed since 2007, see here and here.
    1981 James Hansen, NASA scientist, predicted a global warming of “almost unprecedented magnitude” in the next century that might even be sufficient to melt and dislodge the ice cover of West Antarctica, eventually leading to a worldwide rise of 15 to 20 feet in the sea level. See here.

    Reality check: Since 1993 (24 years) we have totaled 72 mm (3 inches) of sea level rise instead of the 4 feet that corresponds to one-fourth of a century. The alarming prediction is more than 94% wrong, so far. See here.

    A NASA study, published in the Journal of Glaciology in 2015, claims that Antarctic ice mass is increasing. See here. Antarctic sea ice reached a record extent in 2014, see here.
    Due to the consistent problem with climate predictions, and models, not even really coming close to reality, I would say there is ample proof to be skeptical on any prediction like these.
    _____________________________

    The bit you quoted from the GISS is quite nice. It isn't like that in the real world.

    And it's not like those are the only measurement sites on the globe.
    A small misunderstanding. There is one database that GISS/HADCrut and related used. The GHCN database.

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-acces...y-network-ghcn

    That covers all of the databases you see. Then they add in things like ARGO buoys and the like. There is some slightly different processing. But there is just the one set.

    Then, they take the raw and adjust it.

    That results in the underlying GHCN 2.0 or up to 3.2 datasets. That dataset is then processed by GISS to cover the surface stations. You can look them up, including the raw data at the GISS website. I do it often, when people say "They don't change the dataset" and then I go and show them how they adjusted a good chunk of the older data downward. When you chart the two next to each other you often end up with some interesting results.



    You can do it though. In excel. Easy to do.

    But that IS the measurements for the globe. The US just has a far larger dataset, more than the rest of the world combined. The GHCN is rather piss poor. If President, I would pour money into a far better series of stations to draw from.



    You have GHCN, then the UAH/RSS satellite datasets, and weather balloons.

    That is it. Those are the 3 sets. Japan has a dataset, so does China and Russia - but the IPCC doesn't use those datasets.

    So when you look at the points of data, vs the data we get shown, well...

    What is collected:


    What is sent out:


    Turns out most of the Surface Stations just don't cover a large part of South America, Africa, or Australia.

    And those areas are showing warming when we don't have a weather collection point for hundreds, even thousands of miles.

    I want to do science, I want to do GOOD science, but the GHCN has some big holes, while trying to make rather large, important decisions with our future.

    The models have failed also. The predictions are poor. And the database needs a serious improvement.

    The satellite, as much as I like the dataset, still misses the northern/southern latitudes and they has an issue with the satellite dipping down and changing the feedback ratio. This was adjusted for, but it really is a single input - we should have 3 up there, so we can do 2 out of 3 smoothing. It at least agrees with the Weatherball database.

    I was surprised also at how poorly we document a large portion of our earth's temperature record. If you start tearing into it, it gets a bit disappointing.

    The adjustment to the UHI is like I said. They just took off a bit of warming. The second paragraph up there about how they "One of the improvements ? introduced in 1998 ? was the implementation of a method to address the problem of urban warming: The urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations."



    See that little blip at about 1978, when it goes down? That was the UHI adjustment and where they put it.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 11-13-2017 at 02:03 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  6. #186
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    174
    For shits and giggles, here's few papers you in all likelihood haven't browsed yet. As you might know Finland isn't densely populated country and I'm pretty sure you'd find that majority of the stations will meet at least your location criteria.

    http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut...a/reliable.pdf

    https://link.springer.com/article/10...477-014-0992-2


    Also I have to say that I have bit more trust in the folks at NASA getting the science right than I have on your studies.


    Few further observations. I did state that that chart of studies hadn't been likely updated since 2011.
    And did you read the actual explanation on how it was done?
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/Powell-project.html

  7. #187
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    OOOhhh some Finnish studies. Thanks! I have seen S. Mikkonen's work before, the Heikki Tuomenvirta I almost stopped because the forward wasn't english. I will read it more later when I have a chance.

    That being said, Hans Svensmark is from Denmark, and wrote "The Chilling Stars." Are you familiar with that work?

    Here is what I am looking at today, with a few more items, concerning TSI.:

    http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Fil...018%202014.pdf


    Also I have to say that I have bit more trust in the folks at NASA getting the science right than I have on your studies.
    I AM using NASA's dataset. You can to. I will post more later if I get some downtime. Here is a quicky, from Finland!

    [IMG]ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/6/61402836000.gif[/IMG]

    See where they adjusted it a bit? Right from noaa.gov - I will show you the datasets later.

    Add to that - here is iceland before and after adjustment, both datasets and related are on the giss.nasa.gov page, just like this:

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...0000&dt=1&ds=1



    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...000&dt=1&ds=14



    Notice the change? One was the 2012 version, one was the 2014 version. I will try and find the datasets for you later. Would be interesting to see the raw vs adjusted for Finland, to make it relative for you, and to better illustrate the results.



    That being said, Dr Roy Spencer and Dr John Christy were working for NASA.

    AND the study above hasn't been updated because he went on to work on Cook et al 2013 with that 'data' - and cocked it up good. It is the continuance of that work.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  8. #188
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Let's take a step back here, I just want to make a quick comment of relativity. This might help put things in perspective.

    Per the models, after the paper Mann signed, we are left with the potential of 1.1wm^2 of increased warming for a doubling of CO2 from the 1850's.

    That is from 275ppm, to 550ppm. Let's assume that is fine.

    At 400ppm, we are looking at 25% of that 1.1wm^2 - so, about .25wm^2. If the forcing was in play, that would be about .75wm^2, total input from 1850.

    Van Geel and Ziegler, 2013 (continued)

    • On centennial and longer time scales, differences between TSI estimates become increasingly larger. Wang et al. (2005) and Kopp and Lean (2011) estimate that between 1900 and 1960 TSI increased by about 0.5 Wm-2 and thereafter remained essentially stable, whilst Hoyt and Schatten (1997) combined with the ACRIM data and suggest that TSI increased between 1900 and 2000 by about 3 Wm-2 and was subject to major fluctuations in 1950-1980 (Scafetta, 2013; Scafetta, 2007).

    • Similarly, it is variably estimated that during the Maunder Solar Minimum (1645- 1715) of the Little Ice Age TSI may have been only 1.25 Wm-2 lower than at present Wang et al., 2005; Haig, 2003; Gray et al., 2010; Krivova et al., 2010) or by as much as 6 ± 3 Wm-2 lower than at present (Shapiro et al., 2010; Hoyt and Schatten, 1997), reflecting a TSI increase ranging between 0.09% and 0.5%, respectively.
    This fluctuates a bit here and there, SOON et al 2015 shows a very robust suggestion of up to 5wm^2 change (and the paper is open source, so http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

    That is 1357wm^2 to about 1365wm^2, or maybe less.

    Now, looking at the basic equation, what is there as a potential for a small change .5wm^2 or even 1.5wm^2 - so we can say the AGW element w/o forcing would be 33% of the total warming, or up to 60% of the warming if the forcing was part of it.

    On the high side for TSI variation, at 5 or 6 wm^2 then you are looking at only being about 5% to 15% for the AGW element with or without forcing.

    If we get to 550ppm, if we use the low TSI variable: then we are adding 1wm^2 to .5wm^2 output, a significant amount. If the forcing was in effect - that is a huge deal!

    Where as, if we are adding 1.1wm^2 to 5wm^2, then we still are dealing with nearly 20% of the effect being from human production. Which is still significant, but one is scary and the other is dealable.

    So I hardly think ignoring the CO2 output is stupid - we just have to see and study the TSI and related data far better so we can get a grasp on the true baselines.

    As much as people are saying I am anti-science, the truth is I think the science is still rather poor. The US Government has spent billions on Climate - But very little on actually advancing the science. The IPCC is focused on what could be the damage of AGW. The US Gov has spend a lot of solar panels, carbon capture, batteries, and various related project, to the tune of over $80B.

    But the dataset GHCN is fairly weak, the Surface Stations are fairly poorly sited, and we still have some big unknowns.

    First we need to figure out a lot of variables. A LOT. We need models that track reality. We need a comprehensive surface station database. We need at least a second satellite.

    I am very science on this. Lets science the shit out of this.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  9. #189
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Let's take a step back here, I just want to make a quick comment of relativity. This might help put things in perspective.

    Per the models, after the paper Mann signed, we are left with the potential of 1.1wm^2 of increased warming for a doubling of CO2 from the 1850's.

    That is from 275ppm, to 550ppm. Let's assume that is fine.

    At 400ppm, we are looking at 25% of that 1.1wm^2 - so, about .25wm^2. If the forcing was in play, that would be about .75wm^2, total input from 1850.



    This fluctuates a bit here and there, SOON et al 2015 shows a very robust suggestion of up to 5wm^2 change (and the paper is open source, so http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

    That is 1357wm^2 to about 1365wm^2, or maybe less.

    Now, looking at the basic equation, what is there as a potential for a small change .5wm^2 or even 1.5wm^2 - so we can say the AGW element w/o forcing would be 33% of the total warming, or up to 60% of the warming if the forcing was part of it.

    On the high side for TSI variation, at 5 or 6 wm^2 then you are looking at only being about 5% to 15% for the AGW element with or without forcing.

    If we get to 550ppm, if we use the low TSI variable: then we are adding 1wm^2 to .5wm^2 output, a significant amount. If the forcing was in effect - that is a huge deal!

    Where as, if we are adding 1.1wm^2 to 5wm^2, then we still are dealing with nearly 20% of the effect being from human production. Which is still significant, but one is scary and the other is dealable.

    So I hardly think ignoring the CO2 output is stupid - we just have to see and study the TSI and related data far better so we can get a grasp on the true baselines.

    As much as people are saying I am anti-science, the truth is I think the science is still rather poor. The US Government has spent billions on Climate - But very little on actually advancing the science. The IPCC is focused on what could be the damage of AGW. The US Gov has spend a lot of solar panels, carbon capture, batteries, and various related project, to the tune of over $80B.

    But the dataset GHCN is fairly weak, the Surface Stations are fairly poorly sited, and we still have some big unknowns.

    First we need to figure out a lot of variables. A LOT. We need models that track reality. We need a comprehensive surface station database. We need at least a second satellite.

    I am very science on this. Lets science the shit out of this.
    Quoting this for posterity, just in case you realize how wrong it is.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  10. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    Quoting this for posterity, just in case you realize how wrong it is.
    we are in stage 2 of republican policy prevention:

    stage 1: accept there is a problem and propose a conservative market based solution
    stage 2: when the left finally adopts and is OK with conservative solution, switch to denying that there was a problem in the first place
    stage 3: deny the problem for long enough, so that way it is now unfixable
    stage 4: use this as evidence that some other problem cannot possibly be solved either
    stage 5: rinse and repeat

    see also: healthcare policy, gun rights, sexual assault/harassment etc
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 11-14-2017 at 11:43 AM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •