Green Options › Forums › Climate Change › Myths › Monbiot puts up prize for best online denial rubbish
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Monbiot puts up prize for best online denial rubbish - Page 4

post #91 of 119
12/22/09 at 3:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlTekhasski View Post

 

It looks like the entire foundation of AGW theory is nonsense, sorry.


I gotta say, it takes serious balls to declare that an entire scientific theory is nonsense based on your simplistic amateur analysis.  Reminds me of James E on YA declaring that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas based on an experiment he did in his basement.

Personally if my assessment of a subject differs from that of the experts, I don't assume they're wrong, I try to figure out where I went wrong.

I recommend you check out Richard Alley's talk on the subject at the AGU conference.  Perhaps you'll learn something.
Reply
Reply
post #92 of 119
12/22/09 at 3:57pm
gcnp58 wrote, quote:
I get what you're saying, and I can see where if I were predisposed to emotionally reject the idea that humans are modifying climate I would be taken in by the nonsense you've posted
No you did not get what I am saying. The topic evolved into the assertion that ice ages are perfectly explained by orbital forcing, and I am an idiot and smart as a brick. I submitted known facts, not nonsense, that the orbital forcing hypothesis is full of holes, and GH forcing hypothesis cannot fit ends unless an unspecified strong forcing is in effect, as Dana expressed this clearly in his two scenarious. There is nothing emotional, especially if you twist my statements into your own predisposition. I never said that humans are not capable of modyfying climate, all I am saying that your theory of CO2-driven climate (with all alleged feedbacks) does not fit into observational evidence.You cannot connect the dots because you are completely predisposed, not me.

What really makes me emotional is arguing with sleaszy squirming dolts.
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 119
12/22/09 at 6:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dana1981 View Post

I gotta say, it takes serious balls to declare that an entire scientific theory is nonsense based on your simplistic amateur analysis.  Reminds me of James E on YA declaring that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas based on an experiment he did in his basement.

Personally if my assessment of a subject differs from that of the experts, I don't assume they're wrong, I try to figure out where I went wrong.

I recommend you check out Richard Alley's talk on the subject at the AGU conference.  Perhaps you'll learn something.
So, you admit that you have no balls nor sufficient scientific knowledge nor expertize to debunk my "simplistic amateur analysis". Thanks, just as I expected.

I just do not understand why is this blunt refusal to see the problem. Just look to your own best shot at the problem, to your two scenarios. You had to introduce unknown and strong forcings A and B to explain observational discrepancy. Yet you failed to name them.

And I did check the transcript of this talk - it is a typical superficial pile of sloppy "CO2 is control knob" arguments. And even saw the video.Thank you very much. I learn few additional things. One is that it gets pretty obvious that if such clowns are running entire climatology, then this science is in definite trouble.

Why don't you approach this overly enthusiastic clown and ask him to help you to reconcile the discrepancy? Preferably without him jumping out of his pants or wetting them? Also, didn't I already communicate to you that R.Pierrehumbert proved with modern models that no amount of CO2 could help to escape from "snowball Earth"?

"CO2 and T go with each other". Yes. Interpretations of this, however, may differ."We are still working on this"
"It is very reassuring that if sun changes it does seen in temperature records". "It just about that simple".
"There is a little more sensitivity from ice ages than in models"...
This guy is straight in the middle of our debate. Perhaps you need to listen to his talk again, and maybe you'll learn something.
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 119
12/22/09 at 8:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlTekhasski View Post

I just do not understand why is this blunt refusal to see the problem.

I don't understand why you have this problem either.  Maybe you should seek therapy.

Seriously, you just called a paleoclimate expert who's published over 170 peer-reviewed studies a "clown".  What the hell is wrong with you?  When I said you had balls, that was my nice way of saying you're an egotistical jerk.  You are the very definition of the Dunning-Kruger effect.  People like you irritate the crap out of me because you know so little but think you know everything.  You're incapable of learning anything because you think you know it all already.
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 119
12/22/09 at 9:24pm
Dana wrote, quote:
Seriously, you just called a paleoclimate expert who's published over 170 peer-reviewed studies a "clown".  What the hell is wrong with you?
Nothing is wrong with me, but everything seems to be wrong with this "expert". He said: "There is a little more sensitivity from ice ages than in models". The clown guy lies through his joker's mask: as I demonstrated here, the implied sensitivity from ice data is 3-4 times bigger than in worst models, and 8x bigger than from modern records. I guess "a little" must be a matter of personal opinion and intellectual honesty.

Dane concludes, quote:
People like you irritate the crap out of me because you know so little but think you know everything.  You're incapable of learning anything because you think you know it all already.
Since you miserably failed to put forth any substantiated argument against my observations other than faith-based hand waiving, it is obvious that you know even less than me, and therefore are in no position to judge the level and extent of my knowledge.

BTW, Dawei, the student, is doing much better job than you.
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 119
12/22/09 at 10:39pm
This is exactly why it's a mistake to argue with deniers.  You think that by denying you're wrong it makes you right, and you think by doing a 5 minute Google search it makes you more informed about climate science than climate scientists.  You think it's not that climate scientists know more than you - it's that they're intellectually dishonest.  You think that by declaring yourself smart it makes you smart.  Just like jim z's "I'm a geologist therefore I'm a climate science expert".  Seriously, you're like an amalgamation of all the worst deniers - James E, jim z, bravozulu, Eric c, etc. all wrapped up in one incredibly annoying package.

I knew it was a mistake to try and explain to you your obvious errors, but I went against my better judgment.  Serves me right.  "I'm a reasonable person" - hah!  Good one.  You got me.

Thanks for the reminder that arguing with deniers is actually less productive than arguing with a brick wall.  At least you don't expect the brick wall to be intelligent.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 119
12/22/09 at 10:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dana1981 View Post

Since this topic was originally about Monbiot, I thought it would be worth mentioning that he recently debated Ian Pilmer (denier geologist) and soundly trounced him.  You can see the transcript and video here.  Most of the "debate" involved Monbiot and the moderator confronting Pilmer about one of the many lies he's spouted, Pilmer dodging the question, Monbiot/moderator repeating the question, and Pilmer continuing to dodge it with a series of ad hominem attacks and nonsensical rambling.

The saddest part is that Pilmer even lost the debate on a geology question (CO2 emitted by volcanoes vs. humans).  To a journalist!  That's pretty pathetic.
Prof. Plimer did answer the question about volcanoes versus people - he said that he is using evidence of geological scale to estimate the total effective CO2 output from volcanoes, not how US geological survey does this, although he was truncated. And actually the question is, how do they do this, to "measure" tree-dimensional flux through a turbulent field, using few flights only? I am sure it is another joke of experimental climatology, if to look somewhat deeper.

The other question he was pressured was about the statement that global warming "stopped in 1998". Monbiot said that every data sets show that the last decade is the warmiest on record. It is true that Prof. Plimer did not answer that question correctly. The right answer is that idiot journalists do not understand a simple mathematical fact, that when a function has reached its local maximum and begins to decline (meaning "cooling"), the top few points are still above all other previous data. This is a simple property of functions, and the statement of Prof. Plimer does not contradict to the statement of AGW catastrophists. The whole thing was a pathetic setup, and Prof. Plimer should be better prepared for this kind of blatant interrogation, term twisting, rude interruptions, and cut-offs.
Edited by AlTekhasski - 12/23/09 at 5:15pm
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 119
12/22/09 at 11:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dana1981 View Post

This is exactly why it's a mistake to argue with deniers.  You think that by denying you're wrong it makes you right, and you think by doing a 5 minute Google search it makes you more informed about climate science than climate scientists.  You think it's not that climate scientists know more than you - it's that they're intellectually dishonest.  You think that by declaring yourself smart it makes you smart.  Just like jim z's "I'm a geologist therefore I'm a climate science expert".  Seriously, you're like an amalgamation of all the worst deniers - James E, jim z, bravozulu, Eric c, etc. all wrapped up in one incredibly annoying package.

I knew it was a mistake to try and explain to you your obvious errors, but I went against my better judgment.  Serves me right.  "I'm a reasonable person" - hah!  Good one.  You got me.

Thanks for the reminder that arguing with deniers is actually less productive than arguing with a brick wall.  At least you don't expect the brick wall to be intelligent.

One would think that asking questions is more smart than dodging them with general rhetoric as you do, "try explain to you your obvious errors" while being incapable even to identify what the alleged errors are. Why don't you do a 10-minute Google search if you are smarter than a brick wall, and answer my simple question: "What could the hypothetical forcings A and B in your exemplified scenario, and how do you know that they are not at play today"? Just like Monbiot repeatedly insisted in debate with Plimer, "answer the question, Master".

I am a reasonable person, and will accept a reasonable answer. Answer the question.

Reply
Reply
post #99 of 119
12/28/09 at 4:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlTekhasski View Post

gcnp58 wrote, quote:
No you did not get what I am saying. The topic evolved into the assertion that ice ages are perfectly explained by orbital forcing, and I am an idiot and smart as a brick. I submitted known facts, not nonsense, that the orbital forcing hypothesis is full of holes, and GH forcing hypothesis cannot fit ends unless an unspecified strong forcing is in effect, as Dana expressed this clearly in his two scenarious. There is nothing emotional, especially if you twist my statements into your own predisposition. I never said that humans are not capable of modyfying climate, all I am saying that your theory of CO2-driven climate (with all alleged feedbacks) does not fit into observational evidence.You cannot connect the dots because you are completely predisposed, not me.

What really makes me emotional is arguing with sleaszy squirming dolts.

 

You are basing your objections to the current theory of ice ages and CO2 on a simplistic plot that is somewhat misleading.  The real issue is the change in global mean temperature for a given change in surface forcing.  Plotting the change in CO2 versus temperature as you've done neglects changes in other forcing mechanisms.  If you cared, you would go through the literature and see how the calculation is really done, rather than rely on a simple, and simply misleading, graph.  Properly interpreted, the ice core data suggest a climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 of around 3 C.   

Although you aren't really saying what caused the beginning and end of past ice ages, all the alternative theories I've seen suggested (e.g., ocean circulation in the arctic) make use of the same fundamental surface forcings (i.e., changes in albedo, changes in CO2) as the idea that orbital precession is the key trigger.  If you have a better theory explaining the mechanisms for the onset and end of ice ages other than orbital precession, albedo, and changes in atmospheric CO2, you should present it.  But I haven't heard that from you, you've only given links to an article positing that the trigger is simply random oscillations in the climate system.  But even if this is correct, the mechanisms are albedo and CO2.  The point being that even if the triggers are random, there isn't enough forcing in the system to start or stop ice ages without the radiative forcing from albedo and CO2. 

What you seem to be arguing is that if a simple hypothesis of a complex system cannot be made to fit observations, then any attempt to add complexity to the hypothesis is misguided, and a separate hypothesis, regardless of how it fails to explain observations or lacks mechanistic details, must be more correct. 

Finally, if you believe humans are capable of modifying climate, why are you so certain that the increase in anthropogenic CO2 is not doing so?  
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 119
12/28/09 at 10:56pm
gcnp58 wrote, quote:

“You are basing your objections to the current theory of ice ages and CO2 on a simplistic plot that is somewhat misleading.  The real issue is the change in global mean temperature for a given change in surface forcing.  Plotting the change in CO2 versus temperature as you've done neglects changes in other forcing mechanisms.”  

 

Here we are again. The real issue is that you cannot name any "other forcing mechanisms" that could be possibly different today from 18,000 years ago. I asked Dana1981 to answer this simple question, [s]he cannot.


gcnp58, quote:

“If you cared, you would go through the literature and see how the calculation is really done, rather than rely on a simple, and simply misleading, graph.  Properly interpreted, the ice core data suggest a climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 of around 3 C.” 

 

Since you claim to know the answer, why don't you simmarize what the "proper interpretation" is instead of pointing me to inaccessible piece of literature? Upon some digging, I still see no calculations there but a pile of different opinions on how unphysical mechanism of radiative forcings might or might not operate. Also why do you think that the interpretation of Schmidt-Mann-Annan, or Rahmstorf/Ganopolski is more  proper than the original interpretations of Schwartz or Chylek-Lohmann? After all we know what is the right idea of interpretation of climate issues in the Schmidt-Mann-Annan-Rahmstorf team at RealCilmate.org, don’t we?

gcnp58, quote:

”Although you aren't really saying what caused the beginning and end of past ice ages, all the alternative theories I've seen suggested (e.g., ocean circulation in the arctic) make use of the same fundamental surface forcings (i.e., changes in albedo, changes in CO2) as the idea that orbital precession is the key trigger.” 


 

I am sorry, but didn’t we already dismissed possible differences in albedo changes, and CO2 changes?

 

gcnp58, quote:

“If you have a better theory explaining the mechanisms for the onset and end of ice ages other than orbital precession, albedo, and changes in atmospheric CO2, you should present it.  But I haven't heard that from you, you've only given links to an article positing that the trigger is simply random oscillations in the climate system.  But even if this is correct, the mechanisms are albedo and CO2.  The point being that even if the triggers are random, there isn't enough forcing in the system to start or stop ice ages without the radiative forcing from albedo and CO2.” 

 

Here we are again. I do not have any theory of ice ages. As I agued, CO2 change is CO2 change regardless when this change did occur, today or 18,000, 140,000, or 250,000 years back. The change is registered, and proper proportional response (with all associated feedbacks, including changes in ice covers) must be observed. Please note that I am not comparing absolute responces, I am comparing differential properties of responses that should not be that different, unless some other fundamental strong factor is present.

gcnp58, quote:

”What you seem to be arguing is that if a simple hypothesis of a complex system cannot be made to fit observations, then any attempt to add complexity to the hypothesis is misguided, and a separate hypothesis, regardless of how it fails to explain observations or lacks mechanistic details, must be more correct.” 


No, I am arguing that even the enhanced hypothesis of radiative forcing from GH gases, aerosols, and ice-albedo, all allegedly triggered by something small, cannot explain the difference between today’s behavior of climate and climate behavior during deglaciations. I am arguing that modern climatology still failed to explain natural ice ages, and therefore all speculations regarding “unnatural” climate change are completely unfounded. You keep repeating that "other factors are involved", and I am asking you to name what these factors are.

 

gcnp58, quote:

”Finally, if you believe humans are capable of modifying climate, why are you so certain that the increase in anthropogenic CO2 is not doing so? “

 

I am certain of nothing; it is your official climatology that is certain that climate is in crisis due to CO2. And I simply object to this ridiculous certainty.

Reply
Reply
post #101 of 119
12/29/09 at 10:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlTekhasski View Post

 

 

Here we are again. The real issue is that you cannot name any "other forcing mechanisms" that could be possibly different today from 18,000 years ago. I asked Dana1981 to answer this simple question, [s]he cannot.

 

 


gcnp58, quote:
 

 

Since you claim to know the answer, why don't you simmarize what the "proper interpretation" is instead of pointing me to inaccessible piece of literature? Upon some digging, I still see no calculations there but a pile of different opinions on how unphysical mechanism of radiative forcings might or might not operate. Also why do you think that the interpretation of Schmidt-Mann-Annan, or Rahmstorf/Ganopolski is more  proper than the original interpretations of Schwartz or Chylek-Lohmann? After all we know what is the right idea of interpretation of climate issues in the Schmidt-Mann-Annan-Rahmstorf team at RealCilmate.org, don’t we?
 

gcnp58, quote:

 

 

 

I am sorry, but didn’t we already dismissed possible differences in albedo changes, and CO2 changes?

 

 

 

gcnp58, quote:
 

 

Here we are again. I do not have any theory of ice ages. As I agued, CO2 change is CO2 change regardless when this change did occur, today or 18,000, 140,000, or 250,000 years back. The change is registered, and proper proportional response (with all associated feedbacks, including changes in ice covers) must be observed. Please note that I am not comparing absolute responces, I am comparing differential properties of responses that should not be that different, unless some other fundamental strong factor is present.

gcnp58, quote:

No, I am arguing that even the enhanced hypothesis of radiative forcing from GH gases, aerosols, and ice-albedo, all allegedly triggered by something small, cannot explain the difference between today’s behavior of climate and climate behavior during deglaciations. I am arguing that modern climatology still failed to explain natural ice ages, and therefore all speculations regarding “unnatural” climate change are completely unfounded. You keep repeating that "other factors are involved", and I am asking you to name what these factors are.

 

gcnp58, quote:
 

 

I am certain of nothing; it is your official climatology that is certain that climate is in crisis due to CO2. And I simply object to this ridiculous certainty.

 

 


You are missing the point that if you want to use the paleo record to infer climate sensitivity to increases in CO2, you have to first estimate the changes in the surface forcings.  This is the point of the article I cited, and even the skeptics Chylek and Lohmann use this method.  Estimating sensitivity cannot be done without estimating the forcings, and those forcings are planetary albedo (surface from ice and atmospheric from clouds and aerosols) and longwave forcing from CO2 (and methane and H2O vapor).  That the mix of those forcings is different in the paleo record than today is not shocking news since humans are driving only one part of that equation, the CO2 (and methane).  However, not even the skeptics argue that the fundamental forcings operating over the course of a glacial cycle are different than what are operating today.  At best, they jigger around the magnitude of those forcings (for instance decreasing the albedo effect of aerosols to decrease the climate sensitivity to an increase in the surface forcing (where this sensitivity is given in terms of temperature increase per increase in surface forcing, with surface forcing defined as *anything* that changes the net amount of energy deposited at the surface of the planet (i.e., it could be increases/decreases in the shortwave solar flux, increases in the downwelling longwave flux))), but as a rule they do not invoke radically different mechanisms.  Your plot says nothing about climate sensitivity. 

The idea is relatively simple and goes like this:

A.  From the ice core observations infer changes in global mean temperatures over a glacial cycle

B.  From ice core data and other sources, including model results, estimate the net changes in total surface forcing over the glacial cycle

C.  Combine A and B to calculate the climate sensitivity in terms of temperature change per change in total energy flux to the surface (so that the climate sensitivity will have a value like +0.7 K/W/m^2)

D.  Using radiative transfer theory, calculate the increase in longwave surface forcing due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, that number is something like 5 W/m^2.

E.  Multiply the result of D by the result of C and get a projected increase in mean surface temperature of around 3 K.

This isn't rocket science and the tricky part is B, where the paleo forcings must be estimated from proxy data and model runs.  But even the most hardened skeptics do not argue that albedo and longwave forcing are not critical in ice ages.  Nor do the skeptics argue that the drivers for the paleo climate are identical to what is going on today.  Modern climate is being forced primarily by increases in the radiatively active tracer gases, the paleo climate was forced (initially at least) by changes in planetary albedo with further amplification of those changes by CO2. 

If you cannot be bothered to dig this out from the scientific literature for yourself in the midst of a technical debate, that is your problem.  However, you are looking very scientifically illiterate at this point because you won't do the minimum background work to understand why your plot of temperature for CO2 is incorrect as an assessment of climate sensitivity, and why it says nothing about what will happen to global mean temperatures in the modern era if atmospheric CO2 concentrations are doubled over the pre-industrial levels.

The final point is that you are basing your belief that CO2 is irrelevant in the modern era on your misunderstanding that the paleo climate operated in a manner different than today.  What I am arguing is that there is no disconnect, that the same forcing mechanisms were in play then as today, and if you would take the time to go through the data objectively you would see that.  Then we could argue whether Chylek and Lohmann drastically underestimate the aerosol albedo effect over an ice age rather than this nonsense that the forcings from albedo and CO2 don't explain the gross features of ice ages. 

Dana, Dawei, and others here have been extremely patient with you.  It is time for you to do your homework.  I suggest starting with the Chylek and Lohmann paper (it's cited in the link I provided) since they are skeptics so you will like what they are saying and maybe understand the points that they are making.  That they are wrong will be beside the point as far as you are concerned.  But at least you will be arguing semi-coherently from a scientific standpoint.  As it is you're just getting angry because you don't like having multiple people tell you that you're wrong. 
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 119
1/9/10 at 9:31pm
I don't think I need to listen to your condenscending lecture about nothing. I know what the rocket science is, and climate is much more complex than that. Let's cut to the case:
Quote from gcnp58:
you are basing your belief that CO2 is irrelevant in the modern era on your misunderstanding that the paleo climate operated in a manner different than today.  ... Dana, Dawei, and others here have been extremely patient with you.
What? Are you paying any attention? It is Dana [and mainstream climatology] who asserted that paleoclimate operated under different conditions, that there are some additional forcings "A" and/or "B" during deglaciations. I simply asked to identify there forcings, but received no answer.

Quote:
What I am arguing is that there is no disconnect, that the same forcing mechanisms were in play then as today
Whoa! I am arguing exactly the same! Since we agree on this (except on your part about "no disconnect"), than it follows from vastly different {CO2<->T} relationships that CO2 does not define surface temperatures. Thanks.
I think I had enough of you guys.
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 119
1/10/10 at 6:03pm
No.  Look, it's all about *forcings*.  You are mis-equating CO2 levels as a direct proxy for all forcings.  Dana and everyone else here are not.  If you follow the method I outlined above, and even read the papers on how you reconstruct climate sensitivity from ice core records, you would be in better shape.  As it is, you are losing the debate soundly so I can well imagine you have had enough of us.  However, I hope you reflect on some of what was said here, perhaps only to figure out why we might be wrong, rather than just run away convinced nobody here knows anything.  That one way for how to learn you know, by finding errors in the work of others.  But you have to look, not just *assume* they are wrong.  If you were really smart and really objective about climate science like you claim, you would go through the outline above and demonstrate how it is not the correct approach to defining climate sensitivity.  I'm not holding out any hope of that though, you can only lead a horse to water. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlTekhasski View Post

I don't think I need to listen to your condenscending lecture about nothing. I know what the rocket science is, and climate is much more complex than that. Let's cut to the case:
Quote from gcnp58:
What? Are you paying any attention? It is Dana [and mainstream climatology] who asserted that paleoclimate operated under different conditions, that there are some additional forcings "A" and/or "B" during deglaciations. I simply asked to identify there forcings, but received no answer.

Quote:
Whoa! I am arguing exactly the same! Since we agree on this (except on your part about "no disconnect"), than it follows from vastly different {CO2<->T} relationships that CO2 does not define surface temperatures. Thanks.
I think I had enough of you guys.
 
Reply
Reply
post #104 of 119
1/10/10 at 10:33pm
You are being inconsistent. First, you said "the same forcing mechanisms were in play then as today". Therefore, during climate variances, all dependencies must be the same. This is the definition of "same". This includes the function T=f(CO2) if CO2 is one of forcings (which, BTW, is considered by modern climatology as "major" forcing). Now you are saying that the mix of forcings was different during deglaciations. So, which one is this? Different, or same?

And yes, I have studied some of papers on derivation of climate sensitivity from ice cores. Their opinion (in contrast with ours ), is that feedbacks were different, and CO2 conveniently contributed only to 2C rise in global temperatures, all based on bare speculations. I am arguing that 120 years of modern observation is enough to unfold basic feedbacks: polar ice cover changes seemingly in the same way, each season growing and shrinking with substantial amplitude, and permafrost also thaws and freezes up and down every season giving enough time to allegedly released GH gases to mix throughout the atmosphere and provide corresponding radiative forcing.
Reply
Reply
post #105 of 119
1/11/10 at 2:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlTekhasski View Post

You are being inconsistent. First, you said "the same forcing mechanisms were in play then as today". Therefore, during climate variances, all dependencies must be the same. This is the definition of "same". This includes the function T=f(CO2) if CO2 is one of forcings (which, BTW, is considered by modern climatology as "major" forcing). Now you are saying that the mix of forcings was different during deglaciations. So, which one is this? Different, or same?

And yes, I have studied some of papers on derivation of climate sensitivity from ice cores. Their opinion (in contrast with ours ), is that feedbacks were different, and CO2 conveniently contributed only to 2C rise in global temperatures, all based on bare speculations. I am arguing that 120 years of modern observation is enough to unfold basic feedbacks: polar ice cover changes seemingly in the same way, each season growing and shrinking with substantial amplitude, and permafrost also thaws and freezes up and down every season giving enough time to allegedly released GH gases to mix throughout the atmosphere and provide corresponding radiative forcing.

No, I'm being quite consistent.  That you don't understand the logic is not my fault.  Once more, perhaps more succintly, in order to derive climate sensitivities from ice core data, you have to first estimate all the change in total surface forcing from all the relevant processes (these forcing mechanisms will be the same in the sense of physical process, although different in terms of numerical value, and figuring out the numerical values is the hardest part in deducing climate sensitivities from the paleo record).  Then you figure out how much temperatures changed for that change in forcing.  From that you derive the sensitivity in terms of degrees per change in surface forcing.  To turn that into a sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 you have to calculate the change in forcing from CO2 for a doubling in concentration (taking into account that it isn't linear and a doubling from 200 to 400 ppmv provides a different increase in net forcing than a doubling from 150 to 300 ppmv) and only then can you determine what the change in temperature would be.  However, as those papers point out, this is an estimate because the relationship of the feedbacks in determining the sensitivities changes with mean temperature so that the water vapor feedback is different going from an ice age to interstadial than it will be going from interstadial to whatever will happen when humans double atmospheric CO2. 

You want this to be wrong because you can't accept humans are modifying climate.  But your wishes are not reality, and your emotion is clouding your logic.  Climate is complicated and if you are emotionally predisposed to think it is wrong you can talk yourself into all sorts of twisted logic, which we have all see here.  For example, you claim permafrost thaws and freezes each year.  That is silly.  It's *perma* frost as in permanently frozen, that's why it's called permafrost, it doesn't thaw/freeze seasonally. 

I can't help you from here, you will either learn this on your own or continue to spout nonsense like that guy who thinks he has uncovered a heretofore unobserved fluid mechanical boundary condition in a radiative transfer equation. 
Reply
Reply
post #106 of 119
1/11/10 at 10:16pm

Ok, I understand now, these forcings are the same, but they have different "numerical values". So, they are different. Then, I guess, my question now translates into which forcings have "numerical values" that are different today as compared to deglaciations. I assume you did (or closely followed) all your recipes that you kindly explained above, and know the answer. Could you please communicate your answer?

Regarding the permafrost, it is obvious that I meant vast areas of permafrost BOUNDARY that thawed and re-froze each season, just like it did for millions of years. Obviously, average position of this boundary moves in proper direction when global temperature changes. I don't see how it could be much different 15,000 years ago than today. Obviously, at the end of last glacial the permafrost area was larger, but it did not disappear completely at the end of degaciation. So, the boundary is still there, and its overall contribution to climate change must be about the same. Same arguments can be applied for dynamics of polar ice cover and associated changes in albedo.

Now, how it could be that "water vapor feedback" was different? Did Earth have five times different area of oceans in equatorial areas 15,000 years ago? If you mean the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, then today's mean is 288K, which places us in upper part of deglaciation temperature curve. Yet if you look at ice data (you can look at my post with pictures) in all these regions of T, the log(dT/dC) slope is the same as in the beginning of deglaciation, so the water vapor feedback differences are already accounted in the experimental data.

Summarizing, you assert that something must be different between deglaciations and current change of climate, but it is not ice cover, or permafrost, or water vapor. What is it, that causes the 5-fold discrepancy in dT/dC slope?

Do you happen to know what were the variations in average cloud cover during last 400,000 years, by any chance?

Reply
Reply
post #107 of 119
1/12/10 at 2:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlTekhasski View Post

Ok, I understand now, these forcings are the same, but they have different "numerical values". So, they are different. Then, I guess, my question now translates into which forcings have "numerical values" that are different today as compared to deglaciations. I assume you did (or closely followed) all your recipes that you kindly explained above, and know the answer. Could you please communicate your answer?

Regarding the permafrost, it is obvious that I meant vast areas of permafrost BOUNDARY that thawed and re-froze each season, just like it did for millions of years. Obviously, average position of this boundary moves in proper direction when global temperature changes. I don't see how it could be much different 15,000 years ago than today. Obviously, at the end of last glacial the permafrost area was larger, but it did not disappear completely at the end of degaciation. So, the boundary is still there, and its overall contribution to climate change must be about the same. Same arguments can be applied for dynamics of polar ice cover and associated changes in albedo.

Now, how it could be that "water vapor feedback" was different? Did Earth have five times different area of oceans in equatorial areas 15,000 years ago? If you mean the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, then today's mean is 288K, which places us in upper part of deglaciation temperature curve. Yet if you look at ice data (you can look at my post with pictures) in all these regions of T, the log(dT/dC) slope is the same as in the beginning of deglaciation, so the water vapor feedback differences are already accounted in the experimental data.

Summarizing, you assert that something must be different between deglaciations and current change of climate, but it is not ice cover, or permafrost, or water vapor. What is it, that causes the 5-fold discrepancy in dT/dC slope?

Do you happen to know what were the variations in average cloud cover during last 400,000 years, by any chance?





You have a sack of misconceptions that you have mistaken for ideas. 

1.  Permafrost area is only vaguely related to ice/snow albedo.  I'm not sure why you keep focusing on permafrost (a subsurface effect) when it's the surface albedo that is relevant.  Having a significant fraction of the N. American continent covered/uncovered by white ice might possibly affect global albedo, regardless of permafrost coverage. 

2.  It is obvious that the glacial epochs were drier and dustier than interstadials.  The specific humidity is lower when the air is colder.  Chapstick is worth it's weight in gold in the polar regions because the air is so dry.  Why you think this difference in net water content of the atmosphere wouldn't affect the water vapor feedback through clouds and aerosols is beyond me.

3.  Plotting dT/dC is an incorrect method for estimating climate sensitivity.  Only a skeptic would try something, get a number that was an order of magnitude too large (especially compared to numbers derived by other skeptics), and then assume that what they were doing was correct and that the whole theory was wrong.  

Anyway, everyone else has given up trying to explain these concepts to you.  I am going to as well.  I suggest you continue on as you have been doing, secure in the knowledge that plotting dT/dC gives you an estimate of climate sensitivity.  Do not let anyone persuade you it isn't correct.  There is nothing to be gained by trying to learn from your mistakes. 
Reply
Reply
post #108 of 119
1/12/10 at 9:26pm
If I may briefly re-enter the fray, to sum up:

While CO2 is the main driver of temperature change, it's not the only forcing (e.g. orbital, solar, volcanic) or feedback (e.g. water vapor, methane, albedo).  Nor are feedbacks triggered independent of temperature and time.

But that's the way you're treating it.  The only thing you're looking at is how global temperature changes in relation to atmospheric CO2 concentration.  Then when the current value is different from previous values, you conclude something must be wrong.  It is.  What's wrong is that you're ignoring all other forcings, feedbacks, timeframes, etc.

What really amazes me is that you make the gargantuan leap "something is wrong with these numbers therefore AGW isn't a threat".  You also seem to think you've disproven the AGW theory with a back-of-the envelope calculation.  Newsflash, if you were right and there were something so blatantly obviously wrong, it wouldn't be a theory.  It would have been disproven long ago.

There's also this field called paleoclimatology.  It's not new.  Paleoclimate data are among the factors which constrain climate sensitivity to close to 3°C for a doubling of CO2.  You're arguing the opposite - that based on your back-of-the-envelope grossly oversimplified calculations, paleoclimate data prove that climate sensitivity is something else entirely.  Bizarrely you argue it's a factor of 5 *greater* than current estimates, which frankly should make you extremely concerned if you believe your figures are right.

Bottom line is that a reasonable person taking these factors into account would come to the conclusion that he's done something wrong and go back and figure out what that is.  Dawei, gcnp, and I have explained several errors you've made.  But you're convinced that you're right and every single climate scientist (including the 'skeptics') are wrong.  You're of course free to continue believing that.  But the odds are that the guy who thinks he's the only sane one in the room is actually the crazy one.
Reply
Reply
post #109 of 119
1/12/10 at 11:17pm
gcnp58, you are not paying attention, yet are trying to "correct" me.

(1) Polar ice cover forms albedo, and permafrost melt allegedly produces methane and other alleged bad things. These are largely unrelated things, and no one said they are same, please don't pull a straw man. I keep mentioning permafrost because it is used as red herring for speculations about allegedly accelerated warming and climate tipping points. I believe I clearly argued that there is no reason to belive that permafrost dynamics is any different at 288K today from simiar periods in deglaciations when the temperature passed the 288K point.

(2) According to your climatology, average specific humidity at 288 K must be the same regardless of when the 288K happens. The 288K did happen during deglaciations. Why do you think that 288K is not equal 288K is beyond me.

(3) Plotting dT/dC would be incorrect characterization of climate change in two cases. One case is when there is something strongly different at 288K during deglaciations and 288K of today. The other case is when C does not affect T to any reasonably-measurable degree, which is somewhat independent from case one. Only a determined distributor of AGW misconceptions could not comprehend this.

I suggest you think a bit more about these arguments before giving up.
Reply
Reply
post #110 of 119
1/13/10 at 10:27pm
Dana wrote, quote:
But you're convinced that you're right and every single climate scientist (including the 'skeptics') are wrong.
No, I am not convinced of anything. It is you who sound to be very convinced. I am just asking simple questions, what is the factual basis of your position. Instead, you feed me with general speculations and loosely-specified recipes, without a single shred of concrete reason. I tried to put substance behind each of my arguments, while three of you are countering this with broad fallacies of arguing from authority, multiple straw dogs, thesis substitutions, and twisting my formulations. I have listed nearly all known forcings and feedbacks, and have shown that there is no reason to assume that all these elements were substantially different. I asked all of you to name these elements that you believe are few-fold different from today, but all of you failed to support your speculations with concrete data or reasons. Again, if "there were something so blatantly obviously wrong", you, as a scientist close to climatology, must be able to easily dismiss and disprove me with concrete clear examples. You were not able to, so far.

Here is an example of one of your latest straws, quote:
Bizarrely you argue it's a factor of 5 *greater* than current estimates, which frankly should make you extremely concerned if you believe your figures are right.
You used the term "estimates", while I was arguing using current EXPERIMENTAL data, as compared with similar EXPERIMENTAL data from ice cores. There is a big difference between speculative "current estimates" and observational data about measurable characteristics of real climate. Your way of denigrating current observational data to lousy theoretical estimates obviously weakens my argument, substantially.

And again, no, the 5x result does not concern me, because what I am arguing is that the body of observational evidence and reason points to a simple conclusion that reconciles all observations,  that CO2 does not affect climate to the degree currently attributed to it in mainstream climatology. But this is obviously hard to swallow for you, that's why you keep talking about imaginary dangers and climate catastrophe.
Reply
Reply
post #111 of 119
1/14/10 at 9:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlTekhasski View Post

You used the term "estimates", while I was arguing using current EXPERIMENTAL data, as compared with similar EXPERIMENTAL data from ice cores.
 

Use the data wrong and it doesn't matter what data you're using.  The fact that you're unable to learn what you're doing wrong when it's been explained to you repeatedly is your own problem.  The estimates of cliamte sensitivity I refer to aren't just pulled out of thin air.  They use data too, only unlike you, they use it correctly.
Reply
Reply
post #112 of 119
1/14/10 at 3:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlTekhasski View Post

gcnp58, you are not paying attention, yet are trying to "correct" me.


(3) Plotting dT/dC would be incorrect characterization of climate change in two cases. One case is when there is something strongly different at 288K during deglaciations and 288K of today. The other case is when C does not affect T to any reasonably-measurable degree, which is somewhat independent from case one. Only a determined distributor of AGW misconceptions could not comprehend this.
 

(1) and (2) are bizarre.  You seem to think the relative importance and magnitudes of the feedbacks and forcings going from a glacial to interstadial are the same as the relative importance and magnitudes of the feedbacks and forcings going from 280 ppmv to 560 ppmv of CO2 starting from an interstadial.  This is why it is next to impossible to discuss things with a climate skeptic.  The baseline arguments are so weird it's like having to explain why things fall when released from a great height to someone who doesn't believe gravity exists. 

Plotting dT/dC is a correct method for determining the sensitivity of global mean temperature to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration only under conditions when the radiative forcing from CO2 is the only process changing the surface forcing.  Even then the slope of dT/dC is only strictly correct as an estimate of the climate sensitivity for small changes in CO2 concentration, when the change in surface forcing from CO2 can be approximated as being linear with change in concentration. 

If I googled around, on which crack-pot skeptic websites would I find these ideas of yours?  You didn't come up with them yourself did you?  From your analysis of 3) above, it's pretty clear you don't understand functional relationships, implying your math background is weak to non-existent so I'm guessing you're just repeating stuff that you read elsewhere.  Where can I find your ideas so I can read them without the "telegraph" effect you've imparted to them?

 

Reply
Reply
post #113 of 119
1/14/10 at 8:17pm
gcnp58 wrote, quote:
You seem to think the relative importance and magnitudes of the feedbacks and forcings going from a glacial to interstadial are the same as the relative importance and magnitudes of the feedbacks and forcings going from 280 ppmv to 560 ppmv
You still are not adding any substance, only general musings. If you would pay any attention, you would notice that I have never mentioned differences between 280 and 560, I am focusing on conditions that revolve around 288K. As I already argued, both systems (today's and 15,000 years ago) have spent climatologically substantial time in a climate state that gradually crosses the vicinity of 288K. Both systems also have an overlap in CO2 concentrations in these states. I also have built several examples that support an idea that changes in other parameters of climate, polar ice albedo, swamp outgassing, etc, are similar as well. What I am arguing that nearly-equal conditions in vicinty of a common point must lead to identical topological properties of variations in observable parameters, unless something else is vastly different. As I already mentioned, you failed to outline which magnitudes of which forcings or feedbacks could be vastly different in these two systems.

Quote:
Plotting dT/dC is a correct method for determining the sensitivity of global mean temperature to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration only under conditions when the radiative forcing from CO2 is the only process changing the surface forcing
This statement of yours explicitly invokes an assumption that climate is fundamentally sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2. More, it is the main premise of current climatology (and AGW theory) that CO2 is a major driver of climate change. According to the main climatological construction, the "radiative forcing", all other feedbacks and forces are acting only via changes in surface temperaures. All these "other forces" are implicitly defined via T and hence are accounted for. Therefore, dT/dC must be a very valid characteristic of climate change, provided the above assumption is correct.

But you are right, if this assumption is not valid, the dT/dC makes no sense, it could be anything, and it shows when comparing modern instrumental records with records from ice cores.

Quote:
.. implying your math background is weak to non-existent so I'm guessing you're just repeating stuff that you read elsewhere.
LOL! I am trying to talk at your level, gcnp58, and frankly I find it to be quite difficult. Regarding the line of reasoning expressed here, I think I outlined it sufficiently clear, at least within typical climatological accuracy and mumbling.
Reply
Reply
post #114 of 119
1/15/10 at 10:09am
@AlTekhasski - İ took a poll in the neighborhood.

İ found that you have already convinced three of the denial group and 4 first graders!  
Reply
Reply
post #115 of 119
1/15/10 at 5:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlTekhasski View Post

gcnp58 wrote, quote:
You still are not adding any substance, only general musings. If you would pay any attention, you would notice that I have never mentioned differences between 280 and 560, I am focusing on conditions that revolve around 288K. As I already argued, both systems (today's and 15,000 years ago) have spent climatologically substantial time in a climate state that gradually crosses the vicinity of 288K. Both systems also have an overlap in CO2 concentrations in these states. I also have built several examples that support an idea that changes in other parameters of climate, polar ice albedo, swamp outgassing, etc, are similar as well. What I am arguing that nearly-equal conditions in vicinty of a common point must lead to identical topological properties of variations in observable parameters, unless something else is vastly different. As I already mentioned, you failed to outline which magnitudes of which forcings or feedbacks could be vastly different in these two systems.

Quote:
This statement of yours explicitly invokes an assumption that climate is fundamentally sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2. More, it is the main premise of current climatology (and AGW theory) that CO2 is a major driver of climate change. According to the main climatological construction, the "radiative forcing", all other feedbacks and forces are acting only via changes in surface temperaures. All these "other forces" are implicitly defined via T and hence are accounted for. Therefore, dT/dC must be a very valid characteristic of climate change, provided the above assumption is correct.

But you are right, if this assumption is not valid, the dT/dC makes no sense, it could be anything, and it shows when comparing modern instrumental records with records from ice cores.

Quote:
LOL! I am trying to talk at your level, gcnp58, and frankly I find it to be quite difficult. Regarding the line of reasoning expressed here, I think I outlined it sufficiently clear, at least within typical climatological accuracy and


Someone pointed out to me you have had a very similar argument on realclimate.org, with similar arguments presented to you, with similar rejections on your part.  You were even pointed to an article describing how to estimate climate sensitivity.  You either ignored that link, read the article and didn't understand it, or read the article and thought it was wrong.  Either way, I think it's pretty clear nothing anyone here says will influence you in any way. 

Michael Tobin in his final comment to you here sums it up pretty succinctly:

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/wiredscience/blogs/2007/10/climate-chaos-and-confusion.html

It's clear you *need* the whole theory of climate to be wrong.  Maybe it is, but claiming a plot of dT/dC has any relevance to your argument isn't doing you any favors. 
Reply
Reply
post #116 of 119
1/15/10 at 9:49pm
gcnp wrote:
Michael Tobin in his final comment to you here sums it up pretty succinctly:
I don't know which argument on RC you are talking about. But the fact of you posting link to this exchange and asserting that it was a "succinct argument" tells me that you have no clue about both topics. In fact, the last post of Michael Tobis was a refusal to continue conversation, "I do not offer you a place to waste my readers' time nor my own.". In fact, he confuses asymptotical properties (aka "averaged" over INFINITE time) of some bounded chaotic motion, with finite-length filtering, which is an ordinary function. By refusal to continue the exchange in public, he implicity conceded the point. But you do not understand this, apparently due to your excessive mathematical background.

One again, you failed to present any arguments, essential and not, that known climate factors of modern time are different from corresponding periods during deglaciations. Banalities do not count.

(and yes, I am familiar with Lorius-Hansen's "analysis" (1990) of ice-core records.) - as I already informed you earlier.
Edited by AlTekhasski - 1/15/10 at 10:33pm
Reply
Reply
post #117 of 119
1/22/10 at 12:39pm
Thread Starter 
anyway....



and the winner is.....

John Tomlinson, the Michigan Mauler!

bliddy typical, you americans always have to do everything bigger and better dont you. huh. our denyers didnt stand a chance, even the famously bonkers lord monkton.
Reply
Reply
post #118 of 119
1/22/10 at 1:55pm
Yeah, that Tomlinson idiocy really set the bar high!  American deniers put the rest of the world to shame.

I'm so...proud?
Reply
Reply
post #119 of 119
9/4/12 at 6:52am

Apparently, we're headed into an ice age of about 100,000 years -- give or take.

 

Love that bit. Wonder if it'll be like the Ice Age films? They make it all seem kind of fun...

 

To be fair to him, I have noticed the temperatures, at least where I live, have been getting cooler over the past few years. Only exception is the short, random heatwaves which are always abnormally hot!

Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Myths
Green Options › Forums › Climate Change › Myths › Monbiot puts up prize for best online denial rubbish