So proclaims the sites most prolific know it all.....
Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
There are several jokes available there, and I'll give you one clue. Why did you post a reference to Dr. John Christy in a discussion of climate denial?
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
In an article titled, "Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil" from the environmental activist website The Carbon Brief, former Greenpeace "researcher" Christian Hunt failed to do basic research. He made no attempt to contact the scientists he unjustly attacked and instead used biased and corrupt websites like DeSmogBlog to smear them as "linked to" [funded by] ExxonMobil.
To get to the truth, I emailed the scientists mentioned in the article the following questions;
1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?
2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?
3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?
4. Please include any additional comment on the article,
Their responses follow,
John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics Summa Cum Laude, California State University (1973); M.S. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1984); Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1987); Science Master, Baptist High School, Nyeri, Kenya (1973-1975); Departmental Fellow, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (1983); Senior Research Associate and Instructor, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1987-1989); Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1989-1991); Alabama Assistant State Climatologist (1989-1991); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); NASA Technical Innovation Award, Marshall Space Flight Center; Assistant Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-1995); Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1995-1999); Expert Contributor, Climate Observations, National Academy of Sciences (1995); American Meteorological Society Special Award (1996); Expert Contributor, Satellite Observations for Climate National Research Council (1997); Member, Committee on Earth Studies, Space Studies Board (1998-2001); Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1999-Present); Director, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present); Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present); Fellow, American Meteorological Society (2002); Expert Contributor, Statement on Climate Change, American Geophysical Union (2003); Distinguished Alumnus, Science and Mathematics, California State University, Fresno (2007); Distinguished Professor, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2008); Member, American Geophysical Union (AGU); Contributor, IPCC (1992, 1994, 1995, 2007); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2013); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)
1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?
Christy: "No.
2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?
Christy: "I don't believe so."
3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?
Christy: "No."
4. Please include any additional comment on the article,
Christy: "The connection between industrial interests and me is given by describing me as a "Marshall Institute expert". I spoke at a luncheon sponsored by the Marshall Institute, free of charge, to about 30 people. My remarks were incorporated into a booklet. That is the extent of my connection - hardly evidence to accuse one of being an industry spokesman."
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
"
Yes I read all that, but it doesn't answer the question. Why did you select Dr. John Christy?
Attached is from here. Freebie
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50239/full
CMIP3 and CMIP5 go head to head on projections +/- anthropogenic forcing. Without it we'd be continuing to slide down a cooling trend towards the end of the current interglacial period. Here's the relevant figure. Cut out the legend but its pretty obvious.
View attachment 172[/QUOTE]
How do you figure?
Look at the last 400,000 years on the graph I referenced.
We are obviously on an upswing.
The symmetry is remarkable.
Look at the absolutely remarkable consistency of the graph.Near the end of your suggested article --
This following image shows the last 800,000 years of temperature and forcing levels. Essentially, we have largely departed the climate forcing from the natural cycle.
Its like an EKG of the earth's climactic heart beat.
Can you follow the bouncing ball?
Attached is from here. Freebie
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50239/full
CMIP3 and CMIP5 go head to head on projections +/- anthropogenic forcing. Without it we'd be continuing to slide down a cooling trend towards the end of the current interglacial period. Here's the relevant figure. Cut out the legend but its pretty obvious.
View attachment 172[/QUOTE]
I see mostly man made presumptions here.
The climate history is clear.
I didn't write the article espola. You are aware of that, right?
It was not my call who to select.
I came across the article and posted it.
Geezzusss...
You started with "Hmmmm.......Deniers or skeptics?" followed by the link to the article.
What in that article about Dr. Christy was germane to your question?
They dont like "deniers".
In an article titled, "Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil" from the environmental activist website The Carbon Brief, former Greenpeace "researcher" Christian Hunt failed to do basic research. He made no attempt to contact the scientists he unjustly attacked and instead used biased and corrupt websites like DeSmogBlog to smear them as "linked to" [funded by] ExxonMobil.
To get to the truth, I emailed the scientists mentioned in the article the following questions;
Or skepticism.
"I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. 2007 Wall Street Journal - Dr. Christy
Are you proposing that Christie is seen as a denier and/or skeptic?
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
Here is what I see on the graph.
Left side of x-axis 0 mark. Two bouncing balls, one red (ice core proxy for temperature, effectively solar radiance), one green (greenhouse gases). They bounce in phase, although if there was sufficient temporal resolution the green ball would be a few thousand years behind the red one. The balls reach their apex at ~100,000 year intervals when an orbital eccentricity cycle is complete and the Earth is receiving maximum solar radiation. As the Earth swings away to start a new cycle, insolation decreases and the Earth cools. I had wondered in previous post why the red and green balls bounced in phase. I should have remembered that the solubility of a gas in aqueous solution is inversely related to temperature. So as the Earth cools more GHG equilibrates into the oceans. As it warms, it comes back out. Duh, but an elegant feedback cycle. The little red lines show a period corresponding to ~10,000 years, which is about the duration of the inter-glacial maximum before the next cooling cycle starts. So, at the 0 point on the x-axis we should be poised to start the next cooling trend.
Right side of the x-axis 0 mark. The scale is expanded by 200-fold. That was what prompted me to make my previous set of graphs where the x-axis was the same for long scale and recent data. Now the red ball is, in effect, represented by the black line-net forcings. Up until 1850, indicated by the arrow, the black line is going down, as predicted if we are coming down from an interglacial maximum about 10,000 years ago. But now the greenhouse gas ball is uncoupled, and is not dropping with decreasing solar insolation. Instead, it keeps going up. And as it does it's relative contribution to the summation of net forcings increases and net forcings starts to go up as well. The temperature obeys the forcings like it should, showing a ballparkish 1°C increase in global temp anomoly by 2000, which sounds about right. So the major difference between the left and right sides of the graph is an uncoupling of the systolic and diastolic phases of the heartbeat that you mentioned. It had been pumping rhythmically for hundreds of thousands of years according to the ice core proxy but does not, according to this graph, appear to be doing so at the present time.
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
While we're having fun with graphs, here's the one that I think came up previously and drives the climate blah-blah-blah-go sphere crazy. The one from the first IPCC report showing the nice baby bump for the Medieval warming period followed by the little ice age. It's a crappy graph. No y-axis label. Obviously a sketch, with the line not connecting real data points. Nonetheless, in subsequent hockey stick graphs, that baby bump was gone. Where did it go? Lots of fuss about it.
A related question is where did the bump come from in the first place? They guy responsible for the bump was named Hubert Lamb. He was an interesting person. In the golden age of academia, he was self-trained and not, initially, a university man. As an English Quaker, he was a conscientious objector to combat in WWII. He was therefore repurposed for military weather reports and that's how he got started in climatology. He became a major figure, contributing to the modern birth of this discipline. In a classic paper from the mid 1960's (when I was still but a gleam in my Daddy's eye) he synthesized a number of observations, mainly relating to rainfall records, that suggest the years ~11,000-13,000 had been notably warmer in England than currently. It was one of the first uses of a temperature proxy. In that paper, his graph for the winter months looked like this. There, for the first time, is the now iconic baby bump.
You'll also see that I've highlighted the mark on the legend that shows the baby bump line is "analyst's opinion (see text). In the text Lamb lays out his reasoning quite nicely. In the Middle Ages, one sort of record that was maintained was vinyard locations and yields. By studying these, along with his botanical knowledge, he deduced that the temperature during the winter must have been somewhat warmer than his proxy data suggested for the vines to perform well. And so he drew a nice bump.
A related question is where did the bump come from in the first place? They guy responsible for the bump was named Hubert Lamb. He was an interesting person. In the golden age of academia, he was self-trained and not, initially, a university man. As an English Quaker, he was a conscientious objector to combat in WWII. He was therefore repurposed for military weather reports and that's how he got started in climatology. He became a major figure, contributing to the modern birth of this discipline. In a classic paper from the mid 1960's (when I was still but a gleam in my Daddy's eye) he synthesized a number of observations, mainly relating to rainfall records, that suggest the years ~11,000-13,000 had been notably warmer in England than currently. It was one of the first uses of a temperature proxy. In that paper, his graph for the winter months looked like this. There, for the first time, is the now iconic baby bump.
You'll also see that I've highlighted the mark on the legend that shows the baby bump line is "analyst's opinion (see text). In the text Lamb lays out his reasoning quite nicely. In the Middle Ages, one sort of record that was maintained was vinyard locations and yields. By studying these, along with his botanical knowledge, he deduced that the temperature during the winter must have been somewhat warmer than his proxy data suggested for the vines to perform well. And so he drew a nice bump.
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
But where did the bump go? A recent paper (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html) shows it really depends on where you look for it. These authors used multiple proxies at multiple locations on different continents to assembled a composite data set that Lamb would have loved. I downloaded the data from the supplementary info of the paper and made some quick graphs. From Google to Excel to graph takes about 5-10 minutes. Crazy. Here is the graph of globally average proxies. Globally, looks like a general cooling trend. Little bit of an inflection but no real baby bump.
Here's the same global average superimposed with the global temp anomoly data from 1880-present.
Here's the same global average superimposed with the global temp anomoly data from 1880-present.
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
If you look at the regional datasets can you get a nice baby bump? Yes, the data for the Arctic shows a bump of about the same magnitude (about 1°C) that Lamb envisioned. But to be fair, to combine this with an observational data set from 1880 on you need to use the equivalent regional readings. That's no problem, since you can download zonal anomolies from Goddard just as easily, and I downloaded 65°N to 90°N. I knew the Arctic had been warming more rapidly than the global average, but the extent of the increase in the anomology still caught me by surprise. 1880 is set as 0, so that's about a 3°C increase in less than 150 years. Compare that to the y-axis temperature oscillation that plays out over 100,000 years in the very first graph between Milankovitch interglacial periods.
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
I see mostly man made presumptions here.
The climate history is clear.[/QUOTE]
I see. Well, I'm glad I looked it up anyway. I guess the way I see it a presumption and a hypothesis are not that dissimilar. A hypothesis is a presumption tested by experiment.
How do you figure?
.[/QUOTE]
Your presumption that the zero point is where "we should be poised to start the next cooling trend" is not based on the historical record.
My contention is that we are near the top of a warming trend, relatively speaking, that started roughly 20,000 years ago.