Climate and Weather

Bernie Sanders said:
They dont like "deniers".
Click to expand...
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
 
Lion Eyes said:
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;
Click to expand...

Are you proposing that Christie is seen as a denier and/or skeptic?
 
Bernie Sanders said:
Can you follow the bouncing ball?
Click to expand...

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.

interglacial.jpg
 
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.

ipcc_1990_panel3.jpg

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.

Screen Shot 2016-09-24 at 10.01.34 PM.png

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.
 
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.

Global.jpgglobal, present.jpg

Here's the same global average superimposed with the global temp anomoly data from 1880-present.
 
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.

arctic.jpg arctic, present.jpg
 
Bernie Sanders said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
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.


View attachment 181
Click to expand...
How do you figure?
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
I see mostly man made presumptions here.
The climate history is clear.
Click to expand...

.[/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.
 
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/images/epica_temperature.png&imgrefurl=http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php&docid=faAOHVtZOJ0ReM&tbnid=nnQWEfwJgYv05M:&w=720&h=242&bih=856&biw=1242&ved=0ahUKEwiszKe3l63PAhVp7YMKHUJkBNwQMwgkKAYwBg&iact=mrc&uact=8
Epica ice cores (antarctica) above
Vostoc below


http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Global-temps.png

These two historical references arent clouded with any theoretical opinions about man made forcings.

Just pretty pictures to look at.

Oh, by the way, the "you are here" location is at the far right hand side of the graph.
 
Bernie Sanders said:
Oh, by the way, the "you are here" location is at the far right hand side of the graph.
Click to expand...
.

Not quite. From the first google search graph you linked, click the source page. You go here.
A) http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
From the legend for the figure, click the reference for the data, Jouzel et al., 2007. You go here
B) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/jouzel2007/jouzel2007.html
You can click on the figure and see what the ice core data-your historical litmus test-looks like at progressive higher temporal resolution. If you don't like that blow up of the data, try this one with a quasi-semi-log x-axis
C) http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SsVwqCgB-LI/AAAAAAAABKo/U92CnYMmeSU/s1600-h/Vostok-400Kd.jpg
Don't like that, here's a better thing. If you scroll down on site B, you'll see a clickable link that says "Excel". Click on it and download the data for yourself. Then you won't have to strain your eyes to the point of looking like espoola trying to assess current trends from blips at the top of the latest interglacial maximum on an 800K timeframe. If you bother to do this, you'll see that the earliest data point utilized to make their graph is from 1911 (38.37 yrs prior to 1950 in their tabulation). So, if "you are there" at time 0 on the graph you've been joyriding in the DeLorean again. I plotted out 500-1880. Here's your warming trend based on Vostok ice core data spanning the last 1500 years or so. Data from your graph.

Vostok-Bernie's warming trend.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wez
Wez said:
God damn Evil, you're a machine with this shit...!!
Click to expand...

Kind of you to say I suppose but its all easy to do. The "baby bump" took a bit of digging but I got curious about it and thought in the end it was an interesting story. Actually, last week i've been procrastinating from rolling my sleeves up on something. So that's why. But you guys have at it for awhile and I'm going to get to it.
 
I don't pretend I'm a scientist because I'm not one, but if you aren't one, you are doing a damn good job appearing like one...
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
.

Not quite. From the first google search graph you linked, click the source page. You go here.
A) http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
From the legend for the figure, click the reference for the data, Jouzel et al., 2007. You go here
B) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/jouzel2007/jouzel2007.html
You can click on the figure and see what the ice core data-your historical litmus test-looks like at progressive higher temporal resolution. If you don't like that blow up of the data, try this one with a quasi-semi-log x-axis
C) http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SsVwqCgB-LI/AAAAAAAABKo/U92CnYMmeSU/s1600-h/Vostok-400Kd.jpg
Don't like that, here's a better thing. If you scroll down on site B, you'll see a clickable link that says "Excel". Click on it and download the data for yourself. Then you won't have to strain your eyes to the point of looking like espoola trying to assess current trends from blips at the top of the latest interglacial maximum on an 800K timeframe. If you bother to do this, you'll see that the earliest data point utilized to make their graph is from 1911 (38.37 yrs prior to 1950 in their tabulation). So, if "you are there" at time 0 on the graph you've been joyriding in the DeLorean again. I plotted out 500-1880. Here's your warming trend based on Vostok ice core data spanning the last 1500 years or so. Data from your graph.

View attachment 190
Click to expand...
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
.

Not quite. From the first google search graph you linked, click the source page. You go here.
A) http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
From the legend for the figure, click the reference for the data, Jouzel et al., 2007. You go here
B) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/jouzel2007/jouzel2007.html
You can click on the figure and see what the ice core data-your historical litmus test-looks like at progressive higher temporal resolution. If you don't like that blow up of the data, try this one with a quasi-semi-log x-axis
C) http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SsVwqCgB-LI/AAAAAAAABKo/U92CnYMmeSU/s1600-h/Vostok-400Kd.jpg
Don't like that, here's a better thing. If you scroll down on site B, you'll see a clickable link that says "Excel". Click on it and download the data for yourself. Then you won't have to strain your eyes to the point of looking like espoola trying to assess current trends from blips at the top of the latest interglacial maximum on an 800K timeframe. If you bother to do this, you'll see that the earliest data point utilized to make their graph is from 1911 (38.37 yrs prior to 1950 in their tabulation). So, if "you are there" at time 0 on the graph you've been joyriding in the DeLorean again. I plotted out 500-1880. Here's your warming trend based on Vostok ice core data spanning the last 1500 years or so. Data from your graph.

View attachment 190
Click to expand...
Bottom line, warming, like I said.
I dont see how you changed anything.
We are at the top, or near the top of a natural warming cycle that started roughly 20,000 year ago.
Is there any argument here?
 
Bernie Sanders said:
Bottom line, warming, like I said.
I dont see how you changed anything.
We are at the top, or near the top of a natural warming cycle that started roughly 20,000 year ago.
Is there any argument here?
Click to expand...

Are you holding your data up to critical review, or trying desperately to find data that debunks AGW? Is AGW a possibility?
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
.

Not quite. From the first google search graph you linked, click the source page. You go here.
A) http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
From the legend for the figure, click the reference for the data, Jouzel et al., 2007. You go here
B) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/jouzel2007/jouzel2007.html
You can click on the figure and see what the ice core data-your historical litmus test-looks like at progressive higher temporal resolution. If you don't like that blow up of the data, try this one with a quasi-semi-log x-axis
C) http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SsVwqCgB-LI/AAAAAAAABKo/U92CnYMmeSU/s1600-h/Vostok-400Kd.jpg
Don't like that, here's a better thing. If you scroll down on site B, you'll see a clickable link that says "Excel". Click on it and download the data for yourself. Then you won't have to strain your eyes to the point of looking like espoola trying to assess current trends from blips at the top of the latest interglacial maximum on an 800K timeframe. If you bother to do this, you'll see that the earliest data point utilized to make their graph is from 1911 (38.37 yrs prior to 1950 in their tabulation). So, if "you are there" at time 0 on the graph you've been joyriding in the DeLorean again. I plotted out 500-1880. Here's your warming trend based on Vostok ice core data spanning the last 1500 years or so. Data from your graph.

View attachment 190
Click to expand...

Here's the sticking point. (see the red text)
Context.
Its like a novel, only much, much, longer.
Climate context deals in freaking massive time blocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top