At 2014-02-23 15:42:50, aaron wrote:
Dr. Shaviv, http://www.colorado.edu/news/r...
This suggests to me that past calculations of aerosol levels are probably a lot less certain than considered.
Also, I find the timing curious. There is fairly strong solar correlation with large volcanoes on large timescales (hundreds of years, `95 percent, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full..., but what if low level activity, which I doubt gets detected in historical records, changes. Perhaps cloud ionization isn't the only mechanism that cools the planet. I would expect that ionization affects processes in volcanoes significantly as well as the atmosphere.
At 2014-02-21 12:20:40, manicbeancounter wrote:
On this subject, I had an exchange at "TheConversation" with Roger Jones of Victoria University, NSW a few months ago (My name is Kevin Marshall). The article was
I questioned why there could be increased confidence in the results when estimates had changed, and error bars increased.
Roger Jones said
QUOTE "This is due to more processes being incorporated into atmospheric chemistry models. By and large, such changes increase the total uncertainty because of added parameters which are not known with full certainty. This has been going on with a number of variables and includes estimates of mean global temperature in models with a full carbon cycle.
Because a greater number of processes are quantified in the models, the confidence in the outputs increases. If errors are independent, the likely spread of the errors of total forcing will not increase by a huge amount because they likelihood of having all the error bounds being very low or very high are small. So the spread can change a lot and the central tendencies not by much." ENDQUOTE
I do not understand this explanation. As an accountant, when I have put out figures with great confidence, and then found them to be inaccurate, I will learn from it. But my confidence will be somewhat shaken.
The reason for doing such a stupid thing as adding error bars for different elements is from my experience of checking for figures that have been "massaged" or "manipulated". In AR4, the net forcings were pretty much equal to the forcings from CO2. This gives a reason to simplify the language. Add the positive forcings and the error bar range is 40% of the total. Add the negative forcings and the error bar range is 200% of the total. Given the literal guesswork on some of the elements - especially aerosols - this result smacks of thinking of a result and making adjustments to achieve it. If the result is "chosen" from a large range of equally valid alternatives, the "confidence" is really "bravdo". True confidence can only arise with time, through the results not being contradicted.
At 2014-02-21 05:51:18, nirshaviv wrote:
Jacob, interesting anecdote. I actually cannot agree more with Pachauri on this!
At 2014-02-21 05:50:27, nirshaviv wrote:
I wonder how they excused it, and more so, what was the reason or need for them to do so.
At 2014-02-20 23:28:43, manicbeancounter wrote:
I am a bit late here, but would like to pick up the comment you make
"....the likely equilibrium sensitivity is now known less accurately. But they write: “This assessment reflectsimproved understanding”. How ridiculous can you be?"
The same can be said on the radiative forcing components. Only it is worse. Error bars have doubled for CO2, Methane and Nitrous Oxide between the reports. Halocarbons is much greater.
I am not sure which is the worst example, methane or halocarbons
Methane In 2007 the figure is 0.48 [.43 to .53]. In 2013 the figure is 0.97 [.74 to 1.20]
Halocarbons. In 2007 the figure is 0.34 [.31 to .37]. In 2013 the figure is 0.18 [.01 to .35]
I think methane is the worst, as there is no overlap in the error bars between the two reports.
At 2013-11-19 23:26:29, Jacob_UK wrote:
Nir, I've got exactly the same impression about AR5 being a rehash of AR4. But on the other hand, the climate itself seems to conspire against the IPCC. The present modest warming is a rehash of the Mediaeval Warming Period.
My favorite quote would be Rajendra Pachauri attempting to go philosophical in the wake of Climategate:
"If the IPCC hadn't existed no one would've cared about the climate."
At 2013-10-22 19:42:07, Rik wrote:
I am still not convinced that there exists an ECS, as a linear function with forcing as a variable. I would expect such a complex system to be full of non-linear feedback rendering the over all response non-linear (cloud building and thunderstorms are two obvious ones). For really small forcings linearity might be assumed but I don't think 4 Watts per metre squared is small enough.
That could be another reason why they don't find an ECS...
At 2013-10-10 19:10:44, Dan_Alter wrote:
A scientist finds it hard to admit when their predictions are wrong?????? Science tries to explain in terms of cause and effect what we can't yet do so. This unknown area is extremely large. Purpose defines method.
The job of a scientist is simple, try to make perfect predictions where we ain't doing so yet. You don't start with perfect predictions, you go through all the wrong ones first. So predicting and then NOT admitting when you are wrong asap means only one thing. YOU ARE NOT DOING SCIENCE. Unfortunately, getting a Phd seems to mean not ever admitting you are wrong again. The only possible explanation is systemic corruption in our so called scientific educational systems led by those who seem to think that consensus is science.
No its not, consensus determined by those in authority who control the scientific jobs and money only encourages self serving ass licking by students so they can get ahead. In short, present students are taught to ignore logical and observational discrepancies in their "teachers" theories, or not get a grant or academic position. This has to stop. Go to no1stcostlist.com for how.
As to the AGW theory. The Beer-Lambert Law puts an absolute upper limit on how much infrared CO2 in our atmosphere can absorb. Certainly the limit is reached at well under 400 ppm, or six doubles of any combination of the 50% ppm absorption volume units and or distance across these volume units that total to 6. Six doubles takes you to 99%+ absorption. Ergo, CO2 reaches the fixed upper limit it can absorb infrared at under 100 ppm. This is confirmed by the ice core records which show the planet warms and then CO2 levels rise 400 to 800 years later.
Since causes ALWAYS occur before effects, then CO2 can not cause global warming.
The only reason this obvious conclusion was not the public 'consensus' twenty years ago is that we still live in a top down establishment run pre-scientific society whose members will not answer public disagreements with their predictions, methods, and evidence. They just call you names rather than seek the truth about how our universe works.
Wrong predictions are the mark of a good scientist. They show the scientist is using the oldest and most reliable method of all: Throw some s--- up on the wall, measure, use the discrepancies to improve the theory, rinse and repeat until you make the theory perfect.
We are not going to run out of work.
At 2013-10-10 08:00:20, nirshaviv wrote:
Thanks for your detailed view on things! I think you're right on the mark.
At 2013-10-10 07:52:55, L A P Wilson wrote:
Correct, Peter Harris - IPCC in my interpretation has now reached a state of terrified desperation where it's leaders and mentally blinded adherents are thrashing about for something, anything, to put forward to support the totally insupportable claims they locked themselves into from their earliest AR releases. To be kind, one could say that their earliest AR declarations were made from a state of pseudo-religious fervour allowing them to present themselves as (self adulating) saviours of the world, born of ultra premature conclusions of causality from statistical correlations derived from data flawed in its selectivity of timespan and content. The oldest trick in the book, wherin fools rush in; but probably not at that point fraudulent.
Subsequently they have been forced to quietly back away from many of their over the top claims as contradictory observational evidence emerged and diligent analysts have demonstrated major errors and outright fallacies in their claims. However, from AR4 onward to today, I believe their declarations do fall into the fraudulent categorisation; certain zealot leaders aside (who will remain in lifelong denial) I have no doubt that many of them in their hearts know they are up that creek without a paddle; the game is up. Their problem, how to extricate!
So to AR5 - as Nir says, little different in substance from AR4. Just a new conclusion of 95% confidence versus the previous 90% - how to do that, well just increase the sensitivity spread (2 to 4.5 down to 1.5 to 4.5) and that supports an increased confidence level - was the 90% justified in the first place - absolutely not, but don't mention that, or that such new evidence as there is in the 15+ year standstill is contradictory - well head in sand, just ignore it, and maybe it wll go away.
And their move to the 1.5 degree lower level gets them moving a little further to where they in their hearts know it is heading. Maybe a couple more reports and they can drop the lower and even the upper some more - imagine 0.5 to 3.5 - same spread and same 95% confidence claim, maybe even 0.00 to 3.0 and 100% confidence!. In due course they can say - there you go we had it right all along. That's the scam, and the fraud.
At 2013-10-09 23:06:16, IMfrederick wrote:
It is worthwhile noting that Australia, after throwing billions of dollars away on carbon credits (which have made no impact on "global warming') have decided to scrap the law and spend the money usefully.
At 2013-10-09 22:04:14, nirshaviv wrote:
Yep, climate science is to a large extent not science anymore.
At 2013-10-09 21:12:30, Bob Armstrong wrote:
Your graph makes the point of the opening slide. http://cosy.com/Science/AGWppt... , of the .ppt I'm presenting next month that I'm inserting your "most boring graph I have ever plotted in my life" as the next slide .
At 2013-10-09 00:03:56, Peter Harris wrote:
Nice point. Also AR5 Advice to Policy Makers (APM) concedes that UV accounts for 60% of TSI fluctuations and may be responsible for a larger amplified influence on climate than the changes in TSI suggest, but then dismisses the idea for lack of MODELING certainty.
In Working Group 1 Miniscule RF attributed to TSI is then charted with the bulk attributed to CO2.
And APM shows a chart fabrication using the GCM constructed to show that global T would not have risen since 1910 without anthropogenic CO2. The modeled T with CO2 input is terminated at 2010 and does not show the leveling since 1998. Is this IPPC desperation bordering on fraud?.
At 2013-10-05 13:17:58, nirshaviv wrote:
Thanks for the numbers!
At 2013-10-05 13:10:06, Kenneth Haapala wrote:
Excellent! You succinctly discuss the main issues. Based on US
government reports, SEPP calculates that since FY 1993 the US government has
spent over $150 Billion on climate change activities with over $35 Billion
identified as climate science.
Ken Haapala, SEPP