New papers in Science: paleoclimate amplitudes, solar influence
SwimJim
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/5693/68
(Peter Foukal, Gerald North, Tom Wigley)
Summary (i.e., Abstract):
Accurate reconstruction of solar irradiance variations is important
for assessing human and natural contributions to climate change.
Fluctuations in the Sun's brightness, measured directly by space-borne
radiometry over the past two 11-year sunspot cycles, seem too small to
drive climate. Recent reconstructions of solar irradiance extending
back to the 17th century have assumed that larger, multidecadal
irradiance variations occur, similar to those detected on other
Sun-like stars. In their Perspective, Foukal et al. discuss the recent
retraction of this stellar evidence and of the solar irradiance
reconstructions based on it, which has important implications for the
relative roles of various forcing factors in climate change.
Science Express, September 30
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1104416v1
The Real Color of Climate Change (Timothy Osborn, Keith Briffa)
Abstract:
Reconstructions of past temperatures often use a combination of
climate "proxies" such as ice cores and tree rings and the
instrumental temperature record. How accurate are these
reconstructions over time scales of decades to centuries? In their
Perspective, Osborn and Briffa highlight the report of von Storch et
al., who have simulated the errors associated with climate proxies
over these longer time scales. Because of systematic errors that are
not taken into account in such reconstructions, the amplitude of the
Northern Hemisphere temperature fluctuations over the last millennium
may have been underestimated.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1096109v1
Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data
(Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel
Gonzalez-Rouco, Simon Tett)
Abstract:
Empirical reconstructions of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature
in the last millennium based on multy proxy records depict
small-amplitude variations followed by a clear warming trend in the
last two centuries. We use a coupled atmosphere-ocean model simulation
of the last 1000 years as a surrogate climate to test the skill of
these methods, particularly at multidecadal and centennial timescales.
Idealized proxy records are represented by simulated grid-point
temperature, degraded with statistical noise. The centennial
variability of the NH temperature is underestimated by the
regression-based methods applied here, suggesting that past variations
may have been at least a factor of two larger than indicated by
empirical reconstructions.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Acker
------------------------------------
SwimJim
(formerly James G. Acker)
james...@eudoramail.com
The great tragedy of science -- the
slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact. - Thomas Huxley
------------------------------------
Steve Schulin
james...@eudoramail.com (SwimJim) wrote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident: "If the true natural
variability of [northern hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than
is currently accepted, the extent to which recent warming can be viewed
as unusual would need to be reassessed."
>
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1096109v1
> Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data
> (Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel
> Gonzalez-Rouco, Simon Tett)
>
> Abstract:
> Empirical reconstructions of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature
> in the last millennium based on multy proxy records depict
> small-amplitude variations followed by a clear warming trend in the
> last two centuries. We use a coupled atmosphere-ocean model simulation
> of the last 1000 years as a surrogate climate to test the skill of
> these methods, particularly at multidecadal and centennial timescales.
> Idealized proxy records are represented by simulated grid-point
> temperature, degraded with statistical noise. The centennial
> variability of the NH temperature is underestimated by the
> regression-based methods applied here, suggesting that past variations
> may have been at least a factor of two larger than indicated by
> empirical reconstructions.
Dang. von Storch agreeing with Soon et al.! Zorita finding cosine error
in Mann et al 1998! And this "at least factor of two" doesn't even
include the damping effect from the smearing of variability inherent in
multiproxy approach! For those who can't access the ScienceExpress
article or abstract for now, the Supplemental Info for this paper is
freely available at
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1096109/DC1
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>>
>> Abstract:
>> Reconstructions of past temperatures often use a combination of
>> climate "proxies" such as ice cores and tree rings and the
>> instrumental temperature record. How accurate are these
>> reconstructions over time scales of decades to centuries? In their
>> Perspective, Osborn and Briffa highlight the report of von Storch et
>> al., who have simulated the errors associated with climate proxies
>> over these longer time scales. Because of systematic errors that are
>> not taken into account in such reconstructions, the amplitude of the
>> Northern Hemisphere temperature fluctuations over the last millennium
>> may have been underestimated.
>
>We hold these truths to be self-evident: "If the true natural
>variability of [northern hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than
>is currently accepted, the extent to which recent warming can be viewed
>as unusual would need to be reassessed."
How many times do you have to be told that the issue has
nothing whatsoever to do with whether temperatures have been higher in
the past? Nothing. The issue is the CAUSE of the current warming.
Whether the temperature was or was not higher in the past is
completely immaterial. Apparently, your science involves adding 1+1
and getting 3. I'm not surprised.
>
>>
>>
>> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1096109v1
>> Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data
>> (Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel
>> Gonzalez-Rouco, Simon Tett)
>>
>> Abstract:
>> Empirical reconstructions of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature
>> in the last millennium based on multy proxy records depict
>> small-amplitude variations followed by a clear warming trend in the
>> last two centuries. We use a coupled atmosphere-ocean model simulation
>> of the last 1000 years as a surrogate climate to test the skill of
>> these methods, particularly at multidecadal and centennial timescales.
>> Idealized proxy records are represented by simulated grid-point
>> temperature, degraded with statistical noise. The centennial
>> variability of the NH temperature is underestimated by the
>> regression-based methods applied here, suggesting that past variations
>> may have been at least a factor of two larger than indicated by
>> empirical reconstructions.
>
>Dang. von Storch agreeing with Soon et al.! Zorita finding cosine error
>in Mann et al 1998! And this "at least factor of two" doesn't even
>include the damping effect from the smearing of variability inherent in
>multiproxy approach! For those who can't access the ScienceExpress
>article or abstract for now, the Supplemental Info for this paper is
>freely available at
>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1096109/DC1
>
A yes, the Schulin Effect. This occurs when a single modeling
study is used by a certain troll in the complete absence of, and often
despite, observational evidence to the contrary, in attempt to make a
questionable point. We've seen this with a recent soot study, which is
taken as fact by said troll despite the fact that there is no
observational evidence to support it. Now we get empirical
reconstructions trumping real data. Amazing. I wonder if the troll in
question realizes that model output are not data.
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 15:38:23 -0400, Steve Schulin
> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> Abstract:
> >> Reconstructions of past temperatures often use a combination of
> >> climate "proxies" such as ice cores and tree rings and the
> >> instrumental temperature record. How accurate are these
> >> reconstructions over time scales of decades to centuries? In their
> >> Perspective, Osborn and Briffa highlight the report of von Storch et
> >> al., who have simulated the errors associated with climate proxies
> >> over these longer time scales. Because of systematic errors that are
> >> not taken into account in such reconstructions, the amplitude of the
> >> Northern Hemisphere temperature fluctuations over the last millennium
> >> may have been underestimated.
> >
> >We hold these truths to be self-evident: "If the true natural
> >variability of [northern hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than
> >is currently accepted, the extent to which recent warming can be viewed
> >as unusual would need to be reassessed."
>
> How many times do you have to be told that the issue has
> nothing whatsoever to do with whether temperatures have been higher in
> the past? Nothing. The issue is the CAUSE of the current warming.
> Whether the temperature was or was not higher in the past is
> completely immaterial. Apparently, your science involves adding 1+1
> and getting 3. I'm not surprised.
I was quoting the authors of the same paper for which SwimJim posted
abstract here. Their conclusion did indeed seem quite reasonable to me,
and still does. Your own bellowing here seems quite unworthy of
agreement, however. For example, your specification (and ALL CAPS
emphasis) on a singular CAUSE.
> questionable point. ...
LOL - the von Storch et al. suggestion, "that past variations may have
been at least a factor of two larger than indicated by empirical
reconstructions", is quite consistent with a wide variety of evidence.
Your mischaracterizations reflect a failure of yours, quite independent
of whatever faults can be found in my humble efforts.
> ... We've seen this with a recent soot study, which is
> taken as fact by said troll despite the fact that there is no
> observational evidence to support it. ...
LOL - I haven't exaggerated the soot studies. But I wish you'd apply the
same standards on yourself, you alarmist, you.
> ... Now we get empirical
> reconstructions trumping real data. ...
You seem quite confused. The empirical reconstructions mentioned by von
Storch et al. are the multiproxy studies like Mann et al, not the
modeling exercises of the authors.
> ... Amazing. I wonder if the troll in
> question realizes that model output are not data.
Another classic DavidBallism, based on as close to imbecilic a post as
I've seen from Mr. Ball.
Very truly,
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
So what? You're focusing on an aspect of the problem that is
immaterial. Just as Soon and Baliunas did. It doesn't matter. Unless,
of course, you're suggesting that the reason that it was warm at some
time in the past is identically the same as it is today. I would hope
you have the brains not to go down that path.
And you're getting this from a modeling study? Sorry, Steve,
real data trumps model output every time.
>
>> ... We've seen this with a recent soot study, which is
>> taken as fact by said troll despite the fact that there is no
>> observational evidence to support it. ...
>
>LOL - I haven't exaggerated the soot studies. But I wish you'd apply the
>same standards on yourself, you alarmist, you.
Of course you have. You've done it repeatedly and you've run
away from any attempt to quantify the effect in terms of real data.
>
>> ... Now we get empirical
>> reconstructions trumping real data. ...
>
>You seem quite confused. The empirical reconstructions mentioned by von
>Storch et al. are the multiproxy studies like Mann et al, not the
>modeling exercises of the authors.
LOL. Yes, Steve, I wrote the wrong word. Thank-you for
correcting me.
>
>> ... Amazing. I wonder if the troll in
>> question realizes that model output are not data.
>
>Another classic DavidBallism, based on as close to imbecilic a post as
>I've seen from Mr. Ball.
>
No, Troll, a fact. BTW, since we're talking about soot, when
do you suppose you'll answer some key questions regarding its impact
and distribution, since you've claimed here that it is the climate
equivalent of the devil incarnate. Show me the distribution of
temperature as a function of soot concentration? Show me the temporal
distribution of temperature in urban and rural centres and highlight
where the morning and evening rush hours are? How about showing me a
clear signal from soot, separated from other urban effects? How about
a differential temperature distribution on weekends opposed to
weekdays? How about you explain how most of the warming is occurring
at night in the arctic in the absense of sunshine? Soot kind of needs
the sun to have much of an impact. Come on, Steve, let's look at some
real data and see if there is a kernel of truth that can be extracted
from it. Don't look at one study then make a dozen whiny posts about
the evils of deisel engines. Use that grey matter between your ears
for something productive, not the endless trolling you subject
everyone to.
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
LOL - I don't recall you complaining that IPCC chose to display the Mann
et al. hockey stick in Fig. 1 of the WG1 TAR policymaker summary. Was
hemispheric mean trend immaterial as poster boy for the alarmists too? I
welcome examination of such subsets as the up to 19% of the surface area
exhibiting statistically significant warming over the 1979-2001 period
in the CRU data [Ref: Jones and Moberg, J. Climate 16:206, 2003].
LOL - are you the same Mr. Ball who told some inquiring poster that the
range of single-value output -- from the MAGICC model tunings used by
IPCC -- represented the best science available or somesuch? I'm glad to
see you apparently flip-flop on this! Maybe you're getting better! Best
wishes on continued improvement!
One improvement could be made right here in this same paragraph of
yours. Presumably in reply to my comment which specifically referred to
"a wide variety of evidence", you posit "And you're getting this from a
modeling study?" The troll here is you, bub.
>
> >
> >> ... We've seen this with a recent soot study, which is
> >> taken as fact by said troll despite the fact that there is no
> >> observational evidence to support it. ...
> >
> >LOL - I haven't exaggerated the soot studies. But I wish you'd apply the
> >same standards on yourself, you alarmist, you.
>
> Of course you have. You've done it repeatedly and you've run
> away from any attempt to quantify the effect in terms of real data.
>
> >
> >> ... Now we get empirical
> >> reconstructions trumping real data. ...
> >
> >You seem quite confused. The empirical reconstructions mentioned by von
> >Storch et al. are the multiproxy studies like Mann et al, not the
> >modeling exercises of the authors.
>
> LOL. Yes, Steve, I wrote the wrong word. Thank-you for
> correcting me.
You're certainly welcome. Which word would you change to make your
comment more than the confused?
> >> ... Amazing. I wonder if the troll in
> >> question realizes that model output are not data.
> >
> >Another classic DavidBallism, based on as close to imbecilic a post as
> >I've seen from Mr. Ball.
> >
> No, Troll, a fact. BTW, since we're talking about soot, when
> do you suppose you'll answer some key questions regarding its impact
> and distribution, since you've claimed here that it is the climate
> equivalent of the devil incarnate. ...
Actually, I've claimed that your oft-expressed opinion, that any action
is better than none, is silly. And the millions of do-gooder diesels on
the road spewing extra soot today, there because politicians in Europe
listened to folks who agree with you, is an example of hasty politics --
the political tail wagging the scientific dog or maybe vice versa.
> ... Show me the distribution of
> temperature as a function of soot concentration? ...
LOL - where's your precautionary principle now?
> ... Show me the temporal
> distribution of temperature in urban and rural centres and highlight
> where the morning and evening rush hours are? ...
Ah, you're focusing on the local effects of soot emissions, I see.
Please don't forget those few particles wafting long and settling on
high-albedo ice and snow. I wish you'd be near as critical of the
"arctic ice is melting, glaciers are melting, it must be cee-oh-too"
jabberers around here as you are of my much more reasonably-expressed
arguments.
> ... How about showing me a
> clear signal from soot, separated from other urban effects? How about
> a differential temperature distribution on weekends opposed to
> weekdays? How about you explain how most of the warming is occurring
> at night in the arctic in the absense of sunshine? ...
You've often used this "most of the warming" phrase. I for one would be
interested in hearing what you mean by it. For example, the TAR provides
WG1's best estimate of 20th century trend in global mean surface
temperature as 0.6?C +/- 0.2?C. How much of that is from nighttime
warming of Arctic?
Hansen and Nazarenko [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100,
doi:10.1073/pnas.2237157100] point to the reduction in sea ice as being
the major warming-creating factor in their conclusion that the albedo
effect of soot on snow and ice may be responsible for 25% or so of the
estimated late 20th-century global warming.
> ... Soot kind of needs
> the sun to have much of an impact. Come on, Steve, let's look at some
> real data and see if there is a kernel of truth that can be extracted
> from it. Don't look at one study then make a dozen whiny posts about
> the evils of deisel engines. Use that grey matter between your ears
> for something productive, not the endless trolling you subject
> everyone to.
My comments have been quite reasonable. I'm not urging a ban on diesels
or requiring expensive retrofits. I'm just noting that alarmists like
you, and you're surely not the most alarmist in the bunch, seem to be
urging too-fast (actually, half-fast is just as appropriate a way of
expressing it, maybe moreso if you say it out loud: half fast) policy
change.
David Ball
ROTFL. Why would I complain about an analysis done with real
data that shows the trend over the past 500+ years, Steve? That is of
interest, especially since it is a robust analysis. What isn't of
interest are flawed follow-ups like the M&M effort that purport to
show strong warming during the LIA, a period characterized by cooling.
What isn't of interest are the outputs of modeling studies that
purport to show something other than the analysis. Model output are
not data, Steve. Haven't you figured that out, yet? What isn't of
interest are claims that it was warmer at such and such a time in the
past. Such attempts to downplay the impact of cause and effect just
waste everyone's valuable time. The fact is, strong warming is
occurring today and the proximate cause is GHG emissions. Deal with
it.
>> >> >Dang. von Storch agreeing with Soon et al.! Zorita finding cosine error
>> >> >in Mann et al 1998! And this "at least factor of two" doesn't even
>> >> >include the damping effect from the smearing of variability inherent in
>> >> >multiproxy approach! For those who can't access the ScienceExpress
>> >> >article or abstract for now, the Supplemental Info for this paper is
>> >> >freely available at
>> >> >http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1096109/DC1
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> A yes, the Schulin Effect. This occurs when a single modeling
>> >> study is used by a certain troll in the complete absence of, and often
>> >> despite, observational evidence to the contrary, in attempt to make a
>> >> questionable point. ...
>> >
>> >LOL - the von Storch et al. suggestion, "that past variations may have
>> >been at least a factor of two larger than indicated by empirical
>> >reconstructions", is quite consistent with a wide variety of evidence.
>> >Your mischaracterizations reflect a failure of yours, quite independent
>> >of whatever faults can be found in my humble efforts.
>>
>> And you're getting this from a modeling study? Sorry, Steve,
>> real data trumps model output every time.
>
>LOL - are you the same Mr. Ball who told some inquiring poster that the
>range of single-value output -- from the MAGICC model tunings used by
>IPCC -- represented the best science available or somesuch? I'm glad to
>see you apparently flip-flop on this! Maybe you're getting better! Best
>wishes on continued improvement!
You know, Perfesser, just once it would be nice if you could
answer a post directly, without having to go back to the archives.
Yes, you fool, that is exactly what I said. The best available science
on the FUTURE state of the atmosphere comes from the model output,
unless of course you are able to do the necessary calculations in your
head. That doesn't mean that the best available science on the CURRENT
state of the atmosphere comes from a model. It comes from analyzing
REAL data. You do understand the differences, don't you, Steve? I do
hope the concept of NOW VS LATER isn't one you're having trouble with.
You certainly seem to be having trouble distinguishing between DATA
and MODEL OUTPUT. It is ever my hope that one of these days you're
finally going to understand the nuances being discussed. You miss out
on so many of the fine details when you can't wrap your mind around
simple concepts like the ones outlined above.
>
>One improvement could be made right here in this same paragraph of
>yours. Presumably in reply to my comment which specifically referred to
>"a wide variety of evidence", you posit "And you're getting this from a
>modeling study?" The troll here is you, bub.
ROTLF. Only in your tiny little mind. When you can grasp the
differences between analysis and forecasting, cause and effect, data
and model output you'll be getting somewhere. Unfortunately, to date,
all you've managed to show is that you can't grasp even the basics.
>> >
>> No, Troll, a fact. BTW, since we're talking about soot, when
>> do you suppose you'll answer some key questions regarding its impact
>> and distribution, since you've claimed here that it is the climate
>> equivalent of the devil incarnate. ...
>
>Actually, I've claimed that your oft-expressed opinion, that any action
>is better than none, is silly. And the millions of do-gooder diesels on
>the road spewing extra soot today, there because politicians in Europe
>listened to folks who agree with you, is an example of hasty politics --
>the political tail wagging the scientific dog or maybe vice versa.
And, as usual, you're wrong, especially since understanding
continues to elude you. I see you haven't managed to link cause and
effect again. The Schulin Effect is in full vigour: the output of one
modelling study is used to justify all manner
>
>> ... Show me the distribution of
>> temperature as a function of soot concentration? ...
>
>LOL - where's your precautionary principle now?
You're laughing out loud at a request for confirmation of said
modeling study. What a completely bizarre thing to do. If soot,
Perfesser, is having the impact you claim it is, one should be able to
extract a soot signal from the temperature data. Has this been done?
>
>> ... Show me the temporal
>> distribution of temperature in urban and rural centres and highlight
>> where the morning and evening rush hours are? ...
>
>Ah, you're focusing on the local effects of soot emissions, I see.
LOL. And where do you think the temperatures come from that
produce the global mean temperature, Perfesser? If soot is having the
impact you suggest, one should be able to detect a clear soot signal.
Has this been done.
>Please don't forget those few particles wafting long and settling on
>high-albedo ice and snow. I wish you'd be near as critical of the
>"arctic ice is melting, glaciers are melting, it must be cee-oh-too"
>jabberers around here as you are of my much more reasonably-expressed
>arguments.
I wish you'd engage your brains a little before making idiotic
comments. Please don't forget that the concentrations of soot
particulates should be having a far more noticeable impact at the
emission point. Have you evidence that this is occurring?
>
>> ... How about showing me a
>> clear signal from soot, separated from other urban effects? How about
>> a differential temperature distribution on weekends opposed to
>> weekdays? How about you explain how most of the warming is occurring
>> at night in the arctic in the absense of sunshine? ...
>
>You've often used this "most of the warming" phrase. I for one would be
>interested in hearing what you mean by it. For example, the TAR provides
>WG1's best estimate of 20th century trend in global mean surface
>temperature as 0.6?C +/- 0.2?C. How much of that is from nighttime
>warming of Arctic?
Haven't you been reading the literature, Steve? The relevant
articles have been presented ad-nauseum here. Given your proficiency
in mining the archives for quotes, my suggestion is that you get off
your ass and do a little reading. I'm sure you'll find them with
little trouble,
>
>Hansen and Nazarenko [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100,
>doi:10.1073/pnas.2237157100] point to the reduction in sea ice as being
>the major warming-creating factor in their conclusion that the albedo
>effect of soot on snow and ice may be responsible for 25% or so of the
>estimated late 20th-century global warming.
Yes, yes, we know you found H&N. You've posted references to
it repeatedly. Do you understand what the real pattern of warming is
and why their modeling study is problematic? Apparently not.
>
>> ... Soot kind of needs
>> the sun to have much of an impact. Come on, Steve, let's look at some
>> real data and see if there is a kernel of truth that can be extracted
>> from it. Don't look at one study then make a dozen whiny posts about
>> the evils of deisel engines. Use that grey matter between your ears
>> for something productive, not the endless trolling you subject
>> everyone to.
>
>My comments have been quite reasonable. I'm not urging a ban on diesels
>or requiring expensive retrofits. I'm just noting that alarmists like
>you, and you're surely not the most alarmist in the bunch, seem to be
>urging too-fast (actually, half-fast is just as appropriate a way of
>expressing it, maybe moreso if you say it out loud: half fast) policy
>change.
>
Completely wrong. Your comments fail in the face of real data.
The fact that you have no real data on which to base your comments is
troubling. The fact that you think H&N is all there is to the problem
merely shows how superficially you look at problems. You found a study
that said something you wanted to hear. It's got to be correct. Right?
SwimJim
> In article <63167942.04100...@posting.google.com>,
> james...@eudoramail.com (SwimJim) wrote:
> > October 1 issue:
> > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/5693/68
> > (Peter Foukal, Gerald North, Tom Wigley)
> >
> > Summary (i.e., Abstract):
> > Accurate reconstruction of solar irradiance variations is important
> > for assessing human and natural contributions to climate change.
> > Fluctuations in the Sun's brightness, measured directly by space-borne
> > radiometry over the past two 11-year sunspot cycles, seem too small to
> > drive climate. Recent reconstructions of solar irradiance extending
> > back to the 17th century have assumed that larger, multidecadal
> > irradiance variations occur, similar to those detected on other
> > Sun-like stars. In their Perspective, Foukal et al. discuss the recent
> > retraction of this stellar evidence and of the solar irradiance
> > reconstructions based on it, which has important implications for the
> > relative roles of various forcing factors in climate change.
This one has gotten a bit of airplay, too.
> > Science Express, September 30
> > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1104416v1
> > The Real Color of Climate Change (Timothy Osborn, Keith Briffa)
> >
> > Abstract:
> > Reconstructions of past temperatures often use a combination of
> > climate "proxies" such as ice cores and tree rings and the
> > instrumental temperature record. How accurate are these
> > reconstructions over time scales of decades to centuries? In their
> > Perspective, Osborn and Briffa highlight the report of von Storch et
> > al., who have simulated the errors associated with climate proxies
> > over these longer time scales. Because of systematic errors that are
> > not taken into account in such reconstructions, the amplitude of the
> > Northern Hemisphere temperature fluctuations over the last millennium
> > may have been underestimated.
>
> We hold these truths to be self-evident: "If the true natural
> variability of [northern hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than
> is currently accepted, the extent to which recent warming can be viewed
> as unusual would need to be reassessed."
While that might be nice, I don't think so. One thing that I believe
needs to be determined, as well as possible, is natural rates of
climate/temperature change. We know that there can be rather abrupt
changes, probably driven by oceanic circulation regime shifts, where
you can get several degree (C) changes in 1-2 decades. But what the
multi-proxy data sets, and perhaps the modeling efforts, can inform us
on is the maximum rate of "slow" climate changes. If a good and
reliable handle can be obtained on that, then we would have a better
sense of how unnatural the warming in the 20th century, particularly
at the end of it into the 21st, might be.
It's critical to get a quantitative sense of the maximum rate(s) of
change that can be generated by natural forcings alone. That would
greatly assist the attribution effort.
> > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1096109v1
> > Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data
> > (Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel
> > Gonzalez-Rouco, Simon Tett)
> >
> > Abstract:
> > Empirical reconstructions of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature
> > in the last millennium based on multy proxy records depict
> > small-amplitude variations followed by a clear warming trend in the
> > last two centuries. We use a coupled atmosphere-ocean model simulation
> > of the last 1000 years as a surrogate climate to test the skill of
> > these methods, particularly at multidecadal and centennial timescales.
> > Idealized proxy records are represented by simulated grid-point
> > temperature, degraded with statistical noise. The centennial
> > variability of the NH temperature is underestimated by the
> > regression-based methods applied here, suggesting that past variations
> > may have been at least a factor of two larger than indicated by
> > empirical reconstructions.
>
> Dang. von Storch agreeing with Soon et al.! Zorita finding cosine error
> in Mann et al 1998! And this "at least factor of two" doesn't even
> include the damping effect from the smearing of variability inherent in
> multiproxy approach! For those who can't access the ScienceExpress
> article or abstract for now, the Supplemental Info for this paper is
> freely available at
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1096109/DC1
I found it very interesting that van Storch was the lead author on
this paper; I suspect that he didn't like getting burned by the
controversy over the Soon et al. paper. Again, if this result is
deemed valid, it would certainly help the effort to fully quantify the
contribution of natural forcings vs. anthropogenic forcings to
observed climate change.
Roger Coppock
> >We hold these truths to be self-evident: "If the true natural
> >variability of [northern hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than
> >is currently accepted, the extent to which recent warming can be viewed
> >as unusual would need to be reassessed."
>
> How many times do you have to be told that the issue has
> nothing whatsoever to do with whether temperatures have been higher in
> the past? Nothing. The issue is the CAUSE of the current warming.
> Whether the temperature was or was not higher in the past is
> completely immaterial. Apparently, your science involves adding 1+1
> and getting 3. I'm not surprised.
>
heavy elements on the earth means that at one time more than 4.6 billion
years ago the Earth, or the material that formed the planet, was at a
temperature of many millions of degrees. So the Earth, including its
Northern Hemisphere, was hotter in the past than it is today. That says
nothing at all about whether the current warming is significant, whether
there is more warming coming, whether the warming is a danger to
humankind and other life, whether we should reduce Carbon Dioxide
emissions, or any other important question. To answer those questions,
one needs to seek the CAUSE of the current warming. (Lest the fossil
fools launch one of their most redundant canards, please note that I
use the singular: the CAUSE. That is basic logic, one must first process
the singular before the attempting the plural.)
Steve Schulin
> on is the maximum rate of "slow" climate changes. ...
I'm not optimistic that multiproxy approach is the right tool for the
important task you describe. Each proxy record has dating error. By
combining the proxies, the multiproxy approach inherently tends to smear
variability out of the record [Ref: Loehle. Using Historical Climate
Data to Evaluate Climate Trends: Issues of Statistical Inference. Energy
& Environment, 15(1):1-10, 2004]
> ... If a good and
> controversy over the Soon et al. paper. ...
There's a lot of ironies related to this new paper. The NewScientist.com
reporter quotes Prof. Mann as saying "I was not asked to review the von
Storch paper, which I consider unfortunate". I recall lot of insults
directed at E&E and M&M for doing what Science now does. If those same
folks fail to exhibit double standard, I'll be happily surprised.
> ... Again, if this result is
Oriel36
> David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<k1rrl0lv6h6l13nkp...@4ax.com>...
> > On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 15:38:23 -0400, Steve Schulin
> > <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> >
> [ . . . ]
> > >We hold these truths to be self-evident: "If the true natural
> > >variability of [northern hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than
> > >is currently accepted, the extent to which recent warming can be viewed
> > >as unusual would need to be reassessed."
> >
> > How many times do you have to be told that the issue has
> > nothing whatsoever to do with whether temperatures have been higher in
> > the past? Nothing. The issue is the CAUSE of the current warming.
> > Whether the temperature was or was not higher in the past is
> > completely immaterial. Apparently, your science involves adding 1+1
> > and getting 3. I'm not surprised.
> >
> I COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE, DAVID. The fact that there are
> heavy elements on the earth means that at one time more than 4.6 billion
> years ago the Earth, or the material that formed the planet, was at a
> temperature of many millions of degrees. So the Earth, including its
> Northern Hemisphere, was hotter in the past than it is today.
In terms of direct sunlight received, Northern hemisphere summers are
longer during an ice age than at present, simultaneously Southern
hemisphere winters are longer and more severe.
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/images/04f15.jpg
Taking positions C to K as the equinoxal points,during an ice
age,orbital motion from C to K through the aphelion is slower than at
present while K to C through the perihelion is much quicker than at
present.The exagerrated animated comparison of Kepler's second law in
the following website is adequate to demonstrate the difference
between lesser and great orbital eccentricity.
http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/lectures/kepler.htm
Again, longer Northern hemisphere summers and simultaneously longer
Southern hemisphere winters emerge from Kepler's second law in terms
of the sunlight received in both hemispheres.It can then be safely
assumed that the main engine for cyclical Northern glaciation is
generated by more severe Southern hemisphere conditions in terms of
the astronomical effects on atmospheric and oceanographic conditions
rather than local conditions such as solar irradiation.
That says
> nothing at all about whether the current warming is significant, whether
> there is more warming coming, whether the warming is a danger to
> humankind and other life, whether we should reduce Carbon Dioxide
> emissions, or any other important question. To answer those questions,
> one needs to seek the CAUSE of the current warming. (Lest the fossil
> fools launch one of their most redundant canards, please note that I
> use the singular: the CAUSE. That is basic logic, one must first process
> the singular before the attempting the plural.)
There is a very specific reason why climate modelling based on
cyclical variations in astronomical orbital motion is almost
impossible to accomplish in a contemporary scientific atmosphere.
As variations in the amount of sunlight received in either hemispheres
during glacial and interglacial periods relies on a difference between
axial rotation and variable orbital motion,theorists and
mathematicians accept the sidereal value which is a combination of
axial and orbital motion into a single sidereal motion of 23 hours 56
min 04 sec.
http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/sidereal.htm
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
It is unlikely that any attempt will be made to expunge the sidereal
error for Newton's 17th century ballistic theory is based on
Flamsteed's 1677 sidereal determination and besides it would be an
endless task to undertake to go through what is valid and what is not.
Perhaps comparing less and more elliptical orbits via Kepler's second
law is more favorable to approach climate change than just ellipticity
alone and subsequently the initial unnerving evidence that Northern
hemisphere summers are longer during an ice age than at present and
Southern hemispher conditions are much colder in ice ages.
http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/lectures/kepler.htm
I do not mean to contribute further to this thread or this forum.
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > We hold these truths to be self-evident: "If the true natural
>> > variability of [northern hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than
>> > is currently accepted, the extent to which recent warming can be viewed
>> > as unusual would need to be reassessed."
>>
>> While that might be nice, I don't think so. One thing that I believe
>> needs to be determined, as well as possible, is natural rates of
>> climate/temperature change. We know that there can be rather abrupt
>> changes, probably driven by oceanic circulation regime shifts, where
>> you can get several degree (C) changes in 1-2 decades. But what the
>> multi-proxy data sets, and perhaps the modeling efforts, can inform us
>> on is the maximum rate of "slow" climate changes. ...
>
>I'm not optimistic that multiproxy approach is the right tool for the
>important task you describe. Each proxy record has dating error. By
>combining the proxies, the multiproxy approach inherently tends to smear
>variability out of the record [Ref: Loehle. Using Historical Climate
>Data to Evaluate Climate Trends: Issues of Statistical Inference. Energy
>& Environment, 15(1):1-10, 2004]
First of all, before you can make any statement about
optimism, you first have to understand how the proxies are used. You
have demonstrated repeatedly that you haven't got a clue. Secondly,
and this is a point you run away from repeatedly, is that ALL data
have errors in them. All data. There is nothing inherently special
about proxy data that means that they should be treated differently
than data from other sources. What matters when working with any data
is that they are analyzed properly. The methodology is therefore as
important as the data. Repeatedly references to Loehle, M&M and S&B do
nothing to inspire confidence in your point of view because each and
every one is so fundamentally flawed in terms of their analysis that
their results are garbage. That you cannot see that merely
demonstrates how little you really know.
David Ball
wrote:
What you're really saying is that we need to define some
probability density function that describes climate change, both from
the standpoint of what "normal" is and also where the extremes lie. We
need to be able to put the current changes in some kind of context,
but at the end of the day, that's all we're really going to be able to
do with this information. It is not going to help us understand why
the current changes are occurring nor is it going to help us figure
out what to do about it.
>
>It's critical to get a quantitative sense of the maximum rate(s) of
>change that can be generated by natural forcings alone. That would
>greatly assist the attribution effort.
How? Look at it this way. Assume for a minute that the current
increases fall inside some broad natural variability. Does that the
increases are natural? Does it mean we should do nothing? The issue of
cause and effect is what is really important, not generic positioning
of the current warming in the grand scheme of things.
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> data that shows the trend over the past 500+ years, Steve? ...
For the immateriality you cited, of course.
> ... That is of
> interest, especially since it is a robust analysis. ...
Any notion that MBH98 was robust was dispelled when the authors
published their criticism of M&M in Eos. Anybody who reads the von
Storch et al article can contrast your "robust" claim with their finding
of "almost no skill". You're a hoot, Mr. Ball.
> ... What isn't of
> interest are flawed follow-ups like the M&M effort that purport to
> show strong warming during the LIA, a period characterized by cooling...
Can't you get anything right? M&M didn't claim the MBH method produces
believable results. They just showed the combined effect of the various
data choices.
> What isn't of interest are the outputs of modeling studies that
> purport to show something other than the analysis. Model output are
> not data, Steve. Haven't you figured that out, yet? What isn't of
> interest are claims that it was warmer at such and such a time in the
> past. Such attempts to downplay the impact of cause and effect just
> waste everyone's valuable time. The fact is, strong warming is
> occurring today and the proximate cause is GHG emissions. Deal with
> it.
Overstated, as usual. Compare to, say, Vaughan et al. [Climatic Change
60:243]: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed
that mean global warming was 0.6 ? 0.2 ?C during the 20th century and
cited anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases as the likely cause of
temperature rise in the last 50 years. But this mean value conceals the
substantial complexity of observed climate change, which is seasonally-
and diurnally-biased, decadally-variable and geographically patchy. In
particular, over the last 50 years three high-latitude areas have
undergone recent rapid regional (RRR) warming, which was substantially
more rapid than the global mean. However, each RRR warming occupies a
different climatic regime and may have an entirely different underlying
cause. We discuss the significance of RRR warming in one area, the
Antarctic Peninsula. Here warming was much more rapid than in the rest
of Antarctica where it was not significantly different to the global
mean. We highlight climate proxies that appear to show that RRR warming
on the Antarctic Peninsula is unprecedented over the last two millennia,
and so unlikely to be a natural mode of variability. So while the
station records do not indicate a ubiquitous polar amplification of
global warming, the RRR warming on the Antarctic Peninsula might be a
regional amplification of such warming. This, however, remains unproven
since we cannot yet be sure what mechanism leads to such an
amplification. We discuss several possible candidate mechanisms:
changing oceanographic or changing atmospheric circulation, or a
regional air-sea-ice feedback amplifying greenhouse warming. We can show
that atmospheric warming and reduction in sea-ice duration coincide in a
small area on the west of the Antarctic Peninsula, but here we cannot
yet distinguish cause and effect. Thus for the present we cannot
determine which process is the probable cause of RRR warming on the
Antarctic Peninsula and until the mechanism initiating and sustaining
the RRR warming is understood, and is convincingly reproduced in climate
models, we lack a sound basis for predicting climate change in this
region over the coming century."
LOL - so when you said "every time" in the post to which I replied, you
were exaggerating? Do you think the model output is more or less dubious
now that von Storch et al. have shown that the flat part of the hockey
stick is unreliable?
>
> >
> >One improvement could be made right here in this same paragraph of
> >yours. Presumably in reply to my comment which specifically referred to
> >"a wide variety of evidence", you posit "And you're getting this from a
> >modeling study?" The troll here is you, bub.
>
> ROTLF. Only in your tiny little mind. When you can grasp the
> differences between analysis and forecasting, cause and effect, data
> and model output you'll be getting somewhere. Unfortunately, to date,
> all you've managed to show is that you can't grasp even the basics.
Well, despite my limited knowledge about climate, I've shown that you
often spout exaggerations and other lies. You're not an idiot, yet you
say idiotic things. Hope you get better!
> >> No, Troll, a fact. BTW, since we're talking about soot, when
> >> do you suppose you'll answer some key questions regarding its impact
> >> and distribution, since you've claimed here that it is the climate
> >> equivalent of the devil incarnate. ...
> >
> >Actually, I've claimed that your oft-expressed opinion, that any action
> >is better than none, is silly. And the millions of do-gooder diesels on
> >the road spewing extra soot today, there because politicians in Europe
> >listened to folks who agree with you, is an example of hasty politics --
> >the political tail wagging the scientific dog or maybe vice versa.
>
> And, as usual, you're wrong, especially since understanding
> continues to elude you. I see you haven't managed to link cause and
> effect again. The Schulin Effect is in full vigour: the output of one
> modelling study is used to justify all manner
You can pretend to know that soot doesn't have a significant forcing.
You can pretend that desert dust doesn't have significant forcing. You
can pretend that the science is settled enough for adopting policies
like the European governments did in favoring diesels over
gasoline-powered vehicles. And you can mischaracterize my arguments and
call me names all the while. I've come to expect nothing, with rare
exception, more from you.
> >> ... Show me the distribution of
> >> temperature as a function of soot concentration? ...
> >
> >LOL - where's your precautionary principle now?
>
> You're laughing out loud at a request for confirmation of said
> modeling study. What a completely bizarre thing to do. If soot,
> Perfesser, is having the impact you claim it is, one should be able to
> extract a soot signal from the temperature data. Has this been done?
I'm laughing at your double standard. You throw precaution to the wind
and embrace so-called modest change, but even that, in this do-gooder
diesel example, reflects ignorance. The choices to promote diesels were
made by politicians who were advisd that the science is settled enough
for such policy to reduce CO2.
> >> ... Show me the temporal
> >> distribution of temperature in urban and rural centres and highlight
> >> where the morning and evening rush hours are? ...
> >
> >Ah, you're focusing on the local effects of soot emissions, I see.
>
> LOL. And where do you think the temperatures come from that
> produce the global mean temperature, Perfesser? ...
Despite your apparent obtuseness here, you have elsewhere acknowledged
awareness of the effects of albedo change from deposition of soot far
from the sources of emissions.
> ... If soot is having the
> impact you suggest, one should be able to detect a clear soot signal.
> Has this been done.
Not that I've heard of. I urge all to look at the Jones and Moberg [J.
Climate 16:206, 2003] figures, with special attention to the few grid
boxes which show statistically significant surface warming since 1979.
The data does not tend to support your notion that most of the warming
in the record has CO2 fingerprint.
>
> >Please don't forget those few particles wafting long and settling on
> >high-albedo ice and snow. I wish you'd be near as critical of the
> >"arctic ice is melting, glaciers are melting, it must be cee-oh-too"
> >jabberers around here as you are of my much more reasonably-expressed
> >arguments.
>
> I wish you'd engage your brains a little before making idiotic
> comments. Please don't forget that the concentrations of soot
> particulates should be having a far more noticeable impact at the
> emission point. Have you evidence that this is occurring?
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. The effect of soot on ice and snow
may be responsible for some 25% of late 20th century warming, with the
biggest part of this effect related to Arctic sea-ice change. Why do you
insist that local effects must be more important than non-local? All
I've said about local effects is that Jacobson's work shows that the
short-term forcing from diesel soot may outweigh the calculated CO2
forcing (averted by substituting diesels for gasoline engines in
vehicles) for a century or more. I notice that Jacobson has taken aim at
another alarmist myth in his in press JGR paper: "An analysis suggests
that the overall lifetime range of CO2 should be 30-95 years instead of
50-200 years..." Jacobson notes that the data actually support values
even lower than 30 years, but not an iota of data supports the 200-year
value that represents the upper part of the IPCC-assessed range.
> >
> >> ... How about showing me a
> >> clear signal from soot, separated from other urban effects? How about
> >> a differential temperature distribution on weekends opposed to
> >> weekdays? How about you explain how most of the warming is occurring
> >> at night in the arctic in the absense of sunshine? ...
Hansen and Nazarenko describe the main source of the warming. Have you
not read it yet? And if you have, why do you just keep repeating this
same kind of question? I admit, you have cleaned up your act somewhat
since the first ignorant flailings you made in this regard. But it's not
been much of an improvement. Hope you get better, Mr. Ball!
> >
> >You've often used this "most of the warming" phrase. I for one would be
> >interested in hearing what you mean by it. For example, the TAR provides
> >WG1's best estimate of 20th century trend in global mean surface
> >temperature as 0.6?C +/- 0.2?C. How much of that is from nighttime
> >warming of Arctic?
>
> Haven't you been reading the literature, Steve? The relevant
> articles have been presented ad-nauseum here. Given your proficiency
> in mining the archives for quotes, my suggestion is that you get off
> your ass and do a little reading. I'm sure you'll find them with
> little trouble,
I have been reading. It's not been too long since you mentioned that I
apparently read more of the literature than you. Please feel encouraged
to back up your blather and explain your own comments. You seem to say
that it should be self-evident what you mean by "most of the warming".
The most self-evident would be to define "most" as greater than 50%. Is
that what you're claiming? That more than 50% (of the 0.6?C +/- 0.2?C
trend assessed by IPCC WG1 as best estimate for 20th century) is related
to nighttime warming of Arctic? I don't recall any IPCC explanation
that's remotely similar to your notion that most of the trend was from
nighttime warming in Arctic.
>
> >
> >Hansen and Nazarenko [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100,
> >doi:10.1073/pnas.2237157100] point to the reduction in sea ice as being
> >the major warming-creating factor in their conclusion that the albedo
> >effect of soot on snow and ice may be responsible for 25% or so of the
> >estimated late 20th-century global warming.
>
> Yes, yes, we know you found H&N. You've posted references to
> it repeatedly. Do you understand what the real pattern of warming is
> and why their modeling study is problematic? Apparently not.
I know that you've been making vacuous claims about the Hansen and
Nazarenko paper since perhaps before you even read it. Their conclusion,
that some 25% or so of recent decades' warming trend could be the result
of the effect of change in snow and ice albedo due to soot, is quite
relevant to the attribution-by-exclusion studies which the consensus
crowd ballyhoos with false confidence.
> >> ... Soot kind of needs
> >> the sun to have much of an impact. Come on, Steve, let's look at some
> >> real data and see if there is a kernel of truth that can be extracted
> >> from it. Don't look at one study then make a dozen whiny posts about
> >> the evils of deisel engines. Use that grey matter between your ears
> >> for something productive, not the endless trolling you subject
> >> everyone to.
> >
> >My comments have been quite reasonable. I'm not urging a ban on diesels
> >or requiring expensive retrofits. I'm just noting that alarmists like
> >you, and you're surely not the most alarmist in the bunch, seem to be
> >urging too-fast (actually, half-fast is just as appropriate a way of
> >expressing it, maybe moreso if you say it out loud: half fast) policy
> >change.
> >
> Completely wrong. Your comments fail in the face of real data.
> The fact that you have no real data on which to base your comments is
> troubling. The fact that you think H&N is all there is to the problem
> merely shows how superficially you look at problems. You found a study
> that said something you wanted to hear. It's got to be correct. Right?
You again mischaracterize my use of this study. I have discussed two
major implications: (1) Any attribution-by-exclusion study which omits
consideration of soot deposition on snow and ice is less than
comprehensive and thus unreliable for purposes of policy. The
most-quoted IPCC TAR claim is based largely on such studies. (2) The
European legislators who enacted the tax preferences which prompted big
shift to diesel-powered vehicles in recent years were acting without
awareness of the counterproductive, warming-wise, aspect of their policy
change. And if you alarmists were really worried about ice melting,
you'd apologize for urging this modest policy change without
understanding the implications.
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
There's been lots of hooting about some of Loehle's work, but I don't
recall a single substantive argument being voiced against his paricular
criticism of multiproxy technique which I described and referenced
above. Back up your blather, please, Mr. Ball, if you can.
I'd like to stress that Loehle's argument is quite independent of von
Storch et al.'s criticism of the existing multiproxy techniques. There
was no dating error in the von Storch et al. pseudoproxy modeling
experiments.
SwimJim
[deletions]
> > While that might be nice, I don't think so. One thing that I believe
> > needs to be determined, as well as possible, is natural rates of
> > climate/temperature change. We know that there can be rather abrupt
> > changes, probably driven by oceanic circulation regime shifts, where
> > you can get several degree (C) changes in 1-2 decades. But what the
> > multi-proxy data sets, and perhaps the modeling efforts, can inform us
> > on is the maximum rate of "slow" climate changes. ...
>
> I'm not optimistic that multiproxy approach is the right tool for the
> important task you describe. Each proxy record has dating error. By
> combining the proxies, the multiproxy approach inherently tends to smear
> variability out of the record [Ref: Loehle. Using Historical Climate
> Data to Evaluate Climate Trends: Issues of Statistical Inference. Energy
> & Environment, 15(1):1-10, 2004]
That might be true, but there really isn't anything else that will
work.
Single-proxy records for specific regions are too noisy and prone to
influence from local conditions that don't always reflect the "natural
rate of global climate change". The question that arises in my mind
is the amount of
"smearing" -- i.e., can a maximum natural rate of change over a
century be
determined?
[deletions]
At least he didn't go as far as Roy Spencer did in criticizing the
overall quality of peer-review at Science or Nature just because they
didn't send him one to review.
SwimJim
[deletions]
> >While that might be nice, I don't think so. One thing that I believe
> >needs to be determined, as well as possible, is natural rates of
> >climate/temperature change. We know that there can be rather abrupt
> >changes, probably driven by oceanic circulation regime shifts, where
> >you can get several degree (C) changes in 1-2 decades. But what the
> >multi-proxy data sets, and perhaps the modeling efforts, can inform us
> >on is the maximum rate of "slow" climate changes. If a good and
> >reliable handle can be obtained on that, then we would have a better
> >sense of how unnatural the warming in the 20th century, particularly
> >at the end of it into the 21st, might be.
>
> What you're really saying is that we need to define some
> probability density function that describes climate change, both from
> the standpoint of what "normal" is and also where the extremes lie. We
Yes, that's a good description.
> need to be able to put the current changes in some kind of context,
> but at the end of the day, that's all we're really going to be able to
> do with this information. It is not going to help us understand why
> the current changes are occurring nor is it going to help us figure
> out what to do about it.
I partly disagree. An observation that modern climate changes lie out
of the range of natural variability indicates that it should be
possible to do what you describe next: figure out what is causing the
un-natural variability. And if you have a better indication of that,
it helps to determine what should be done about it. (One of the
things that comes to mind is the contribution of black soot aerosols
vs. CO2. James Hansen has come out strongly saying that addressing
black soot aerosols can have immediate and measurable benefits, and
isn't as hard to do as addressing CO2 emissions. But first it must be
determind if the effect of black soot aerosols is as big as he thinks,
and if the effect of substantially reducing them would do as much as
he thinks, too.)
> >It's critical to get a quantitative sense of the maximum rate(s) of
> >change that can be generated by natural forcings alone. That would
> >greatly assist the attribution effort.
>
> How? Look at it this way. Assume for a minute that the current
> increases fall inside some broad natural variability. Does that the
> increases are natural? Does it mean we should do nothing? The issue of
> cause and effect is what is really important, not generic positioning
> of the current warming in the grand scheme of things.
I believe that it would be a contribution to an assessment of the
problem if it could confidently be said that the maximum increase in
global temperature solely attributable to natural causes is 20% (+/-
5%) of the observed increase. Then you can start partitioning the
causes of the remaining 80% (+/- 5%). If the contributions of natural
vs. anthropogenic causes are uncertain by 50%, then the partitioning
of the anthropogenic contributions is even less certain.
Steve Schulin
james...@eudoramail.com (SwimJim) wrote, in part:
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote...
> >
> > There's a lot of ironies related to this new paper. The NewScientist.com
> > reporter quotes Prof. Mann as saying "I was not asked to review the von
> > Storch paper, which I consider unfortunate". I recall lot of insults
> > directed at E&E and M&M for doing what Science now does. If those same
> > folks fail to exhibit double standard, I'll be happily surprised.
>
> At least he didn't go as far as Roy Spencer did in criticizing the
> overall quality of peer-review at Science or Nature just because they
> didn't send him one to review.
You're misrepresenting a couple of details, if you're referring to
Spencer's techcentralstation.com article last Spring. Unlike Mann,
Spencer didn't exclusively focus on "me"; and unlike Mann, Spencer
didn't voice complaint the first time the particular journal chose to
use only other parties as peer reviewers on papers which come to
conclusions different than S/C.
Nature has bent over backwards to be deferential to Mann et al., despite
requiring corrigendum to MBH98. The problems go much deeper than peer
review practices.
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
Eric Swanson
One should also note that before World War II, there were considerable
emissions of black soot from coal burning in the industrial nations.
The old steam powered locomotives belched lots of soot, as did the
early electric generating plants and industrial furnaces.
Locally, this soot could have impacted the temperatures, perhaps causing
the warming "spike" in temperature seen just before WW II. I imagine
that it would be rather difficult to quantify these impacts, as there
is bound to be considerable difficulty in determining the amount of
soot in any local. A familiar story, I'm sorry to say.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Halpernn
Mostly it was that everyone had a coal furnace in the basement. Dad
hated the sucker with a passion.
josh halpern
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >LOL - I don't recall you complaining that IPCC chose to display the Mann
>> >et al. hockey stick in Fig. 1 of the WG1 TAR policymaker summary. Was
>> >hemispheric mean trend immaterial as poster boy for the alarmists too? I
>> >welcome examination of such subsets as the up to 19% of the surface area
>> >exhibiting statistically significant warming over the 1979-2001 period
>> >in the CRU data [Ref: Jones and Moberg, J. Climate 16:206, 2003].
>>
>> ROTFL. Why would I complain about an analysis done with real
>> data that shows the trend over the past 500+ years, Steve? ...
>
>For the immateriality you cited, of course.
LOL. Steve, it's interesting. Nothing more. What is important
is cause and effect.
>
>> ... That is of
>> interest, especially since it is a robust analysis. ...
>
>Any notion that MBH98 was robust was dispelled when the authors
>published their criticism of M&M in Eos. Anybody who reads the von
>Storch et al article can contrast your "robust" claim with their finding
>of "almost no skill". You're a hoot, Mr. Ball.
If you say so, Steve. Of course, it's hard to take you
seriously since you haven't got a clue what it is that they did.
>
>> ... What isn't of
>> interest are flawed follow-ups like the M&M effort that purport to
>> show strong warming during the LIA, a period characterized by cooling...
>
>Can't you get anything right? M&M didn't claim the MBH method produces
>believable results. They just showed the combined effect of the various
>data choices.
ROTFL. Poor little Steve. So much time for trolling, so little
time to use your brains. The very FIRST thing that any competent
analyst does when arriving at a conclusion that flies in the face of
conventional wisdom is ask the all-important question, "Did I fuck up
somewhere?" Please show us where M&M did this? Despite well documented
errors in their methodology - I make the distinction here because they
clearly didn't use MBH's - they never bothered to consider that
perhaps their analysis was suspect, especially in their unseemly rush
to get their article to print. Can't you get anything right, Steve?
>
>> What isn't of interest are the outputs of modeling studies that
>> purport to show something other than the analysis. Model output are
>> not data, Steve. Haven't you figured that out, yet? What isn't of
>> interest are claims that it was warmer at such and such a time in the
>> past. Such attempts to downplay the impact of cause and effect just
>> waste everyone's valuable time. The fact is, strong warming is
>> occurring today and the proximate cause is GHG emissions. Deal with
>> it.
>
>Overstated, as usual.
A fact, as usual, and a point you've been running away from
forever.
<deleted>
I'll have a read of the CC paper myself. I don't comment on papers I
haven't read.
>> >
>> >LOL - are you the same Mr. Ball who told some inquiring poster that the
>> >range of single-value output -- from the MAGICC model tunings used by
>> >IPCC -- represented the best science available or somesuch? I'm glad to
>> >see you apparently flip-flop on this! Maybe you're getting better! Best
>> >wishes on continued improvement!
>>
>> You know, Perfesser, just once it would be nice if you could
>> answer a post directly, without having to go back to the archives.
>> Yes, you fool, that is exactly what I said. The best available science
>> on the FUTURE state of the atmosphere comes from the model output,
>> unless of course you are able to do the necessary calculations in your
>> head. That doesn't mean that the best available science on the CURRENT
>> state of the atmosphere comes from a model. It comes from analyzing
>> REAL data. You do understand the differences, don't you, Steve? I do
>> hope the concept of NOW VS LATER isn't one you're having trouble with.
>> You certainly seem to be having trouble distinguishing between DATA
>> and MODEL OUTPUT. It is ever my hope that one of these days you're
>> finally going to understand the nuances being discussed. You miss out
>> on so many of the fine details when you can't wrap your mind around
>> simple concepts like the ones outlined above.
>
>LOL - so when you said "every time" in the post to which I replied, you
>were exaggerating? Do you think the model output is more or less dubious
>now that von Storch et al. have shown that the flat part of the hockey
>stick is unreliable?
On the contrary, it is the best estimate of the future state
of the atmosphere. One has to use the right tool for the right job. I
can see you now, attempting to split firewood with a screwdriver
because you're too stupid to use an ax. Your problem is that you want
to use model output in the place of real data when considering the
current state of the atmosphere and then pretend that it has no use in
predicting the future state. Talk about getting it bass-ackwards.
Model predictions of the current state of the atmosphere must be
supported by real data. Failure to do that leaves a great deal to be
determined. Witness your tirades against diesel engines based solely
on one modeling study, a modeling study that you have been unable to
support in any meaningful way with real data. The data do not support
the results from said study. Does that make the study wrong? Possibly.
It could also be that the signal in question is extremely weak. The
bottom line, though, is that one doesn't shut ones mind down - the way
you do - and assume that simply because someone says something that
you want to hear, it is necessarily correct.
>
>>
>> >
>> >One improvement could be made right here in this same paragraph of
>> >yours. Presumably in reply to my comment which specifically referred to
>> >"a wide variety of evidence", you posit "And you're getting this from a
>> >modeling study?" The troll here is you, bub.
>>
>> ROTLF. Only in your tiny little mind. When you can grasp the
>> differences between analysis and forecasting, cause and effect, data
>> and model output you'll be getting somewhere. Unfortunately, to date,
>> all you've managed to show is that you can't grasp even the basics.
>
>Well, despite my limited knowledge about climate, I've shown that you
>often spout exaggerations and other lies. You're not an idiot, yet you
>say idiotic things. Hope you get better!
"Limited" is a rather generous term. Non-existent would be
more appropriate. The only liar here is you, and you've been caught so
many times I've lost count. What do you expect from a snake-oil
salesman? Nothing, except more lies. When you can't even come up with
a reasoned way of doing simple analyses, you have a serious problem.
>
>> >> No, Troll, a fact. BTW, since we're talking about soot, when
>> >> do you suppose you'll answer some key questions regarding its impact
>> >> and distribution, since you've claimed here that it is the climate
>> >> equivalent of the devil incarnate. ...
>> >
>> >Actually, I've claimed that your oft-expressed opinion, that any action
>> >is better than none, is silly. And the millions of do-gooder diesels on
>> >the road spewing extra soot today, there because politicians in Europe
>> >listened to folks who agree with you, is an example of hasty politics --
>> >the political tail wagging the scientific dog or maybe vice versa.
>>
>> And, as usual, you're wrong, especially since understanding
>> continues to elude you. I see you haven't managed to link cause and
>> effect again. The Schulin Effect is in full vigour: the output of one
>> modelling study is used to justify all manner
>
>You can pretend to know that soot doesn't have a significant forcing.
LOL. Steve, I never once have said that soot doesn't produce
significant forcing. I have said that observation and analysis of real
data must support the conclusions made by H&N. So far, I haven't seen
the analysis that supports their results. In fact, I've asked you not
once but multiple times to show me where such analyses are. The lack
of observational support means that their effort is interesting and
deserving of more study. Your problem is that, as usual, you've jumped
to a highly unwarranted conclusion in your zeal to show that any kind
of common sense approach to mitigating climate change is a problem. As
usual, you're wrong.
>You can pretend that desert dust doesn't have significant forcing.
Why would I do that?
>You
>can pretend that the science is settled enough for adopting policies
>like the European governments did in favoring diesels over
>gasoline-powered vehicles.
LOL. It is settled until someone can show otherwise. You have
done nothing to do that except jump to conclusions and resort to a lot
of your usual histrionics.
>And you can mischaracterize my arguments and
>call me names all the while. I've come to expect nothing, with rare
>exception, more from you.
I mischaracterize nothing. You're a bold-faced liar and it has
been demonstrated repeatedly. Hell, your first instinct is to defend
your information sources overzealously without first checking to see
if they are correct. Remember your defence of Michaels and
McKittirick's gross error with degrees and radians? Instead of doing a
little thinking and saying, "you know what? They are wrong..." you
start defending them and then ended up with egg on your face. There is
something fundamentally wrong with someone who continues to make these
gross errors. Have you acknowledged them? Nope, you blindly support
them simply because they're saying what you want to hear.
>
>> >> ... Show me the distribution of
>> >> temperature as a function of soot concentration? ...
>> >
>> >LOL - where's your precautionary principle now?
>>
>> You're laughing out loud at a request for confirmation of said
>> modeling study. What a completely bizarre thing to do. If soot,
>> Perfesser, is having the impact you claim it is, one should be able to
>> extract a soot signal from the temperature data. Has this been done?
>
>I'm laughing at your double standard. You throw precaution to the wind
>and embrace so-called modest change, but even that, in this do-gooder
>diesel example, reflects ignorance. The choices to promote diesels were
>made by politicians who were advisd that the science is settled enough
>for such policy to reduce CO2.
It is a double standard to expect that a modeling study of
current conditions be supported by observational data? Another totally
bizarre thing to say. Have you gone off your medication again?
>
>> >> ... Show me the temporal
>> >> distribution of temperature in urban and rural centres and highlight
>> >> where the morning and evening rush hours are? ...
>> >
>> >Ah, you're focusing on the local effects of soot emissions, I see.
>>
>> LOL. And where do you think the temperatures come from that
>> produce the global mean temperature, Perfesser? ...
>
>Despite your apparent obtuseness here, you have elsewhere acknowledged
>awareness of the effects of albedo change from deposition of soot far
>from the sources of emissions.
LOL. Then you should have no trouble producing the
observational evidence to support the H&N study. Where is it cited?
I'm particularly interested in the impacts of soot on temperatures
during the polar night. Perhaps you could explain albedo impacts in
the absense of sunlight.
>
>> ... If soot is having the
>> impact you suggest, one should be able to detect a clear soot signal.
>> Has this been done.
>
>Not that I've heard of. I urge all to look at the Jones and Moberg [J.
>Climate 16:206, 2003] figures, with special attention to the few grid
>boxes which show statistically significant surface warming since 1979.
>The data does not tend to support your notion that most of the warming
>in the record has CO2 fingerprint.
ROTFL. Tell me, Perfesser, do you do any thinking at all, or
do you just look at the pretty pictures? The most plausible reason for
the strong arctic warming is changes in seasonal cloud cover. One of
my oft-stated complaints about the current state of climate research
is the inability to look at cause and effect. Could CO2 forcing be
leading to altering the long-wave flow, leading to changes in seasonal
cloud cover? I don't know either, but it sure would be interesting to
find out. Cause and effect, Perfesser. Think about it.
>
>>
>> >Please don't forget those few particles wafting long and settling on
>> >high-albedo ice and snow. I wish you'd be near as critical of the
>> >"arctic ice is melting, glaciers are melting, it must be cee-oh-too"
>> >jabberers around here as you are of my much more reasonably-expressed
>> >arguments.
>>
>> I wish you'd engage your brains a little before making idiotic
>> comments. Please don't forget that the concentrations of soot
>> particulates should be having a far more noticeable impact at the
>> emission point. Have you evidence that this is occurring?
>
>I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. The effect of soot on ice and snow
>may be responsible for some 25% of late 20th century warming, with the
>biggest part of this effect related to Arctic sea-ice change.
Parroting again, I see. For something that "may" be happening,
you sure are using a lot of deterministic verbiage. I'm puzzled why
you seem to feel that soot has this strong forcing, especially since
its albedo effects are most prominent at night when there is a decided
lack of sunlight, but produces no local effects at all. One would
think that you would be able to measure the impacts of soot easier in
areas where the concentrations are highest - at the emission point.
For some bizarre reason, you don't seem to feel that it is important
to reconcile observation and model.
>Why do you
>insist that local effects must be more important than non-local?
I insist that observation and modeling study be reconciled.
>All
>I've said about local effects is that Jacobson's work shows that the
>short-term forcing from diesel soot may outweigh the calculated CO2
>forcing (averted by substituting diesels for gasoline engines in
>vehicles) for a century or more. I notice that Jacobson has taken aim at
>another alarmist myth in his in press JGR paper: "An analysis suggests
>that the overall lifetime range of CO2 should be 30-95 years instead of
>50-200 years..." Jacobson notes that the data actually support values
>even lower than 30 years, but not an iota of data supports the 200-year
>value that represents the upper part of the IPCC-assessed range.
All you've done is take one modeling study, and leap to a lot
of unwarranted conclusions.
>
>> >
>> >> ... How about showing me a
>> >> clear signal from soot, separated from other urban effects? How about
>> >> a differential temperature distribution on weekends opposed to
>> >> weekdays? How about you explain how most of the warming is occurring
>> >> at night in the arctic in the absense of sunshine? ...
>
>Hansen and Nazarenko describe the main source of the warming. Have you
>not read it yet? And if you have, why do you just keep repeating this
>same kind of question? I admit, you have cleaned up your act somewhat
>since the first ignorant flailings you made in this regard. But it's not
>been much of an improvement. Hope you get better, Mr. Ball!
Steve, I'm asking you to support their conclusions
independently. Think!! Most of the warming is occurring at night.
Minimums are increasing at twice the rate of maximums. We've known
this for a decade. Use that grey matter between your ears, for God's
sake. I do hope you get better. LOL.
>
>> >
>> >You've often used this "most of the warming" phrase. I for one would be
>> >interested in hearing what you mean by it. For example, the TAR provides
>> >WG1's best estimate of 20th century trend in global mean surface
>> >temperature as 0.6?C +/- 0.2?C. How much of that is from nighttime
>> >warming of Arctic?
>>
>> Haven't you been reading the literature, Steve? The relevant
>> articles have been presented ad-nauseum here. Given your proficiency
>> in mining the archives for quotes, my suggestion is that you get off
>> your ass and do a little reading. I'm sure you'll find them with
>> little trouble,
>
>I have been reading.
Apparently not, or you wouldn't have been asking about 10
year-old research.
> It's not been too long since you mentioned that I
>apparently read more of the literature than you.
There's reading and there's comprehending. Looking at the
pretty pictures doesn't cut it, Steve.
>Please feel encouraged
>to back up your blather and explain your own comments.
ROTFL. Let me get this straight. You read a single article,
buy into it completely, to the point that you make a lot of
unwarranted comments about it, when asked to back up said modeling
study with observational evidence you run away with your tail tucked
between your legs, then have the gall to claim ask someone else to
back up their comments. I stand corrected. You aren't just a snake-oil
salesman. You're THE snake-oil salesman.
>You seem to say
>that it should be self-evident what you mean by "most of the warming".
I'm saying that it has been in the literature extensively. I
see no reason to waste my valuable time doing work YOU should be able
to do.
>The most self-evident would be to define "most" as greater than 50%. Is
>that what you're claiming? That more than 50% (of the 0.6?C +/- 0.2?C
>trend assessed by IPCC WG1 as best estimate for 20th century) is related
>to nighttime warming of Arctic? I don't recall any IPCC explanation
>that's remotely similar to your notion that most of the trend was from
>nighttime warming in Arctic.
>
>>
>> >
>> >Hansen and Nazarenko [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100,
>> >doi:10.1073/pnas.2237157100] point to the reduction in sea ice as being
>> >the major warming-creating factor in their conclusion that the albedo
>> >effect of soot on snow and ice may be responsible for 25% or so of the
>> >estimated late 20th-century global warming.
>>
>> Yes, yes, we know you found H&N. You've posted references to
>> it repeatedly. Do you understand what the real pattern of warming is
>> and why their modeling study is problematic? Apparently not.
>
>I know that you've been making vacuous claims about the Hansen and
>Nazarenko paper since perhaps before you even read it. Their conclusion,
>that some 25% or so of recent decades' warming trend could be the result
>of the effect of change in snow and ice albedo due to soot, is quite
>relevant to the attribution-by-exclusion studies which the consensus
>crowd ballyhoos with false confidence.
LOL. It certainly would be if there is observational evidence
to support it. Do you have some of that? I'd certainly be interested
in reading it. Come on, Steve, do some science. Think!!
>> >
>> >My comments have been quite reasonable. I'm not urging a ban on diesels
>> >or requiring expensive retrofits. I'm just noting that alarmists like
>> >you, and you're surely not the most alarmist in the bunch, seem to be
>> >urging too-fast (actually, half-fast is just as appropriate a way of
>> >expressing it, maybe moreso if you say it out loud: half fast) policy
>> >change.
>> >
>> Completely wrong. Your comments fail in the face of real data.
>> The fact that you have no real data on which to base your comments is
>> troubling. The fact that you think H&N is all there is to the problem
>> merely shows how superficially you look at problems. You found a study
>> that said something you wanted to hear. It's got to be correct. Right?
>
>You again mischaracterize my use of this study. I have discussed two
>major implications: (1) Any attribution-by-exclusion study which omits
>consideration of soot deposition on snow and ice is less than
>comprehensive and thus unreliable for purposes of policy. The
>most-quoted IPCC TAR claim is based largely on such studies. (2) The
>European legislators who enacted the tax preferences which prompted big
>shift to diesel-powered vehicles in recent years were acting without
>awareness of the counterproductive, warming-wise, aspect of their policy
>change. And if you alarmists were really worried about ice melting,
>you'd apologize for urging this modest policy change without
>understanding the implications.
>
Regarding your point 1: completely wrong, until there is
observational evidence to support the H&N study. Until their study is
validated, you cannot base any decisions on it. It is certainly cause
for more study, but it is not the be-all and end-all you seem to feel
it is.
Regarding your point 2: you can make no statement about the
impact of European legislation since you don't know if the H&N study
is correct, nor have you taken into account other factors that have
impacted their decision. As usual, you're looking at the problem too
simplistically.
David Ball
wrote:
That work is already being done, though. There isn't a
requirement to see if it falls within the limits of natural
variability before we can look at cause and effect. Certainly, if it
falls outside natural variability it would quell much of the noise
coming from the denialist side of things, but I'm not sure that it is
necessary step.
>And if you have a better indication of that,
>it helps to determine what should be done about it. (One of the
>things that comes to mind is the contribution of black soot aerosols
>vs. CO2. James Hansen has come out strongly saying that addressing
>black soot aerosols can have immediate and measurable benefits, and
>isn't as hard to do as addressing CO2 emissions. But first it must be
>determind if the effect of black soot aerosols is as big as he thinks,
>and if the effect of substantially reducing them would do as much as
>he thinks, too.)
I'm very leery of playing with the planet's climate system out
of ignorance. That's how we got where we are right now.
>
>> >It's critical to get a quantitative sense of the maximum rate(s) of
>> >change that can be generated by natural forcings alone. That would
>> >greatly assist the attribution effort.
>>
>> How? Look at it this way. Assume for a minute that the current
>> increases fall inside some broad natural variability. Does that the
>> increases are natural? Does it mean we should do nothing? The issue of
>> cause and effect is what is really important, not generic positioning
>> of the current warming in the grand scheme of things.
>
>I believe that it would be a contribution to an assessment of the
>problem if it could confidently be said that the maximum increase in
>global temperature solely attributable to natural causes is 20% (+/-
>5%) of the observed increase. Then you can start partitioning the
>causes of the remaining 80% (+/- 5%). If the contributions of natural
>vs. anthropogenic causes are uncertain by 50%, then the partitioning
>of the anthropogenic contributions is even less certain.
>
You could be right.
Eric Swanson
My grandparents' house had a coal furnace.
My parents' bought a house built in 1940, which had a coal furnace in it.
When they bought it in 1954, they installed an oil furnace. That furnace
died in the 1970's and was replaced with another oil furnace. I installed
a gas line and 95% efficient furnace in 1992, which was running fine when I
sold the house in 1998. The old coal chute was still in place....
SwimJim
> In article <63167942.04100...@posting.google.com>,
> james...@eudoramail.com (SwimJim) wrote, in part:
>
> > Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote...
> > >
> > > There's a lot of ironies related to this new paper. The NewScientist.com
> > > reporter quotes Prof. Mann as saying "I was not asked to review the von
> > > Storch paper, which I consider unfortunate". I recall lot of insults
> > > directed at E&E and M&M for doing what Science now does. If those same
> > > folks fail to exhibit double standard, I'll be happily surprised.
> >
> > At least he didn't go as far as Roy Spencer did in criticizing the
> > overall quality of peer-review at Science or Nature just because they
> > didn't send him one to review.
>
> You're misrepresenting a couple of details, if you're referring to
> Spencer's techcentralstation.com article last Spring. Unlike Mann,
> Spencer didn't exclusively focus on "me"; and unlike Mann, Spencer
> didn't voice complaint the first time the particular journal chose to
> use only other parties as peer reviewers on papers which come to
> conclusions different than S/C.
No, apparently Spencer waited until the second time.
Mann's complaint was MUCH milder than Spencer's. Here's the quote
from Spencer's TCS article:
"But in recent years, a curious thing has happened. The popular
science magazines, Science and Nature, have seemingly stopped sending
John Christy and me papers whose conclusions differ from our satellite
data analysis. This is in spite of the fact that we are (arguably) the
most qualified people in the field to review them. This is the second
time in nine months that these journals have let papers be published
in the satellite temperature monitoring field that had easily
identifiable errors in their methodology.
I will admit to being uneasy about airing scientific dirty laundry in
an op-ed. But as long as these popular science journals insist on
putting news value ahead of science, then I have little choice. The
damage has already been done. A paper claiming to falsify our
satellite temperature record has been published in the "peer reviewed"
literature, and the resulting news reports will never be taken back.
This is one reason increasing numbers of scientists regard Science and
Nature as "gray" scientific literature."
One, it has yet to be hashed out if Fu's paper had "easily
identifiable errors in methodology" or if Spencer didn't understand
what Fu did. (And I have previously notified you of Scott ?'s (can't
remember last name) blog postings that explained Fu et al.'s
methodology in some detail, and which indicated that he thought it was
possible Spencer and/or Christy didn't fully grasp Fu's methods.
(Still waiting for that published rebuttal paper.)
Two, Mann said it was unfortunate that he didn't get to review the van
Storch paper. Spencer says that Science and Nature are losing their
status as prestigious scientific journals just because they aren't
letting him and Christy review papers he thinks that they ought to, by
rights of being the self-named "best qualified people in the field to
review them".
There's a lot of difference in those two statements.
> Nature has bent over backwards to be deferential to Mann et al., despite
> requiring corrigendum to MBH98. The problems go much deeper than peer
> review practices.
And thus are aspersions subtly cast.
SwimJim
> Eric Swanson wrote:
> > In article <63167942.04100...@posting.google.com>, james...@eudoramail.com says...
[deletions]
> >>I partly disagree. An observation that modern climate changes lie out
> >>of the range of natural variability indicates that it should be
> >>possible to do what you describe next: figure out what is causing the
> >>un-natural variability. And if you have a better indication of that,
> >>it helps to determine what should be done about it. (One of the
> >>things that comes to mind is the contribution of black soot aerosols
> >>vs. CO2. James Hansen has come out strongly saying that addressing
> >>black soot aerosols can have immediate and measurable benefits, and
> >>isn't as hard to do as addressing CO2 emissions. But first it must be
> >>determind if the effect of black soot aerosols is as big as he thinks,
> >>and if the effect of substantially reducing them would do as much as
> >>he thinks, too.)
> >
> >
> > One should also note that before World War II, there were considerable
> > emissions of black soot from coal burning in the industrial nations.
> > The old steam powered locomotives belched lots of soot, as did the
> > early electric generating plants and industrial furnaces.
>
> Mostly it was that everyone had a coal furnace in the basement. Dad
> hated the sucker with a passion.
It was bad in the post WWII era, too.
The Killer Fog of '52 (London)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=873954
Here's part of it:
***
The so-called killer fog is not an especially well-remembered event,
even though it changed the way the world looks at pollution. Before
the incident, people in cities tended to accept pollution as a part of
life. Afterward, more and more, they fought to limit the poisonous
side effects of the industrial age.
***
(moving down)
***
As the smoke coming out of London's chimneys mixed with natural fog,
the air turned colder. Londoners heaped more coal on their fires,
making more smoke. Soon it was so dark some said they couldn't see
their feet.
By Sunday, Dec. 7, visibility fell to one foot.
Roads were littered with abandoned cars. Midday concerts were
cancelled due to total darkness. Archivists at the British Museum
found smog lurking in the book stacks. Cattle in the city's Smithfield
market were killed and thrown away before they could be slaughtered
and sold -- their lungs were black.
On the second day of the smog, Saturday, Dec. 6, 500 people died in
London. When the ambulances stopped running, thousands of gasping
Londoners walked through the smog to the city's hospitals.
The lips of the dying were blue. Heavy smoking and chronic exposure to
pollution had already weakened the lungs of those who fell ill during
the smog. Particulates and acids in the killer brew finished the job
by triggering massive inflammations. In essence, the dead had
suffocated.
Some 900 more people died on Tuesday, Dec. 9, 1952. Then the wind
swept in unexpectedly. The killer fog vanished as quickly as it had
arrived.
***
And now we see huge clouds of smog choking China (below is a picture
from one of my favorite satellites):
http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEAWIFS/TEACHERS/ATMOSPHERE/ChinaPollution.html
Eric Swanson
London wasn't the only city impacted by extreme air pollution events.
http://www.cleanair-stlouis.com/History.htm
"St. Louis in the late 1800s was a city of growth and rapid development.
St. Louis in this time was a filthy city. Industrial growth produced billows of
sooty coal smoke that everyone could see, smell and taste in the air. Less
obvious was the lasting environmental damage caused by industrial waste.
The industrial growth took its toll on St. Louis and the environment. In
November 1939, there were nine days of extreme smoke cover in the St. Louis
downtown area. On November 26, an editorial in the St. Louis Post Dispatch
outlined a plan to alleviate the smoke problem. It called for the city to use
clean burning fuels like gas, and to stop burning soft coal.
Two days later the worst smoke cloud in St. Louis' history enveloped the
downtown area, and this day infamously became known as Black Tuesday. On this
day, the St. Louis air was so black that not only did city street lights have
to be turned on at midday, but people couldn't even see buildings across the
street, traffic was delayed and almost stopped because of near zero visibility!
Everyday for the next three weeks, front page articles followed the
progress of the smoke elimination plan. Union Electric agreed to install new
smoke eliminating devices on it's boilers. City officials and community leaders
worked together with businesses to put their new plan into action. St. Louis
became the first major U.S. city to control urban smoke pollution and to place
limitations on the usage of low quality coal. This coalition saved the city
from the choke hold of air pollution."
---
Any bets on how much these pollution conditions had on temperature measurements?
Nuke, you listening??
Steve Schulin
james...@eudoramail.com (SwimJim) wrote:
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote...
> > james...@eudoramail.com (SwimJim) wrote, in part:
> > > Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote...
> > > >
> > > > There's a lot of ironies related to this new paper. The
> > > > NewScientist.com
> > > > reporter quotes Prof. Mann as saying "I was not asked to review the von
> > > > Storch paper, which I consider unfortunate". I recall lot of insults
> > > > directed at E&E and M&M for doing what Science now does. If those same
> > > > folks fail to exhibit double standard, I'll be happily surprised.
> > >
> > > At least he didn't go as far as Roy Spencer did in criticizing the
> > > overall quality of peer-review at Science or Nature just because they
> > > didn't send him one to review.
> >
> > You're misrepresenting a couple of details, if you're referring to
> > Spencer's techcentralstation.com article last Spring. Unlike Mann,
> > Spencer didn't exclusively focus on "me"; and unlike Mann, Spencer
> > didn't voice complaint the first time the particular journal chose to
> > use only other parties as peer reviewers on papers which come to
> > conclusions different than S/C.
>
> No, apparently Spencer waited until the second time.
You're welcome.
Yep.
>
> > Nature has bent over backwards to be deferential to Mann et al., despite
> > requiring corrigendum to MBH98. The problems go much deeper than peer
> > review practices.
>
> And thus are aspersions subtly cast.
There's nothing subtle about my clearly stated aspersions here.
Michael Tobis
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message news:<steve.schulin-7BB...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
> > "If the true natural
> > variability of [northern hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than
> > is currently accepted, the extent to which recent warming can be viewed
> > as unusual would need to be reassessed."
>
> While that might be nice, I don't think so.
While Schulin's response is predictable, I can't see how one could
argue with the above. It seems like a tautology to me.
One of the problems with arguing against people whose position is
based on advocacy rather than a search for truth is that one finds
oneself reluctant to acknowledge their points. It feels unfair,
knowing that they, the advocacy types, will never acknowledge points
of view based in a balanced study of the matter.
There are lots of yeah-buts that quite reasonably attach to the above,
but the assertion as it stands is carefully crafted to be logically
unassailable. Let's not mince words. It's self-evident. It's true. If
Schulin says 2 + 2 = 4, that doesn't make it wrong.
I find the fact that people I respect are saying "no" rather than
"yeah but" alarming in the extreme. Whoever does so has fallen into
the opponents' trap. They thereby lose a lot of points with me and
with intelligent uncommitted readers regarding the reliability of
their arguments.
You cannot compete with propagandists on mendacity, and if you pay
much attention to science, you probably cannot compete with them on
argumentative skill. You can only compete on truth.
Saying "no" to something that is incontrovertibly true just because
the person saying it has been misleading in the past is falling into a
trap. I'm dismayed at how thoroughly people have fallen into it.
Let's read it again:
> > "If the true natural
> > variability of [northern hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than
> > is currently accepted, the extent to which recent warming can be viewed
> > as unusual would need to be reassessed."
How could this possibly be untrue?
Here's some relevant reading:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/
See in particular
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/index.html#000219
which is linked from the 10/6 entry.
I'm not sure I agree with Pielke's overall position, but it surely is
refreshing reading coherent and well-founded opinions on this subject
for a change.
mt
James Annan
Michael Tobis wrote:
> james...@eudoramail.com (SwimJim) wrote in message news:<63167942.04100...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message news:<steve.schulin-7BB...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
>
>
>>>"If the true natural
>>>variability of [northern hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than
>>>is currently accepted, the extent to which recent warming can be viewed
>>>as unusual would need to be reassessed."
>>
>>While that might be nice, I don't think so.
>
>
> While Schulin's response is predictable, I can't see how one could
> argue with the above. It seems like a tautology to me.
I was thinking about posting something similar myself, but you put it
better than I would have done.
James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
Joshua Halpernn
> james...@eudoramail.com (SwimJim) wrote in message news:<63167942.04100...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message news:<steve.schulin-7BB...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
>
>
>>>"If the true natural
>>>variability of [northern hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than
>>>is currently accepted, the extent to which recent warming can be viewed
>>>as unusual would need to be reassessed."
>>
>>While that might be nice, I don't think so.
>
increasing, and associated this with global climate change, which would
be interesting in many ways and put an amusing spin on this.
Sorry, I can't lay my hands on it right now. Anyone else?
josh halpern
Joshua Halpernn
One of the scariest nights in my life was in Erfurt Germany, about a
year after the fall of the DDR. We came into town at Christmas in the
middle of an inversion which trapped the smoke from burning brown coal
(slightly higher heating value than dirt). The street lights had halos
around them and the place looked like Monet's pictures of London ~1890
http://www.globalgallery.com/enlarge/018-22699/. The place stunk like a
cigar bar. Then the power failed totally.
Monet may have had vision problems, but the paintings are the real thing
josh halpern
Steve Schulin
m...@3planes.com (Michael Tobis) wrote:
> james...@eudoramail.com (SwimJim) wrote...
> > Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote...
Despite any disquieting effect it may have had on "Man-with-a-mission"
Tobis, I'm glad to have availed myself of the opportunity to post the
quote from the body of the journal article highlighted by SwimJim. My
reaction to the quote was pretty indistinguishable from Tobis' own
"self-evident" comment. His blathering discourses, however, are quite
distinguishable, and surely warrant his "predictable" label by now.
charliew2
Thanks for remaining open minded, Michael. As you pointed out, we should be
searching for the the truth. As you also pointed out, it is very easy to
fall into a trap on the above postings. Just because different posters
occasionally "lock horns" with a particular viewpoint, does *NOT* mean that
those posters will never be correct. Science isn't about emotions,
opinions, politics, previous disagreements, or religious differences.
Now, for the "counter point". Steve didn't qualify the statement quite well
enough. "If the true natural variability ..." doesn't specify what time
frame he is looking at. For a presumed random variable, with influences
from many sources, it would be convenient to specify the time frame of
interest. This would allow people to either calculate the relevant
statistics or collect more data. While his statement is true based on the
wording given, I'm not sure that it carries any weight because of the very
particular omissions regarding time frame.
Steve Schulin
swa...@notspam.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
All I'm good for in this case is to share some background info I found
interesting. It's from intro of a Jacobson JGR article I mentioned
earlier -- his web site lists it as in-press since July [title: "The
Climate Response of Fossil-Fuel and Biofuel Soot, Accounting for Soot零
Feedback to Snow and Sea Ice Albedo and Emissivity"]:
"Black carbon (BC), the main component of soot, directly warms the air
by absorbing solar radiation, converting the solar radiation into
internal energy (raising the temperature of the soot), and emitting, at
the higher temperature, thermal-infrared radiation, which is absorbed
selectively by air molecules. The warmer air molecules, which
predominantly have long lifetimes, are transported to large scales,
including to the global scale. The soot particles, which are removed
within days to weeks by rainout, washout, and dry deposition, do not
travel so far. Since the soot particles absorb solar radiation, they
prevent that radiation from reaching the ground, cooling the ground
immediately below them during the day. During the day and night, BC
absorbs the Earth零 thermal-infrared radiation, a portion of which is
redirected back to the ground, warming the ground. In sum, soot
particles create three major types of temperature gradients (a) a
daytime gradient in the immediate presence of soot where the atmosphere
warms and the ground cools, (b) a nighttime gradient in the immediate
presence of soot where the atmosphere warms and the ground warms, (c) a
large-scale day- and nighttime gradient in the absence of soot but
presence of advected air heated by soot where the atmosphere warms and
the ground temperature is unchanged. In only one of these cases, which
covers only a portion of the globe and only during the day, does soot
cool the ground. These three types of temperature gradients set in
motion feedbacks to meteorology, other aerosols, clouds, and radiation
that affect temperatures further.
"When BC deposits to a surface, such as snow or sea ice, solar
absorption and heating occur at the surface, so BC warms the surface
directly. The heating due to BC at the surface melts some additional
snow or sea ice, and the BC itself changes the reflectivity of snow.
Both factors feed back to climate."
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com/environment/climate_policy/default.html
Steve Schulin
"charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote:
Actually, it was a quote from the body of Briffa and Osborne perspective
article, one of the papers highlighted in the thread-starting post. They
specify the greater variability -- decades-to-century variability --
discuseed in von Storch et al.
David Ball
>james...@eudoramail.com (SwimJim) wrote in message news:<63167942.04100...@posting.google.com>...
>> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message news:<steve.schulin-7BB...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
>
>> > "If the true natural
>> > variability of [northern hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than
>> > is currently accepted, the extent to which recent warming can be viewed
>> > as unusual would need to be reassessed."
>>
>> While that might be nice, I don't think so.
>
>While Schulin's response is predictable, I can't see how one could
>argue with the above. It seems like a tautology to me.
I don't believe the statement above is really the issue. It
boils down to whether current climate studies are looking for the
truth or for context. Both have merit, but neither precludes the
other, and that is where comments like Schulin's usually are headed.
For a long time we heard comments like, "What warming?". Now we're
hearing, "So there's warming. There's nothing unusual in it.". If
that doesn't work, we'll move on to, "So it's unusual, it will be good
for us..." and round and round we'll go.
>
>One of the problems with arguing against people whose position is
>based on advocacy rather than a search for truth is that one finds
>oneself reluctant to acknowledge their points. It feels unfair,
>knowing that they, the advocacy types, will never acknowledge points
>of view based in a balanced study of the matter.
I'm reminded of the Ronald Reagan story (it really isn't his
story, but he's the most famous teller of it) about the two boys - one
a pessimist, the other an optimist - who are put in separate rooms,
the pessimist's filled with brand-new toys and the optimist's with
manure. Some time later, the pessimist is discovered crying because
he's afraid he'll break the toys. The optimist is digging through the
manure convinced that there must be a pony in the room somewhere.
Every visitor to usenet is different. Some of us are more
willing than others to wade through the manure that the advocates
liberally spread in order to find a kernel of truth (the pony) every
once a while. I've said much the same thing to Steve before. After a
while it's easier to discount everything he says out of hand because
you never know when he's going to tell the truth.
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
>"When BC deposits to a surface, such as snow or sea ice, solar
>absorption and heating occur at the surface, so BC warms the surface
>directly. The heating due to BC at the surface melts some additional
>snow or sea ice, and the BC itself changes the reflectivity of snow.
>Both factors feed back to climate."
That is a given. You don't need BC to do it either. Old snow
is dirty. That is also a given. If BC is having the impact you say it
is, then we should see changes in spring temperatures. That is when
the combination of snow/ice and sunlight converge. In the winter there
is an absence of the latter. In summer, the former. In fall, both and
neither need be present. It's a lot more complex then. Have a look at
the 30 year temperature trends for the arctic:
http://faldo.atmos.uiuc.edu/RESEARCH/temptrends.html
and attempt to put BC into some context with the observational data.
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 22:25:24 -0400, Steve Schulin
> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"When BC deposits to a surface, such as snow or sea ice, solar
> >absorption and heating occur at the surface, so BC warms the surface
> >directly. The heating due to BC at the surface melts some additional
> >snow or sea ice, and the BC itself changes the reflectivity of snow.
> >Both factors feed back to climate."
>
> That is a given. You don't need BC to do it either. Old snow
> is dirty. That is also a given. If BC is having the impact you say it
> is, then we should see changes in spring temperatures. That is when
> the combination of snow/ice and sunlight converge. In the winter there
> is an absence of the latter. In summer, the former. In fall, both and
> neither need be present. It's a lot more complex then. ...
The authors report that the albedo change-induced warming is most
significant in the winter. They attribute this to the reduction in sea
ice.
For anybody who's interested, the Hansen and Nazarenko paper is freely
available at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004_HansenNazarenko.pdf
> ... Have a look at
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
I urge folks to be skeptical, and that includes being skeptical of my
humble comments. I've never claimed to be a climate expert, but I've
read enough to often identify various bogosities and whatnot in your
posts. I'll surely make some mistakes, as I have in the past. And I'm
grateful when others point them out.
Very truly,
BallB...@nuclear.com
http://www.nuclear.com/environment/climate_policy/default.html
SwimJim
> james...@eudoramail.com (SwimJim) wrote in message news:<63167942.04100...@posting.google.com>...
> > Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message news:<steve.schulin-7BB...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
>
> > > "If the true natural
> > > variability of [northern hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than
> > > is currently accepted, the extent to which recent warming can be viewed
> > > as unusual would need to be reassessed."
> >
> > While that might be nice, I don't think so.
Let me rephrase:
It might be a nice outcome for global warming skeptics if the extent
to which recent warming can be viewed as unusual needs to be
reassessed. However, in my status as a global warming realist, I
don't think that there needs to be any reassessment of the unusual
nature of recent warming. Rather, I think that the study only
provides a way to better quantify the usual (natural) from the unusual
(anthropogenic) contributions to the total recent warming.
That better, Michael?
I.e. Olson and Briffa extended an olive branch to the skeptics with
their statement, which Steve Schulin grabbed with both hands. That
was predictable and expected. In fact, it seems fairly obvious that
van Storch was motivated with a need to prove that the skepticism
inherent in the paper which led to his resignation (by his choice) was
actually merited by a more quantifiable approach. Thus, he has
produced a paper warmly embraced by skeptics as perhaps sowing some
debt regarding what's been recently happening -- a paper that might
allow one to think that natural variability could possibly make a
larger contribution to 20th-century temperature trends than most
scientists think it does.
The problem is, as has been discussed elsewhere, the variability of
anthropogenic causality has also increased in the 20th century. Be it
increasing land cover modification, increasing emissions of SO2 and
black soot (see our Killer Fog branch of this thread), increasing
urban area, and increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, the
entire 20th century pattern is unusual. The rapid rise at the end of
the century is the most unusual part of it -- therefore, I don't think
there's any need to reassess how unusual it is. We just need to
understand why it's unusual and what makes it SO unusual.
[deletions]
> Saying "no" to something that is incontrovertibly true just because
> the person saying it has been misleading in the past is falling into a
> trap. I'm dismayed at how thoroughly people have fallen into it.
And I didn't do that -- but perhaps I didn't fully explain my
reasoning.
> Let's read it again:
>
> > > "If the true natural
> > > variability of [northern hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than
> > > is currently accepted, the extent to which recent warming can be viewed
> > > as unusual would need to be reassessed."
>
> How could this possibly be untrue?
The re-assessment of "unusuality" is unnecessary.
> I'm not sure I agree with Pielke's overall position, but it surely is
> refreshing reading coherent and well-founded opinions on this subject
> for a change.
Pielke provides a lot of food for thought.
Steve Schulin
> m...@3planes.com (Michael Tobis)...
> > james...@eudoramail.com (SwimJim) wrote...
> > > steve....@nuclear.com [quoted Briffa and Osborne paper]...
Dang Jim, in one paragraph you refer to yourself as a realist, and here
in the next, you show yourself to be a, well, certainly not a realist.
Woe be, apparently, unto those who step off the "consensus" plantation.
If anybody thinks Fig. 1 in the UNIPCC WG1 TAR SPM would have included
von Storch et al's findings about the hockey stick icon, then they may
be pretty much as deluded as you. Just out of curiosity, have you
imagined a reason why Zorita participated in the, uh, von Storch need
fulfillment?
w...@bas.ac.uk
>...In fact, it seems fairly obvious that van Storch was motivated with a need
> to prove that the skepticism inherent in the paper which led to his resignation
> (by his choice) was actually merited by a more quantifiable approach.
It took me a few reading to make sense of what you said. I think its more
likely that von S was just doing something fairly obvious (at least in
retrospect). GCMs have already been used to estimate the effects of the
patchiness of the sfc t record on the estimate of global t: its natural
to extend that to the last 1000y. OTOH, all this appears to hang on using
models (once again): the von S paper makes no sense unless you trust the
model var to resemble natural var. So we see the skeptics embracing the
evil models, when convenient.
-W.
--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
Ian St. John
> SwimJim <james...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>
>> ...In fact, it seems fairly obvious that van Storch was motivated
>> with a need to prove that the skepticism inherent in the paper which
>> led to his resignation (by his choice) was actually merited by a
>> more quantifiable approach.
>
> It took me a few reading to make sense of what you said. I think its
> more likely that von S was just doing something fairly obvious (at
> least in retrospect). GCMs have already been used to estimate the
> effects of the patchiness of the sfc t record on the estimate of
> global t: its natural to extend that to the last 1000y. OTOH, all
> this appears to hang on using models (once again): the von S paper
> makes no sense unless you trust the model var to resemble natural
> var. So we see the skeptics embracing the evil models, when
> convenient.
>
It really, to my mind, makes the claim ( from computer simulations and the
methodology used by Mann, et all, and others) that the methods *could* hide
some fraction of the variability, not that they DO. It opens the door for
reasessment if any data showing larger climate variability in the past is
found.
> -W.
Michael Tobis
> I urge folks to be skeptical, and that includes being skeptical of my
> humble comments. I've never claimed to be a climate expert, but I've
> read enough to often identify various bogosities and whatnot in your
> posts. I'll surely make some mistakes, as I have in the past. And I'm
> grateful when others point them out.
That's reassuring. Could you please point out instances where you
expressed such gratitude?
I seem to recall you still didn't accept the modern CO2 spike as
anthropogenic, for instance. Did you appreciate being corrected on
that obvious misapprehension, or are you sticking to that one?
my
Steve Schulin
> SwimJim <james...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>
> >...In fact, it seems fairly obvious that van Storch was motivated with a
> >need
> > to prove that the skepticism inherent in the paper which led to his
> > resignation
> > (by his choice) was actually merited by a more quantifiable approach.
>
> It took me a few reading to make sense of what you said. I think its more
> likely that von S was just doing something fairly obvious (at least in
> retrospect). GCMs have already been used to estimate the effects of the
> patchiness of the sfc t record on the estimate of global t: its natural
> to extend that to the last 1000y. OTOH, all this appears to hang on using
> models (once again): the von S paper makes no sense unless you trust the
> model var to resemble natural var. So we see the skeptics embracing the
> evil models, when convenient.
>
> -W.
I've often discussed the dubious predictive value of climate modeling
for policy purposes. von Storch et al's use of modeling, and the
conclusions they draw from their results, seem quite reasonable to me.
They have identified a big uncertainty in the extant multiproxy
constructions -- an uncertainty which is fully independent of the error
bars illustrated in IPCC PMS. The heuristic value of models need not be
thrown out with the bathwater represented by exaggerated claims of
predictive value.
Steve Schulin
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
> news:<steve.schulin-BB9...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
> > I urge folks to be skeptical, and that includes being skeptical of my
> > humble comments. I've never claimed to be a climate expert, but I've
> > read enough to often identify various bogosities and whatnot in your
> > posts. I'll surely make some mistakes, as I have in the past. And I'm
> > grateful when others point them out.
>
> That's reassuring. Could you please point out instances where you
> expressed such gratitude?
I typically use the words "Thanks for correcting" and "Thank you for
correcting". A google archive search will find them.
>
> I seem to recall you still didn't accept the modern CO2 spike as
> anthropogenic, for instance. Did you appreciate being corrected on
> that obvious misapprehension, or are you sticking to that one?
I stick by what I've said, but that's not necessarily what you remember
it as, nor what you harped on at the time. As I recall, you distorted a
Bellamy comment as part of one of your Man-with-a-mission raves. As to
what I "accept", I note that the uncertainty associated with you being a
shifty liar seems much less than the uncertainty associated with
historic lead-lag temperature-CO2 issues.
>
> my
y not
charliew2
Do you guys always have to immediately take things so personally? Gee ...
give it a break!
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm reminded of the Ronald Reagan story (it really isn't his
>> story, but he's the most famous teller of it) about the two boys - one
>> a pessimist, the other an optimist - who are put in separate rooms,
>> the pessimist's filled with brand-new toys and the optimist's with
>> manure. Some time later, the pessimist is discovered crying because
>> he's afraid he'll break the toys. The optimist is digging through the
>> manure convinced that there must be a pony in the room somewhere.
>> Every visitor to usenet is different. Some of us are more
>> willing than others to wade through the manure that the advocates
>> liberally spread in order to find a kernel of truth (the pony) every
>> once a while. I've said much the same thing to Steve before. After a
>> while it's easier to discount everything he says out of hand because
>> you never know when he's going to tell the truth.
>
>I urge folks to be skeptical, and that includes being skeptical of my
>humble comments. I've never claimed to be a climate expert, but I've
>read enough to often identify various bogosities and whatnot in your
>posts. I'll surely make some mistakes, as I have in the past. And I'm
>grateful when others point them out.
>
There's a difference between skepticism and outright
misrepresentation, the latter being what you practice. You've never
claimed to be a climate expert, but that hasn't stopped you from using
some pretty vile verbiage to describe those who are.
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>In article <4166...@news.nwl.ac.uk>, w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
>
>> SwimJim <james...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >...In fact, it seems fairly obvious that van Storch was motivated with a
>> >need
>> > to prove that the skepticism inherent in the paper which led to his
>> > resignation
>> > (by his choice) was actually merited by a more quantifiable approach.
>>
>> It took me a few reading to make sense of what you said. I think its more
>> likely that von S was just doing something fairly obvious (at least in
>> retrospect). GCMs have already been used to estimate the effects of the
>> patchiness of the sfc t record on the estimate of global t: its natural
>> to extend that to the last 1000y. OTOH, all this appears to hang on using
>> models (once again): the von S paper makes no sense unless you trust the
>> model var to resemble natural var. So we see the skeptics embracing the
>> evil models, when convenient.
>>
>> -W.
>
>I've often discussed the dubious predictive value of climate modeling
>for policy purposes. von Storch et al's use of modeling, and the
>conclusions they draw from their results, seem quite reasonable to me.
You've also shown a preference for using models for analysis,
and throwing out that nasty real data. It only gets in the way of your
preconceived notions.
>They have identified a big uncertainty in the extant multiproxy
>constructions -- an uncertainty which is fully independent of the error
>bars illustrated in IPCC PMS.
No, the MIGHT have. Big difference.
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>In article <2e0dm05vmn6ormchf...@4ax.com>,
> David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 22:25:24 -0400, Steve Schulin
>> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"When BC deposits to a surface, such as snow or sea ice, solar
>> >absorption and heating occur at the surface, so BC warms the surface
>> >directly. The heating due to BC at the surface melts some additional
>> >snow or sea ice, and the BC itself changes the reflectivity of snow.
>> >Both factors feed back to climate."
>>
>> That is a given. You don't need BC to do it either. Old snow
>> is dirty. That is also a given. If BC is having the impact you say it
>> is, then we should see changes in spring temperatures. That is when
>> the combination of snow/ice and sunlight converge. In the winter there
>> is an absence of the latter. In summer, the former. In fall, both and
>> neither need be present. It's a lot more complex then. ...
>
>The authors report that the albedo change-induced warming is most
>significant in the winter. They attribute this to the reduction in sea
>ice.
In the dark? Yes, I can imagine it would have a huge impact.
You do realize that the areas where the majority of the warming is
occurring have little or on daylight to speak of. Insolation at high
latitudes is minimal from November to March. Last time I looked, that
encompassed "winter". There's a reason I asked you about spring
temperatures. I didn't even bother to raise the point that minimum
temperatures are rising at twice the rate of maximums. Maybe they're
occurring in that other kind of night...the one where the sun is up.
Once again, let's see if you can reconcile observation with the model
output. So far, you're batting 0.000.
Joshua Halpernn
Ah I found it while throwing out the papers today. It is by Tsonis from
the University of Wisconsin. Quite technical but the bottom line is
that global warming as commonly understood is coupled to a decrease in
predictability of the climate.
Tsonis regards global climate measurements as networks. For example, in
Physica A 333 497 (2004), he and Roebber showed that for the 500 hPa
level, the nature of the network of correlations between points in in a
5 x 5 degree grid changed between the early half of the period and the
later half. In particular correlations between more distant points were
significantly higher in the later half of the period than the former
(resembled more a scale free network, think hub and spoke airline
network) while in the earlier, cooler period, the network of
correlations between grid points was had a high degree of local
clustering with a fewer instances of correlation between distant points.
Distant here is > 7500 km....
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
That you continue to focus only on when the reflection occurs, rather
than acknowledging cognizance of even the possibility that sea-ice
change has warming effect at other times, is better described as your
deficiency, not mine.
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
I've provided clearly stated, quite specific reasons for applying
disparaging characterizations to various individuals. Nary a
misrepresentation yet. Certainly nothing even close to as strained as
your claim that Fred Singer is an administrator, not a scientist.
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
I recall you ridiculously applying this charge to my discussion of
implications of soot studies. It's no less ridiculous in generalized
blather here.
>
> >They have identified a big uncertainty in the extant multiproxy
> >constructions -- an uncertainty which is fully independent of the error
> >bars illustrated in IPCC PMS.
>
> No, the MIGHT have. Big difference.
You say you're uncertain whether they've identified an uncertainty? LOL.
Michael Tobis
> I've provided clearly stated, quite specific reasons for applying
> disparaging characterizations to various individuals. Nary a
> misrepresentation yet.
I dunno. Y'all just called me a "shifty liar" right here in this
thread.
I honestly don't think I am one. In fact, if I was ever even slightly
misleading I'd like the chance to repair the damage rather than just
take the hit.
So, would you be so kind as to back your disparagement up with your
customary clearly stated specific reasons?
I'm not interested in flame wars. I ask so that I can take appropriate
corrective action and advance the conversation responsibly.
Thanks in advance.
mt
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
I guess the fact that that is what he's been for 2 or 3
decades doesn't count?
Steve Schulin
I first characterized you as a "shifty liar" three months ago, in a post
on July 9, in the thread titled "Botanist Bellamy: global warming has
been the result of an entirely natural scientific pattern". If you
review your prior posts in that thread and still require explanation
here, please feel welcome to ask again.
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
So the proximate changes are not occurring during the winter
then? You're claiming, without any observational evidence to support
it, that BC is producing a quarter of the observed warming. You claim
that it occurs in the winter. That's ludicrous given that the areas
most affected are dark, so the impact of BC is negligible. Now you're
saying that sea-ice extent could be helping things along. Fine, tell
me how sea-ice extent is changed if the temperature goes from -40C to
-35C. Sea-ice extent is going to have the majority of its impact
during the shoulder seasons. If you delay freeze-up that has an impact
on temperatures. If you break-up early, that has a huge impact on
temperatures. The former occurs in the fall, the latter in the spring.
Where does winter fit into the equation? Better yet, explain why, if
sea-ice effects are going to be felt most in the shoulder seasons, the
majority of high latitude warming is still occurring during the
winter? Come on, Steve. Think!!
Ian St. John
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 23:05:10 -0400, Steve Schulin
> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> Where does winter fit into the equation? Better yet, explain why, if
> sea-ice effects are going to be felt most in the shoulder seasons, the
> majority of high latitude warming is still occurring during the
> winter? Come on, Steve. Think!!
I suspect that he does, and that he is just being a 'shifty liar' again (
aka troll or industry spokesman) trying his best to continue his campaign of
Fear, Uncertainly and Doubt. Your arguments are clear, cogent, and to the
point, so his intransigence must be deliberate as he is not stupid.
charliew2
Based on my opinion of reading very many Michael Tobin postings, his replies
are almost without exception well thought out, illustrative, and open
minded. Your characterization of him as a "shifty liar" is undeserved, and
even in this forum, I think you have stooped low enough to owe him an
apology.
Steve Schulin
"charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote:
I've been quite understated in my characterizations of Dr. Tobis. I
respectfully disagree with your assessment. In addition to earning the
shifty liar label, I recall that he has publicly engaged in character
assassination and misrepresentation of specific ignorance as fact. And I
am curious as to whether you, who yesterday urged not taking things so
personally here, have ever noticed his repeated personal speculations
about me.
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I first characterized you as a "shifty liar" three months ago, in a
>> > post on July 9, in the thread titled "Botanist Bellamy: global
>> > warming has been the result of an entirely natural scientific
>> > pattern". If you review your prior posts in that thread and still
>> > require explanation here, please feel welcome to ask again.
>> >
>> > Very truly,
>> >
>> > Steve Schulin
>> > http://www.nuclear.com/environment/climate_policy/default.html
>>
>>
>> Based on my opinion of reading very many Michael Tobin postings, his replies
>> are almost without exception well thought out, illustrative, and open
>> minded. Your characterization of him as a "shifty liar" is undeserved, and
>> even in this forum, I think you have stooped low enough to owe him an
>> apology.
>
>I've been quite understated in my characterizations of Dr. Tobis. I
>respectfully disagree with your assessment. In addition to earning the
>shifty liar label, I recall that he has publicly engaged in character
>assassination and misrepresentation of specific ignorance as fact. And I
>am curious as to whether you, who yesterday urged not taking things so
>personally here, have ever noticed his repeated personal speculations
>about me.
It doesn't take a PhD to know that you're a troll, Steve. Get
used to it. If you are going to behave irresponsibly, expect people to
call you on it.
charliew2
Michael, please excuse the typo on your last name.
>> replies are almost without exception well thought out, illustrative,
>> and open minded. Your characterization of him as a "shifty liar" is
>> undeserved, and even in this forum, I think you have stooped low
>> enough to owe him an apology.
>
> I've been quite understated in my characterizations of Dr. Tobis. I
> respectfully disagree with your assessment. In addition to earning the
> shifty liar label, I recall that he has publicly engaged in character
> assassination and misrepresentation of specific ignorance as fact.
> And I am curious as to whether you, who yesterday urged not taking
> things so personally here, have ever noticed his repeated personal
> speculations about me.
>
> Very truly,
>
> Steve Schulin
> http://www.nuclear.com/environment/climate_policy/default.html
No, I don't recall his repeated personal speculations about you. Such
speculations must either have been very few, or very mild, as they didn't
seem "out of line".
Naturally, we are dealing here with usenet, where most of the discussions
invariably degrade to ad hominem attacks. It's a shame that such is "the
norm".
Michael Tobis
> I've been quite understated in my characterizations of Dr. Tobis. I
> respectfully disagree with your assessment. In addition to earning the
> shifty liar label, I recall that he has publicly engaged in character
> assassination and misrepresentation of specific ignorance as fact. And I
> am curious as to whether you, who yesterday urged not taking things so
> personally here, have ever noticed his repeated personal speculations
> about me.
I don't recall anything of the sort, but if you point it out in detail
I will duly apologize in detail. I certainly don't want this to get
personal.
I did speculate about your motivations on one occasion. I should not
have done so. I have no evidence that you are paid for your
considerable output here, nor does that matter for the validity of
your claims. I accept your denial at face value. I regret said
speculation and have already apologized for it.
I repeat my apology here. The quantity and nature of your postings are
fair game, but the motivation for them is not. I do not know why you
do what you do and should not have speculated about it. I am sorry
that I did so.
I don't know of anything else beyond this one incident that remotely
falls under the above. I certainly don't recall anything rising to the
level of "character assassination".
I don't know what "misrepresentation of specific ignorance as fact"
means.
This is not to say that I like what you do here. I didn't care for it
at all even before the above outburst.
My concern is with one-sided consideration of the evidence, both in
this matter in specific, and as an example in the larger question of
how complex issues are handled in a democracy. The motivations for
such one-sidedness are important, and you seem to me one-sided on the
matters of global environmental change, but I have tried to be careful
not to ascribe specific motivations to any specific person.
As far as I know, you as an individual operate (albeit in my opinion
erroneously) from the best of intentions. I apologize for and withdraw
anything I have inadvertently said or implied that can be taken to the
contrary.
sincerely
Michael Tobis
Michael Tobis
> m...@3planes.com (Michael Tobis) wrote in message news:<bcaf804.04100...@posting.google.com>...
> > james...@eudoramail.com (SwimJim) wrote in message news:<63167942.04100...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message news:<steve.schulin-7BB...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
>
> > > > "If the true natural
> > > > variability of [northern hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than
> > > > is currently accepted, the extent to which recent warming can be viewed
> > > > as unusual would need to be reassessed."
> > >
> > > While that might be nice, I don't think so.
>
> Let me rephrase:
>
> It might be a nice outcome for global warming skeptics if the extent
> to which recent warming can be viewed as unusual needs to be
> reassessed.
The above really proceeds from a statistician's definition of
"unusual" and of "extent" and of "reassessed".
Does that mean I have any doubt that the current signal is in part
anthropogenic? I'll be absolutely astonished if it utrns out
otherwise. Indeed, if variability is higher than Mann et al suggest,
the anthropogenic signal could just as easily be masked and thus for
practical purposes larger than observed. (One of the yeah buts)
> However, in my status as a global warming realist, I
> don't think that there needs to be any reassessment of the unusual
> nature of recent warming. Rather, I think that the study only
> provides a way to better quantify the usual (natural) from the unusual
> (anthropogenic) contributions to the total recent warming.
>
> That better, Michael?
A little. I don't think von Storch has said anything about the
"unusual nature" of the present warming. The comment is about the
"unusual amplitude".
> I.e. Olson and Briffa extended an olive branch to the skeptics with
> their statement, which Steve Schulin grabbed with both hands. That
> was predictable and expected. In fact, it seems fairly obvious that
> van Storch was motivated with a need to prove that the skepticism
> inherent in the paper which led to his resignation (by his choice) was
> actually merited by a more quantifiable approach. Thus, he has
> produced a paper warmly embraced by skeptics as perhaps sowing some
> debt regarding what's been recently happening -- a paper that might
> allow one to think that natural variability could possibly make a
> larger contribution to 20th-century temperature trends than most
> scientists think it does.
I think von Storch is simply a distingushed statistician doing serious
work and publishing his results. I think the above is quite secondary
to what he saw as his obligation to test the Mann work and report his
concerns about it.
I think "fairly obvious" attributions of motive to von Storch are
quite secondary. I am certain that he behaved properly in this matter,
as he has shown himself capable of doing in other matters.
(In fact, it is likely that Germans are particularly sensitive to such
matters. A wonderful book, The Dilemmas of an Upright Man, a biography
of Max Planck, has much to say on the subject.)
The skeptics have become deconstructionists.
They claim that science is just a form of politics. It's this
particular brand of paranoia, on which both wings of the political
spectrum happily agree, that is among the greatest threats to human
security and prosperity.
If we could address global change rationally, it would not pose any
great threat of becoming a big problem.
> The problem is, as has been discussed elsewhere, the variability of
> anthropogenic causality has also increased in the 20th century. Be it
> increasing land cover modification, increasing emissions of SO2 and
> black soot (see our Killer Fog branch of this thread), increasing
> urban area, and increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, the
> entire 20th century pattern is unusual. The rapid rise at the end of
> the century is the most unusual part of it -- therefore, I don't think
> there's any need to reassess how unusual it is. We just need to
> understand why it's unusual and what makes it SO unusual.
I believe the statistician's retort would be that you might be right,
but you'll need a more sophisticated argument than one based solely on
the 1 KA global temperature record. For instance, the "Little Ice Age"
which seemed to be an illusory phenomenon based on Mann's work, now
comes back into play as a potentially real phenomenon.
In fact, I think your opinion is correct, but it's opinion. Von Storch
has done his job as a scientist, and weakened the perceived level of
certainty closer to the true level of certainty.
If the democratic process were sane, this would cause more alarm
rather than less. Every indicator that we know what is going to happen
helps us plan. Every indicator that out knowledge is weak puts bigger
threats into play, which means we ought to be more conservative (in
the literal sense of conservative) and take more vigrous steps to
conserve the environment as close as possible to its natural state.
Both the seizing of this paper by the denialists and the dismissal of
this paper by the alarmists are horribly wrongheaded.
> > Let's read it again:
> >
> > > > "If the true natural
> > > > variability of [northern hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than
> > > > is currently accepted, the extent to which recent warming can be viewed
> > > > as unusual would need to be reassessed."
> >
> > How could this possibly be untrue?
>
> The re-assessment of "unusuality" is unnecessary.
The extent of its being statistically out of line with the past needs
to be reassessed if the past is less calm than previously believed.
That is tautological. Please read carefully and rigorously.
I think this particular question has always been overblown in
importance, but there is no doubt that von Storch's work, if it stands
up, will reduce the statistical significance of the "attribution
question". How certain are we that the anthropogenic signal is not
natural ignoring all evidence (physical, geological, computational)
other than the temperature record itself.
Far too much has been made of this question, first by the skeptics,
when it was unclear, then by the alarmists, when it looked very clear,
and perhaps now by the skeptics now that the clarity has been set back
a few years. It's overblown because it artificially sets aside a whole
lot of other evidence. Von Storch allows that this question must be
revisited in the light of his efforts.
Does this mean we should tear up Kyoto? No. not at all!
I argue that more uncertainty rationally calls for more vigorous
action. This is why I think both the alarmists saying the science is
almost infallible and the skeptics saying the science is almost
worthless have each been arguing irrationally.
The less we know, the more vigorously we should act to avoid entering
the territory we know so little about.
mt
Steve Schulin
An example of your engaging in character assassination was a comment
about Dr Bellamy -- google for your name and "gone emeritus" and you'll
find it, plus my characterization of it as character assassination at
the time.
>
> I don't know what "misrepresentation of specific ignorance as fact"
> means.
An example I recall offhand was when you misrepresented a paper by
Karner as being "the same old story in a new bookjacket" -- google for
your name and "public misrepresentations" and "quite ignorant claim" to
find my previous characterization of this example using those terms.
>
> This is not to say that I like what you do here. I didn't care for it
> at all even before the above outburst.
>
> My concern is with one-sided consideration of the evidence, both in
> this matter in specific, and as an example in the larger question of
> how complex issues are handled in a democracy. The motivations for
> such one-sidedness are important, and you seem to me one-sided on the
> matters of global environmental change, but I have tried to be careful
> not to ascribe specific motivations to any specific person.
>
> As far as I know, you as an individual operate (albeit in my opinion
> erroneously) from the best of intentions. I apologize for and withdraw
> anything I have inadvertently said or implied that can be taken to the
> contrary.
>
> sincerely
> Michael Tobis
I've not expressed any desire for your apology regarding your insulting
comments about my intent or otherwise. Your notion here that the intent
subset must have been inadvertent is a real hoot.
You say you've previously apologized for some personal speculation? LOL.
Is the following exchange the one you recall as an apology?
<Schulin> ... your overt insults, your insulting speculations, ...
<Tobis> I withdraw my insulting speculations. I do not have any evidence
as to why Schulin spends so much time sniping at the consensus in any
way that he can manage, and I will refrain from further speculation on
the matter.
--- END OF QUOTE ---
Yet you've continued the same kind of speculation after that July 5 "I
will refrain" comment. You say you remember but one occasion, and that
before the apology? Well, if you are as interested in clearing the slate
as you seem here, perhaps you'd revisit the posts where you've mentioned
my name, and do whatever apologizing you care to do, rather than tasking
me (and I've never asked for your apology about your personal
speculations about me) with the job.
Here's a comment of yours from August, which continued the same kind of
speculation as addressed by that earlier refrain:
<Tobis> The fact that it doesn't seem that way to
<Tobis> the public at large is a tragic result of
<Tobis> gross malfeasance on the part of certain
<Tobis> financially impacted parties. They are
<Tobis> quite literally injecting noise into the
<Tobis> system.
<Tobis>
<Tobis> I do not know if Schulin is a source of
<Tobis> such deliberate obfuscation (as many here
<Tobis> believe) or if he's honestly confused.
<Tobis> Nor do I have anything personal against
<Tobis> him.
<Tobis>
<Tobis> I mentioned him as an example. My
<Tobis> argument here is with William Connelly.
David Ball
And, as usual, you're wrong. Don't you ever get tired of it?
Bellamy wrote an op-ed piece that was so grossly wrong that it defies
belief. That you, once again, have opted to side with someone
misrepresenting the science, either on purpose or out of ignorance,
merely adds more question marks to your posts. Pointing out that the
author of said drivel should have known better, especially as he
supposedly has some expertise in the sciences is not character
assassination. It is merely stating facts. I can certainly understand
your wanting to attack anyone dealing in facts. They have the nasty
habit of getting in the way of your snake-oil sales.
>
>>
>> I don't know what "misrepresentation of specific ignorance as fact"
>> means.
>
>An example I recall offhand was when you misrepresented a paper by
>Karner as being "the same old story in a new bookjacket" -- google for
>your name and "public misrepresentations" and "quite ignorant claim" to
>find my previous characterization of this example using those terms.
ROTFL. You're chirping about public misrepresentations? You,
whose posting history has so many examples of gross misrepresentations
that they can't be counted? You are in a hypocritical mood today,
aren't you?
What puzzles me is the gratious response Michael is giving
you. He has far more patience than you deserve.
Steve Schulin
"charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote:
Tobis wrote insulting comments about me by name before he and I ever had
any discussion. I did not reply to those insults, because, as you say,
this is usenet, and his behavior was not so exceptional. When we did
converse, I was patient and civil in replying to him. After numerous
affronts, I called him on it, and am not inclined to presume him
honorable any more. Any portrayal of him as some innocent or victim,
rather than as a poisoned-pen-wielding man-with-a-mission is a
disservice to the facts of the matter.
When, in reply to a post of mine, you urged people not to take things so
personally, I did not take that as requiring personal explanation. But
now you voice opinion that I owe Tobis an apology, and I just wanted you
to understand why such an apology is not warranted.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>An example of your engaging in character assassination was a comment
>about Dr Bellamy -- google for your name and "gone emeritus" and you'll
>find it, plus my characterization of it as character assassination at
>the time.
"gone emertius" was me:
Its not character assassination, its about the kindest thing to say
about Bellamys absurdist position.
Quite why SS is self-destructing in this fashion is a mystery.
-W.
--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
Steve Schulin
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
> >An example of your engaging in character assassination was a comment
> >about Dr Bellamy -- google for your name and "gone emeritus" and you'll
> >find it, plus my characterization of it as character assassination at
> >the time.
>
> "gone emertius" was me:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=40df29aa%40news.nwl.ac.uk&rn
> um=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522gone%2Bemeritus%2522%2Bbellamy%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%
> 26selm%3D40df29aa%2540news.nwl.ac.uk%26rnum%3D1
>
> Its not character assassination, its about the kindest thing to say
> about Bellamys absurdist position.
>
> Quite why SS is self-destructing in this fashion is a mystery.
>
> -W.
LOL - I didn't comment about your use of the term. You merely presented
it as a possibility. Tobis expressed opinion that "I like the expression
'gone emeritus' that came up in this thread. It seems the most
plausible explanation." My characterization of Tobis is appropriate.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>In article <416a...@news.nwl.ac.uk>, w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
>> Its not character assassination, its about the kindest thing to say
>> about Bellamys absurdist position.
>>
>> Quite why SS is self-destructing in this fashion is a mystery.
>LOL - I didn't comment about your use of the term. You merely presented
>it as a possibility. Tobis expressed opinion that "I like the expression
>'gone emeritus' that came up in this thread. It seems the most
>plausible explanation." My characterization of Tobis is appropriate.
If you think that expressing a liking for the phrase is CA, you've gone
emeritus yourself.
I'm really baffled by this dumb fight you're having with MT. Anyone who
reads his posts can see exactly what he is like: thoughtful and sensible
and well informed. Whereas anyone reading your posts can see...
hanson
> to Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com>
Yo, William, my issues somewhat do relate to this thread,
the questions your were "looking forward to with interest".
I posted them in another thread where I unfortunately only
get Swansong retorts from a little green idiot.........ahahaha....
Re: SIX EASY PIECES of ENVIRO GREEN
(1) Gravitational tidal effect heats up some of Jupiter's moons.
On earth, our moon's tidal effects are considerable onto the
incompressible water with a density of 10^3 gr/lt. In analog,
the compressible air at 1.29 gr/lt or less must be affected a
lot more & show measurable thermo-compressibility results,
enhanced by gravitational "sloshing" of the atmosphere
with delayed rhythms & resulting resonances in amplitude.
Additionally, overlaying this effect how much are the influences
by the solar wind (sun spot variation, Maunder example)
distorting our magnetosphere which in turn affects the upper
atmosphere which in turn has effects that cascade down into
the troposphere and affecting the climate. These "celestial"
energies are gigantic when compared to the puny "forcing" by
a slight increase of CO2. So why and how should then the
puny anthropic input overwhelm these planetary forces?
(2) What was the time, the year, when the "anthropic CO2
forcing" began and what will the year be when the CO2
level will return to or below pre-anthropo levels, should we
begin and adhere to the Kydioto plan by reducing CO2
emission by ~ 10% below 1990 levels or whatever that
green prescription is? - Now on 10-08-04 in a post by Halpern
"High CO2 means high CO2 longer, a really nasty feedback"
insists that return will be pushed even further into the future &
we are on a "river of no return" as I always have suspected.
(3) Was there ever a "ln vs lnln" stretched data analysis made
with all those collected GTMs in which the tangents of the graphs
do shows beyond doubt where and when such anthropic CO2
forcing could have begun?
(4) In a Hurricane (as depicted on TV animations),
the inner bands turn **counter clock** wise, a rotation
that is well understood, ..... but why do the outer most
bands all turn **clock wise**?
What is the mechanism, the physics of this?
(5) How large is the natural CH4 leakage from the off shore
H2O clatherates, globally? Has it been measured or just guessed?
(corollary for oil, St.Barbara channel, are well documented)
What amount of CH4 leakage would be required to float enough
fresh water into the upper critical ocean layers via such
CH4*aq transports to affect and change the salinity, which
does in turn mess with the "normal" THC behavior? If the
current scare that a bunch of icebergs can do the same trick
then why not CH4*aq that is supposedly stored in gargantuan
quantities. Such an event could produce a triple whammy, with
CH4 a GHG, when burnt add CO2 on top of desalination.
[There are persistent reports that fishermen do/did catch large
lumps of CH4*aq in their nets floating on the oceans surface.
True? I dunno. -- There are repeated anectodes that airline- &
military pilots and satellites have seen/recorded explosions/flashes
/mushroom clouds in the pacific where there was nothing to burn
nor to anything explode. Were these deflagrating CH4 plumes?
(6) ..... what is this deafening silence about the GREEN EPA CAR
developed by EPA with tax payers money, engineered with
existing off-the-shelf-technology by those brilliant enviro scientists
on their EPA greens. CNN aired it ~ at the end of 09/04 & swore
that this green wonder wagon does out-perform all the Detroit
produce, from mileage, to power, to non-emissions, to costs.
What possible permit charges, user fees and enviro surtaxes
could possibly still be attached to this green Final Solution by
EPA? Did they shoot themselves in their green feet?
hanson
w...@bas.ac.uk
>Yo, William, my issues somewhat do relate to this thread,
>the questions your were "looking forward to with interest".
>I posted them in another thread...
Always best to start your own thread. I shall re title this one.
Aside: I always find it annoying that people don't re title threads
when the subject changes.
>(1) Gravitational tidal effect heats up some of Jupiter's moons.
Probably mis-stated, in that "heat up" implies a changing
temperature. Tidal forces are a contributing source to the heat
balance of the moons, but because it is a balance (I assume)
the temperature remains stable.
>On earth, our moon's tidal effects are considerable onto the
>incompressible water with a density of 10^3 gr/lt. In analog,
>the compressible air at 1.29 gr/lt or less must be affected a
>lot more & show measurable thermo-compressibility results,
>enhanced by gravitational "sloshing" of the atmosphere
>with delayed rhythms & resulting resonances in amplitude.
Yes, there are definitely atmospheric tides. Not that I know
much about them.
However (coming back to Jupiters moons again) these are all
pretty constant inputs. They don't cause T change, unless you
think they've changed much recently.
>Additionally, overlaying this effect how much are the influences
>by the solar wind (sun spot variation, Maunder example)
>distorting our magnetosphere which in turn affects the upper
>atmosphere which in turn has effects that cascade down into
>the troposphere and affecting the climate.
People are working on it. You'll have read about it here,
argued back and forth, in various forms. Variations in solar
constant are a more popular theme.
>These "celestial"
>energies are gigantic when compared to the puny "forcing" by
>a slight increase of CO2. So why and how should then the
>puny anthropic input overwhelm these planetary forces?
Small things, continued in the same direction, can change an
overall balance of big things.
>(2) What was the time, the year, when the "anthropic CO2
>forcing" began and what will the year be when the CO2
>level will return to or below pre-anthropo levels, should we
>begin and adhere to the Kyoto plan by reducing CO2
>emission by ~ 10% below 1990 levels or whatever that
>green prescription is? - Now on 10-08-04 in a post by Halpern
>"High CO2 means high CO2 longer, a really nasty feedback"
>insists that return will be pushed even further into the future &
>we are on a "river of no return" as I always have suspected.
Anthro forcing began a long way back, but thats a rather meaningless
answer. You mean, when did anthro forcing start to have a
significant effect. AFAIK, thats somewhat open. Either: with the
slight-cooling-then-warming from 1940's (all studies put the
warming of the last 50 years down to anthro); or, from about 1900.
OTOH if you believe recent stuff by Ruddiman, sig anthro forcing
began about 8kyr ago with deforestation.
>(3) Was there ever a "ln vs lnln" stretched data analysis made
>with all those collected GTMs in which the tangents of the graphs
>do shows beyond doubt where and when such anthropic CO2
>forcing could have begun?
Dunno.
>(4) In a Hurricane (as depicted on TV animations),
>the inner bands turn **counter clock** wise, a rotation
>that is well understood, ..... but why do the outer most
>bands all turn **clock wise**?
>What is the mechanism, the physics of this?
AFAIK the inner/outer bands turn the same way but the upper/lower
don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone#Structure
might help. I'm sure you'll love to know that we at wiki decided
on TC not H as the somewhat more PC name, I know you like PC.
>(5) How large is the natural CH4 leakage from the off shore
>H2O clatherates, globally? Has it been measured or just guessed?
Dunno really, though AFAIK these are small (balance arguents
again). If I wanted to know, I'd read IPCC:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/130.htm
>(6) ..... what is this deafening silence about the GREEN EPA CAR
Dunno.
charliew2
I'm not certain that you owe mt an apology. However, holding a grudge hurts
you more than it does him.
hanson
Thanks a million for your answers. Truly professional!
I like that!
hanson
<w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:416b...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
Michael Tobis
> > I don't know of anything else beyond this one incident that remotely
> > falls under the above. I certainly don't recall anything rising to the
> > level of "character assassination".
>
> An example of your engaging in character assassination was a comment
> about Dr Bellamy -- google for your name and "gone emeritus" and you'll
> find it, plus my characterization of it as character assassination at
> the time.
I was quoting someone else. I'm not a clever enough writer to come up
with such language.
Bellamy's comments were ludicrous, and your efforts to claim otherwise
were precisely what convinced me that discussing science with you is
impossible. You apparently and peculiarly have much more skill and
time to devote to writing about this material than to learning about
it. If you'd like to discuss science with me, all you need to do is
reconsider your support of that nonsense.
I don't consider accusing someone incompetent of incompetence to be
character assassination. He may well be a very nice and
well-intentioned fellow. He's simply not competent to speak on the
subject that he spoke upon.
> > I don't know what "misrepresentation of specific ignorance as fact"
> > means.
>
> An example I recall offhand was when you misrepresented a paper by
> Karner as being "the same old story in a new bookjacket" -- google for
> your name and "public misrepresentations" and "quite ignorant claim" to
> find my previous characterization of this example using those terms.
I stand by this. As pointed out to me by someone else, the Karenr
paper exclusively analyzes MSU data as processed by the Huntsville
group. That MSU data is suspect because of well-known issues with
instrument drift. If Karner chooses to run a similar analysis on
non-MSU data and come to a similar sweeping conclusion I may consider
making the attempt to follow the statistical reasoning in detail.
Until then I see no reason to spend any time on it.
> > As far as I know, you as an individual operate (albeit in my opinion
> > erroneously) from the best of intentions. I apologize for and withdraw
> > anything I have inadvertently said or implied that can be taken to the
> > contrary.
> I've not expressed any desire for your apology regarding your insulting
> comments about my intent or otherwise. Your notion here that the intent
> subset must have been inadvertent is a real hoot.
After my initial error I have tried to be careful to avoid ascribing
intent to you.
> You say you've previously apologized for some personal speculation? LOL.
> Is the following exchange the one you recall as an apology?
> <Schulin> ... your overt insults, your insulting speculations, ...
> <Tobis> I withdraw my insulting speculations. I do not have any evidence
> as to why Schulin spends so much time sniping at the consensus in any
> way that he can manage, and I will refrain from further speculation on
> the matter.
If you don't choose to read it as such, I hereby apologize for
"insulting" you.
As far as I know the insulting speculation was that you are paid for
your opinions, which you deny.
I imagine you don't hold this against various other people who hold
opinions you like and are paid for this service? So I don't see what
you're in such a huff about.
> Yet you've continued the same kind of speculation after that July 5 "I
> will refrain" comment.
> Here's a comment of yours from August, which continued the same kind of
> speculation as addressed by that earlier refrain:
> <Tobis> The fact that it doesn't seem that way to
> <Tobis> the public at large is a tragic result of
> <Tobis> gross malfeasance on the part of certain
> <Tobis> financially impacted parties. They are
> <Tobis> quite literally injecting noise into the
> <Tobis> system.
> <Tobis>
> <Tobis> I do not know if Schulin is a source of
> <Tobis> such deliberate obfuscation (as many here
> <Tobis> believe) or if he's honestly confused.
> <Tobis> Nor do I have anything personal against
> <Tobis> him.
That is exactly my position as it stands. I see nothing wrong with it.
I explicitly refrained from speculating.
I don't care to venture an opinion as to whether you maliciously
contrive the manipulative half-truths you spout or whether you
actually believe them. The important thing is that *somebody* is
deliberately obfuscating, and that you are applying your very clever
debating skills to advancing those obfuscations.
If the only way to avoid insulting you is to agree with you, I'm
afraid you'll have to deal with being insulted.
My observation is that your position on any given piece of scientific
work is predictable. If it agrees with your politics, you believe it.
If it disagrees with your politics you disbelieve it. If you can't see
any impact on your politics you may choose to express interest but
typically you ignore it.
If you know of any counterexamples, please let me know. Have you ever
expressed admiration for an alarmist work or lack thereof for a
denialist one?
I do find this behavior absolutely unconscionable, but alas many
people on both sides of any important question do not. The only
special trouble I have with you is that you are uncommonly good at it.
Thank you for clarifying the grounds for your outrage at me. I will go
back to deconstructing your clever arguments now as I find the time.
mt
Joshua Halpern
>>>(2) What was the time, the year, when the "anthropic CO2
>>>forcing" began and what will the year be when the CO2
>>>level will return to or below pre-anthropo levels, should we
>>>begin and adhere to the Kyoto plan by reducing CO2
>>>emission by ~ 10% below 1990 levels or whatever that
>>>green prescription is? - Now on 10-08-04 in a post by Halpern
>>>"High CO2 means high CO2 longer, a really nasty feedback"
>>>insists that return will be pushed even further into the future &
>>>we are on a "river of no return" as I always have suspected.
>>
>>Anthro forcing began a long way back, but thats a rather meaningless
>>answer. You mean, when did anthro forcing start to have a
>>significant effect. AFAIK, thats somewhat open. Either: with the
>>slight-cooling-then-warming from 1940's (all studies put the
>>warming of the last 50 years down to anthro); or, from about 1900.
>>
>>OTOH if you believe recent stuff by Ruddiman, sig anthro forcing
>>began about 8kyr ago with deforestation.
There is a signal starting ~ 1800 from deforestation in the northern
hemisphere, sometimes called the pioneer effect, basically large land
clearances for agriculture in the US, Canada, and Russia. To an extent
this has been reversed by the reforestation starting in the early 20th
century.
A nice illustration of this is
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/PhySci134_2003/Notes/pioneer.co2.html
A more elaborate discussion
lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/ajw/ENV_3A20/GCC3_3.PPT
>>
>>>(3) Was there ever a "ln vs lnln" stretched data analysis made
>>>with all those collected GTMs in which the tangents of the graphs
>>>do shows beyond doubt where and when such anthropic CO2
>>>forcing could have begun?
Some insight into this in the ppt presentation. Note that the rise
started before major fossil fuel use, but concurrent with large land
clearings.
It also relates to Ruddiman's argument, although note that land
clearance in the tropics makes little difference to CO2 because of the
rapid decay rate of vegatation there. It might effect CH4 mixing ratios
because of eutrification.
josh halpern
James Annan
> hanson <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> >Yo, William, my issues somewhat do relate to this thread,
> >the questions your were "looking forward to with interest".
> >I posted them in another thread...
>
> Always best to start your own thread. I shall re title this one.
> Aside: I always find it annoying that people don't re title threads
> when the subject changes.
>
> >(1) Gravitational tidal effect heats up some of Jupiter's moons.
>
> Probably mis-stated, in that "heat up" implies a changing
> temperature. Tidal forces are a contributing source to the heat
> balance of the moons, but because it is a balance (I assume)
> the temperature remains stable.
>
> >On earth, our moon's tidal effects are considerable onto the
> >incompressible water with a density of 10^3 gr/lt. In analog,
> >the compressible air at 1.29 gr/lt or less must be affected a
> >lot more & show measurable thermo-compressibility results,
> >enhanced by gravitational "sloshing" of the atmosphere
> >with delayed rhythms & resulting resonances in amplitude.
>
> Yes, there are definitely atmospheric tides. Not that I know
> much about them.
Actually, the vast majority of tidal power is dissipated in the
oceans, to the tune of about 3TW (3x10^12 W). Which may sound like a
lot, but since the surface area of the Earth is about 0.5x10^15m^2,
the direct heating effect is negligible (even if it was not in a
near-balance as wmc points out).
What is not so insignificant, is the crucial role that this mixing
plays in supporting the poorly-named thermohaline circulation. It is
likely to have been a significant player in glacial-interglacial
cycles, but this is all very long-term gradual stuff compared to the
current anthropogenic forcing.
James
hanson
news:c96ea403.04101...@posting.google.com...
> w...@bas.ac.uk wrote in message news:<416b...@news.nwl.ac.uk>...
> > hanson <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> > >(1) Gravitational tidal effect heats up some of Jupiter's moons.
> >
> > Probably mis-stated, in that "heat up" implies a changing
> > temperature. Tidal forces are a contributing source to the heat
> > balance of the moons, but because it is a balance (I assume)
> > the temperature remains stable.
> >
> > >On earth, our moon's tidal effects are considerable onto the
> > >incompressible water with a density of 10^3 gr/lt. In analog,
> > >the compressible air at 1.29 gr/lt or less must be affected a
> > >lot more & show measurable thermo-compressibility results,
> > >enhanced by gravitational "sloshing" of the atmosphere
> > >with delayed rhythms & resulting resonances in amplitude.
> >
> > Yes, there are definitely atmospheric tides. Not that I know
> > much about them.
>
> Actually, the vast majority of tidal power is dissipated in the
> oceans, to the tune of about 3TW (3x10^12 W). Which may
> sound like a lot, but since the surface area of the Earth is
> about 0.5x10^15m^2, the direct heating effect is negligible
> (even if it was not in a near-balance as wmc points out).
>
> What is not so insignificant, is the crucial role that this mixing
> plays in supporting the poorly-named thermohaline circulation.
> It is likely to have been a significant player in glacial-interglacial
> cycles, but this is all very long-term gradual stuff compared to the
> current anthropogenic forcing.
> James
>
[hanson]
AHAHAHAH...ahaha...Annan, are you that angry because
(a) deep down you do know that your fanatically green
assertions look like standard green shit that nobody buys,
when compared to William Connelly's scholarly, believable
work and post?
AHAHAHAH...ahaha...Annan, are you that angry because
(b) your retorts to William's post are filled with too much
bright green taint, so much that your uncle Coffee Annan
decided to exclude you from getting any graft from the
looming carbon tax extortions. It's you own fault Annan!
AHAHAHAH...ahaha...Annan, are you that angry because
(c) your own experience from pumping your bicycle tires
conflicts empirically with what you have posted in your
green party-line towing answers, foibles that also make it
impossible for you to own a car ever and condemn you to
remain a pedaller...ahahahaha...It's you own fault Annan!
AHAHAHAH...ahaha...Annan, are you that angry because
(c) you are simply jealous of William's professional ken and
his scholarly acumen and achievements, a level that you never
can even hope to get at. ...ahahaha...It's you own flaw, Annan!
Maybe, if you were more/as quiet as your bicycle you'd hear
something. But you seem to be driven to sing the green anthem:
--------- it's green, green, green
--------- on the far side of the hill
--------- and when we get the carbon tax
--------- life will be greener still
But, Annan, the wrong key and they bad syncopation you do sing it in
"it" will never happen, and "it" nor you will make no difference, never
.......ahahahaha... ahahahaha...ahahahanson
Steve Schulin
m...@3planes.com (Michael Tobis) wrote:
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
> news:<steve.schulin-404...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
>
> > > I don't know of anything else beyond this one incident that remotely
> > > falls under the above. I certainly don't recall anything rising to the
> > > level of "character assassination".
> >
> > An example of your engaging in character assassination was a comment
> > about Dr Bellamy -- google for your name and "gone emeritus" and you'll
> > find it, plus my characterization of it as character assassination at
> > the time.
>
> I was quoting someone else. I'm not a clever enough writer to come up
> with such language.
When you said it was the most plausible explanation or somesuch, you
were engaging in character assassination.
>
> Bellamy's comments were ludicrous, and your efforts to claim otherwise
> were precisely what convinced me that discussing science with you is
> impossible. You apparently and peculiarly have much more skill and
> time to devote to writing about this material than to learning about
> it. If you'd like to discuss science with me, all you need to do is
> reconsider your support of that nonsense.
>
> I don't consider accusing someone incompetent of incompetence to be
> character assassination. He may well be a very nice and
> well-intentioned fellow. He's simply not competent to speak on the
> subject that he spoke upon.
LOL - It was you who demonstrated being ludicrous in that thread. In
response to the newspaper report of his reasonable comment about
CO2-temperature lead-lag issue, you went off on a rant about recent CO2
emissions sources. You've even chosen to re-emphasize this ill-grounded
rant of yours in later posts. Your accusation reflects more on your
understanding than his.
>
> > > I don't know what "misrepresentation of specific ignorance as fact"
> > > means.
> >
> > An example I recall offhand was when you misrepresented a paper by
> > Karner as being "the same old story in a new bookjacket" -- google for
> > your name and "public misrepresentations" and "quite ignorant claim" to
> > find my previous characterization of this example using those terms.
>
> I stand by this. As pointed out to me by someone else, the Karenr
> paper exclusively analyzes MSU data as processed by the Huntsville
> group. That MSU data is suspect because of well-known issues with
> instrument drift. If Karner chooses to run a similar analysis on
> non-MSU data and come to a similar sweeping conclusion I may consider
> making the attempt to follow the statistical reasoning in detail.
> Until then I see no reason to spend any time on it.
Your characterization of Karner's analysis (of the day-to-day
differences) as being the same old story (as Spencer/Christy's trending
of monthly anomolies) was clearly a misrepresentation. Whether you
continue to stand by it is surely your choice. As to the quite separate
matter of whether long-term drift has any impact on the daily deltas
analyzed by Karner, your "reasoning" has been quite underwhelming.
>
> > > As far as I know, you as an individual operate (albeit in my opinion
> > > erroneously) from the best of intentions. I apologize for and withdraw
> > > anything I have inadvertently said or implied that can be taken to the
> > > contrary.
>
> > I've not expressed any desire for your apology regarding your insulting
> > comments about my intent or otherwise. Your notion here that the intent
> > subset must have been inadvertent is a real hoot.
>
> After my initial error I have tried to be careful to avoid ascribing
> intent to you.
What error is this to which you refer? As best I recall, you typically
couched your insulting speculations with some error-proof phraseology.
For example, you once asked if my conclusions were based on what my
client paid or somesuch. It was a question. I've never called your
question an error.
> > You say you've previously apologized for some personal speculation? LOL.
> > Is the following exchange the one you recall as an apology?
>
> > <Schulin> ... your overt insults, your insulting speculations, ...
> > <Tobis> I withdraw my insulting speculations. I do not have any evidence
> > as to why Schulin spends so much time sniping at the consensus in any
> > way that he can manage, and I will refrain from further speculation on
> > the matter.
>
> If you don't choose to read it as such, I hereby apologize for
> "insulting" you.
I've never asked for you to apologize. I just doubted the reliability of
your stated recollection that you had apologized.
>
> As far as I know the insulting speculation was that you are paid for
> your opinions, which you deny.
>
> I imagine you don't hold this against various other people who hold
> opinions you like and are paid for this service? So I don't see what
> you're in such a huff about.
LOL - I'm not complaining about your choice of what to write about, or
the style with which you do so. I'm just explaining to another poster
why I've done nothing that would warrant the apology he urged. You piped
in saying "I don't remember anything like that" or somesuch, so I've
given some examples to help refresh your memory.
>
> > Yet you've continued the same kind of speculation after that July 5 "I
> > will refrain" comment.
>
> > Here's a comment of yours from August, which continued the same kind of
> > speculation as addressed by that earlier refrain:
>
> > <Tobis> The fact that it doesn't seem that way to
> > <Tobis> the public at large is a tragic result of
> > <Tobis> gross malfeasance on the part of certain
> > <Tobis> financially impacted parties. They are
> > <Tobis> quite literally injecting noise into the
> > <Tobis> system.
> > <Tobis>
> > <Tobis> I do not know if Schulin is a source of
> > <Tobis> such deliberate obfuscation (as many here
> > <Tobis> believe) or if he's honestly confused.
> > <Tobis> Nor do I have anything personal against
> > <Tobis> him.
>
> That is exactly my position as it stands. I see nothing wrong with it.
> I explicitly refrained from speculating.
LOL - you refrained from assessing probability, but you did not refrain
from personal speculation.
> I don't care to venture an opinion as to whether you maliciously
> contrive the manipulative half-truths you spout or whether you
> actually believe them. The important thing is that *somebody* is
> deliberately obfuscating, and that you are applying your very clever
> debating skills to advancing those obfuscations.
>
> If the only way to avoid insulting you is to agree with you, I'm
> afraid you'll have to deal with being insulted.
If your eloquence was accompanied by good examples, it might be more
persuasive. I have taken substantive exception to some claims you've
made. You could just stick to the substantive.
Here's how the Karner study came up, for example:
<charliew2> In my opinion, it's time to consider that there are
<charliew2> also negative feedbacks involved regarding water
<charliew2> vapor.
<Tobis> Well, there are some attenuating feedbacks regarding
<Tobis> clouds, but the water vapor greenhouse feedback
<Tobis> dominates.
<Tobis>
<Tobis> Note that even weather models need to get this
<Tobis> particular feedback right, because water vapor
<Tobis> enhancement of radiative forcing is big enough and
<Tobis> fast enough to affect weather on weather prediction
<Tobis> time scales. So we have plenty of evidence that we
<Tobis> have this feedback about right.
<Tobis>
<Tobis> It's about twenty years too late to be arguing on this
<Tobis> point. Not that that would stop anyone. (sigh)
<Schulin> Fortunately, we have the last about 20 years
<Schulin> experience to help understand. Karner [J. Geophys.
<Schulin> Res., 10.1029/2001JD002024, 2002] concludes that
<Schulin> negative feedback has dominated the climate system
<Schulin> during 1979-2001. Here's how he puts it in the final
<Schulin> paragraph of conclusions section:
<Schulin>
<Schulin> "The revealed antipersistence in the lower
<Schulin> tropospheric temperature increments does not support
<Schulin> the science of global warming developed by IPCC
<Schulin> [1996]. Negative long-range correlation of the
<Schulin> increments during last 22 years means that negative
<Schulin> feedback has been dominating in the Earth climate
<Schulin> system during that period. The result is opposite to
<Schulin> suggestion of Mitchell [1989] about domination of a
<Schulin> positive cumulative feedback after a forced
<Schulin> temperature change. Dominating negative feedback also
<Schulin> shows that the period for CO2 induced climate change
<Schulin> has not started during the last 22 years. Increasing
<Schulin> concentration of greenhouse gases in the Earth
<Schulin> atmosphere appeared to produce too weak forcing in
<Schulin> order to dominate in the Earth climate system.
<Schulin> Estimate of the adjusted radiative forcing due to
<Schulin> changes in the concentrations of the so-called
<Schulin> greenhouse gases since preindustrial times is 2.45
<Schulin> Wm-2 [IPCC, 1996]. If the increase was during 15
<Schulin> years, its annual increment (0.16 Wm-2) would be
<Schulin> comparable to standard deviation of the daily
<Schulin> increment of solar forcing at the top of the
<Schulin> atmosphere (0.18 Wm-2). The observed global warming in
<Schulin> surface air temperature series [Jones et al., 1999] is
<Schulin> more likely produced due to overall nonstationary
<Schulin> variability of the Earth climate system under
<Schulin> anti-persistent solar forcing."
Your claim about "twenty years too late" was unambiguous. Your <sigh>
was eloquent. My reply was directly responsive. If you need a model on
how to thoroughly disagree on a matter without being insulting, please
feel welcome to consider this humble example.
> My observation is that your position on any given piece of scientific
> work is predictable. If it agrees with your politics, you believe it.
> If it disagrees with your politics you disbelieve it. If you can't see
> any impact on your politics you may choose to express interest but
> typically you ignore it.
>
> If you know of any counterexamples, please let me know. Have you ever
> expressed admiration for an alarmist work or lack thereof for a
> denialist one?
I don't typically think of scientific papers as "alarmist" or
"denialist". Please give me an example of what you consider an
"alarmist" work. I'll be happy to venture a guess what you might think
of as "denialist".
> I do find this behavior absolutely unconscionable, but alas many
> people on both sides of any important question do not. The only
> special trouble I have with you is that you are uncommonly good at it.
>
> Thank you for clarifying the grounds for your outrage at me. I will go
> back to deconstructing your clever arguments now as I find the time.
You again exaggerate. I'm just being as patient in reply to charliew2's
urging of apology as I was to your urging of financial disclosure. You
seemed to appreciate my responsiveness to your concern, but now you use
terms like "huff" and "outrage". I've never speculated as to what
motives you might have. I have noted your explicitly expressed goal to
defend the consensus or somesuch, and that's why I refer to you as
man-with-a-mission.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>wmc:
>>Yes, there are definitely atmospheric tides. Not that I know
>>much about them.
> The atmospheric tides have nil to do with gravity. Explaining
>them is one of Lindzen's claims to fame. They're radiatively
>driven.
Oops. Thats interesting... but there must be a gravitational component?
Is it just tiny?
Robert Grumbine
>Robert Grumbine <bo...@radix.net> wrote:
>>wmc:
>
>>>Yes, there are definitely atmospheric tides. Not that I know
>>>much about them.
>
>> The atmospheric tides have nil to do with gravity. Explaining
>>them is one of Lindzen's claims to fame. They're radiatively
>>driven.
>
>Oops. Thats interesting... but there must be a gravitational component?
>Is it just tiny?
True, not identically zero. If you talk about an observable atmospheric
tide, then gravity is irrelevant. iirc, the term is something like 0.001
mb, vs. the radiational tide being order 1 mb. Detecting even the
radiational tide is nontrivial, and takes high precision instruments
because of the swamping effects of weather.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
hanson
news:ckgutj$ire$1...@news1.radix.net...
> In article <416b...@news.nwl.ac.uk>, <w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote:
> >hanson <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> >>Yo, William, my issues somewhat do relate to this thread,
> >>the questions your were "looking forward to with interest".
> >
> >Probably mis-stated, in that "heat up" implies a changing
> >temperature. Tidal forces are a contributing source to the heat
> >balance of the moons, but because it is a balance (I assume)
> >the temperature remains stable.
>
> You've got it about right. The effect is most notable for
> Io, where the tidal heat source is balanced by the volcanic
> emissions.
>
[hanson]
> >>On earth, our moon's tidal effects are considerable onto the
> >>incompressible water with a density of 10^3 gr/lt. In analog,
> >>the compressible air at 1.29 gr/lt or less must be affected a
> >>lot more & show measurable thermo-compressibility results,
> >>enhanced by gravitational "sloshing" of the atmosphere
> >>with delayed rhythms & resulting resonances in amplitude.
> >
> >Yes, there are definitely atmospheric tides. Not that I know
> >much about them.
>
> The atmospheric tides have nil to do with gravity. Explaining
> them is one of Lindzen's claims to fame. They're radiatively
> driven.
>
You are also radiatively driven when you take a shit....sheesh!
The gravity play of the earth/moon system creates 10-30m high
tides in water that has a density: 10^3 gr/lt. What is the height
of the same tides, driven by the same gravitational forces when
the density becomes 1 gr/lt, like in air?......you are a green moron!
You are a little green idiot that does not know green shit from
shinola and has been anesthetized by the word "enviro" .... or
are you a hopeful green turd trying to get in line to become a
beneficiary from the graft of permit charges, user fess or the
Carbon admin tax. Which is it?.........ahahahaha........ahahaha...
ahahaha.......ahahahanson
SwimJim
> james...@eudoramail.com (SwimJim) wrote in message news:<63167942.0410...@posting.google.com>...
> > m...@3planes.com (Michael Tobis) wrote in message news:<bcaf804.04100...@posting.google.com>...
> > > james...@eudoramail.com (SwimJim) wrote in message news:<63167942.04100...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message news:<steve.schulin-7BB...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
[deletions]
> > I.e. Olson and Briffa extended an olive branch to the skeptics with
> > their statement, which Steve Schulin grabbed with both hands. That
> > was predictable and expected. In fact, it seems fairly obvious that
> > van Storch was motivated with a need to prove that the skepticism
> > inherent in the paper which led to his resignation (by his choice) was
> > actually merited by a more quantifiable approach. Thus, he has
> > produced a paper warmly embraced by skeptics as perhaps sowing some
> > debt regarding what's been recently happening -- a paper that might
> > allow one to think that natural variability could possibly make a
> > larger contribution to 20th-century temperature trends than most
> > scientists think it does.
>
> I think von Storch is simply a distingushed statistician doing serious
> work and publishing his results. I think the above is quite secondary
> to what he saw as his obligation to test the Mann work and report his
> concerns about it.
Perhaps. I just found it a bit coincidental that he published a paper
that directly addressed the quandary which was initiated by the Soon
and Baliunas paper that caused him to resign his editorship.
> I think "fairly obvious" attributions of motive to von Storch are
> quite secondary. I am certain that he behaved properly in this matter,
> as he has shown himself capable of doing in other matters.
Then a rephrase is in order. I should have written "possible" rather
than "fairly obvious". I.e., "It seems possible that van Storch was
motivated...", which is fairly obviously hard to argue against ;-)
[deletions]
> > The problem is, as has been discussed elsewhere, the variability of
> > anthropogenic causality has also increased in the 20th century. Be it
> > increasing land cover modification, increasing emissions of SO2 and
> > black soot (see our Killer Fog branch of this thread), increasing
> > urban area, and increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, the
> > entire 20th century pattern is unusual. The rapid rise at the end of
> > the century is the most unusual part of it -- therefore, I don't think
> > there's any need to reassess how unusual it is. We just need to
> > understand why it's unusual and what makes it SO unusual.
>
> I believe the statistician's retort would be that you might be right,
> but you'll need a more sophisticated argument than one based solely on
> the 1 KA global temperature record. For instance, the "Little Ice Age"
> which seemed to be an illusory phenomenon based on Mann's work, now
> comes back into play as a potentially real phenomenon.
>
> In fact, I think your opinion is correct, but it's opinion. Von Storch
> has done his job as a scientist, and weakened the perceived level of
> certainty closer to the true level of certainty.
And that is a good outcome.
> If the democratic process were sane, this would cause more alarm
> rather than less. Every indicator that we know what is going to happen
> helps us plan. Every indicator that out knowledge is weak puts bigger
> threats into play, which means we ought to be more conservative (in
> the literal sense of conservative) and take more vigrous steps to
> conserve the environment as close as possible to its natural state.
Oooh, excellent paragraph alert! (Except for "out=our" typo.) I
totally and without hesitation agree with what you say here!
Everybody, but most notably insurance underwriters, fears
unpredictability when it carries the potential for significant and
probably damaging consequence. This is why hurricanes pose such a
dang problem for Florida and why I'm very glad that I don't live in
the Tampa Bay area any more -- I've seen the models of what a direct
hit from a Cat 4 will do.
[deletions
> > > How could this possibly be untrue?
> >
> > The re-assessment of "unusuality" is unnecessary.
>
> The extent of its being statistically out of line with the past needs
> to be reassessed if the past is less calm than previously believed.
> That is tautological. Please read carefully and rigorously.
While I agree, I think that perhaps the use of "unusual" by Olson and
Briffa, from whence cometh the quote, was unfortunate.
> I think this particular question has always been overblown in
> importance, but there is no doubt that von Storch's work, if it stands
> up, will reduce the statistical significance of the "attribution
> question". How certain are we that the anthropogenic signal is not
> natural ignoring all evidence (physical, geological, computational)
> other than the temperature record itself.
>
> Far too much has been made of this question, first by the skeptics,
> when it was unclear, then by the alarmists, when it looked very clear,
> and perhaps now by the skeptics now that the clarity has been set back
> a few years. It's overblown because it artificially sets aside a whole
> lot of other evidence. Von Storch allows that this question must be
> revisited in the light of his efforts.
>
> Does this mean we should tear up Kyoto? No. not at all!
>
> I argue that more uncertainty rationally calls for more vigorous
> action. This is why I think both the alarmists saying the science is
> almost infallible and the skeptics saying the science is almost
> worthless have each been arguing irrationally.
> The less we know, the more vigorously we should act to avoid entering
> the territory we know so little about.
I have to preserve that in this reply because it is again, well
stated. My opposition to the Kyoto Protocol (based on questions of
practicality and effectiveness, not principle) is an issue for another
thread.
Let me second the call for more vigorous action. Who's with us?
Jim Acker
------------------------------------
SwimJim
(formerly James G. Acker)
james...@eudoramail.com
The great tragedy of science -- the
slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact. - Thomas Huxley
------------------------------------
SwimJim
> In article <63167942.0410...@posting.google.com>,
> james...@eudoramail.com (SwimJim) wrote:
>
> > m...@3planes.com (Michael Tobis)...
> > > james...@eudoramail.com (SwimJim) wrote...
> > > > steve....@nuclear.com [quoted Briffa and Osborne paper]...
>
> > > > > "If the true natural
> > > > > variability of [northern hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than
> > > > > is currently accepted, the extent to which recent warming can be viewed
> > > > > as unusual would need to be reassessed."
> > > >
> > > > While that might be nice, I don't think so.
> >
> > Let me rephrase:
> >
> > It might be a nice outcome for global warming skeptics if the extent
> > to which recent warming can be viewed as unusual needs to be
> > don't think that there needs to be any reassessment of the unusual
> > nature of recent warming. Rather, I think that the study only
> > provides a way to better quantify the usual (natural) from the unusual
> > (anthropogenic) contributions to the total recent warming.
> >
> > That better, Michael?
> >
> > their statement, which Steve Schulin grabbed with both hands. That
> > was predictable and expected. In fact, it seems fairly obvious that
> > van Storch was motivated with a need to prove that the skepticism
> > inherent in the paper which led to his resignation (by his choice) was
> > actually merited by a more quantifiable approach. Thus, he has
> > produced a paper warmly embraced by skeptics as perhaps sowing some
> > debt regarding what's been recently happening -- a paper that might
> > allow one to think that natural variability could possibly make a
> > larger contribution to 20th-century temperature trends than most
> > scientists think it does.
>
> in the next, you show yourself to be a, well, certainly not a realist.
> Woe be, apparently, unto those who step off the "consensus" plantation.
> If anybody thinks Fig. 1 in the UNIPCC WG1 TAR SPM would have included
> von Storch et al's findings about the hockey stick icon, then they may
> be pretty much as deluded as you. Just out of curiosity, have you
> imagined a reason why Zorita participated in the, uh, von Storch need
> fulfillment?
No idea regarding Zorita. As for realism, I compare the size of the
1997-1998 El Nino signal to what's been happening over the past 25
years. The 1997-1998 El Nino gives a nice idea of the maximum
amplitude of natural variability. Other longer-term signal generators
(such as El Viejo, PDO, NAO, etc.), have less amplitude. When the
trend is upward the variability is superimposed on the upward trend.
Volcanoes like Pinatubo and Kuwae can also generate variability with
significant amplitude, but the persistence time is short enough to
make them stick out. So I do think I'm being realistic until
persuaded otherwise.
> > The problem is, as has been discussed elsewhere, the variability of
> > anthropogenic causality has also increased in the 20th century. Be it
> > increasing land cover modification, increasing emissions of SO2 and
> > black soot (see our Killer Fog branch of this thread), increasing
> > urban area, and increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, the
> > entire 20th century pattern is unusual. The rapid rise at the end of
> > the century is the most unusual part of it -- therefore, I don't think
> > there's any need to reassess how unusual it is. We just need to
> > understand why it's unusual and what makes it SO unusual.
[deletions]
What? No more comments?
charliew2
hanson <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:sYUad.1315$6k2....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...> news:steve.schulin-DB3...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <bcaf804.04101...@posting.google.com>,
> > m...@3planes.com (Michael Tobis) wrote:
> > > Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<steve.schulin-404...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
> > >
> > > Thank you for clarifying the grounds for your outrage at me. I will go
> > > back to deconstructing your clever arguments now as I find the time.
> >
> > You again exaggerate. I'm just being as patient in reply to charliew2's
> > urging of apology as I was to your urging of financial disclosure. You
> > seemed to appreciate my responsiveness to your concern, but now you
> > use terms like "huff" and "outrage". I've never speculated as to what
> > motives you might have. I have noted your explicitly expressed goal to
> > defend the consensus or somesuch, and that's why I refer to you as
> > man-with-a-mission.
> > Steve Schulin
> >
> [hanson]
> ......ahahaha......HAHAHAHA.......ahahahaha.........this is a great
> thread.......Slowly, the pot with the green soup begins to boil over
> and talks about how many DOLLARS = $$$$$$ this environmental
> con and crock will cost. The public has begun to recognized that
>
> = The green movement was always & only a sick machination=
> = & a cover to get $$$ grants, permit charges & user fees to =
> = feed green shits, be they politicians, consultants, activists or=
> = regulators. Environmentalism is just a despicable evil green=
> = $$$$$$ game without any redeeming value, nor any intent =
> = to save anything. This 40 year old scam is now threatened =
> = which is why all those leeching green turds are whining ==
>
> In the above link
> http://www.nuclear.com/environment/climate_policy/default.html
> in section "climate" one reads under an enormous amount of out
> and out green shit, designed to promote fears to make the carbon
> tax a reality, so that the sharpies amongst green turds can collect
> their new **green admin-fees** and other graft..... Quotes say:
>
> == OIL COMPANIES like BP, Shell and RWE in Germany, have been
> among the most active in the trading of **permits*..... AHAHAHAHA
> == CO2 credit trading draws bankers' interest as fundamental
> driver of coal, gas, metals markets........ahahahaha......AHAHAHA...
> == As carbon emissions trading increases, the financial services
> industry is preparing itself for a potentially lucrative market.....
> == carbon emissions value at $15 a tonne, the surplus would be
> worth just under $500 million to the Government.
> == At Chicago Climate Exchange prices jumped to over US$11 per
> tonne ($40/tC) following the Russian announcement
> == The price of CO2 in Europe rose 20% to nearly euros 10 (£7) per
> tonne on the back of the news from Moscow last night,
> == Estimates the financial value of the European carbon market will
> be worth 10 BILLION euros (£6.9bn) a year by 2007.
>
> Where is the "environment here?.....It only shows that the rich
> get richer and the poor get poorer in this global Kydioto Carbon
> TAX trading scam. And you the poor, you the little green idiots,
> YOU PAY for all this....$$$$ that go into the pocket of these rich oil-
> and banking bastards, fat bureaucrats and corrupt politicians...
> YOU MADE YOURSELF POORER, you well meaning little green idiots!
> ...ahahaha..AHAHAHA........
>
> == Ottawa estimates cost for the carbon tax to vary from $17 to
> $45 billion....money that could be spent on health care or our
> urban infrastructure. The CA Taxpayers Federation says increased
> prices and taxes from Kyoto will cost each family $2,700. ...
> The Fraser Institute study pegs the annual cost of Kyoto at $4,700
> per Canadian, the same as per-capita health-care spending. ==
>
> So, you little green idiots, you when you get sick you won't be able
> to afford a doctor......because YOU MORONS YOU GAVE YOUR $$$
> to some rich bastard who bamboozled you with the word "ENVIRO"
> ahahahaha.........ahahahaha........
>
> Don't you see that all this has nothing to do with any "environment"
> except the environment in YOUR WALLET that is being clean out...
>
> It is about Dollars!.....GREEN MONEY... that is what this is all about!
> .......Fucked be the environment...."environment" is only the gimmick
> these green cocksuckers use to fuck all you well meaning little green
> idiots, you their unpaid enablers & facilitators. Serves you right! Fools!
>
> You won't even listen when every now and then, and far in between,
> you hear a decent environmentalist speak up and say like
>
> == British professor David Bellamy is a botanist famous for saving
> endangered species. But now he's a famous victim of endangered
> speech -- speech stifled by "elite" journalists when it challenges their
> green religion. ... Global warming -- at least the modern nightmare
> version -- is a myth", Bellamy declares. It is "largely a natural
> phenomenon that has been with us for 13,000 years and probably
> isn't causing us any harm". Putting more carbon dioxide in the air just
> means giving plants more of the "most important airborne fertiliser in
> the world". Yet we "may be about to divert ** billions, nay trillions of
> pounds, dollars and roubles into solving a problem that doesn't exist."
>
> One can easily recognize the promoters of this Carbon trading scam,
> this extortion scheme, to fuck the average Joe, even in these NG's.
> It's the posters that loudly advocate it... they are the stupid but well
> meaning little green idiots... & then there are the sharpies, the green
> turds...the sleigh ones who push it via green scare- & doom arguments
> using that as their tool, but really with their sole intent to become the
> beneficiaries and/or recipients of graft in form $$ contracts, admin fees
> or speaker fees, or so-called grants......ahahahaha...... all
machinations,
> and tactics that originated in the green bible which taught them, that
>
> = "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
> = believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
> = "A lot of environmental [political] messages are simply not
> = accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
> = "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
> = mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
> = -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
> = a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer
>
> Hey, you little green idiots! How long are you going to fuck yourself?
> ahahaha.......ahahahanson
You're preaching to deaf ears, Hanson. The sheep already had the
opportunity to THINK, regarding a recent "trial run" by the ozone hole gloom
and doomers. No one thought seriously enough about the ozone to ask one or
two very interesting questions:
* if Antarctic ozone thins in the winter and early spring, why is that a
problem? In reality, there is *no* sunlight in the winter, and very little
in the spring. A logical person would wonder why "thin" ozone mattered if
there was little or no UV light reaching the earth during the time when the
"thin" ozone occurred.
* I don't recall *anyone* doing any followup studies to determine the
environmental impact of "thin" ozone. The theory sounded very good. The
action taken seems to be working to get stratopheric ozone levels back up to
"normal". However, in the realm of so-called atmospheric science, don't you
think that once a theoretical cause was identified, someone would take the
time to look for the effect associated with that cause? It would be nice to
actually measure ground level UV during the whole year, for a multi-year
period, in an attempt to establish "effect". It would be nice to look for
environmental or biological effects from increased UV. Apparently, it would
be even nicer to pocket a lot of $$$ and forget the followup studies!
It seems that too many in the public are so risk averse that the
precautionary principle makes sense to them. My big concern is: if you are
so risk averse that you don't want to look for the effect, how in the world
do you verify that an actual cause and effect relationship exists? Once you
base your actions on the precautionary principle, you are automatically
setting yourself up for the kind of manipulation that you are preaching
about.
In my opinion, the sheep will remain sheep, because they have been so dumbed
down that they don't realize that they are sheep. We have met the enemy,
and he is us!
w...@bas.ac.uk
>* if Antarctic ozone thins in the winter and early spring, why is that a
>problem? In reality, there is *no* sunlight in the winter, and very little
>in the spring. A logical person would wonder why "thin" ozone mattered if
>there was little or no UV light reaching the earth during the time when the
>"thin" ozone occurred.
Which is pure luck. The ant ozone hole wasn't predicted. It could have
happened that it occurred somewhere more serious. Sensibly, people though:
"oops, strange things are happening, perhaps we'd better try to avoid
this kind of thing in the future".
>* I don't recall *anyone* doing any followup studies to determine the
>environmental impact of "thin" ozone.
I rather suspect thats because you haven't looked. Nor have I :-)
Daniel H. Gottlieb
Hi you all. I hope things are well with you and yours--
_____________________________________________
“Nice glasses Quixote—they look a bit like running shoes for the nose.
Of course everything plastic does, hmmm, what are the little windshield
wipers for?”
“Sight. We have seen the future, Sancho, and we want to make sure a
little dampness doesn't fog the market.”
“I see. And what part of the future have you and your friends become so
enamored over that you seek clarity over spin?”
“Sancho, I know we have been at odds sometimes on this global warming
issue but at this point you need to see we are all on the same page
…What are you grinning at now?”
“There is a big difference between what you say and what you do,
Quixote. Your acceptance of climate change means, what exactly?”
“We are working to gain the upper hand. We are seeking solutions. We
are--to be honest—working the problem.”
“I hope that’s a joke.”
“No.”
“And the problem is?”
“That global warming is our friend and you all need to recognize it that
way....”
“I think I am about to lose my lunch.”
“…And that all the stink over it—especially those hurricanes--was way
out of line. Those little puffs of wind had nothing to do with climate
change.“
“Beg pardon? The four hurricanes that hit Florida were, puffs of wind?”
“And some rain. They were a fluke—a once in a life time event.”
“Why not just say they never happened?
“You think that will work, Sancho?”
“Quixote, I’ve seen you proceed on notions so ludicrous George Orwell
would blush.”
“Thank you, Sancho. I had no idea you were so impressed by my work.”
“Quixote, the Nazi’s were efficient in their practices. It doesn’t mean
I find them laudable—by any means.”
“So then you think we can blame the hurricanes on the Nazis?”
“I don’t think so, Quixote.”
“You’re right. Europe is too far away. Africa then. Hmm I like that. An
assault on us by Africa perhaps. I could get some shill to say the
hurricanes are someone else’s’ problem instead of linking the hurricanes
to global warming. I bet I could make a stink that way. Maybe another
op-ed or a news release might do it. I could say: the hurricanes are the
fault of…hmmm…an evil empire? “
“No that’s been done. I’d be surprised if you could achieve even a bit
of odor with that old tactic. Wait I thought you were going for clarity
here?”
“Sancho—when it comes to muddying the waters I have no trouble at all
raising a little pew to confuse the issue of storms and global warming—“
“Wait Quixote, I’m confused. You said you were on-board about global
warming. “
“Right, Sancho—we are green as green can be—in a corporate kind of way.”
“Do you agree the size, speed, frequency, and intensity were boosted
significantly by the increased energy in the system caused by the
increased heat retention of the atmosphere and the decrease in the
differential between the temperature in the poles and the equator?”
“I will not agree, but of course I do agree—you understand why, Sancho.”
“So why not say global warming had a significant impact on the hurricane
season?”
“Don’t you get it? My job is to make sure we admit to nothing—except
between you and I—master and servant. Of course you know we’re more than
that.”
“Oh, of course, Quixote—but what do you have to loose?”
“If we start tying weather events into global warming than it will
become more than just a vague scientific notion that is years off.”
“Exactly--then the sacrifices we need to make will make sense and we can
all get to work on solving the problem.”
“My friends don’t understand the word sacrifice. Besides, Global Warming
isn’t a problem.”
“And the Tipping Point, Quixote?”
“The Tipping Point, that’s, oh, Phase Shift—oh yes, your arcane notion
of things getting out of control.”
“Exactly.”
“Sancho, we will never let that happen.”
“Oh, ohh. So it’s ego that really stops us from addressing global
warming? The admissions are a scam?”
“Of course it’s real. We admit there is global warming. We will not
admit that current weather events are tied into it. That would be too much.”
“Why?”
“Sancho, think about it. Let’s say my friends admit global warming is
causing billions of dollars in damage every year and that the damage is
increasing.”
“To say nothing about the human misery and death that is also increasing.”
“Not ever--not a single word.”
“Got it. Why not?”
“We might be forced into doing something about it.”
“And what’s wrong with that?”
“Some of the changes might be unpopular. No one wants to take the heat
for that. My friends are good and decent people—but we’re pragmatic.”
“So you let people die and human suffering increase because it’s
convenient for your sense of self.”
“Correct. But we are not without feeling, Sancho.”
“How could I have ever thought different?”
“Here look closer at my glasses—the ones with the little windshield wipers.”
“The ones that allow you to see so clearly—“
“Exactly. There, turn them over--do you see?”
“That’s odd, Quixote. The windshield wipers are on the inside. What for?”
“Tears, Sancho, tears.”
“For your friends? I guess in a way that’s touching.”
“Not for us, Sancho. I swear if you don’t get over you’re sappy notion
of caring you will always be a servant.”
“Heaven forbid.”
“These glasses are for the rest of you. They’ll keep the tears out of
your eyes so you can continue to do your job. See that little misting
device by the nose bridge.”
“Yes.”
“These are our first global warming product: Nitrous-oxide sport-glasses
with tear washers. Our tag line will be: ‘Just get out there and do
work!” Do you like it? The glasses are also recyclable.”
“Incredible.”
“And you thought our think tanks are filled with buffoons and stooges.”
________________________________
cheers all,
D.H. Gottlieb
http://www.thegalileosyndrome.com
Joshua Halpern
> In sci.environment charliew2 <char...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
>
>>* if Antarctic ozone thins in the winter and early spring, why is that a
>>problem? In reality, there is *no* sunlight in the winter, and very little
>>in the spring. A logical person would wonder why "thin" ozone mattered if
>>there was little or no UV light reaching the earth during the time when the
>>"thin" ozone occurred.
>
>
> Which is pure luck. The ant ozone hole wasn't predicted. It could have
> happened that it occurred somewhere more serious. Sensibly, people though:
> "oops, strange things are happening, perhaps we'd better try to avoid
> this kind of thing in the future".
>
>
>>* I don't recall *anyone* doing any followup studies to determine the
>>environmental impact of "thin" ozone.
>
>
> I rather suspect thats because you haven't looked. Nor have I :-)
The general response to anyone screwing with the air supply on a
spaceship is to toss him overboard.
josh halpern
> -W.
>
charliew2
Well, Josh, you had better toss all humans overboard. We are ALL "screwing
with the air supply" in one way or another.
Steve Schulin
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
> news:steve.schulin-DB3...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <bcaf804.04101...@posting.google.com>,
> > m...@3planes.com (Michael Tobis) wrote:
> > > Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<steve.schulin-404...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
> > >
> [Mike]
> > > Thank you for clarifying the grounds for your outrage at me. I will go
> > > back to deconstructing your clever arguments now as I find the time.
> >
> [Steve]
> > You again exaggerate. I'm just being as patient in reply to charliew2's
> > urging of apology as I was to your urging of financial disclosure. You
> > seemed to appreciate my responsiveness to your concern, but now you
> > use terms like "huff" and "outrage". I've never speculated as to what
> > motives you might have. I have noted your explicitly expressed goal to
> > defend the consensus or somesuch, and that's why I refer to you as
> > man-with-a-mission.
Glad to see somebody getting good use out of that web page! There's so
much interesting stuff published -- I had to laugh when reading the
interview where climate scientist was asked about the best aspect of his
work, and he talked about travel to beautiful Alps in conjunction with
far-ha-ha-har-away conference!
Best wishes,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com/environment/climate_policy/default.html
Michael Tobis
Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message news:<steve.schulin-DB3...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
I did not (until now, below) point out that this was really changing
the subject.
I did respond to this by scouring the web for a rebuttal, since I was
confident it was wrong.
I found someone explaining that Karner's conclusion was based
exclusively on a single unusual temeprature record (the MSU satellite
record as processed by the Huntsville group) which lacks a long-term
trend, and has known causes for uncalibrated instrument drift.
I suspect several other things wrong with it, but it would take some
hard work to be sure. Fortunately, that one suffices. A failure to
find a long term correlation in a record which has had the trend
erroneously suppressed is no surprise. Therefore I will put no more
effort into this as it stands.
In particular, though, I think the term "feedback" is being used in a
different way here than is typical in the climate literature, so the
direct comparison seems to me suspect. "Negative feedback dominates"
in which system model with which input and which output? It seems to
me that at best MSU alone could give us a feedback from
mid-tropospheric temperature to mid-tropospheric temperature through
unspecified coupling mechanisms.
The column water vapor issue Charlie raised is a well-known, specific,
and fairly well-understood positive feedback from surface temperature
through column radiation and back to surface temperature. It certainly
isn't a negative feedback. It's also far from clear to me how the MSU
record could offer any insight into it. Therefore it seems to me
Schulin's response quoted above was far less germane than he would
like to claim.
I would love to hear Schulin try to describe this paper in detail, if
possible connecting the MSU global midtropospheric data through
Karner's analysis specifically to negative column water vapor feedback
as originally suggested above. Failing that, I'd advise everyone to
move on. Nothing has happened here of any significance as yet.
I give Schulin lots of credit for keeping careful archives, though. He
certainly spends a lot of time at this... What's odd is that he
doesn't seem to understand any of it. It's no crime not to understand
the technical literature of a field of course, but if one doesn't, one
shouldn't go around citing it for concern about citing it where it
doesn't really apply.
mt
Eric Swanson
>
>
>hanson <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
>news:sYUad.1315$6k2....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Hey, you little green idiots! How long are you going to fuck yourself?
>> ahahaha.......ahahahanson
>
>
>You're preaching to deaf ears, Hanson. The sheep already had the
>opportunity to THINK, regarding a recent "trial run" by the ozone hole gloom
>and doomers. No one thought seriously enough about the ozone to ask one or
>two very interesting questions:
>
>* if Antarctic ozone thins in the winter and early spring, why is that a
>problem? In reality, there is *no* sunlight in the winter, and very little
>in the spring. A logical person would wonder why "thin" ozone mattered if
>there was little or no UV light reaching the earth during the time when the
>"thin" ozone occurred.
The Antarctic ozone hole appears in early spring, as I recall. Once it forms,
it stays around for a while and tends to migrate. If it migrates toward more
populated areas, such as South America, Australia and New Zealand, then the
lack of shielding can cause problems. Also, reduced ozone has been found over
the Arctic in spring. It's probably a good thing that the CFC's have peaked and
begun to decline, as the impacts of an Arctic Ozone Hole would be much
greater than that over the Antarctic.
>* I don't recall *anyone* doing any followup studies to determine the
>environmental impact of "thin" ozone. The theory sounded very good. The
>action taken seems to be working to get stratopheric ozone levels back up to
>"normal". However, in the realm of so-called atmospheric science, don't you
>think that once a theoretical cause was identified, someone would take the
>time to look for the effect associated with that cause? It would be nice to
>actually measure ground level UV during the whole year, for a multi-year
>period, in an attempt to establish "effect". It would be nice to look for
>environmental or biological effects from increased UV. Apparently, it would
>be even nicer to pocket a lot of $$$ and forget the followup studies!
You might take another look at the scientific studies. I think you will find
that your concerns have already been addressed.
http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Resources/FAQs/ozone.html
http://www.unep.org/ozone/faq-science.shtml
>It seems that too many in the public are so risk averse that the
>precautionary principle makes sense to them. My big concern is: if you are
>so risk averse that you don't want to look for the effect, how in the world
>do you verify that an actual cause and effect relationship exists? Once you
>base your actions on the precautionary principle, you are automatically
>setting yourself up for the kind of manipulation that you are preaching
>about.
Again, there is ample evidence to answer your concerns.
>In my opinion, the sheep will remain sheep, because they have been so dumbed
>down that they don't realize that they are sheep. We have met the enemy,
>and he is us!
Yes, the sheeple will buy into any feel good song and dance. I feel the same
way about those who "buy" the "just believe" routine from the Christian Church.
Ant too, just look how many people say they want to vote for BUSH!
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Halpern
Ah but some are taking positive joy in ripping out the system. Them's
go first.
josh halpern
>
>
hanson
news:10moanh...@corp.supernews.com...
[Charlie *2*, full text below]
> You're preaching to deaf ears, Hanson......
>
[hanson *2*]
Don't kid yourself, Charlie. Don't underestimate the value of
such "preaching". Of course it will not affect the little green
idiots in these NGs, nor the small set of resident web-lice and
net-fleas or green turds that are or are not beneficiaries of
green graft. == Nor are they the intended target audience. ==
Here's how that works. It's a bit like the "forcing" effect the
green shits are singing about. Here and there a few points are
read and taken up by some lurkers from the real world of the
political or regulatory sectors. These entities are very keen and
highly sensitive to any issue or perception that deals with money
matters resulting from their decisions. The rest of the cascading,
subsequent process steps you can easily paint yourself. Of course
you'll never hear anybody say in the real world say: "Charlie said..."
But, remember the reps do grade communications the following
way: 1 e-mail = 3 votes, 1 phone call = 5 votes, 1 card = 10 votes
1 letter = 30 votes and 1 printed article (or a post) brought to their
attention = 75 votes, even if any of these types are by the same
author. They tabulate such input and you may have more influence
then you think. Been there, done that.....ahahahaha.....ahahaha...
The green shits do know that too. That's why they jump and down
like green swine when somebody doesn't pull their enviro party
line and they do anything they can to shut you up and stifle dissent.
They cannot tolerate this, because their green philosophy is a sick
resurrection of Nazi and Communist doctrine, that will collapse
just like the ex-brown (now "EnviroNazi") and the ex-red (now
"Green Pinkos") movement did. Charlie, enviros are not nice people.
Check out and Goggle for = Daly + grave + piss =, and see what
besotted and illbegotten members do walk with/amongst these green
folks. So, keep on posting to undermine their sick and evil con system!
Keep preaching! It's for a good cause! It is essential to topple greenism!
hanson
>
-----------------------------------
"charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10moanh...@corp.supernews.com...
> > or speaker fees, or so-called grants...ahahahaha.. all machinations,
> > and tactics that originated in the green bible which taught them, that
> >
> > = "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
> > = believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
> > = "A lot of environmental [political] messages are simply not
> > = accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
> > = "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
> > = mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
> > = -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
> > = a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer
> >
> > Hey, you little green idiots! How long are you going to fuck yourself?
> > ahahaha.......ahahahanson
>
>
[Charlie *2*]
> You're preaching to deaf ears, Hanson. The sheep already
> had the opportunity to THINK, regarding a recent "trial run" by the
> ozone hole gloom and doomers.
>
[hanson *2* see top]
Don't kid yourself, Charlie. Don't underestimate....
>
[Charlie *3*]
> ....No one thought seriously enough
> about the ozone to ask one or two very interesting questions:
> * if Antarctic ozone thins in the winter and early spring, why is
> that a problem? In reality, there is *no* sunlight in the winter,
> and very little in the spring. A logical person would wonder why
> "thin" ozone mattered if there was little or no UV light reaching
> the earth during the time when the "thin" ozone occurred.
> * I don't recall *anyone* doing any followup studies to determine
> the environmental impact of "thin" ozone. The theory sounded
> very good. The action taken seems to be working to get stratopheric
> ozone levels back up to "normal". However, in the realm of so-called
> atmospheric science, don't you think that once a theoretical cause
> was identified, someone would take the time to look for the effect
> associated with that cause? It would be nice to actually measure
> ground level UV during the whole year, for a multi-yearperiod,
> in an attempt to establish "effect". It would be nice to look for
> environmental or biological effects from increased UV. Apparently,
> it would be even nicer to pocket a lot of $$$ and forget the followup
> studies!
>
[hanson *3* see next post]
The technical issues about CFs etc are as debateable as....
>
[Charlie *4*]
> It seems that too many in the public are so risk averse that the
> precautionary principle makes sense to them. My big concern is:
> if you are so risk averse that you don't want to look for the effect,
> how in the world do you verify that an actual cause and effect
> relationship exists? Once you base your actions on the precautionary
> principle, you are automatically setting yourself up for the kind of
> manipulation that you are preaching about.
>
> In my opinion, the sheep will remain sheep, because they have been
> so dumbed down that they don't realize that they are sheep.
> We have met the enemy, and he is us!
>
[hanson *4* see next post]
hanson
> We have met the enemy, and he is us!
>
That is a nice, poetic cliché there in your last line, Charlie.
However, my bullet- and shrapnel scars begin to itch
real bad when I hear that. So, change that "us" to
"amongst us" and specify that it is "green"... That will
sooth my pain and makes me march on for another day!
ahahahaha...........ahahahanson
-----------------------------------
"charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10moanh...@corp.supernews.com...
> > or speaker fees, or so-called grants...ahahahaha.. all machinations,
> > and tactics that originated in the green bible which taught them, that
> >
> > = "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
> > = believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
> > = "A lot of environmental [political] messages are simply not
> > = accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
> > = "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
> > = mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
> > = -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
> > = a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer
> >
> > Hey, you little green idiots! How long are you going to fuck yourself?
> > ahahaha.......ahahahanson
>
>
[Charlie *2*]
> You're preaching to deaf ears, Hanson. The sheep already
> had the opportunity to THINK, regarding a recent "trial run" by the
> ozone hole gloom and doomers.
>
[hanson *2* see prior post]
Don't kid yourself, Charlie. Don't underestimate....
>
[Charlie *3*]
> ....No one thought seriously enough
> about the ozone to ask one or two very interesting questions:
> * if Antarctic ozone thins in the winter and early spring, why is
> that a problem? In reality, there is *no* sunlight in the winter,
> and very little in the spring. A logical person would wonder why
> "thin" ozone mattered if there was little or no UV light reaching
> the earth during the time when the "thin" ozone occurred.
> * I don't recall *anyone* doing any followup studies to determine
> the environmental impact of "thin" ozone. The theory sounded
> very good. The action taken seems to be working to get stratopheric
> ozone levels back up to "normal". However, in the realm of so-called
> atmospheric science, don't you think that once a theoretical cause
> was identified, someone would take the time to look for the effect
> associated with that cause? It would be nice to actually measure
> ground level UV during the whole year, for a multi-yearperiod,
> in an attempt to establish "effect". It would be nice to look for
> environmental or biological effects from increased UV. Apparently,
> it would be even nicer to pocket a lot of $$$ and forget the followup
> studies!
>
[hanson *3* see last post]
The technical issues about CFs etc are as debateable as....
>
[Charlie *4*]
> It seems that too many in the public are so risk averse that the
> precautionary principle makes sense to them. My big concern is:
> if you are so risk averse that you don't want to look for the effect,
> how in the world do you verify that an actual cause and effect
> relationship exists? Once you base your actions on the precautionary
> principle, you are automatically setting yourself up for the kind of
> manipulation that you are preaching about.
>
> In my opinion, the sheep will remain sheep, because they have been
> so dumbed down that they don't realize that they are sheep.
> We have met the enemy, and he is us!
>
[hanson *4*]
That is a nice, poetic cliché there in your last line, Charlie.
However, my bullet- and shrapnel scars begin to itch
real bad when I hear that. So, change that "us" to
"amongst us" and specify that it is "green"... That will
sooth my pain and makes me march on for another day!
ahahahaha...........ahahahanson
hanson
> ....No one thought seriously enough about the ozone
> [O3] to ask one or two very interesting questions:...
>
[hanson *3*]
The technical issues about CFs etc. are as debatable as is the so-
called GW science. "Environmental science" is on the same level
of accuracy and predictability as is the "Science of Nutrition",
or "Science of Psychology"...ahahahaha.... every day a new
recommendation, a different direction, a new diet, a new therapy.
But, whenever the extrapolations in these types of PSEUDO science,
in particular the current Environmental Pseudo science happen to
hit a particular public sentiment, commercialization sets in and the
feeding frenzy begins. $Billions are made & thousands of millionaires
are born (many are lawyers with their class action suits) and for big
industries there're boom times, but YOU pay. All these gains for the
green turds are colllected via permit charges fees,
from industry that incoroates them in higer prieces of their items &
services to you, the comsumer or end user. YOU pay for all this green
graft. Environmentalism is the single largest cause for cost increases.
Have you checked the price increase of the stuff you buy? Govt of
course on behest of its politcal interests creates a special "market
basket" that carefullly hides ab bfusctaes the fact that most of the
increae in cost of living/infaltion is covered up, neatly
Instead of fixing green problems, green turds are not that stupid as
to shut down the industry/process/product, which is the goose that
lays their golden green eggs, aka permit charges, user fees and
enviro/carbon surtaxes. The green shits do everything to see to it
that the goose ( and the problem) is being kept alive and continues
to produce so that the green turds can feed off permit charges, user
fees, enviro surtaxes & carbon taxes.
Environmentalists are biggest SINGE SPECIAL INERTEST GROUP
lobbying in congress. Unlike industry groups the green bastards
do not produce any product nor any service....except opportunities
for themselves to feed off the public trough!.... Fuck enviros!
Re: your CF concerns. I was in the middle of the Montreal con
when the green shits worked it & I was appalled that the major
producers did not object at all. In fact, these Freon producers'
reps walked around with a snicker & a grin on their faces. Later
over cocktails one of their chief Freon R&D dudes laughed out
loud about the entire paranoid, green hysteria and said:
*"We welcome all this, because we make whatever the consumer
demands and we will make big money at it. WE don't care if they
want something new that costs them $8 plus per lb, instead of
the old 80 cents/lb they pay for the stuff now, ....as long as they
believe that it saves their Ozone... and the greenies don't care
now, that 30 years from hence one may discover that the new stuff
will give them cancer or worse. In fact, such an ill development
will be welcome as it will provide another new opportunity... for
both sides, them, the enviros and us the producers to cash in and
make money"* -- He loudly laughed and bought another round.
..... I got a virtual repeat of this when I called another producer a
few weeks later.
It is pathetic times we are going thru. Few years back I bought 20 lbs
of NEW CHF Freon for one of the divisions' cooling system. Even as
a routine customer at the supplier's, I had to fill out forms which
included lots of invasive, intrusive minutia reminiscent of questions
like: "with how many sheets do you wipe your ass?". Upon my
complaints the vendor said it came from the EPA/Air-pollution office
and it was to control the ozone hole. That form alone put an additional
$15 charge onto the price tag on top of my 15 minutes of time at $xx/hr.
The real sad & destructive part of this is that all these social insanities
and fashionable trends that were initiated in the last forty years by the
enviro shits do cause some kind of collective induction and infection and
such occurrences are picked up, copied & interlinked with other sick social
interests which then evolve and escalate into new kind of instabilities,
which is why you see today all kinds & types of manias like eco terrorism,
drug terrorism, political terrorism and homeland security paranoia.
Environmentalists originated and created the sad state of today's world!
hanson
-----------------------------------
"charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10moanh...@corp.supernews.com...
> > or speaker fees, or so-called grants...ahahahaha.. all machinations,
> > and tactics that originated in the green bible which taught them, that
> >
> > = "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
> > = believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
> > = "A lot of environmental [political] messages are simply not
> > = accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
> > = "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
> > = mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
> > = -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
> > = a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer
> >
> > Hey, you little green idiots! How long are you going to fuck yourself?
> > ahahaha.......ahahahanson
>
>
[Charlie *2*]
> You're preaching to deaf ears, Hanson. The sheep already
> had the opportunity to THINK, regarding a recent "trial run" by the
> ozone hole gloom and doomers.
>
[hanson *2* see last post]
Don't kid yourself, Charlie. Don't underestimate....
>
[Charlie *3*]
> ....No one thought seriously enough
> about the ozone to ask one or two very interesting questions:
> * if Antarctic ozone thins in the winter and early spring, why is
> that a problem? In reality, there is *no* sunlight in the winter,
> and very little in the spring. A logical person would wonder why
> "thin" ozone mattered if there was little or no UV light reaching
> the earth during the time when the "thin" ozone occurred.
> * I don't recall *anyone* doing any followup studies to determine
> the environmental impact of "thin" ozone. The theory sounded
> very good. The action taken seems to be working to get stratopheric
> ozone levels back up to "normal". However, in the realm of so-called
> atmospheric science, don't you think that once a theoretical cause
> was identified, someone would take the time to look for the effect
> associated with that cause? It would be nice to actually measure
> ground level UV during the whole year, for a multi-yearperiod,
> in an attempt to establish "effect". It would be nice to look for
> environmental or biological effects from increased UV. Apparently,
> it would be even nicer to pocket a lot of $$$ and forget the followup
> studies!
>
[hanson *3* see top]
The technical issues about CFs etc are as debateable as....
>
[Charlie *4*]
> It seems that too many in the public are so risk averse that the
> precautionary principle makes sense to them. My big concern is:
> if you are so risk averse that you don't want to look for the effect,
> how in the world do you verify that an actual cause and effect
> relationship exists? Once you base your actions on the precautionary
> principle, you are automatically setting yourself up for the kind of
> manipulation that you are preaching about.
>
> In my opinion, the sheep will remain sheep, because they have been
> so dumbed down that they don't realize that they are sheep.
> We have met the enemy, and he is us!
>
Robert Grumbine
>
>>* if Antarctic ozone thins in the winter and early spring, why is that a
>>problem? In reality, there is *no* sunlight in the winter, and very little
>>in the spring. A logical person would wonder why "thin" ozone mattered if
>>there was little or no UV light reaching the earth during the time when the
>>"thin" ozone occurred.
>
>Which is pure luck. The ant ozone hole wasn't predicted. It could have
>happened that it occurred somewhere more serious. Sensibly, people though:
>"oops, strange things are happening, perhaps we'd better try to avoid
>this kind of thing in the future".
>
>>* I don't recall *anyone* doing any followup studies to determine the
>>environmental impact of "thin" ozone.
>
>I rather suspect thats because you haven't looked. Nor have I :-)
No surprise, I hope, that in fact they were looking at the environmental
effects of the reducts ozone (increased UV) almost immediately. A
friend was first in Antarctica in 1987 or 8, measuring UV at ground
level at Palmer Station. This was in complement to the biological
efforts studying the ecosystem. Relations between the increased UV
and biota were definitely part of the research program.
Joshua Halpern
> In article <416c...@news.nwl.ac.uk>, <w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>In sci.environment charliew2 <char...@ev1.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>* if Antarctic ozone thins in the winter and early spring, why is that a
>>>problem? In reality, there is *no* sunlight in the winter, and very little
>>>in the spring. A logical person would wonder why "thin" ozone mattered if
>>>there was little or no UV light reaching the earth during the time when the
>>>"thin" ozone occurred.
>>
>>Which is pure luck. The ant ozone hole wasn't predicted. It could have
>>happened that it occurred somewhere more serious. Sensibly, people though:
>>"oops, strange things are happening, perhaps we'd better try to avoid
>>this kind of thing in the future".
>>
>>
>>>* I don't recall *anyone* doing any followup studies to determine the
>>>environmental impact of "thin" ozone.
>>
>>I rather suspect thats because you haven't looked. Nor have I :-)
>
>
> No surprise, I hope, that in fact they were looking at the environmental
> effects of the reducts ozone (increased UV) almost immediately. A
> friend was first in Antarctica in 1987 or 8, measuring UV at ground
> level at Palmer Station. This was in complement to the biological
> efforts studying the ecosystem. Relations between the increased UV
> and biota were definitely part of the research program.
>
measure ground level UV from TOMS by inference, people took the
(expensive) UV measuring networks down.
josh halpern