Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

New papers in Science: paleoclimate amplitudes, solar influence

7 views
Skip to first unread message

SwimJim

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 12:00:03 PM10/1/04
to
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.


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

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 3:38:23 PM10/1/04
to
In article <63167942.04100...@posting.google.com>,
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

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 7:57:33 PM10/1/04
to
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.

>
>>
>>
>> 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

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 9:31:20 PM10/1/04
to
In article <k1rrl0lv6h6l13nkp...@4ax.com>,
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,

BallB...@nuclear.com
http://www.nuclear.com

David Ball

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 9:06:08 AM10/2/04
to
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:31:20 -0400, Steve Schulin
<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

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 9:32:56 AM10/4/04
to
In article <qt8tl0lfct5uo10ti...@4ax.com>,
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 1:05:26 PM10/4/04
to

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

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 5:10:12 PM10/4/04
to
Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message news:<steve.schulin-7BB...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...

> 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

unread,
Oct 5, 2004, 12:25:33 AM10/5/04
to
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. 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

unread,
Oct 5, 2004, 8:12:07 AM10/5/04
to

> 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

unread,
Oct 5, 2004, 9:09:29 AM10/5/04
to
rcop...@adnc.com (Roger Coppock) wrote in message news:<25516292.04100...@posting.google.com>...

> 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

unread,
Oct 5, 2004, 2:28:30 PM10/5/04
to
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 08:12:07 -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."
>>
>> 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

unread,
Oct 5, 2004, 2:41:40 PM10/5/04
to
On 4 Oct 2004 14:10:12 -0700, james...@eudoramail.com (SwimJim)
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

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 11:06:29 AM10/6/04
to
In article <o0t2m0lermdl1qpi2...@4ax.com>,
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

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 11:14:33 AM10/6/04
to
In article <olo5m0hhdv21fnrh6...@4ax.com>,
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

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 4:49:22 PM10/6/04
to
Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message news:<steve.schulin-C28...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...

[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

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 4:58:18 PM10/6/04
to
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<hup5m0h36n75d77qh...@4ax.com>...

> On 4 Oct 2004 14:10:12 -0700, james...@eudoramail.com (SwimJim)
> wrote:

[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

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 5:38:40 PM10/6/04
to
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.

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

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 9:06:04 PM10/6/04
to
In article <63167942.04100...@posting.google.com>, james...@eudoramail.com says...

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

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 11:00:24 PM10/6/04
to

Mostly it was that everyone had a coal furnace in the basement. Dad
hated the sucker with a passion.

josh halpern

David Ball

unread,
Oct 7, 2004, 7:39:31 AM10/7/04
to
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:06:29 -0400, Steve Schulin
<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

unread,
Oct 7, 2004, 7:44:42 AM10/7/04
to
On 6 Oct 2004 13:58:18 -0700, james...@eudoramail.com (SwimJim)
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

unread,
Oct 7, 2004, 9:08:28 AM10/7/04
to
In article <cj29d.12070$na.6365@trnddc04>, vze2...@verizon.net says...

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

unread,
Oct 7, 2004, 12:52:19 PM10/7/04
to
Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message news:<steve.schulin-C42...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...

> 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

unread,
Oct 7, 2004, 1:00:05 PM10/7/04
to
Joshua Halpernn <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<cj29d.12070$na.6365@trnddc04>...

> 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

unread,
Oct 7, 2004, 2:02:46 PM10/7/04
to

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

unread,
Oct 7, 2004, 3:06:14 PM10/7/04
to
In article <63167942.0410...@posting.google.com>,
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

unread,
Oct 7, 2004, 5:32:06 PM10/7/04
to
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.

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

unread,
Oct 7, 2004, 6:08:39 PM10/7/04
to

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

unread,
Oct 7, 2004, 8:29:06 PM10/7/04
to
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.
>
There was a recent blurb in I think EOS that said that variability was
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

unread,
Oct 7, 2004, 8:41:40 PM10/7/04