Global Warming? are humans to blame?

[Boston]

and thanks for the reminder, I'll send Kevin a note and see if I can get him in on some of this. Cause dude, that last sounded slanderous.

cheers
B

PS

[hoytedow]

The earth is flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat oblate spheroid flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat flat round flat like an M&M.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblate_spheroid

[Boston]

its like having an annoying kid brother Hoyt, except something tells me your like, a hundred and something. since you on about your flat earth society again like that.

Damn, Kevin's out of town

I will be out of town until 23 November. I will be in Rome, Italy 12-19 Nov and Washington DC 20-23 Nov. I will have limited access to email.

[hoytedow]

Have a nice trip. Don't burn Italy down.

[Boston]

Just read that slice on your model being incorrect. Yikes, you do get called on a lot of stuff in that thing. Couldn't help but notice you also take a pretty good beating over basic integrity, fraud and fib are words you don't typically hear from those guys. And they don't just limit to one commentary, my take on things like that is if your meddling in a field of study you weren't trained for and the top scientists in that field are regularly deleting your work referring to is as "fraud" and you as "fibbing" then I'd probably step back and ask myself what I'm doing wrong to illicit such a poor review.

Sounds like they chewed you up and spit you out. OUCH

Maybe we should stick to Al Gores cometary ( oops, meant to say commentary ) and leave the modeling to the guys who can get the temps right.

[hoytedow]

What's a cometary? Do humans cause comets now?

[Frosty]

Mythy busters 2 minutes ago talked to a guy thet measured methane, got cows in a green house thing so any air in and air out was accutaley monitered.

Result 350 tons of methane per year per cows 1 billion cows on the planet = 16000 tons per hour.

That of course does not include horses dogs cats, wilder beast Hippos Elelephants etc etc or even us..

Probably 100,000 tons per hour would not be an unreasonable gestimate.

What does this mean? ---- absalutely no idea but I thought you guys might like something to argue about a bit.

[hoytedow]

Mmmmm, swamp gas! Great stuff! pfffffffftht!

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~frizzell/SwampGas.html

"The final analysis of this little chemistry lesson infers that in spite of “established facts” and learned opinions on the subject, much remains unclear about the evolution and characteristics of swamp gas in Nature."

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Boston

Maybe we should stick to Al Gores cometary and leave the modeling to the guys who can get the temps right.

I came to that conclusion some years back.

Humans are a pretty clever species but to calculate global reaction and all the intracate calculation that goes with that!! Naaaa. I cant --I just cant accept that we could even try.

But the discovery of a parallell universe now theres a thing worth a word or 2.

[Boston]

My take on it Frosty is that, someone somewhere knows something, add all those somethings up and you might just get a fairly good look at the big picture. Which is why the IPCC was created, to collate all that data and show us the picture. Think of it like a 10k puzzle, now imagine someone picking up one piece, announcing, in there best Rocky Balboa voice, Adrian, dis don't fit. WHATS UP WITH THAT cause the rest of the picture looks like a world on fire.

oh and a snippet from my correspondence with Kevin

The ACE index is far from perfect because it does not factor in size or properly
integrate over the life and size of the storm.

so clearly we are seeing a need to improve the methodology on this one, which is obviously what the article I linked to in realclimate was attempting to explain. Arguing against such improvements or the realization that improvements need to be made is, lame.

= Gish Gallop

[Boston]

oh and Kevin also mentioned that Scientific America article. specifically,

That was their poetic license.

but I think we should wait till he gets back from vacation before we really dive into that one again

why don't we get back on track and discuss that pesky film by ole Al Gore again. I noticed ( Tom ) that you didn't really comment on the hypocracy evident in claim #1 as compared to claim #3. If you look at the two complaints its almost funny how hypocritical they are of one another. Wash away the hypocrisy and you end up with two non issues. another one I liked was the bit about how much money he makes off this.

the truth of the mater is somewhat more enlightening
http://www.alternet.org/environment/...d/?page=entire

Fact: Gore donates all of the proceeds from both the book and DVD of An Inconvenient Truth to environmental causes. He also donated 100 percent of his Nobel Peace Prize award as well as the salary from his venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, to the Alliance for Climate Protection.

Al Gore isn’t the only target. Some claim that scientists “follow the money right onto the man-made global warming bandwagon.” But most funding for global warming research comes from government grants, and the money is doled out before the results are determined.

Meanwhile, dirty energy companies and anti-climate-action groups shower scientists who are willing to argue against climate change with cash. ExxonMobil was one of the largest sources of funding for such scientists for over a decade, and purported to stop in 2008. Surprise! They lied. Recently released records show that the oil giant paid out $75,000 that year to several climate action opposition groups.

So I guess the question I'd have for Tom at this point is. Do "they" pay you for your efforts to poke holes in the theory of rapid climate shift? How much? And if so, then where's the impartiality/integrity in that. I mean getting paid do "discover" a predetermined conclusion could very well be described as "fraud" now couldn't it.

[Climatesanity]

Referring to Boston 11/11/11 05:45 PM

Boston quotes me...

I mentioned in an earlier post that a technical comment of mine was deleted by your friends over at Real climate. Boaddesign.net readers can see my deleted comment in my Boatdesign.net commet at 11-08-2011, 10:11 PM, above. They can see clearly that this comment is technical in nature. It was deleted by RealClimate.

In Boston's comment, immediately perceding this one, he implies that he checked into this issue and says...

Quote:
"OK looks like they went over your numbers and found a flaw"
Well, well, well.

Those who follow the global warming controversy will find that in blogs where it is discussed, like RealClimate, WattsUpWithThat, and my blog ClimateSanity (admittedly a bit player), or ever here on BoatDesign.net, most of the comments are uninformed or trivial or even vitriolic. But some are very good and informative. That is OK. That is the way it goes in an open forum.

In some instances it may make sense to remove a comment that has gone over the top. But RealClimate leaves in hundreds (thousands?) of comments that fit the description of uninformed, trivial or vitriolic. It seems to me that this is a common practice when aimed at skeptics. But my comment was technical in nature, and made a mathematical point.

It was removed.

If the folks at RealClimate "found a flaw," as Boston has asserted, why not address my comment and point out the flaw in a technical and mathematical way? They did not. They deleted the comment.

Boston responded with...

big deal if it was technical in nature, if it was incorrect it was incorrect, you yourself admitted why they found it flawed on your own page. Your words not mine. You could have used the information to further your work by correcting the error and developing a better model. but instead you simply complain you got a poor grade. Fix it and resubmit it. Or is it so fundamentally flawed it simply can't be "fixed"

Comments at RealClimate run the gamut from inane to insightful. It speaks volumes that the RealClimate authors deleted a technical comment without response. It turns out that some RealClimate readers also stumbled across my blog post (the exact same post that my deleted RealClimate comment was about) and saw fit to make some comments about it at RealClimate. Oddly, their comments were not deleted.

Boston said "you yourself admitted why they found it flawed on your own page." Lets get the players straight here. The RealClimate authors never found any "flaws" in my comments. They simply deleted it. Some of their readers claimed to find flaws, but their reasoning was bollixed.

Let me put it in context. My concern was a sea-level rise rate model by Vermeer and Rahmstorf (Global Sea Level Linked to Global Temperature, PNAS, 2009). For simplicity I will refer to this paper as VR2009.

VR2009 provided an equation relating sea level rise rate to temperature (see equation 2, here). This equation had parameters (a, b, and T0) that were determined by finding the best fit to sea level and temperature time series form 1880 to 2000. In his RealClimate comment, Philip Machanick claimed to find a flaw in my logic. He says...

“ Note that the author’s [ClimateSanity's] logic requires a temperature trend growing as exp(-at/b). This is a growth rate that rapidly converges to zero, unless you reverse the sign by making one of the multiplied constants (a or b) negative."

The problem with Mr Machanick's reasoning is this: According to VR2009, b is negative. That was my whole point.

In fact, in the very same RealClimate blog post where Mr Machanick made is comment, Martin Vermeer (the principal author of VR2009 had this to say...

“I downloaded Stefan’s [Rahmstorf's] script, modified it, did the first computations with the same real tide gauge and temperature data Stefan had used — surprise: negative b. Hmmm, strange. That was for real data from the real Earth”

Nice swing, Mr. Machanick, but you're out.

Next up to bat, Mr. EFS_Junior.

Much to my relief, EFS_Junior found “Upon further investigation” that my spreadsheet renderings of VR2009′s equation relating sea level rise (SLR) to my hypothetical temperature scenarios “will be correct…if you use a very small dt ~ 0.0001 years.” But Mr. EFS_Junior still found fault. Let him explain in his own words…

“Upon further investigation the integration will be correct for SLR [sea level rise] and SLR (sic) if you use a very small dt ~ 0.0001 years, but still the assumed temperature curves are ad hoc, and produce ludicrous values for temperature before even the end of the 20th century…Also the backward finite difference isn’t calculated correctly (small error introduced), they should use a central diffenence with any 3- 5- 7- or 9-point stencel. I used a 9-point stencel with dt = one year (same as spreadsheets), but you don’t need to do this. Just calculate a*(Toffset – To) to arrive at the annual SLR slope per year.

But the ad hoc temperature curves really don’t do anything if you look at the spreadsheet(s) and their value for gamma (there are now 5 parts at climatesanity, but I’m just discussing the first three parts) is equal to one, this means that the first term of their eq 4 (with gamma = one as per the spreadsheets); is (1 – gamma) * and desired temperature profile (temperature profile doesn’t matter as (1 – gamma) = (1 – 1) = 0!”

My response to Mr EFS_junior...

What a bunch of jibberish, Mr EFS_Junior. First point: Your supposedly important “backward finite difference” and “3-5-9 or 9-point stencels (sic)” are irrelevant (but it sure makes you sound smart when you mention them). Stencils are used for numerical approximation algorithms for differential equations. But the differential equations we are dealing with here have analytic solutions that require no numerical approximation for a solution. Those analytic solutions are rather simple, require no numerical techniques, and are laid out very clearly in part 2 of my series.

Stike one.

It does not make any difference how small you choose dt (that is, the discrete time interval) in the spreadsheet. To demonstrate this point I have re-worked test 4, Hypothetical temperature #1, form part 3 of my series on VR2009 using dt = 0.001 years and dt = 1 year for the hypothetical part of the temperature scenario. This makes for a very large spreadsheet with over 32,000 rows. But it was worth it to make a point. You can download the spreadsheet, but be advised, it is 6MB and may respond very slowly on your computer. Or, you can just take my word for it and look at the comparison of the dt = 0.001 years and dt = 1 year versions below

Strike 2.

The temperature profile does indeed matter when gamma = 1. Here is the temperature profile from part 2, equation 3…



Gamma = 1 was chosen specifically to make a simple example. It has the bizarre result of keeping the sea level rise rate the same while constantly increasing the temperature. That is the reason I chose it, as explained multiple times. If gamma = 1 bothers you, then please have a look at “Part 5: Variation of Gamma”. I think you will find the VR2009′s model will make things even more bizarre when gamma does not equal 1.

Strike three, you're out EFS_Junior.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Boston

Which is why the IPCC was created, to collate all that data and show us the picture. Think of it like a 10k puzzle, now imagine someone picking up one piece

If you had a 10K puzzle and even half a dozen bits were missing it would look complete from a distance.

[Boston]

Frosty
Agreed, it certainly would, as is the case of our present theory or Rapid Global Climate Shift. The picture may not be entirely complete but its pretty damn obvious what it is.

Tom,
So publish it if its all that superior of a model. If you really believe its able to pass muster, then I don't get what your problem is. They're not a review board anyway, so present it somewhere, You offered it to realclimate, they scoffed at you in no uncertain terms. Now your crying in your soup? The best revenge is success, so take your model, get a peer revue, and publish it. There is a system of science, work with it, Whats the problem.

Not going to an actual review board with your work, but instead crying foul at realclimate because they summarily reject an unpublished work, apparently because of some previous experience with you, seems a little off to me. What are you on about that can't be resolved by taking the work through normal channels, getting an impartial review, and publishing, assuming you pass that review. Instead your presenting it, to who? The public, as if most folks would recognize a differential equation if it bit them in the ass. I'm extremely skeptical of your methodology on this one Tom. Why the song and dance instead of following the correct scientific procedure, an actual peer review from one of the major publications.

ineligible receiver
second down

So what about it, Gore used a single weather event to try and bolster his argument about climate change, your using a single event just like he did. So whats the difference. Seems like the same argument your site has with Gore's work applies to your own as well. Can you prove that this single model reflects in any significant way on the entire theory of Rapid Global Climate Shift. Of course you can't. Nor does it address how much of the present shift in climate is due to the impacts of human activities. Which the central theme of our conversation.

according to the measure you place on others
this must be considered roughing the receiver
third down

Kinda sounds like some personal vendetta you've got with realclimate, use it, get published, "prove the model works"

its third and long and I need another beer

So why don't we get back to the meat and potato's of the discussion, and look at your stated complaint concerning climate shift. "How much of the present warming can be directly attributable to human activities" That was your question concerning the issue wasn't it?
The science says "all" the excess CO2 since preindustrial times can be directly attributed to human activities. It also says the response of climate to additional greenhouse gasses, can only be warming. So what else about our atmospheric chemistry are you suggesting changed?

Forgive another long quote from our friends over at realclimate but really Tom, they are the worlds leading climate study group. I'm sorry if you felt slighted by them, but you might want to examine why.

http://www.realclimate.org/?s=courtillot

The anticipated increase in temperature was predicted long before it was detectable in the atmosphere, indeed long before it was known that atmospheric CO2 really was increasing; it was first predicted by Arrhenius in 1896 using extremely simple radiation balance ideas, and was reproduced using modern radiation physics by Manabe and co-workers in the 1960′s. Neither of these predictions rests on general circulation models, which came in during subsequent decades and made more detailed forecasts possible.

Still, the basic prediction of warming is founded on very fundamental physical principles relating to infrared absorption by greenhouse gases, theory of blackbody radiation, and atmospheric moist thermodynamics. All these individual elements have been verified to high accuracy in laboratory experiments and field observations. For a time, there was some remaining uncertainty about whether water vapor feedback would amplify warming in the way hypothesized in the early energy balance models, but a decade or two of additional observational and theoretical work has shown that there is no real reason to doubt the way in which general circulation models calculate the feedback. When modified by inclusion of the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosols, the theory gives a satisfactory account of the pattern of 20th and 21st century temperature change.

No other theory based on quantified physical principles has been able to do the same. If somebody comes along and has the bright idea that, say, global warming is caused by phlogiston raining down from the Moon, that does not make everything we know about thermodynamics, infrared absorption, energy balance, and temperature suddenly go away. Rather, it is the job of the phlogiston advocate to quantify the effects of phlogiston on energy balance, and incorporate them in a consistent way beside the existing climate forcings. Virtually all of the attempts to poke holes in the anthropogenic greenhouse theory lose sight of this simple and unassailable principle.

So if we got warmer, which you agreed we have. And if "all" the excess CO2 in the atmosphere since preindustrial times, IE when the before the warming really began is caused by human activities, which it is. And if you haven't any other mechanism; solar output, barycentric nature of the solar system, or other, then you are left with the atmospheric chemistry and the increases to CO2 and CH4. So, whats the deal, you got a phlogiston detector hidden over there somewhere

cheers
B

[Dave Gudeman]

Originally Posted by Boston

Tom,
So publish it if its all that superior of a model. If you really believe its able to pass muster, then I don't get what your problem is. They're not a review board anyway, so present it somewhere, You offered it to realclimate, they scoffed at you in no uncertain terms. Now your crying in your soup? The best revenge is success, so take your model, get a peer revue, and publish it. There is a system of science, work with it, Whats the problem.

Boston, I don't know if you are deliberately missing the point, or you just don't get it. The point is that RealClimate tries to hide evidence that threatens their preferred narrative. We already know from ClimateGate that this was done by professional climate scientists, and now this is just more evidence that the alarmist side is more concerned with winning the argument than with the truth.

The issue here is a question about the scholarly ethics of RealClimate. It might make you feel better to hurl childish taunts at the person bringing the charge, but anyone who is paying attention can see that basically, you don't have any defense for RealClimate and you are just trying to change the subject.