Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Can you show me 'papers supporting climate change'? I wouldnt know where to find them.

There are lots of papers dealing with small pieces of the puzzle; they generally tend to seem genuine. Genuine, and unexciting.

So, as expected, you make claims about the science being inadequate, but don't anything beyond vagaries to offer..?

If you actually want to move beyond your continued vague criticisms, I've got a couple of papers [like these: 1 2 or 3 or 4] which you're more than welcome to shoot full of holes.

I would, if I had subscriptions to those journals.

But the abstracts already lend themselves to some firm punches.

Quote:
Simulation results using an atmosphere-ocean general circulation model that includes estimates of the radiative effects of observed temporal variations in greenhouse gases, sulfate aerosols, solar irradiance, and volcanic aerosols over the past century agree with our observation-based estimate of the increase in ocean heat content. The results we present suggest that the observed increase in ocean heat content may largely be due to the increase of anthropogenic gases in Earth's atmosphere.

Of course they 'may' be: hard to argue with that. And ofcourse you can fit a curve to the past; 'give me four parameters and I can fit an elephant...'. If these guys somehow have the ability to tease apart all major drives of climate, as they are implying, then surely their model predicted the decade of stagnating temperatures that followed their publication? Im eagerly awaiting the answer to that.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Then there is a report like the IPCC, which tries to tie all this together. Since they dont seem to explain how they jump to their conclusion...

lol. How disingenuous.

The IPCC assessments are heavily cited. Largely the IPCC reports serve to condense whatever conclusions they find repeated throughout the existing research.

You are not adressing my concern. I am not aware of the methodology of going from a bunch of papers making empty statements such as: 'The results we present suggest that the observed increase in ocean heat content may largely be due to the increase of anthropogenic gases in Earth's atmosphere.', to 'there is an X% chance of AGW happening'.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Eelco
....of 'were X% sure AGW is happening', im not really sure how to 'debunk' it.

You can feign ignorance if you like, but it's certainly not any sort of mystery that you can debunk their conclusions, by debunking the various scientists whose conclusions have been incorporated into the IPCC report.


Toss a dart at the pages of citations filling the IPCC WGI report, and show us where that bit of research went wrong.


A big one you can set your aim at is:
Boucher, O., and J. Haywood, 2001: On summing the components
of radiative forcing of climate change. Clim. Dyn., 18, 297–302. (I have one of their more recent papers, if you want to rebut that instead...)




Show us that armchair theorizing really does trump actual expertise. Go!

The paper seems uncontroversial to me. The climate may be cooler than it would be in the absence of aerosols. Ok. Good news I suppose; climatic engineering appearently isnt that hard, might we ever need it.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Did you isolate government spending or include public and private? I assume he is referring to public spending since private spending isn't legislated by and large(yet?)

That figure is a lumped together global spending figure, private and public. I'm guessing there's more scope for private spending in nanotech, as it leads directly to products. The main product of climate science is information, which while useful isn't IMO to be in the same league of profitability for venture capital funding.

According to that link, the public spending slice for nanotechnology in 2004 was $4.6 billion. It's since gone up: the same site says spending in 2008 on nanotechnology is $US25 billion, although the article doesn't seem to break it down into private/public figures. However since Russia's government has pledged $US5 billion into nanotechnology alone*, I'm assuming it's quite high worldwide; I just haven't found a figure from my quick Google search.

* Edit: Actually, I'm not sure what time period that's over. $US5 billion is a lot, but if it's spread out over a decade it's not massive by global standards. The article probably explains, but it's not relevant enough to do more than a scan-read. ;)

But nanotechnology funding isn't the main thing I'm curious about, it's the funding for climate science. Or specifically, global warming/climate change; I'm assuming that even if funding for global warming studies were completely dropped worldwide there has to be a base level of funding for climate science regardless.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
...If these guys somehow have the ability to tease apart all major drives of climate, as they are implying, then surely their model predicted the decade of stagnating temperatures that followed their publication? Im eagerly awaiting the answer to that.

You mean like the HadCM models which can show a peak around 1999?
As an informed denier ... shouldn't you already be aware of these?

Quote: Original post by Eelco
You are not adressing my concern. I am not aware of the methodology of going from a bunch of papers making empty statements such as....

You mean "empty" statements like

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
2

which says....

Quote: Comparison of index trends in observations and model simulations shows that North American temperature changes from 1950 to 1999 were unlikely to be due to natural climate variation alone.

I'm pretty sure such research exactly addresses your fabricated "concerns."

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
I've got a couple of papers [like these: 1 2 or 3 or 4]

I would, if I had subscriptions to those journals.

As mentioned, I have these papers (and a few others).

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on December 17, 2009 7:31:34 AM]

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
A big one you can set your aim at is:
Boucher, O., and J. Haywood, 2001: On summing the components
of radiative forcing of climate change. Clim. Dyn., 18, 297–302. (I have one of their more recent papers, if you want to rebut that instead...)

The paper seems uncontroversial to me....

Uncontroversial? I guess you're referring to the paper that is linked, instead of the one in huge font. Perhaps the one in red makes for a more interesting target for you....

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
A big one you can set your aim at is:
Boucher, O., and J. Haywood, 2001: On summing the components
of radiative forcing of climate change. Clim. Dyn., 18, 297–302. (I have one of their more recent papers, if you want to rebut that instead...)

The paper seems uncontroversial to me....

Uncontroversial? I guess you're referring to the paper that is linked, instead of the one in huge font. Perhaps the one in red makes for a more interesting target for you....

Looked at it; wasnt shocked. Perhaps you could tell me what exactly worries you here, instead of having me try and guess at it? I get the impression you are just throwing random papers around here.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
On the subject of "cherry picking" has anyone else seen this?

Hockey stick observed in NOAA ice core data

I'll not link the entirety for fair use reasons so please check out the link, but here's an example of the "hockey stick" as seen from the perspective of the holocene as a whole.

The flaw I see with that is it only talks about total temperature change and not temperature change versus time. The only reason the graphs look similar is the farther back they go the more compressed the time axis is. If you compared the ice age to modern warming with both on a human rather than geological timescale it looks like you would see one as a gentle slope and one as a sharp peak.

RE-EDIT:
I know their only using ice data but still it seems inaccurate to draw their conclusion while ignoring the last 100 years.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco
.... If these guys somehow have the ability to tease apart all major drives of climate, as they are implying, then surely their model predicted the decade of stagnating temperatures that followed their publication? Im eagerly awaiting the answer to that.

You mean like the HadCM/GS models?
As an informed denier ... shouldn't you already be aware of these?

Please enlighten me, instead of throwing terminology around. Climate science as a whole certainly didnt see the lack of warming coming, but perhaps these guys did; that would lend their model added creds, but they arnt doing anything unorthodox, as far as I can tell.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Eelco
You are not adressing my concern. I am not aware of the methodology of going from a bunch of papers making empty statements such as....

You mean "empty" statements like

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
2

which says....

Quote: Comparison of index trends in observations and model simulations shows that North American temperature changes from 1950 to 1999 were unlikely to be due to natural climate variation alone.

I'm pretty sure such research exactly addresses your fabricated "concerns."

Im not sure what your certainty is based on; because it does most explicitly not adress my concerns. Consider the possibility that it is your certainty which is fabricated.

Indeed, 'likely' is nowhere quantified but left as a subjective conclusion by the authors. Their assesment of the relative roles of natural versus anthropogenic changes depends on the ability to model either. The very same criticism applies: if we could do any such thing, isnt it curious they didnt predict the lack of warming in the early 21th century? They sure dont seem to mention it in this paper.

Note that the agreement of all models with the actual observed temperature are painfully poor. None of them capture even both of the most low-frequency features, the 1940's optimum and the current optimum.

They cant even fit an elephant; the presumption that they can predict the future is ridiculous; even without the direct empirical evidence to the contrary.

But nice squiggly lines anyway.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
I've got a couple of papers [like these: 1 2 or 3 or 4]

I would, if I had subscriptions to those journals.

As mentioned, I have these papers (and a few others).

So does google, it seems.

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote:
Original post by Eelco
You are not adressing my concern. I am not aware of the methodology of going from a bunch of papers making empty statements such as....

You mean "empty" statements like

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
2

which says....

Quote: Comparison of index trends in observations and model simulations shows that North American temperature changes from 1950 to 1999 were unlikely to be due to natural climate variation alone.

I'm pretty sure such research exactly addresses your fabricated "concerns."

Im not sure what your certainty is based on; because it does most explicitly not adress my concerns.

You keep avoiding having to post any substantive rebuttal ... continually making excuses about there only being "pieces of the puzzle" and claiming that you can't find any research that purports to directly address the overall conclusions about AGW.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Can you show me 'papers supporting climate change'? I wouldnt know where to find them.

I've made it clear there is plenty of research making those types of claims; you say they're available on Google. Now you're free to pick any of the many papers, stop dancing, and start debunking.

Likely, you'll continue dancing....

Quote: Original post by Eelco
.... if we could do any such thing, isnt it curious they didnt predict the lack of warming in the early 21th century? They sure dont seem to mention it in this paper.

Yep. That'd be awfully curious in a paper which declares that it is studying temperatures from 1900 to 1999.

(Also, educated denialists might have missed the memo, but the early 21st century is set to be the hottest decade on record.)

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on December 16, 2009 11:13:27 PM]

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote:
Original post by Eelco
You are not adressing my concern. I am not aware of the methodology of going from a bunch of papers making empty statements such as....

You mean "empty" statements like

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
2

which says....

Quote: Comparison of index trends in observations and model simulations shows that North American temperature changes from 1950 to 1999 were unlikely to be due to natural climate variation alone.

I'm pretty sure such research exactly addresses your fabricated "concerns."

Im not sure what your certainty is based on; because it does most explicitly not adress my concerns.

You keep avoiding having to post any substantive rebuttal ... continually making excuses about there only being "pieces of the puzzle" and claiming that you can't find any research that purports to directly address the overall conclusions about AGW.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Can you show me 'papers supporting climate change'? I wouldnt know where to find them.

I've made it clear there is plenty of research making those types of claims; you say they're available on Google. Now you're free to pick any of the many papers, stop dancing, and start debunking.

Likely, you'll continue dancing....

Are you even reading what I write? There is nothing to debunk there. The facts seem all very agreeable. But aside from the subjective and unquantified claim in their conclusion, it simply isnt a 'paper supporting [anthropogenic] climate change'. Just a summary of some obviously borked climate models.

Now you stop dancing around, and take another look (assuming youve read the paper at all) at that graph of actual temperatures and models, and tell me with a straight face youd bet anything on the predictive power of those models. (I bet you will anyway, but it would be comical to have it on record)

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Eelco
.... if we could do any such thing, isnt it curious they didnt predict the lack of warming in the early 21th century? They sure dont seem to mention it in this paper.

Yep. That'd be awfully curious in a paper which declares that it is studying temperatures from 1900 to 1999.

I was just throwing you a bone there; I dont actually expect they made any such prediction, anywhere, inside or outside that paper.

Quote: (Also, educated denialists might have missed the memo, but the early 21st century is set to be the hottest decade on record.)

Sensationalists might have missed the memo (forgivable given how the media keeps echoing your message): but that rather meaningless. Hottest deccade on [thermometer] record. Coldest deccade on record. Either is to be expected in a system that shows variability over timescales far longer than the measurement period.

Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid
A lot of the weather readings would be done for multiple purposes (like general meteorology and record keeping), so I'm figuring most of the expense would be the salaries of the climate scientists, their equipment (a whole bunch of computers) and extremely specific climate science reading like taking ice cores. What else is there? Are there climate science-only satellites?

I elaborate on this a bit, since I don't think many are aware of these frameworks that are emerging. Perhaps some of this gives pointers to you also. [smile] In the EU it looks like climate monitoring is lumped together with other geo-related activities, so it's difficult to discern actual numbers. It looks like most of the action is related to GEOSS in one way or another (INSPIRE and GMES and probably the most important high-level organisations in the EU related to this). One concrete, more commercialy aimed, project is SwissEx Collaboration. Technology-wise similar cyber-infrastructure research is reported quite a lot in ERCIM, for instance. I believe also that just recently there was a law passed in the EU parliament that obligates the member states to create a sensor network to specifically collect air and climate related data. I'm not sure if it was Directive 2008/50/EC. Some EU member states also subsidy greener energy with feed tariffs (like California does?), then there are the new pollution limits for cars etc.

From this one could conclude quite a lot of resources is being poured into environment and climate research, equipment and green industry. I believe in EU at least, as I wrote, getting actual numbers is difficult. If someone has numbers, they probably aren't accurate. [smile]