For Crick- New Pages2k Data Paper

[Crick]

It's very hard not to take that as a rejection of all science. Can we not take EVERY finding of modern science as a demand to bow down to the font of wisdom? Isn't every iota of information about the way the universe works another attempt to give humans more control?

Tell us what your opinion here has to do with the validity of AGW? Climate scientists are not manufacturing data in order to garner worship and acclaim. No one is pushing AGW because they think it makes humans more comfortable. And nothing you've said addresses the actual science. You say you believe greenhouse warming is trivial. On what EVIDENCE is that based?

 

[IanC]

from the latest CA article on PAGES2K-
"
Discussion

Because of the heavy weighting of Kaufman et al 2009 proxies, the McKay and Kaufman conclusion that the “decadal-scale variability in the revised [PAGES2K] reconstruction is quite similar to that determined by Kaufman et al.” is, as advertised above, more of a tautology rather evidence of robustness of the result in the additional data.

At the end of the day, any proxy reconstruction is either a linear combination of the underlying proxies (or can be closely approximated by such a linear combination.) Over the years, I’ve consistently urged that the effective weights be shown for novel methods. Had this been done, I doubt that the above weights would have been the result, since it’s hard to believe that the Arctic2K authors intentionally adopted the above weights. Jean S has done some experiments and there are definitely alternative weighting schemes that can result from slightly varied implementations of paico.

As CA readers are aware, I remain dubious that material benefits arise from putting relatively simple datasets into increasingly complicated and poorly understood multivariate methods and remain of the opinion that there are better opportunities for improving analysis by first comparing like proxies across regions and comparisons of unlike proxies within a region, prior to venturing into the assimilation of unlike proxies in different regions. But this recommendation has been mostly rejected by specialists in the field, who remain committed to dumping data into black boxes, but who get huffy when resulting defects are criticized.

Finally nearly all the difference between the PAGES2K-2013 and the revised result arises from a single proxy (Hvitarvatn, used upside down in the earlier version.) Some readers have expressed surprise at the idea that specialists could use proxies upside down, observing that their interpretation as temperature proxies must be very tenuous if even specialists didn’t know which way was up. Particularly in a multi-author Nature article, subsequently relied upon by IPCC. I agree with this and have written numerous articles critical of varvology, proxies that have become widely used in post-AR4 multiproxy studies. I think that there may well be usable information in this data, but as long as thick varves are interpreted by some specialists as evidence of cold and by other specialists as evidence of warmth, the first order of business for assessment is to reconcile varve thickness data before dumping the data into a multiproxy composite, rather than after.
" The Kaufman Tautology Climate Audit




yet crick and his ilk believe fully, believe deeply, that reconstructions are not only correct but precise.

 

[jc456]

from the latest CA article on PAGES2K-
"
Discussion

Because of the heavy weighting of Kaufman et al 2009 proxies, the McKay and Kaufman conclusion that the “decadal-scale variability in the revised [PAGES2K] reconstruction is quite similar to that determined by Kaufman et al.” is, as advertised above, more of a tautology rather evidence of robustness of the result in the additional data.

At the end of the day, any proxy reconstruction is either a linear combination of the underlying proxies (or can be closely approximated by such a linear combination.) Over the years, I’ve consistently urged that the effective weights be shown for novel methods. Had this been done, I doubt that the above weights would have been the result, since it’s hard to believe that the Arctic2K authors intentionally adopted the above weights. Jean S has done some experiments and there are definitely alternative weighting schemes that can result from slightly varied implementations of paico.

As CA readers are aware, I remain dubious that material benefits arise from putting relatively simple datasets into increasingly complicated and poorly understood multivariate methods and remain of the opinion that there are better opportunities for improving analysis by first comparing like proxies across regions and comparisons of unlike proxies within a region, prior to venturing into the assimilation of unlike proxies in different regions. But this recommendation has been mostly rejected by specialists in the field, who remain committed to dumping data into black boxes, but who get huffy when resulting defects are criticized.

Finally nearly all the difference between the PAGES2K-2013 and the revised result arises from a single proxy (Hvitarvatn, used upside down in the earlier version.) Some readers have expressed surprise at the idea that specialists could use proxies upside down, observing that their interpretation as temperature proxies must be very tenuous if even specialists didn’t know which way was up. Particularly in a multi-author Nature article, subsequently relied upon by IPCC. I agree with this and have written numerous articles critical of varvology, proxies that have become widely used in post-AR4 multiproxy studies. I think that there may well be usable information in this data, but as long as thick varves are interpreted by some specialists as evidence of cold and by other specialists as evidence of warmth, the first order of business for assessment is to reconcile varve thickness data before dumping the data into a multiproxy composite, rather than after.
" The Kaufman Tautology Climate Audit




yet crick and his ilk believe fully, believe deeply, that reconstructions are not only correct but precise.

Right?

 

[jc456]

It's very hard not to take that as a rejection of all science. Can we not take EVERY finding of modern science as a demand to bow down to the font of wisdom? Isn't every iota of information about the way the universe works another attempt to give humans more control?

Tell us what your opinion here has to do with the validity of AGW? Climate scientists are not manufacturing data in order to garner worship and acclaim. No one is pushing AGW because they think it makes humans more comfortable. And nothing you've said addresses the actual science. You say you believe greenhouse warming is trivial. On what EVIDENCE is that based?

Jiminie, why is it you can't find one piece of evidence to support that 120 PPM can drive climate, but you believe everything that comes from these chaps mouths? dude, that is irrational!!!!!

 

[Crick]

I and other have long ago found and presented multiple 120 ppm experiments that clearly show CO2 absorbs infrared and increases the atmosphere's warming. Lo and behold, the nearly 200 year old greenhouse effect is real.

There is hard evidence that the greenhouse effect is warming this planet 33C over what it would be without an atmosphere. CO2 is not the largest part of that, but it is second and it is growing. The warming that is producing is increasing the level of water vapor in the atmosphere and driving methane out of sequestration in melting tundra and ocean bottom deposits.

What I want to know (and the question wasn't addressed to you but to Ian) is what evidence do you have that these things are NOT taking place?

 

[SSDD]

I and other have long ago found and presented multiple 120 ppm experiments that clearly show CO2 absorbs infrared and increases the atmosphere's warming. Lo and behold, the nearly 200 year old greenhouse effect is real.

There is hard evidence that the greenhouse effect is warming this planet 33C over what it would be without an atmosphere. CO2 is not the largest part of that, but it is second and it is growing. The warming that is producing is increasing the level of water vapor in the atmosphere and driving methane out of sequestration in melting tundra and ocean bottom deposits.

What I want to know (and the question wasn't addressed to you but to Ian) is what evidence do you have that these things are NOT taking place?

Sorry but you have not....perhaps you are stupid enough to believe that you have, but alas, you have not since no such experiment exists....since no such phenomenon exists.

 

[Crick]

Perhaps you could explain why probably better than 99% of the world's scientists, of every branch, believe it does.

 

[jc456]

Perhaps you could explain why probably better than 99% of the world's scientists, of every branch, believe it does.

They're in it for the money?

 

[Crick]

I note you post that as a question. Would you agree that's a nonsensical suggestion? 99% of them accepted it long before AGW had first appeared.

 

[IanC]

I and other have long ago found and presented multiple 120 ppm experiments that clearly show CO2 absorbs infrared and increases the atmosphere's warming. Lo and behold, the nearly 200 year old greenhouse effect is real.

There is hard evidence that the greenhouse effect is warming this planet 33C over what it would be without an atmosphere. CO2 is not the largest part of that, but it is second and it is growing. The warming that is producing is increasing the level of water vapor in the atmosphere and driving methane out of sequestration in melting tundra and ocean bottom deposits.

What I want to know (and the question wasn't addressed to you but to Ian) is what evidence do you have that these things are NOT taking place?

No, you havent produced any experiments that are run at 120ppm, or even close to that small. that is why you keep getting asked for one.

you just said that CO2 is causing warming, which in turn causes more water vapour in the atmosphere. sound good but is it true? NASA doesnt think so.

 

[Crick]

The Mythbusters demonstration used 120 ppm added CO2.

Your graphic does show increased humidity at 1000 mB. Given half the atmosphere lies below 5600 meters, a graph of the total atmosphere's average humidity over time would show an increase.

 

[IanC]

It's very hard not to take that as a rejection of all science. Can we not take EVERY finding of modern science as a demand to bow down to the font of wisdom? Isn't every iota of information about the way the universe works another attempt to give humans more control?

Tell us what your opinion here has to do with the validity of AGW? Climate scientists are not manufacturing data in order to garner worship and acclaim. No one is pushing AGW because they think it makes humans more comfortable. And nothing you've said addresses the actual science. You say you believe greenhouse warming is trivial. On what EVIDENCE is that based?

you and I have different styles when looking at evidence and exploring ideas. you seem to believe whatever the last thing someone in authority told you. even if it incompatible with the previous story. I take everything I hear with a grain of salt and a sliding scale of belief based on how it fits into my worldview of physical first order principles.

I have repeatedly told you that I agree that there is a CO2 greenhouse effect but that I dont believe in the feedbacks. why dont I believe in the feedbacks? the Earth and Mother Nature are very chary when it comes to positive feedbacks because they are unstable. there may be little eddies in the river but there is only one general direction. the greenhouse effect is very strong at the surface and for the first few tens of meters. a strictly radiative accounting of energy flowing through the atmosphere would have the surface at least 50C warmer than it is. but convection and latent heat of evaporation pump that would-be surface energy well into the atmosphere. you think every joule retarded by CO2 goes into warming the surface, I think it just gets shunted into convection with perhaps the tiniest portion going into surface warming. Convection is two orders of magnitude more efficient at moving energy than radiation. a slight change in the amount, or even the timing of a convective/evaporative event dwarfs radiation.

if you want hard evidence then you will have to look it up for yourself. I read and think about things in the present, pull out a brick to put in my worldview wall, and move on. I really have no interest in convincing others what to think, or proving myself right. I bring up ideas that I think are interesting. like McIntyre's discussion about proxies in PAGES2K. you are doing yourself a disservice by refusing to look at them. figure out for yourself how the various aspects of the world works, and then test it against other people's ideas. it is more interesting than internalizing either ad homs or deference to authority.

 

[Crick]

I do believe that the latest theories accepted by a majority of the experts in a given field are the likeliest to be correct. I agree that a system with nothing but open-ended, positive feedbacks is unstable, but no one is suggesting that the Earth's climate is such a system. Thus your argument there only reveals a bias looking for a nit to pick.

 

[Old Rocks]

We do know from the geological record that there can be positive feedbacks that de-stabalize the system. We see them in the fossil record as times of extinction.

 

[IanC]

The Mythbusters demonstration used 120 ppm added CO2.

Your graphic does show increased humidity at 1000 mB. Given half the atmosphere lies below 5600 meters, a graph of the total atmosphere's average humidity over time would show an increase.

Nope. the Mythbusters experiment did not.

 

[Crick]

Yep, it did.

 

[mamooth]

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ... = 2

Positive feedback, open ended, yet the system as a whole is still bounded.

 

[IanC]

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ... = 2

Positive feedback, open ended, yet the system as a whole is still bounded.

Im glad I decided to look at your post (I have you on ignore because the vast majority of your posts are exactly the same).

so the calculation for the temp change of 2xCO2 has been done, and I assume it has terms somewhat similar to your 1+1/2+1/4.... in it. the final result is 1.0-1.2C/doubling. climate science then adds positive feedbacks to that number to get roughly 2-5C total per doubling at equilibrium.

as you can see by the equation and by the graph, positive feedbacks can quickly go out of control. the Earth has had many shocks to the system, and yet it has stayed in a narrow range with liquid water. the Sun itself has brightened by more than 25 % in the last 3 billion years.

I agree that mankind has increased CO2 in the short term. but it is certainly still within the normal range for the Earth, in fact low CO2 is somewhat unusual. the latest estimates for TCR and ECS are being estimated more by actual data rather than model response. and they have plummeted to ~1.4C and ~ 2.0C. there is no 'tipping point' in the near future.

 

[Crick]

the latest estimates for TCR and ECS are being estimated more by actual data rather than model response. and they have plummeted to ~1.4C and ~ 2.0C. there is no 'tipping point' in the near future.

Do you have a reference for that contention? We are not at equilibrium and I don't believe the system noise will allow an estimation of TCR accurate enough to allow the abandonment of GCM's which produce it as an output.

 

[IanC]

the latest estimates for TCR and ECS are being estimated more by actual data rather than model response. and they have plummeted to ~1.4C and ~ 2.0C. there is no 'tipping point' in the near future.

Do you have a reference for that contention? We are not at equilibrium and I don't believe the system noise will allow an estimation of TCR accurate enough to allow the abandonment of GCM's which produce it as an output.

are you asking me to bump up to the first page some of the more recent threads on TCR and ECS?