Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From?

[JoeNormal]

It takes some faith when dealing with Neural Nets because it's largely a process that's hidden from inspection.. Including the judgements on training and depth and selecting MEANINGFUL feature vectors as inputs.. You can either lean back and enjoy the magic if the bugger learns anything important -- or with some effort -- go in and inspect the algebra that the training process produced.. (Good luck with that part)

One project we did was to train NNets to biometrically identify people from their footfall patterns on 2D pressure plates as they crossed a threshhold.. Got up to 85% probability of detection with the right extracted features in time and space.. And a couple papers..

Earlier GW models were NOT conservative and failed miserably to predict even 20 yrs ahead. They were produced at a time when GW science was not seriously discussing the energy STORAGE and DELAY mechanisms inherent in a Complex system with feedbacks. In fact, the feedbacks and storage and delays are critical to the "magic numbers". Which I will now tell you are largely the "climate sensitivity" numbers applied to the W/m2 forcings that basic physics gives you.. The morons STILL TO THIS DAY have a widely ranging CSensitivity bracket that applies to the ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET. When in reality, the earth does not consist of a single climate zone with just ONE sensitivity to forcings.

I have been vindicated as a skeptic for pointing out EARLY that any system containing feedbacks, integrals of storage and temporal delays would NEVER be expected to have a thermal output that curve matches the CO2 forcing or ANY OTHER FORCING. In fact, GWarming geniuses are now UNDERSTANDING that in the excuses they've made once their simple-ass models failed on them.. Like --- they've recently discovered the massive ocean heat sink and invented the "Ocean ate my Warming" excuse. Or the admissions from Max Planck Inst. that "time to thermal equilibriums may be on the order of decades or even centuries. Folks of science understand that it is a PROCESS not an election. And that the science is NOWHERE NEAR settled.

Well, it's possible that the sophistication of the modeling in general is less than I imagine but I've seen some of what has been done with the Earth Simulator and it's gnarly.

From a more personal and modest perspective, I model electrical and physical systems for commercial DSP applications. Much of it comes from analysis of the components of the systems but when combining those components, there's a certain amount of magic in getting the whole to behave as the sum of the components should. This is where it seems to me the disparity between various models and reality exists and I think the only way to improve that is through continued refinement of the resolution of the data and the sophistication of the interactions between observable parts of the process.

Bottom line, I don't think there's anything a true skeptic will accept as having been settled.

We're somewhat related in backgrounds, so I know you've studied linear/non-linear/stochastic systems. Why is it that every warmer on this board believes that the Earth climate response to an input forcing must look EXACTLY like the the input to be considered as a contribution to the warming. Your Home HVAC system doesn't even work that way. Because it's pulse-width modulated with no change in the air temperature at the furnace. NO system as complicated as the Earth climate runs as a simple linear relationship.. Yet -- you will be TOLD that solar step functions that paused at a relative max 20 years ago cannot be affecting the climate today.. It's juvenile and comes from the HIGHEST AUTHORITIES like the IPCC reports.

I'll give you some concessions and disprove your last line. I accept that CO2 is a bit player in the surface warming factor and will contribute somewhat LESS than the 1.2DegC per doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmos that physics suggests. Not even established how much the CO2 effect is a CAUSE or a RESULT of surface warming.

My beef is the star-struck attitude of these YOUNG science who spend more time angsting about policy implications than doing the HARDER work of learning SPECIFIC CRITICAL portions of the thermal system on the planet. Judith Curry has assembled a MULTI-DISCIPLINARY team at G-Tech to do the serious hard stuff. Like analyzing how heat CYCLES and creates semi-periodic climate changes in the oceans and moves from equator to poles. THAT'S the kind of Climate science that matters. Not discussions about oceans boiling and Antarctica melting and all the other HYSTERICAL HYPE that is used to bludgeon public policy makers and the public..

I haven't seen what I've bolded but the rest of your post is pretty reasonable.

 

[mamooth]

Yet -- you will be TOLD that solar step functions that paused at a relative max 20 years ago cannot be affecting the climate today.

It can't affect climate today unless it's also been affecting climate for the past 20 years. Heat simply does not magically hide for 20 years. It has to be somewhere, and we could have measured it if it was there.

It's juvenile and comes from the HIGHEST AUTHORITIES like the IPCC reports.

No, your "the magical heat has been magically hiding!" theory would be the very silly thing. It's a dumb theory, so it should be rejected out of hand.

 

[soonerthunder22]

Straight out of a bunch of liberal asshole's assholes. If you don't believe me just ask the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.......maybe Santa Claus?

The most appropriate gesture to express my feelings on "global warming" is the kids one finger salute in bripat's avatar.

Ah, yes a fan of Bripat's avatar. I think I know exactly how smart you are now.

One of the FINEST expressions of on-line debate I've ever seen..

 

[soonerthunder22]

Wow! Thanks. I thought it was a rather scintillating repartee myself.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yet -- you will be TOLD that solar step functions that paused at a relative max 20 years ago cannot be affecting the climate today.

It can't affect climate today unless it's also been affecting climate for the past 20 years. Heat simply does not magically hide for 20 years. It has to be somewhere, and we could have measured it if it was there.

It's juvenile and comes from the HIGHEST AUTHORITIES like the IPCC reports.

No, your "the magical heat has been magically hiding!" theory would be the very silly thing. It's a dumb theory, so it should be rejected out of hand.

Max Planck has recently published 2 papers validating the concept of delays to thermal equilibrium of multiple decades and even centuries. A step function change in forcing can raise a thermal result extremely SLOWLY given that critical insight. That what delays and storage do in a system. They delay and "filter or smooth" the excitation.. In fact, if the solar MAX in TSI was reached 20 or 25 years ago -- then it's a BETTER explanation for the current pause in surface warming than "the oceans ate my warming". Especially since the RATE of ocean heat consumption has been essentially the same for over 40 years. The current flat temp anomaly matches the Solar pause of 25 yrs ago very well.

The idea that the climate INSTANTANEOUSLY responds to any forcing is a non-starter. And no one should ever assume that the curves of forcing functions have to exactly overlay the thermal anomaly in order to be a factor. Because that's ridiculous in light of what climate science has admitted since their models have largely failed.

Say Mamooth.. Control your outbursts and answer me this. What is the integral of a step function? Can you guarantee me that NO INTEGRALS exist in the Climate transfer function? Discuss... (try it one time)

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, it's possible that the sophistication of the modeling in general is less than I imagine but I've seen some of what has been done with the Earth Simulator and it's gnarly.

From a more personal and modest perspective, I model electrical and physical systems for commercial DSP applications. Much of it comes from analysis of the components of the systems but when combining those components, there's a certain amount of magic in getting the whole to behave as the sum of the components should. This is where it seems to me the disparity between various models and reality exists and I think the only way to improve that is through continued refinement of the resolution of the data and the sophistication of the interactions between observable parts of the process.

Bottom line, I don't think there's anything a true skeptic will accept as having been settled.

We're somewhat related in backgrounds, so I know you've studied linear/non-linear/stochastic systems. Why is it that every warmer on this board believes that the Earth climate response to an input forcing must look EXACTLY like the the input to be considered as a contribution to the warming. Your Home HVAC system doesn't even work that way. Because it's pulse-width modulated with no change in the air temperature at the furnace. NO system as complicated as the Earth climate runs as a simple linear relationship.. Yet -- you will be TOLD that solar step functions that paused at a relative max 20 years ago cannot be affecting the climate today.. It's juvenile and comes from the HIGHEST AUTHORITIES like the IPCC reports.

I'll give you some concessions and disprove your last line. I accept that CO2 is a bit player in the surface warming factor and will contribute somewhat LESS than the 1.2DegC per doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmos that physics suggests. Not even established how much the CO2 effect is a CAUSE or a RESULT of surface warming.

My beef is the star-struck attitude of these YOUNG science who spend more time angsting about policy implications than doing the HARDER work of learning SPECIFIC CRITICAL portions of the thermal system on the planet. Judith Curry has assembled a MULTI-DISCIPLINARY team at G-Tech to do the serious hard stuff. Like analyzing how heat CYCLES and creates semi-periodic climate changes in the oceans and moves from equator to poles. THAT'S the kind of Climate science that matters. Not discussions about oceans boiling and Antarctica melting and all the other HYSTERICAL HYPE that is used to bludgeon public policy makers and the public..

I haven't seen what I've bolded but the rest of your post is pretty reasonable.

Because you're a fellow "signals and system" person -- and you seem sincere in debate --- -- I've posted this literally dozens of time. It's NOT the CRUX of my skepticism, but it calls out the IPCC and other hatchet jobs who dismiss any forcing that didn't happen yesterday in their climate analysis.
(like my Turrett's Syndrome buddy Mamooth above)

This is the Total Solar Irradiance change since the sun went thru the Maunder Minimum in the 1700s.. It shows about 1 W/m2 INCREASE the direct solar "down-radiation" at the Top of Atmos. Warmers HATE this chart because it looks like it COULD actually explain a 20th century run-up in surface temp. So the IPCC and nutjob sites like skepticalscience immediately throw you a 10 or 20 year chart of SUN SPOT activity that has had the baseline removed.

Anyway, with the ADMISSION that thermal equilibrium is now measured in 30 or 40yr type of scales, the step increase in TSI ending in a pause for a "relative max" along with the new found MASSIVE heat storage and transfer in the oceans -- could and SHOULD be much more highly weighted as a thermal contributor than earlier Climate science says it was...

 

[mamooth]

Anyway, with the ADMISSION that thermal equilibrium is now measured in 30 or 40yr type of scales,

Admission by who? Your voices?

According to your theory, OLR should be increasing, but we see it decreasing. That kills your theory hard. And no, waving your hands around and pretending OLR is increasing by posting unsourced mystery graphs doesn't change the fact that OLR is decreasing, meaning your theory fails.

Oh, the integral of a step function is a linear increase. Your "temp is the integral of solar activity theory" also fails because the temp we see doesn't look remotely like the integral of solar activity. The pause from 1930-1970 is especially damaging to that theory. Can you explain why temp only sort of follows as the integral of TSI starting around 1970?

 

[bripat9643]

Ah, yes a fan of Bripat's avatar. I think I know exactly how smart you are now.

One of the FINEST expressions of on-line debate I've ever seen..

It's the only response appropriate for morons like you and Joe Normal.

 

[flacaltenn]

Anyway, with the ADMISSION that thermal equilibrium is now measured in 30 or 40yr type of scales,

Admission by who? Your voices?

According to your theory, OLR should be increasing, but we see it decreasing. That kills your theory hard. And no, waving your hands around and pretending OLR is increasing by posting unsourced mystery graphs doesn't change the fact that OLR is decreasing, meaning your theory fails.

Oh, the integral of a step function is a linear increase. Your "temp is the integral of solar activity theory" also fails because the temp we see doesn't look remotely like the integral of solar activity. The pause from 1930-1970 is especially damaging to that theory. Can you explain why temp only sort of follows as the integral of TSI starting around 1970?

Still posting skepticalscience crayon jobs that never ever saw a real data set --- I see. No matter. The graphs are OK for a former cartoonist.. I never made the leap to a claim that temperature was the integral od TSI.. I simply wanted you to acknowledge that system transfer function which CONTAINS an integral can produce a linearly rising temperature with even a simple step function input. STORAGE is an integral function and the climate system is LOADED with features that store thermal energy. So we should stop the silly curve matching and shouting about what the inputs look like and figure out how they are processed by the climate system. Now consider besides storage the effects of delays and feedbacks and nonlinear processes like ice melting in critical sea lanes into the arctic, and all of a sudden you MIGHT realize how stupid it sounds for the IPCC to be dismissing forcing functions that havent happened yesterday and dont look like the temperatur output...

 

[mamooth]

Now you're just waving your hands around and hoping no one notices.

Plus, you you're avoiding the issue of how the decreasing OLR conclusively disproves your theory.

If you've got a real theory, it can make predictions. So make them. What does your theory predict for the future? Contrary to the bizarre conspiracy theories of certain people, the AGW models have been uncannily accurate in their predictions, which is one reason why AGW theory has such credibility. When your theory can be just as accurate in predictions, it will get respect. But first, it needs to make some predictions.

 

[Crick]

Why is it that every warmer on this board believes that the Earth climate response to an input forcing must look EXACTLY like the the input to be considered as a contribution to the warming.

Because, true or not (and it's not) it makes you feel good about yourself to say so.

Mainstream science, which is the more common name for your "warmers", doesn't require matched, linear responses. But it doesn't avert its eyes and go "na-na-na-na-naaaa" when one appears.

The mismatch between TSI and temperature isn't just in trend, there's the matter of MAGNITUDE. I can't boil a pot of water with an incense stick.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why is it that every warmer on this board believes that the Earth climate response to an input forcing must look EXACTLY like the the input to be considered as a contribution to the warming.

Because, true or not (and it's not) it makes you feel good about yourself to say so.

Mainstream science, which is the more common name for your "warmers", doesn't require matched, linear responses. But it doesn't avert its eyes and go "na-na-na-na-naaaa" when one appears.

The mismatch between TSI and temperature isn't just in trend, there's the matter of MAGNITUDE. I can't boil a pot of water with an incense stick.

1 w/m2 increase is in the range of what we're looking for to explain the current decadal rates of temp rise.. TSI IS NOT THE TOTAL ANSWER. I dwell on it because it is a significant contributor to climate change that has been PURPOSELY EXCLUDED with weak and faulty handwaving about "curve matching".. In fact --- YOU just did that for the umpteenth time a page or so back.. You can be a parrot or you can start thinking. Doesn't matter to me which you choose as long as you don't attempt to dismiss the GOOD parts of GW science that are just now appearing..

Main point is -- comparing 2 curves for best correlation will NEVER EXPLAING how the Earth's climate changes. 99% certainty there..

 

[flacaltenn]

Inspect the last 500,000 yrs of temperature on the planet. The PROMINENT feature is a series of Ice Ages that repeated right into the era of man.

What causes a system to oscillate or have a transient underdamped response like that? You need to change the GAIN of the thermal transfer function and/or change the DELAY (phase) of the positive feedback elements. THis we KNOW from the algebra behind Systems analysis theory.. Pole/Zero stability analysis and LaPlace transforms for instance..

What I'm focusing on is the larger model of the Climate as a "black box" where we have little clue about the exact math of it performance -- but we have much empirical evidence of it's behaviour. And that's what climate modeling is all about in the end.

THat's where I "get off" making these declarations like there is no reason to EVER EXPECT that the thermal output graph should curve match to any or all of its inputs. That' s a basic premise out of the Systems theory behind the modeling. We will learn FAR MORE along those lines than to focus on a SINGLE SILLY variable in the system as a "main control knob".. And Mamooth -- I wouldn't pretend to make projections at this point because the KNOWLEDGE of the "black box" has been WOEFULLY inadequate as all we really got the past 20 years is Sesame Street descriptions of the models.

BUT --- I may be close to changing careers and I've actually considered going back into academics in Climate Science. Maybe one day in the next decade -- I'll venture some guesses..

There are folks in Climate Science stepping up RIGHT NOW who will do the hard work, and JUSTIFY their grants and big salaries rather than cruise thru the motions of what the IPCC mistakes for answers...

 

[mamooth]

And Mamooth -- I wouldn't pretend to make projections at this point because the KNOWLEDGE of the "black box" has been WOEFULLY inadequate as all we really got the past 20 years is Sesame Street descriptions of the models.

The AGW scientists, because they were doing real science, made predictions. The predictions came true, in many ways, of which the models are just one example, hence the theory is considered to be confirmed.

You won't even make a prediction, so you're not doing science. You're just waving your hands around wildly.

 

[Crick]

Oh boy! You have "polls" That's GREAT! We have the fact that carbon tax laws are NOT being passed all over the world. WINNING!

So... you've got nothing.

You haven't posted in Environment in several weeks now, though I see you're active on the political front. Any reason?

 

[Kosh]

And yet still no link with datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

Nothing but AGW cult hype from a religious following that is based on faith and not any type of science.

 

[Crick]

That's the only line you know, isn't it. You don't know what it means, but you worked really hard and you memorized that jibe and by god you're gonna use it.

More power to you.

Last time you spit that out, I asked you what, specifically, you would do were I to connect you with a dataset of temperature v location v UTC and some C source code making use of a public domain math library. I don't recall having seen an answer. Did you answer that? If not, here's another chance. Tell us what you would do with a big data file and large C file? What's your first step?

 

[jc456]

That's the only line you know, isn't it. You don't know what it means, but you worked really hard and you memorized that jibe and by god you're gonna use it.

More power to you.

Last time you spit that out, I asked you what, specifically, you would do were I to connect you with a dataset of temperature v location v UTC and some C source code making use of a public domain math library. I don't recall having seen an answer. Did you answer that? If not, here's another chance. Tell us what you would do with a big data file and large C file? What's your first step?

provide the experiment. Is it hard, can't find any. Hah, what a hoot. How much heat is in 120PPM? Do you know the answer?

 

[flacaltenn]

That's the only line you know, isn't it. You don't know what it means, but you worked really hard and you memorized that jibe and by god you're gonna use it.

More power to you.

Last time you spit that out, I asked you what, specifically, you would do were I to connect you with a dataset of temperature v location v UTC and some C source code making use of a public domain math library. I don't recall having seen an answer. Did you answer that? If not, here's another chance. Tell us what you would do with a big data file and large C file? What's your first step?

provide the experiment. Is it hard, can't find any. Hah, what a hoot. How much heat is in 120PPM? Do you know the answer?

Yeah actually.. It's alledged that the down radiation (heat radiated back to the surface) from the 120ppm is on the order of 1.5 watt/m2.. Or the equivalent of placing one high power LED every square meter.. However, that's only if you attribute the BULK of the warming observed to SOLELY CO2... Which is not likely to be true..

 

[Crick]

Still waiting to hear what Kosh is going to do with the data and the code.