Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 Next
Comments 33351 to 33400:
-
metapontum at 03:49 AM on 3 November 2014Why the IPCC synthesis report is necessary but not sufficient to secure a response to climate change
Joel
Drafts for these CBAT Mk II headings now at links shown here for: -
Explantion - http://www.gci.org.uk/CBAT_MkII_Explanation.html
Appreciation - http://www.gci.org.uk/CBAT_MkII_Appreciation.htmlModerator Response:[JH] Links activated.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:36 AM on 3 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
karly... "I am inclined to agree with Dr Steel’s conclusions..."
I'm curious why you would think it is so outrageous to question his work or suggest that he publish it in a reputable science journal?
"Skeptics" seem to have no problems with people questioning research that is published in respected journals. Why should you or or duncansteel feel so put upon by those here question material that is published in an unreviewed essay published on a website?
-
PhilippeChantreau at 00:40 AM on 3 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
At firsdt glance, this wholetheory does not appear come close to approach the quantitative sensible test. It's like someone trying to demonstrate by using lots of numbers that they got skin cancer from taking too many selfies with the flash on.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:33 AM on 3 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
MA Rodger @346:
1) The ratio's are not the same, but (a) the difference is sufficiently small that it could be due to rounding era, and (b) there should be some slight change in annual insolation between the two periods in any event (although I suspect it is too small to show up with either rounding).
2) I don't think there is any difference between the theories (other than the name). The only substantive difference is that, so far as I can tell, the Journal of Cosmology paper assumes a spherical Earth for simplicity, whereas the blog post includes effects due to the actual shape of the Earth. (I have, of course, not repeated the calculations so cannot be certain of this.)
3) The differences between Figure 1 (calculated from NH Spring equinox) and 4 (calculated from NH Autumnal equinox) appear to balance out to zero over the year, and are mostly confined to polar latitudes. They are probably a consequence of the fact that the time from spring to autumnal equinox is approximately eight days less than the time from autumnal to spring equinoxes.
4) Most importantly, Fig 6b is just Fig 6a reproduced with an inaccurate notional day of year scale for the x-axis. The true comparison should be between Fig 6b (which the climate scientists are purported to use) and 6d (Steel's own calculation), or between 6c (The correct calculation for a scaling by day of year from Berger) and 6d.
-
metapontum at 00:33 AM on 3 November 2014Why the IPCC synthesis report is necessary but not sufficient to secure a response to climate change
Joel - you are quite right to ask that question. That is one of the key things that are needed to help CBAT-users understand better what's there.
If you go to the home page http://www.gci.org.uk/ and then touch the panel "CBAT principles, purpose & target audience" I have started setting out answers to those sorts of questions.
The whole CBAT MkII effort should be finished before Christmas.
The CBAT MkI effort foundered, but it had a resource-&-information-page here that might answer some of the questions: - http://www.gci.org.uk/All_Info.htmlModerator Response:[JH] Links activated.
-
michael sweet at 23:53 PM on 2 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Karley,
As a new perhaps you should read more and insult other commenters less. Several of the posters responding to DS have pHd's and long lists of papers published on the topic of climate change. DS has less experience than they do. If we are to bow to authority, DS does not have the strong hand. The fact that you are ignorant of others contributions does not mean that those contributions do not exist. The rest of us are up to date.
I have a Masters Degree in Organic Chemistry and have published around 10 peer reviewed papers. I doubt that anyone here cares about that since many of the other posters have pHd's. At this site we care about the qualtiy of the arguments preseted and the data that support them.
I note that DS has not produced a single data point about snow and ice extent and/or albeido. This is the critical point of his hypothesis and only Tom has presented data. That data directly contradicts DS proposal.
As I noted above, DS proposal is that precession causes a warmer spring and day with the rest of warming following. This is in direct contradiction to what is observed: a warmer winter and night with the other seasons and daytime following.
Can you provide any data or an argument to suggest why we should further entertain DS proposal when it is in contradiction to the observed data?
-
Joel_Huberman at 23:48 PM on 2 November 2014Why the IPCC synthesis report is necessary but not sufficient to secure a response to climate change
metapontum@1:
Thanks, this tool looks interesting, but I don't understand it. Are explanations or instructions available anywhere?
-
Forrest Erickson at 23:44 PM on 2 November 2014Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
Regarding, the "The OISM’s qualifications...."
Pleaes replace "stay-at-home-mom’s with engineering degrees" with "stay-at-home-mom’s and dad's with engineering degrees" -
MA Rodger at 22:41 PM on 2 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Tom Curtis @338.
Oh dear. You shouldn't have cut & pasted that quote from duncansteel's 'essay'. You forced me to go and finish reading duncansteel's ravings (something I was resolved not to do) because, as an inveterate number-checker, I noted 3.652/3.674 was not equal to (1-0.332)/(1-0.328).
As I pretty-much expected, within the duncansteel 'essay' there is no explanation for the difference which amounts to +0.048Wm^-2 (AD1750-2000). It is presumably the forcing he asserts is causing all the change in albedo but it seems very high for a net annual average for duncansteel's silly CSI theory (which in his thumbnail graphical presentation appears to only peak at 10x this value seasonally and regionally, peaks then balanced by negative peaks). So I wonder if this 0.048Wm^-2 figure (AD1750-2000) is the net annual change in insolation due to orbit (of which duncansteel CSI is but a small part).
Duncansteel's Journal of Cosmology paper reported by Tom Curtis @339 adds an interesting extra dimension to all this nonsense. Why is duncansteel silent about it? Why post his 'essay' on his website in Spetember with an "Invitation to review and identify errors" when a version of it has already published six months before?
Okay within the published paper he is discussing the well-understood total change due to insolation (CIT) and not the very minor effect of taking months to equal a twelfth part of the orbit (CSI). But all that climate work done on the subject that already accounts for duncansteel's CIT doesn't prevent duncansteel boldly writing:-
"The role of rising levels of anthropogenic greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution in causing some elevation in global temperatures is not denied herein. Rather, the measured temperature rise coupled with other observed phenomena (melting Arctic ice, growing Antarctic sea ice) are suggested to be due to the combination of AGW and CIT but with the latter being dominant."
This is different from his 'essay' where he puts (or appears to put) CSI as the great relvelation and the climate effect unaccounted for by AGW, rather than CIT.
The Journal of Cosmology paper does do a little bit better at presenting (rather than hidding) the CIT/CSI case. I note that when duncansteel does a check on his calculations, using the autumn rather than spring equinox as a start-of-year, so precise (ha) are his calculations that he loses 30% of the CIT at the vital 60ºN. But duncansteel fails again to assist the reader. You have to scale two graphs to obtain this 30% value. This inability to present his findings fairly and his inability to maintain a focused account of his work is symptomatic of the man.
So it would have been simplicity itself to plot the differences between his Figures 6a & 6b and show the size of this CSI. But as with his 'essay' the reader is left to eyeball the two graphs.
But cut&paste the figures into a graphics package and, with a more delicate bit of scaling, the size of CSI for that vital 60ºN can be calculated. It is very small. An average increase in insolation due to CSI amounts (ha) to a whopping 0.02Wm^-2 over the period mid-March to mid-July with the bulk of it occuring before mid-May. And this is the AD950-1950 figure, So safe to assume CSI is a very tiddly effect and the accusation that it is absent from AGW calculations is not yet demonstrated and not a major error if it is absent. I could continue to calculate the full annual effect for 60ºN or examine the thumbnail graphics in his 'essay' to see if they a similar or conflicting result, but I don't think it's worth the bother.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:40 PM on 2 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
One more little comment ;)
Duncan Steel's biggest claim that his theory is empirically born out is the fact that it explains the falling Arctic Sea Ice Extent, and the rising Antarctic Sea Ice Extent over the twentieth century:
-
Leto at 21:28 PM on 2 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Rob Honeycutt asked:
"You're clearly capable of publishing research. So, if you're so confident of your "essay" why is it not published in a respected peer reviewed journal?"
Steel answered:
The answer is because I make my living generally in other ways than gathering funds from government grants, and therefore do not need to publish in journals (in order to gather yet more grants); and also choose not to spend the considerable time required putting things into the necessary format for journal publication. On my own website I can publish what I like, and what I believe to be correct, without being forced by referees with vested interests to alter what I want to say.
Karly... Regardless of the actual flaws in Mr Steel's argument, and his failure to show that his CSI considerations can produce anything like a hockey-stick shaped temperature profile, this statement alone makes it impossible for me to take Mr Steel seriously. He expects us to believe that he has a world-changing theory that, if confirmed, would make him a household name and earn him a fortune as the poster-boy for the fossil-fuel industry, and he has been working on this theory for 16 years while the rest of the world has been barking up the wrong scientific tree... but no, he could not be bothered spending the few hours needed to format his work for submission to a reputable journal.
After a brief round of criticism here, he refuses to continue the discussion towards any sort of conclusion, takes parting shots at his critics' spelling, of all things, and disappears.
It doesn't pass the sniff test. Doesn't come close.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:38 PM on 2 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
karly @341, regardless of his qualifications, Steel derived a massively flawed theory which he has not tested in any appreciable way against empirical evidence. When he recognized it faced criticism that he needed to respond to to retain any credibility for his theory, he squidded. That is, he disappeared in a puff of (electronic) ink, scattering ad hominens in abundance.
You may not be able to follow the nuances, but you should be able to follow these simple points:
1) His findings on orbital movements are sound, but have no implications about climate without an albedo model to change the minor seasonal variations into a significant global variation;
2) His albedo model requires both an earlier melting of ice, and and earlier freezing of the ice;
3) He claims is model is shown to be reasonable by what has been occuring with with Arctic sea ice;
4) Ergo, he claims that this data justifies a belief that the ice is both melting and freezing earlier:
That claim is transparently bollocks.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:29 PM on 2 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
This is my last planned comment on Daniel Steel's theory.
The most fundamental problem with his theory is that, averaged over the year, the difference in insolation between 1750 AD (or 1000 AD) and now due to the milankovitch cycles is neglibible. Consequently he needs some method whereby the near linear increase in NH spring insolation over that period can become significant. His answer to that problem is found in changes in seasonal albedo due to the increased seasonal insolation. It is unsurprising that he should appeal to this, as a similar mechanism is thought to be involved in the milankovitch forcing of the glacial cycles.
To compute the effect of the interaction of changing seasonal insolation and albedo, he uses albedo data from NASA's Terra satelite, finding a total of 3.674 x 10^24 Joules of solar energy absorbed over the Gaussian year (equivalent to 228.25 W/m^2 averaged over the globe. He then faces a problem determining the albedo data for 1750. He writes:
"I continue with a rhetorical question for which we do not, and cannot, have a definitive answer. Unfortunately governments in 1750 were not far-sighted enough to start a satellite observation program similar to those currently being carried out."
and then continues three paragraphs later:
"With that in mind I can argue that the albedo back in 1750 is what scientists often call a free parameter[9]. I can choose any values that I want in order to conduct the experiment that I want to do. I should be sensible, though, and make a justifiable choice."
I would not be so hasty to jump to an arbitrary choice in generating a theory. The issue is, however, what is his choice, and is it any good. He continues:
"What I will do is to pick up the absorptivities in a region of interest (latitudes northwards of 30 degrees north, March through June), and replace them with the absorptivities from 30 days earlier (February through May), so as to simulate the effect of the putative delayed melting of the snow and ice back in 1750 compared to the present. We certainly know that the amount of Arctic ice coverage now is rather less than in the past, with record lows of sea ice being recorded in the north, justifying in principle my choice of free parameter."
Now, it is very far from evident that this is a reasonable choice, from basic principles. The recession of the perihelion relative to the NH vernal equinox only results in a drift of 4.33 days. That is not the only effect driving the theory, but it is by far the most important. That 4.33 day drift in the perihelion is, however, being asked to justify a 30 day drift in albedo. That is a very large ask.
Nor is Steel's justification valid. Regardless of the merits of his case, AGW has caused considerable warming over the last century (something Steel acknowledges). Therefore at least some of any early ice and snow melt in the NH must be due to AGW, yet in justifying his theory he wants to count it all as a consequence of seasonal drift in insolation. That is, he is counting the ice albedo feedback to global warming as an intrinsic effect of the seasonal drift in insolation, which is certainly invalid.
Further, his approach not only requires that ice melt earlier in the spring, but also that water freeze later in the autumn. If it does not, because the insolation change is near zero averaged over the year, there will be near zero effect. That, however, is not what we see. Rather, we have both earlier melting and later freezing:
You will notice the changes for Autumn and Spring are closely matched. Those for Summer and Winter are not, but the seasonal change in insolation for those times of year is small. (You will also notice the lack of an obvious trend in retreating ice in the early twentieth century, contrary to Steel's hypothesis.)
That, of course, is just one measure. Other measures of times of freezing, or thawing are available, of which one of the most convenient is the freezing and thawing dates for Lake Mendota, Wisconsin:
As it happens, the lake is freezing later by 8.3 days per century, and thawing earlier by 8.5 days per century, so the change in albedo for Autumn is nearly that for Spring. That is not projectable back to 1750, however, as other evidence strongly suggests an ongoing cooling at that time (again contrary to Steel's theory).
So, not only is Steel's hypothesis about ice and snow albedo unjustified, its most crucial point (the opposite trends in spring and autumn) is directly contrary to available evidence. This key point to his theory also stands as empirically refuted.
As a final note, using his faulty albedo assumptions, Steel calculates a difference in energy recieved over the gaussian year of 0.022 x10^24 Joules (ie, a "forcing" of 1.37 W/m^2). He calculates that as a difference of 0.6% in absorbed solar radiation, which he compares to the 0.17% of TOA insolation found by the IPCC. Experienced AGW-myth busters will immediately recognize the misleading comparison made by the switch of units. In fact, the "forcing" from seasonal drift in insolation is 0.1% of top of atmosphere insolation. Put another way, as calculated it is just 60% of the anthropogenic radiative forcing. Even that, however, is misleading for a substantial part of the "forcing" from seasonal drift in insolation is part of the ice albedo feedback. The correct way to caclulate the actual forcing from a given albedo model would be to take the difference between the model with unchanged insolation and that with changed insolation, rather than treating it all as being a consequence of the drift in seasonal insolation.
This point, however is inconsequential, for (as previously noted), Steel's assumptions about albedo are simply false, and if corrected will radically reduce the calculated effect.
-
karly at 15:00 PM on 2 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
I have read this thread with sheer astonishment, as it seems to contain mostly complaints that Dr Steel didn’t do what they would have done. Since none of the posters admit to any scientific training whatsoever (Mr Curtis is apparently a ‘philosopher’), or have stated their qualifications, I am inclined to agree with Dr Steel’s conclusions that “Anyone reading this website is mostly reading garbage. It is clear that the motivation of many participants is simply arguing and chest-beating”. An interesting example of how science is not done.
Moderator Response:[JH]
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
michael sweet at 12:31 PM on 2 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
I looked over Duncan Steel's paper that Tom linked. DS claims:
The changing insolation theory (CIT) mooted herein is capable of explaining various observed phenomena which the AGW hypothesis has not yet been able to accommodate. Specifically, what has been observed and is pertinent here are the following:
1. A gradual rise in mean global temperature over the past two centuries;
2. Accelerating spring and summer melting of Arctic sea ice reaching an extent not previously witnessed;
3. No substantial loss of Antarctic sea ice, and actually a small growth in its extent (Shepherd et al. 2010; Parkinson and Cavalieri 2012);
4. The greatest rises in regional temperatures (and temperature variability) being at high northern latitudes (Liu et al. 2007; Wu et al. 2011).
Perhaps if DS read Arhennius paper from 1896 (see link in article) he would not make such an absurd claim. Arhennius predicted that the Arctic would be affected before the Antarctic. In addition Arhennius predicted that the night would warm faster than the day (not predicted or explained by DS), the winter faster than summer (the opposite is wrongly predicted by DS) and the land would warm faster than over the ocean (not predicted by DS). DS provides no data on snow and ice cover to support his claims. If these are the reasons to adopt DS proposal it will be easy to make the decision.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:07 AM on 2 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Further to the issue of peer reviewed publication, it turns out that DS has published in an open access, online Journal of Cosmology (article 6 of issue 22). The Journal of Cosmology purports to be peer reviewed, and does have some members of its editorial board who are noteworthy, and do publish in the Journal. Nevertheless, it does appear as #249 on Jeffrey Beall's 2014 list of "Questionable stand alone jounals".
The article differs in that, unlike the blogpost, it contains no estimate of the magnitude of the effect. Rather, it restricts itself to suggesting that the effect may be a factor in the reduction in Arctic sea ice extent and concurrent extension of Antarctic sea ice extent (which may be true). It also gives a more detailed account of climatologist's errors, actually naming names and citing articles. I have not gone through the list to see if Steel is correct, but none of the articles mentioned deal with recent climate change or climate models. So no evidence that DS presents that I have seen shows that climate models (and hence IPCC accounts of recent climate change) fail to correctly calculate changes in monthly insolation by latitude.
On a side not, DS has been busy promoting his theory, with two articles for the GWPF. He also has a 2002 article for the Guardian telling us that "Climate Change is good for us", apparently because it ensure we won't stumble into an ice age. That is inconsistent with his current account, based on which natural warming due precession of the perihelion relative to the equinox should guaranttee that for quite some time.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:39 AM on 2 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
An addendum to my post @330, casual readers may wonder why I am so completely dismissive of the possibility that the heat gain postulated by Duncan Steel should be absorbed by the melting of ice alone, so that it has no temperature response. That is a key suppositon of DS's, designed to evade empirical tests in that we have a reasonably good idea as to what has happened to temperatures over the last 1000 years, and better yet over the last 250 years. Over the last 1000 years, global temperatures have declined slightly until about the last 150 years, since when they have risen sharply. In contrast, DS's theory predicts a linear increase in temperature since prior to 1000 AD.
In his blogpost, he writes:
"I can now conduct the desired experiment, which has an aim of calculating the total solar energy that would have been absorbed back in 1750 if the absorptivity were slightly lower in that region of interest. When I do this computation, the result is that the total absorbed solar energy is 3.652 x 10^24 joules, and the average terrestrial albedo 0.332. In the previous calculation the figures were 3.674 x 10^24 joules, and an albedo of 0.328."
That calculation is made based a simply false assumption about albedo that DS chose as "a free parameter", or which more in a later post. For now, however, we can accept that as his estimate of the warming effect, which according to his theory goes into ice melt rather than temperature rises. Some simple calculations shows that that amount of energy going into icemelt would melt 71,850 km^3 of ice annualy. That in turn is enough ice to raise sea levels by 0.2 meters per year.
Further, because the primary effect is linear, we can calculate a rough approximation of the effect over 250 years, which would be to melt 8,980,000 km^3 of ice, raising sea levels by 24.9 meters.
I think we would have noticed.
Note that these calculations do not refute DS's basic theory. They do refute his evasion of the expectation that his basic theory should predict a linear rise in global temperatures (if he is correct about the impacts). Of course, the later expectation together with the global temperature record refutes the idea that the orbital changes he identifies has had any significant impact on global temperatures.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:03 AM on 2 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
duncansteel wrote... "Those who like to call me "arrogant" might care to note that I preface essentially all statements regarding my own work with a qualifying term such as "unless I have made an error" or "if I am correct"."
Okay, you say "unless I have made an error" but you don't seem capable of accepting that you could have made an error. That is the arrogance that people are pointing out.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:55 AM on 2 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
duncansteel... "By publishing things on the web I make them available for scrutiny by anyone and everyone,..."
And yet you seem to find the act of people here scrutinizing your work "bemuzing."
Duncan, look, you're making claims here relative to AGW that contradict (or minimizes) the position of nearly everyone who actively researches this issue, as with your statement, "No, AGW is not the only agency causing the changes: there appears to be a natural effect (CSI) which has been ignored or neglected or not recognised previously."
No one rejects that you might have something worthwhile to contribute to the body of research, but posting a blog essay and using that as your primary reference... let's say, that just falls well short of what is expected of a significant finding.
If you believe your ideas are valid, do what every other researcher does. Submit to peer review. As I said in my first comment, you're clearly capable of producing publishable research. So, just do it.
From my experience watching the climate science issue advance over the years, what I continually see is people, like yourself who have clear expertise in a specific area, believing that they understand the entire breadth of the climate change issue when, in actuality, they understand very little of the other broader elements of the global climate system that come into play. And worse, in these situations, people such as yourself seem to lack the self awareness to understand what they don't yet understand relative to other areas of research.
-
Firgoose at 03:35 AM on 2 November 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #44B
There's no link above to Rising Temperatures: A Month Versus a Decade. Likewise the links within the excerpt.
Moderator Response:[Jh] Links fixed. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
-
metapontum at 02:23 AM on 2 November 2014Why the IPCC synthesis report is necessary but not sufficient to secure a response to climate change
As the AOSIS spokesman quoted above said, "leaders [must] take the wheel and, using the latest science available, bring us over the finish line." IPCC AR5 Sythesis includes now the core-strategy-issue for that leadership, shaping, sharing and shrinking the global carbon budget.
Here is tool that might help that: -
http://morphic.it/cbat/#domain-1/feedbackModerator Response:[JH] Link activated.
-
John Hartz at 01:12 AM on 2 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
The arrogance exhibited by DuncanSteel on this comment thread does not square with how he describes himself on the About Me & Contact Information page of his website. Steel states:
I am a friendly and affable sort of a guy, but somewhat of an introvert in person.
-
MA Rodger at 21:20 PM on 1 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Humbly, I have to admit error.
@319, when I wrote that I had identified a problem within DuncanSteel's account of his CSI hypothesis, I failed to identify the nature of that problem. That problem in my opinion is evidently DuncanSteel.His reply @327 to my comment @319 correctly points out that he did mention within his lengthy comment @305 the difference between projected and global measures of forcing but he never manages to say that he had at one point within his CSI 'essay' underestimated the strength of today's AGW by 83%.
He did manage @327 to say (of his critics in this thread) “It behoves anyone and everyone to have some humility in the face of complex matters.” I think he fails to grasp that “anyone and everyone” includes himself.
I am thus not minded to spend any more time reading the ravings of such a one. However, I have probably read enough to allow a useful assessment of this CSI theory & its presentation by DuncanSteel.Ignoring the many petty errors made, the analysis may well identify an error, that is an omission within insolation calculations used in climatology. If his thesis is correct, an omission exists in the NOAA tables plotting insolation in 1,000 year steps over the last 10 million years. The omission may exist more widely.
However DuncanSteel fails to enumerate the size of this potential error. Strangely, the 'essay' appears to dodge such a step. The account moves too quickly beyond CSI as an omission within insolation calculations, to instead dwell at great length on the climatological impact of CSI. This climatological impact work is pure nonsense. The unqualified author naively attempts to out-IPCC the IPCC, all on his lonesome.
As for enumerating the size of the potential CSI, the 'essay' provides two graphical results. (Apologies here, but the 'essay' has no way of referencing its various parts. The first graphic result is a plot of 'Difference in Ecliptic Longitudes AD950-AD1950' and the second is two series of thumbnail monthly charts of 'Change in Insolation AD1000 to AD2000 ' one with and one without CSI.) Neither of these graphical results allows a direct reading of the strength of CSI.
Be CSI an omission or not, examination of those graphics suggests the size of the CSI effect AD1000 to AD2000 amounts to +2Wm^-2 insolation (+0.002Wm^-2/year) over high northern latitudes during the merry months of April & May and -2Wm^-2 insolation (-0.002Wm^-2/year) over higher northern latitudes during the jolly months of July & August.To compare this with AGW, AR5 Table AII.2 yields an annual average year-round and global forcing increase averaged over the last 30 years of +0.026Wm^-2/year, many times higher than the part-year, part-globe CSI which is also a small part of the insolation changes over the last 1,000 years, an effect which is adjudged, with or without any omission, to be insignificant in comparison to AGW.
I thus concur with the many critics of DuncanSteel here. CSI, if it has been overlooked, is very small compared with AGW. Thus DuncanSteel would be in grave error to continue to state:-
“the CSI model should be adopted as the central working hypothesis for contemporary climate change, although as I alluded earlier it would not be reasonable to think that AGW is not also contributing to the observed changes.”
However, the evidence demonstrating a small CSI will likely not stop him.
-
billovitch at 17:55 PM on 1 November 2014New research quantifies what's causing sea level to rise
Good post, John
There is a third possible contribution to sea level rise: the increase in human extraction of groundwater, which then makes its way to the oceans.Do the authors mention this at all?
-
Ashton at 16:07 PM on 1 November 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Leto I agree with you that we will never reach common ground and that political debate is not the core business of SkS despite climate change being mired in politics world wide. It appears however that Ken of Oz, who introduced this particular political aspect, is of a different opinion. Perhaps you and Ken of Oz might read Paul Kelly's piece on the status which gives a more measured assessment of climate policy in Australia than do many other pieces. (http://tinyurl.com/o7b4ecz)
-
sidd at 14:14 PM on 1 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
One paper from 2007 that mentions the effect is Hansen(2007) in Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052 (specifically Fig 3, discussion thereof.)sidd
-
sidd at 13:50 PM on 1 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Dr. Steel is correct, there is an effect but it is well known. A recent paper that pointed out the importance of orbitally driven change in NHemis. spring insolation coupled with albedo flip from ice melt driving deglaciation over the last 4 stades was by Hansen, but I do not immediately recall the reference.sidd
-
Tom Dayton at 13:37 PM on 1 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Duncan Steel, how does your proposed mechanism account for stratospheric cooling, please?
-
Tom Curtis at 11:46 AM on 1 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
duncansteel @305 Cont.
TC: "Berger (1978), from whom he draws his algorithms"
DS: "False statement. I did not draw my algorithms from Berger's wonderful papers. I derived the algorithms from first principles. It was only after the fact, when I saw what my results must imply, that I turned to Berger's FORTRAN program to do check calculations, as I have described in some detail. It is noteworthy that, as I discuss in my essay, essentially the only parameters needed in order to derive a good-enough calculation of the insolation changes are the lengths of the mean tropical year and the anomalistic year. The difference between those indicates the circa 58 years it takes perihelion to shift by one day closer to the vernal equinox. The use of the changing orbital eccentricity and obliquity of the ecliptic is nice, for completeness, but over only a century or two those slowly-altering values have little effect. Just the comparative values of the two year lengths are all that is required, to first-order."
(My emphasis)
First, sorry for my mistaken impression of your reliance on Berger.
Second, I wish I had twigged to the significance of the section on anomalistic and tropical years in your blog post a little earlier. While I had read it, I had not noted its significance. However, yesterday, I realized the possibility and set up the calculations in a spread sheet. On that basis I accept that there has been a drift of the equinox relative to the perihelion of approximately 4.3 days over the last 250 years, and 17.3 days over the last 1000 years. That drift has been to a very close approximation, linear with time. Further, the change in average spring insolation has also been linear over time to a close approximation:
The change in Autumn insolation has been also very nearly linear, and opposite in sign, while those of summer and winter have a detectable curve, but are opposite in sign and neglibible relative to the changes in spring and autumn.Based on this, I withdraw any suggestion that you may have made an error in your calculations of the orbital effects. I do not accept that climate scientists have made the mistake you attribute to them. Climate models do not in general, simply look up Berger's table of values, but independently calculate insolation based on orbital mechanics. To show that they have made an error, you would need to show the error in the code.
Returning to the linear change shown, here are temperature reconstructions for the Northern Hemisphere over the last two thousand years:
And for the entire Earth:
Here are sea levels for the last 3000 years:
Ninety percent of the total increase in heat content at the Earth's surface goes into the oceans, so that any significant increase in that heat content should be reflected in rising sea levels due to thermal expansion in addition to ice melt.
And speaking of ice melt:
No measure of historical temperatures or proxies of heat content show the linear increase over the last thousand, or the last 250 years that is required by your theory. So, even allowing my error in criticizing you on the orbital mechanics, your theory stands refuted by empirical evidence. (As I said before, this is the crux of the issue.)
-
duncansteel at 11:45 AM on 1 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
It is time for me to take my leave from this website. Sorry to have disturbed your arguments.
I have been bemused by various things I have seen here. For example, Mr Curtis (in #299) sits in judgement and states with regard to my work that it is: "an example of pseudo-science, not science." Within 48 hours he is writing (#309): "It is the editor and peer reviewers of a suitable journal who will be far more able to pick up any errors in your assumptions or calculations than I. " That is, he feels able to make unwarranted and unjustified criticisms at one stage, but when challenged pleads a lack of competence to have made such criticisms in the first place.
As the saying goes, democracy is a wonderful thing apart from that bit about any old yokel getting a vote. The same applies to the internet. Anyone reading this website is mostly reading garbage. It is clear that the motivation of many participants is simply arguing and chest-beating, not any search for scientific truth.
Time for a moment of honesty. Who amongst the readers out there can honestly say that they knew how apsidal precession is causing the lengths and the natures of the seasons to change? Here is the plot that appeared in my 'essay':
So, who knew that winter is getting shorter? And also it is getting milder, because during winter the Earth is closer to the Sun now than it was 250 years ago? And who knew that the same applies to spring, because throughout the first half of the year our planet is closer to the Sun than it was 100 or 250 years ago? And where does this information appear in any IPCC report? It is obvious that such an astronomical effect must be causing some climate change, so why is it missing from the IPCC reports?
If you look at any of the posts about the missing Malaysian airliner on my website, you will find that generally I am a person who favours cock-up theories over conspiracy theories. This is a cock-up: climate scientists have made a grievous error in their analysis of how the insolation reaching different latitudes at different times of year is varying across the decades and centuries, and so have missed the effect I term CSI.
In leaving you, here are my own views at present:
-Yes, the global mean temperature has increased over the past century or so.
-Yes, there appear to be various changes in the climate occurring.
-Yes, the increase in so-called 'greenhouse gases' since 1750 is responsible in part (of course!).
-No, AGW is not the only agency causing the changes: there appears to be a natural effect (CSI) which has been ignored or neglected or not recognised previously.
That set of views I hold now in the light of such information and facts as are available. As the available information and understandings alter, I may well change my views. What do you do, when new information becomes available to you? From what I have seen on this site so far, mostly you shout, scream, and hurl abuse.
Yesterday evening I was walking down the street when some delirious drunk yelled at me the opinion that I was a "black bastard." Now, I am neither of those things, although I would not regard either term as being an attack on my basic character, which is far more important than my skin colour or parentage. However, I chose not to engage him in any debate on the matter, for obvious reasons.
The reason I am leaving this webpage/blog after a brief foray is similar.
The method employed I would gladly explain,
While I have it so clear in my head,
If I had but the time and you had but the brain—
But much yet remains to be said.Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark.
-
duncansteel at 10:51 AM on 1 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Ref #322:
"What he does not do, and should have done is plotted the change in the effect over time against some emperical measure of either temperature or surface heat content"
It is not for you or anyone else to tell me what I should have done.
Equally well it is not for me to tell you how you should spell various words (such as empirical, propaganda, and several others).
What you are describing is what you would like to see done, so as to elucidate matters. I agree. All I have done - and it has taken me two years of work, it now being 16 years* since I realised what was going on - is to flag to anyone interested a physical effect which I believe will be causing climate change to some extent. Others can pick up the ball and run with it, including yourself, if they so desire.
*I first indicated the significance of this effect in pp.358-362 in my book Marking Time (Wiley, NY, 2000), which I completed writing late in 1998.
-
duncansteel at 10:42 AM on 1 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Ref #319: Yes, you are a slow reader. I previously pointed out here (#305) that one might seize on the distinction between the surface area and the cross-sectional area of the Earth as a complaint.
None of this is important. As I made clear in my 'essay', my reason for comparing the natural changing insolation values (in W/m2) against the IPCC net AGW figures (the AGW 'forcing') is simply this: is the insolation change significant, or is it a value only one part in a million of the IPC AGW value? The answer is: it (natural changing insolation value) is of the same order as the AGW value, and therefore it is significant and cannot be ignored. Hitherto it does not appear in the IPCC reports, and so it has been ignored, or neglected. (It is also true that all papers I have examined which consider the changing insolation due to apsidal precession have been wrong - so much for peer-review - because they have made erroneous calculations based on Berger's correct insolation values.) The IPCC reports document the plausible intrinsic solar output increase of perhaps 0.12 W/m2 since 1750 as being the only significant natural agency in terms of climate change: if my calculations of the natural changing insolation values are correct, then the IPCC is demonstrated to have erred in that respect.
Those who like to call me "arrogant" might care to note that I preface essentially all statements regarding my own work with a qualifying term such as "unless I have made an error" or "if I am correct". It behoves anyone and everyone to have some humility in the face of complex matters. Note also that I have appealed to all to inform me of any publications, anywhere, in which the same sorts of insolation change calculations as I have performed are described; that is, I am admitting ignorance of any such work having been done, and asking for help. As of yet no-one has pointed me towards any such publications.
In any case you, like all others here it seems, are still misunderstanding the crux of the CSI hypothesis. It's not the magnitude of the changing insolation that is important: it's when and where it occurs! The small changes in insolation will cause earlier and more extensive spring melting of Arctic ice, and indeed less ice formation over winter because northern winters are now shorter and milder than they were in 1750, due to apsidal precession. If you have a square metre of snow (albedo circa 0.9) receiving insolation of 500 W/m2, the absorption rate is 50 W; once that snow is gone, exposing (say) wet soil beneath (albedo circa 0.1) the absorption rate goes up to 450 W on that square metre, nine times that previously. Thus, to assess the actual magitude of the CSI effect will require a large amount of work and debate and discussion, far more than I can possibly do myself. My intent is solely to flag the issue, and let others take over.
To develop an understanding of how the CSI affects the climate will require the development of new models (evolved from the present GCM efforts) incorporating gradual changes in insolation and ice and snow coverage and following the various influences on the climate over many annual cycles. So climate scientists are not going to be put out of work.
-
duncansteel at 10:15 AM on 1 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Ref #321: "Ah, I see. You don't like your peers scrutinizing your work. Good to know." - Do you not realise that when you write something like that, anyone else with the wit can quickly see that you do not (have much wit)? As I have already stated, my work has already been scrutinized by my peers, and no substantive errors have been found. These include, shall we say, fairly senior people (e.g. the person who is nominally the top astronomer in the realm of HM Queen Elizabeth, if you have the wit to get my meaning).
By publishing things on the web I make them available for scrutiny by anyone and everyone, not just those who have access to journals (which can be expensive to obtain).
-
duncansteel at 10:09 AM on 1 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Ref #317: karly, thanks again. I worked in just such departments for some years. I found few people really interested in science, only people interested in self-advancement, and the best way to gain that was bring in money and hence gain power. To the contrary, I am interested in science, and have spent a good fraction of my time doing (and publishing, in peer-reviewed journals!) scientific research with zero funding for the past 18 years (i.e. since I last had research funding; I had plenty before that).
-
Ken in Oz at 10:06 AM on 1 November 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Ashton, I think you are missing the point; PM Abbott finds it expedient to keep alive a thin pretense of treating climate like it matters - because the majority of Australians do think it matters. He and his team assiduously avoid stating they have a goal of eliminating climate as a policy consideration and "Direct Action" fits the bill as an interim measure that looks the part but fails to embody any clear commitment to transition to a low emissions economy. By not overtly stating their anti-climate action goals the Abbott government avoids debating it and it can take climate policy backwards with less fuss, even if it is not - yet - able to achieve a complete elimination.
This is a government that has sought to eliminate the Climate Change Authority, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, Carbon pricing, energy subsidies to renewables based on emission reductions goals and the Renewable Energy Target. It routinely promotes the benefits of long term use of fossil fuels with deliberate disregard for climate consequences. It's chief business advisor is a declared climate science denier, as was the head of the review (unfavorable of course) of the Renewable Energy Target. It has greatly reduced funding for Australian Science. At no point have I heard any senior figure in the Abbott government express strong commitment to climate action since taking office, nor express clear acceptance that the science is valid or that there really is a serious climate problem - any that isn't qualified into irrelevance or contradicted in the same breath. On the contrary, their utterances are filled with hints and suggestions that they reject climate science and they routinely downplay or ridicule expectations of damaging climate consequences like greater bushfire danger or heatwaves or changes to precipitation patterns. Doing the least possible is held as a virtue. At no point is emissions reduction put forward as anything but the maintaining of a prior commitment their party had made, one that does not extend beyond 2020. Even the goal of 5 to 15% reductions is reduced to 5% in all discussion.
It's apparent that behind the vague and condradictory utterances lies a conviction that global efforts to restrain emissions will collapse and underpinning that is embedded miscomprehension of climate science that allows them to sustain their belief that it's a non-problem, blown out of all proportion. But it remains useful to pretend otherwise for broader public consumption.
-
duncansteel at 10:06 AM on 1 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Ref #318: " Any research-oriented academic for whom getting grants rather than perfoming the research is their primary aim has rather lost their way."
Yes, that is a fair summary of the situation, especially in climate science. It's called the buffalo syndrome. One buffalo finds a new, juicy green patch of grass, and soon the rest of the herd joins him/her. But they've all got their heads down, chewing away, and none look to see if there is something better to be had: until a buffalo with heterodox views comes along.
"The reason we publish papers is so that other scientists can take what we have done and build on it (as we ourselves build on the work of others). Grants are a means to an end, not the end itself." - Ah, I was young and naive once, too.
-
duncansteel at 10:01 AM on 1 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Ref #316:
"The point really is, that publish on a website and you are just another crank blog-scientist. Publish in a peer-reviewed journal and other scientists take notice and do something with it. Not a single climate paper will change unless you do."
That it will take others some time to understand what I have done and catch up is not a concern to me. Read Thomas Kuhn sometime. Twenty-five years ago most people thought I was a crank for arguing that we should take the hazard posed by asteroids and comets seriously; now they are the focus of NASA's future manned and robotic space missions, at Obama's behest. At the time (25 years ago) it was a fight to get anything on that topic into the journals, because they had their favoured topics. The same applies now in terms of climate change.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:40 AM on 1 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
MA Rodger @319, DS calculates the insolation by day and by latitude rather than using a global average. Later in the blog post he calculates what he purports to be the effect after adjustement for albedo. Therefore he correctly uses the TSI rather than the globally averaged and albedo adjusted effect in calculating initial ratios of adjustment. What he does not do, and should have done is plotted the change in the effect over time against some emperical measure of either temperature or surface heat content (either OHC directly for when we have the data, or glacial extents, or sea levels).
-
Leto at 08:36 AM on 1 November 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Ashton,
The relevant constraint on possibility, in this context, is not physical or legal but political. Not having a policy at all would only be possible in a sense too trivial to discuss; it would not be politically viable because there are still some Australians who respect the science, and for the moment they still have the vote, and TA needs at least some of the centre to vote for him to remain politically viable. That means he has to do just enough to make his inaction on climate change debateable at the margins. He has already pushed climate change denialism and inaction about as far as he can go without self-combusting in a fiery ball of farce. If TA announced a 4% reducton target, for instance, he would be at serious risk of looking like a parody of himself.
I agree with Donny that this thread topic invites political comment, but I also agree that political debates are futile and not core SkS business. We clearly have zero chance of reaching common ground, so let's leave it at that.
Leto.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:37 AM on 1 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Duncansteel... "On my own website I can publish what I like, and what I believe to be correct, without being forced by referees with vested interests to alter what I want to say."
Ah, I see. You don't like your peers scrutinizing your work. Good to know.
-
karly at 05:58 AM on 1 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
@318 A great ideal. However, if you talk to any non-tenured academic, you will find that getting money, so they remain employed, is top of their list of priorities.
-
ajki at 05:48 AM on 1 November 2014What 1970s science said about global cooling
Kevinb3@21
"I've read quite a bit from this website. I'm not coinvinced of the veracity of the site; this could be remedied if a bibliography were published for each reference and a passage from these reports or abstract."
This is underestimating the resources of this platform by a great margin.
For example within the left margin are some buttons to click - one of these is labeled "History of Climate Science". Anybody checking this part of SkS will have to have enourmous time to spend on reading. Advance the timeline to 1972 and click on the year dots and then look down to the section below the graph - you'll see links there (in abundance).
-
MA Rodger at 03:33 AM on 1 November 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Re:- The Changing Spring Insolation Theory (CSI).
Well I'm a very slow reader so I'm still only halfaway down the first page of Duncan Steel's explanation. Thankfully there appears to be only one page.
If CSI is to be considered seriously, the strength of the effect requires stating correctly. So when the explanation says:-
"The flux of sunlight at Earth being about 1,360 W/m^2, the above figures of 1.6 and 2.29 are respectively equivalent to 0.12 per cent and 0.17 per cent of the solar flux."
there is a problem, Houston. The measure of insolation is for the projected 'discal' value, the figures for central average values for AGW RF estimated by AR4 & AR5 are for the spherical 'global' value acting over 4x the area. Also with a third of insolation bouncing off into space, the value of the forcing resulting from changing insolation is reduced further. Thus the comparative AR4/AR5 values are 6x bigger than stated - 0.72% & 1.0%.
Looking ahead, down the page at the tabulated Langleys, the error does not appear to have spread so far.
-
Stephen Baines at 03:07 AM on 1 November 2014What 1970s science said about global cooling
Kevinb3...the bibliography you seek is in the paper that the OP describes and to which it links, twice. All you need to do is follow the link.
You state cherry picking is common on the site, but provide no concerete examples, so that critcism is empty innuendo. If you want a proper discussion, talk about a specific examples and make a case.
-
ZincKidd at 02:29 AM on 1 November 2014New research quantifies what's causing sea level to rise
Needs proofreading— "reason" & "region" are swapped in a couple of instances...
-
Kevinb3 at 02:28 AM on 1 November 2014What 1970s science said about global cooling
I've read quite a bit from this website. I'm not coinvinced of the veracity of the site; this could be remedied if a bibliography were published for each reference and a passage from these reports or abstract. In similar fashion to the way you provided the context in this article "The Science Isn't Settled, quoted a 1972 National Science Board report as follows"; Overall it's sketchy with the emphasis supporting AGW.
If, as you say, you found very few papers (7 in total) that predict global cooling but found more papers (42 in total) that predict global warming in the 1970's, then you obviously have already done some homework; so it shouldn't be too exhausting or a strecth to back up your claims by posting the necessary links, bibliography etc., for EACH of these papers instead of cherry picking select data. This is common on your site. To say there were 42 papers on AGW published in 1970's sounds impressive, but...
-
Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
knauble - Here's the same graph along with trends, and you can clearly see that the 60-month single point offset Spencer/Christy used results in the UAH trend sharing no common period with HadCRUT4 whatsoever.
If trends don't cross in the baseline period, you cannot reasonably judge any divergence - this is a clear error on their part. And quite deceptive when their claim is that similarly baselined models are running too high - as they've artificially introduced an offset.
-
Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
knaugle - The reason for starting in 1982 was the 60-month averaging Spencer used, which leads directly to some of the distortions in the graphing. The satellite temps are more sensitive (higher swings) to ENSO and yearly variation than the surface temperatures, and the 5-year average for 1982 (1979-1984) is one of the highest peaks above trend for the UAH record.
'Baselining' to a single point of the 60-month average, as Spencer did, gives an artificial negative offset to the UAH record, as below:
Blue: HadCRUT4 60 month average, Red: UAH 60 month average baselined to the common average 1980-1999, and Green: UAH using Spencers 60-month average and a single point (mis)alignment.
As you can clearly see, the 60-month UAH alignment shifts the entire record down, artificially offsetting the satellite temps and making surface and model temperatures seem much higher. When in reality UAH swings both above and below the surface temps, as per the graphs baselined for comparison over a period longer than their internal variability.
I don't know whether Drs Spencer and Christy did this alignment out of an error of confirmation bias or as a deliberate 'trick', but either way the graphs they presented with that 60-month baselining are deceptive.
-
Ashton at 23:52 PM on 31 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
You appear not to know that since the repeal of the emissions trading scheme Australia has had no official policy on climate. None at all. If the government is, as you and Ken of Oz appear to believe, eliminating climate as a policy consideration "as far as possible" why did it negotiate passage in the Senate of its policy of direct action? Surely by your and Ken of Oz's logic, not having a policy at all would have very effectively totally eliminated climate as a policy consideration. That the government did not stay with that situation clearly shows it is not eliminating climate as a policy consideration as far as possible.
-
knaugle at 22:40 PM on 31 October 2014Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
The question WHY the trend line was from 1982 to ~2009 intrigues me because it is said that climatology deals in 30 year intervals or more. So 1979 to 2009 would be a "better" line. But it looks like the chart would show nearly the same result.
Prev 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 Next
