July, 2016 Hottest Month Ever Recorded

longview said:

When the National Science foundation states the following position,
https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/climate/pdf/NSF_Climate_Change_Report.pdf

That sure does not sound like an organization ready to fund alternate theories,
but rather an organization that has already reached a conclusion.

Click to expand...

longview said:

You really do not understand the discussion.
Almost No one says Doubling the CO2 level will not cause the Physics based warming, of 1.2 C.
The discussion is the source of warming beyond that.
The IPCC posit that their will be amplified feedback that will produce warming between .3 and 3.3 C, (1.5 to 4.5 C).
The Scientific skepticism is if the final amount is less that posited, or even exits at all.
The empirical data is showing an ECS between 1.5 and 2 C, with several recent papers falling in this category.
The model based predictions are higher, but since we do not know all the variables, they could not be included in the models.
As to the alternate theories, CO2 was selected as a likely suspect, simply because there was no other suspects available at the time.
As research progressed, other possibilities of drivers of our climate system emerged.
The patterns clearly show constructive interference patterns from cycles of wide ranging periods.
Why would I say this? Because with constructive interference, the patterns change after the input frequencies are roughly greater than one harmonic.
The El Nino apparent semi random spikes display this effectively.

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

Longview. he obviously doesn't care about the truth. He's sticking to the dogma.

Funny in my opinion that none of the warmers have said anything about my post 121.

Click to expand...

Mithrae said:

What would you like "the warmers" to say about it?

1 > The paper suggests that "An early report on this topic based on surface observations made primarily in Europe (4) suggested that S declined by more than 10% from 1960 to 1990. On the basis of the analysis of a more comprehensive observational database, it was shown that over land, S decreased on the average by 0.23% (1) and 0.32% (2) per year from 1958 to 1992." If my memory of surface insolation (1997 figure, ~161W/m^2) is correct, that would mean a reduction of surface insolation in that period of about 12-17W/m^2 over land. Then from ~1992 to 2001 it increased by ~3W/m^2 globally.

So let me get this straight... you are focusing on that those last few years and claiming that the sun insolation changes have caused more warming than CO2?

Click to expand...

Mithrae said:

I should add...

3 > Aerosols (soot, volcanic ash etc.) do not reflect 100% of the sunlight blocked from reach the surface back into space - some of them undoubtedly absorb the majority of that sunlight as atmospheric heat, which most likely will end up affecting surface temperatures eventually anyway. So conversely, the proportion of increased surface insolation due to decreased aerosols doesn't directly translate into that much additional warming - just getting it to the surface a bit more directly and quicker.

Click to expand...

Mithrae said:

Yes, a number of pretty solid conclusions have been reached in climate science - glad you've noticed :roll: But that doesn't stop someone researching clouds for example finding that they have a strongly negative feedback to anthropogenic GHGs. It's almost as if you believe scientific bodies should pretend to be eternally clueless and anything less is proof of unthinkable bias.


You didn't answer my question, by the way: How exactly do you believe a grant-granter's boss (or an NSF official) would benefit from an increased probability of there being slightly fewer climate research papers casting doubt on previous work?

Surely this isn't such a difficult question for you? If your answer is that they're doing what someone higher up told them to do... how exactly does that person benefit from it? You've claimed that 'the government' somehow benefits from more regulation, but (and I hate to be the one to break this to you) 'the government' is not a person: It has no goals or motivations. You pretend that you're not advancing a conspiracy theory, but attributing vaguely sinister motives to 'the government' is the hallmark of countless CTs.

Voters have motivations. Politicians have motivations. Lobbyists have motivations. There is no clear motivation for voters en masse to want biased scientific findings - quite the opposite in fact. There is no clear motivation for any individual politicians or bureaucrats to want additional regulation. On the contrary, there is a very clear and strong motivation for politicians to not want to impose additional regulations and/or taxes without strong pressure from either voters or lobbyists, because they're always unpopular with some people (and rarely considered better than a grudging necessity by anyone). Lobbyists, obviously, are generally more likely to oppose effective limitations on fossil fuel usage - particularly in past decades - because initially at least it would have caused substantial price increases and decreases in consumption for virtually all sectors.

If you can't even explain any kind of clear motivation for this supposed bias in scientific funding - which you're alleging without a shred of real evidence - it will be pretty obvious that what we're looking at here is a textbook example of a conspiracy theory.

Click to expand...

Mithrae said:

What would you like "the warmers" to say about it?

1 > The paper suggests that "An early report on this topic based on surface observations made primarily in Europe (4) suggested that S declined by more than 10% from 1960 to 1990. On the basis of the analysis of a more comprehensive observational database, it was shown that over land, S decreased on the average by 0.23% (1) and 0.32% (2) per year from 1958 to 1992." If my memory of surface insolation (1997 figure, ~161W/m^2) is correct, that would mean a reduction of surface insolation in that period of about 12-17W/m^2 over land. Then from ~1992 to 2001 it increased by ~3W/m^2 globally.

So let me get this straight... you are focusing on that those last few years and claiming that the sun insolation changes have caused more warming than CO2?


2 > The study further states that "The range of the root mean square (RMS) errors at a spatial resolution of 2.5° was found to be between 11.7 and 31.5 W m–2(19)..." So again by my rough estimate - and do correct me if I'm misreading this - while that's only 10-20% of total surface insolation, it would be an error margin somewhere between four and eleven times greater than the warming trend which you are touting from that later period.

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

Something else to consider, that I have never been able to find up to date numbers on, is solar surface strength. Between clouds and aerosols, these are very elusive numbers.

Click to expand...

Quaestio said:

You should see the National Academies of Sciences position on Evolution. They sure don't sound like an organisation that is open to exploring alternate theories. They sound like they have already reached a conclusion that Evolution is real.

"Biological evolution is one of the most important ideas of modern science. Evolution is supported by abundant evidence from many different fields of scientific investigation. It underlies the modern biological sciences, including the biomedical sciences, and has applications in many other scientific and engineering disciplines.
...
Because evolution has and will continue to serve as a critical foundation of the biomedical and life sciences, helping students learn about and understand the scientific evidence, mechanisms, and implications of evolution are fundamental to a high-quality science education."

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Click to expand...

Quaestio said:

Well I was going to reply to the part where LOP said:

I was going to respond to LOP with: What? You've never heard of the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment — Surface Radiation Budget (GEWEX-SRB V3.0), the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project -Flux Data (ISCCP-FD), the University of Maryland (UMD)/Shortwave Radiation Budget (SRB) (UMD-SRB V3.3.3) product, the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) EBA, Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN), the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program (ARM), and the US-based Surface Radiation Network (SURFRAD)? I guess the blogs you 'study' don't know about them so that's why you don't know about them.

Click to expand...

Quaestio said:

No, it's you who really does not understand enough to be involved in a meaningful discussion about the state of the science. That's what happens when you spend so much in the tiny bubble of anti-science climate truther blogs and conservative tabloid media and just unsceptically believe what you've read without ever bothering to to fact check the claims. Then you repeat those same handful of claims you've read, over and over and over and over again, in just about every thread. It's about as interesting as watching the hour hand of an analogue clock day after day.

Click to expand...

longview said:

If you bother to look through the RFP's issued by the NSF you will notice, there are not many looking for possible feedback of warming.
the grants are mostly predicated on the full suite of AGW as stated by the IPCC as being fact beyond question.
The reality is that we have a poor understanding of all the feedbacks in our climate system.

Click to expand...

longview said:

So please explain the feedback responsible for the El Nino El nina cycles?
The sun is clearly the source of the energy, but the different hysteresis of several cycles of feedbacks cause the peaks and troughs.

Click to expand...

Quaestio said:

No, it's more likely that it's you who has a poor understanding of the science, a poor understanding of funding and grants, and a poor understanding of feedbacks in the climate system. But that's to be expected considering the tiny climate truther echo chamber you prefer to live in.

Click to expand...

Quaestio said:

Nope. Not answering your makework questions. Couldn't be stuffed wasting my time. Do your own homework if you want to know. Perhaps learn how to do a basic literature search first. Or just go find whatever one of your truther blogs claims and swallow whatever they tell you. It's much easier than putting in the time and effort to find out the facts.

Click to expand...

Quaestio said:

Well I was going to reply to the part where LOP said:

I was going to respond to LOP with: What? You've never heard of the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment - Surface Radiation Budget (GEWEX-SRB V3.0), the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project -Flux Data (ISCCP-FD), the University of Maryland (UMD)/Shortwave Radiation Budget (SRB) (UMD-SRB V3.3.3) product, the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) EBA, Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN), the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program (ARM), and the US-based Surface Radiation Network (SURFRAD)? I guess the blogs you 'study' don't know about them so that's why you don't know about them.

Then I noticed that the paper he referenced was Pinker et al 2005 which was misrepresented on a lot of 'skeptic' blogs (the ones he doesn't read) a few years ago. I was going to ask why he referred to a 2005 paper and didn't just do a literature search for more up to date papers on solar surface radiation? Like search on the title of the Pinker paper in Google Scholar- which came up with over a 100 similiar papers and 334 papers that had cited the Pinker et al 2005 paper. Or just search for "Solar Surface Radiation" since 2015, which came up with an astonishing number of hits in Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_sdt=1,5&q=Solar+Surface+Radiation&hl=en&as_ylo=2015, so I'd have to narrow it down a bit if I was doing any serious 'study' by using a more sophisticated Journal database search engine than Google Scholar.

Yet, he's "never been able to find up to date numbers"? Really? One would think when spending all those years 'studying this topic' and 'reading the literature', one would have learnt the basics of HOW to do a simple search of the literature.

Then I thought better of responding directly to his post because he would have just chucked a poutrage, told me how long he's been studying the topic and reading the literature, then call me an idiot who only relies on blogs and confirmation bias and never reads the literature. {shrug}.

Click to expand...

LOP writes:

Have one that is a study with the net solar changes? One that give the global annualized data?

Just throwing TMI out there is not help. Just shows your snootiness.

As for where I found the study, I don't remember. I don't seek blogs out, but I sometimes open them and seek their source when someone links them. I don't use the blogs themselves though, like you do. I use the source material.

There is an obvious difference between us.

I seek the truth and link studies. You seek blogs, and link blogs.

Click to expand...

Quaestio said:

And right on queue, LOP chucks a little poutrage. Yet conveniently forgets where he got the title of that 2005 Pinker paper (which was misrepresented on skeptic blogs a few years ago). But ignores the fact that I pointed out the names of the organisations doing research on solar surface radiation that he was unaware of and that a Google Scholar search shows 1000's of hits for papers on solar surface radiation, and that's only the ones published since 2015.

Click to expand...

Quaestio said:

Well I was going to reply to the part where LOP said:

I was going to respond to LOP with: What? You've never heard of the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment - Surface Radiation Budget (GEWEX-SRB V3.0), the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project -Flux Data (ISCCP-FD), the University of Maryland (UMD)/Shortwave Radiation Budget (SRB) (UMD-SRB V3.3.3) product, the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) EBA, Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN), the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program (ARM), and the US-based Surface Radiation Network (SURFRAD)? I guess the blogs you 'study' don't know about them so that's why you don't know about them.

Then I noticed that the paper he referenced was Pinker et al 2005 which was misrepresented on a lot of 'skeptic' blogs (the ones he doesn't read) a few years ago. I was going to ask why he referred to a 2005 paper and didn't just do a literature search for more up to date papers on solar surface radiation? Like search on the title of the Pinker paper in Google Scholar- which came up with over a 100 similiar papers and 334 papers that had cited the Pinker et al 2005 paper. Or just search for "Solar Surface Radiation" since 2015, which came up with an astonishing number of hits in Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_sdt=1,5&q=Solar+Surface+Radiation&hl=en&as_ylo=2015, so I'd have to narrow it down a bit if I was doing any serious 'study' by using a more sophisticated Journal database search engine than Google Scholar.

Yet, he's "never been able to find up to date numbers"? Really? One would think when spending all those years 'studying this topic' and 'reading the literature', one would have learnt the basics of HOW to do a simple search of the literature.

Then I thought better of responding directly to his post because he would have just chucked a poutrage, told me how long he's been studying the topic and reading the literature, then call me an idiot who only relies on blogs and confirmation bias and never reads the literature. {shrug}.

Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:

I LOL'ed.

Funny post.

Click to expand...

Quaestio said:

Interesting 'study' method for looking for the "numbers that he can never find" in the literature .... by NOT looking for them in the literature. :shock:

Click to expand...

longview said:

The bias is that the funding powers have already decided what the answer is. Remember "The science is settled".

Click to expand...

Mithrae said:

So you can't explain any kind of clear motive for individuals to create a funding bias... which you're alleging without a shred of real evidence has existed for many decades in all developed countries regardless of the ebb and flow of political influence.

Instead you're blindly appealing to abstract "governments" and "funding powers" to magic away the obvious shortcomings of 'scepticism' against mainstream climate science.

A textbook example of a conspiracy theory.

Click to expand...

Mithrae said:

A textbook example of a conspiracy theory.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Measuring bias in the U.S. federally-funded climate research

Posted on August 23, 2016 | 41 comments
by David Wojick
Semantic analysis of U.S. Federal budget documents indicates that the climate science research budget is heavily biased in favor of the paradigm of human-induced climate change.

Continue reading →

Semantic analysis of U.S. Federal budget documents indicates that the climate science research budget is heavily biased in favor of the paradigm of human-induced climate change.

For decades climate research has been dominated by a paradigm that posits dangerous, human-induced global warming. This concept is usually referred to as “anthropogenic global warming” or simply AGW. The competing paradigm, which posits the possible attribution of significant natural variability, is barely mentioned. We call this bias “paradigm protection.”
We developed a method to quantify this paradigm protection bias, a method with general applicability in bias research. See our Framework Working Paper for a detailed discussion of bias quantification issues.
We first define two sets of words that express core concepts for each paradigm :

1. human induced climate change; and
2. the climate change attribution problem.

Then we measure the rates of occurrence of these two sets of words in the budget documents. The occurrence ratio we find is about 80 to one in favor of the human-induced paradigm. Moreover, it is roughly constant across multiple budget reports, a clear indication of paradigm bias.
Thomas Kuhn, in his groundbreaking work on the structure of scientific revolutions, coined the word “paradigm” to describe the basic tenets that guide research in a given domain. He pointed out that a scientific community may actively ignore new ideas that challenge its paradigm. We have coined the term “paradigm protection” to describe this behavior. . . .

Click to expand...