Nature's sharp corrections: Global Warming

[Hans Blaster]

Thanks Hans. The Search Force is weak in me this week.

I don't need the force, that's why I have this blaster.

 

[sjastro]

In Hans' link the S/N ratio of this paper is considerably better than the two previous versions discussed in this thread.
It still suffers from largely ignoring atmospheric physics when discussing global warming.
Global warming models do factor in orbital effects but as a previous poster has mentioned the time scales are large, at small scales such as warming over the past few decades the effects are largely negligible.

This seems to a bone of contention with Duncan Steel.
There is a way to test the contribution from orbital effects for small time scales.
Global models are "time symmetrical" and can be run backwards.
The advantage is the model predictions can be compared with actual temperature records.

It's found climate model hindcasts are quite accurate.

These are relatively old climate models, the newer ones are even more accurate.
These models are all based on AGW being the dominant driver, dominant orbital effects would produce divergent results with actual data.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Amuse me.
Give me a step by step argument how downplaying AGW leads to the conclusion of an awareness of stratospheric cooling.
The use of flowcharts and/or truth tables are acceptable.

You amuse me...

You raised the issue of Steel knowing about Stratospheric cooling - it is up to you to prove he doesn't.

Again you divert from the meat of his presentation which supports AGW and presents a more fundamental driver from natural cause.

Refuse his thesis if you can rather than present diversions.

 

[sjastro]

You amuse me...

You raised the issue of Steel knowing about Stratospheric cooling - it is up to you to prove he doesn't.

Again you divert from the meat of his presentation which supports AGW and presents a more fundamental driver from natural cause.

Refuse his thesis if you can rather than present diversions.

Did you bother to read post #62 which provides yet another example of refuting his thesis or ignored it like any other post which shows why Steel is wrong?

Your ongoing tirade of accusing me of engaging in diversions because I can’t refute Steel is either blatant dishonesty or being totally out of your depth in not being able to recognize a refutation when presented.
Only you know the answer to that.

What is ridiculous about your insistence for me to prove he is unaware of stratospheric cooling is the outcome doesn’t change his paper one iota.
It is still wrong irrespective whether he is aware of it or not as post #62 illustrates.

You are the one making the bizarre claim his paper shows he is aware of stratospheric cooling even though there is not single reference to it.
The burden of proof is on you to show this.
Your insistence for me to do your work is a double fallacy.
First trying to shift the burden of proof onto me; second expecting me to prove a negative.

Since you seem to be obsessed in trying to show me up why don’t you prove the science of stratospheric cooling is wrong or the evidence presented in post #62 is wrong, instead of engaging in this mindless vendetta.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Did you bother to read post #62 which provides yet another example of refuting his thesis or ignored it like any other post which shows why Steel is wrong?

Your ongoing tirade of accusing me of engaging in diversions because I can’t refute Steel is either blatant dishonesty or being totally out of your depth in not being able to recognize a refutation when presented.
Only you know the answer to that.

What is ridiculous about your insistence for me to prove he is unaware of stratospheric cooling is the outcome doesn’t change his paper one iota.
It is still wrong irrespective whether he is aware of it or not as post #62 illustrates.

You are the one making the bizarre claim his paper shows he is aware of stratospheric cooling even though there is not single reference to it.
The burden of proof is on you to show this.
Your insistence for me to do your work is a double fallacy.
First trying to shift the burden of proof onto me; second expecting me to prove a negative.

Since you seem to be obsessed in trying to show me up why don’t you prove the science of stratospheric cooling is wrong or the evidence presented in post #62 is wrong, instead of engaging in this mindless vendetta.

I think a problem with us communicating is that certain rules of engagement are assumed - it is not my style to comply.

Among other things I have studied the history and philosphy of science and concluded that the rules of philosophical argument were too limiting.

As to the matter at hand, Duncan intends to publish further work on this, we will have to wait and see if he addresses the matters you are concerned about. If the dialogue was less adversarial I would have offered to ask him about stratospheric cooling.

He did identify an area in which climate scientists have misinterpreted their own data. But the real issue is the degree to which natural causes contribute to GW as an astrophysicist his paper presents a case for natural causes being a serious driver of the phenomena. I was inviting critique of his paper - instead I got a barrage of less than kind comment about the messenger.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I am trying to keep it simple...

Knowledge of stratospheric cooling has been around for a long time.

If Steel's paper has errors, by all means point them out.

This paper has been out there for a few years now and so far no one has managed to do this.

I believe he intends to put more work into this area so watch this space...

Sad that dialogue in this area is so charged that civil discourse is almost impossible.

 

[sjastro]

I am trying to keep it simple...
Knowledge of stratospheric cooling has been around for a long time.

Stratospheric cooling was purely theoretical from 1967 to 1979 until satellite measurements commenced.
Even then it was not certain how much of an effect AGW had on stratospheric cooling as ozone depletion also contributes to cooling along with other factors.
We had the hole in the ozone layer caused by CFCs which resulted in their banning in 1989.
It has taken decades for the ozone layer to recover to a certain degree and climate scientists finally have been able determine the effect of AGW on stratospheric cooling after all other factors have been eliminated.

If Steel's paper has errors, by all means point them out.
This paper has been out there for a few years now and so far no one has managed to do this.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating by making comparisons with observations.
This was done as explained in post #62.

Since orbital effects alter the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth this graph also shows Steel’s paper can’t be right.

The “Natural factors” is a model which includes solar and volcano activity.
"All factors" is combining AGW only factors and natural factors models and agrees with observation particular after 1970.
Orbital variations are not even considered indicates they are negligible.

I believe he intends to put more work into this area so watch this space...
Sad that dialogue in this area is so charged that civil discourse is almost impossible.

If this a reference to what has transpired in this thread it takes two to tango for uncivil discourse and you haven’t exactly been a shrinking violet.

 

[Ophiolite]

I think a problem with us communicating is that certain rules of engagement are assumed - it is not my style to comply.

So, apparently you don't think that not conforming to long established group procedures is discourteous. And yet you regret "that dialogue in this area is so charged that civil discourse is almost impossible". Do you see why some might think there is a disconnect there?

If the dialogue was less adversarial I would have offered to ask him about stratospheric cooling.

If you don't want to look like the kid who takes his soccer ball home because the other kids say it wasn't a goal, perhaps you could ask him anyway.

I was inviting critique of his paper - instead I got a barrage of less than kind comment about the messenger.

I offered to do this once I had access to the paper. I cannot add anything substantive to the refutations offered by @sjastro . Presume, unless I later state otherwise, that he speaks for me in this thread.

 

[durangodawood]

Some years back I might chase down this or that outlier paper that AGW deniers latch onto, just to find outs its completely bogus or misrepresented. And I watched others do this over and over and over.

Then I realized this denier tactic was simply intended to run out the clock. Now, as a layman and poorly equipped to evaluate scientific papers myself, I rely on the state of the general scientific consensus (or lack of).

 

[Halbhh]

Most studies of climate history show a planetary history of cyclical rises and falls of temperature. There have been some very rapid falls in temperature after sharp rises. Given that industrialisation has clearly made a contribution to the present global warming and rise in CO2 levels can we expect a sharp natural correction to this and the advent of an ice age?

Or has the growth of mankind's dominance reached a point where natural correctives have been neutralised or rendered ineffective e.g. reduction in forests, acidity in oceans, concrete instead of plants. Of course a nuclear winter, asteroid strike or major volcanic eruption could massively reduce global temperatures overnight. We always assume that things will carry on pretty much as they have but catastrophies pock mark the planets history so I wonder where this certainty about global warming being an inevitable trend comes from.

Can the planet or extra terrestrial sources still correct global warming with a new ice age or has that possibility already passed, so it is entirely up to us to make that correction?

If it were the case that we had a century or more left to live on Earth, or even just 50 years --

Then the answer is clear: we have embarked on a very intense climate experiment because we've ramped up CO2 so fast. And objectively it's only a physics fact it is a greenhouse gas (and that's not in contention by anyone that knows enough physics).

And...we are learning lately there are big positive feedback loops that add to that warming. Natural things that happen, like warming tundra thawing out and releasing a lot of extra greenhouse gas, the spread of more big fires, and so on....

And the odds of a volcano eruption or a natural cycle helping us out are miniscule.

Practically zero chance of nature rescuing us.

We'd have to try to save ourselves -- but...we've actually have been figuring out how to do so, with huge progress in solar power, electric cars and so on.

We'd get there, maybe. If we had to. Or at least it's visibly possible for us to do so, and not even all that hard at this point.

 

[Halbhh]

By the way, just an interesting look at today: here's today's global temperature and global temperature anomaly maps.

Global Temperature Maps for today

 

[sjastro]

As a human interest story Duncan Steel being an astrophysicist and astrophysicists aren't experts on climate science as being construed as a personal attack against him, can be looked at from an astrophysicists' perspective.

The only astrophysicist I privately communicate with is Brian Koberlein an individual with a wicked sense of humour.
I was contemplating sending him an email to ask him how he much knows about climate science as an astrophysicist but it turns out he has already stated his position.

There’s just one catch. I’m not a climate scientist. So in the large scale of things I’m not qualified to assess all the nitty gritty details of climate research. There are lots of folks that can, but I’m not that guy. I can’t tell you whether global warming is real (though I do think it is). But I am an astrophysicist. I’ve even written a book on computational astrophysics. So what I do know pretty well is astrophysics and how to do scientific research.

A Man For All Seasons - One Universe at a Time
I suspect this is a comment shared by most astrophysicists.

Here is Brian doing a TEDx talk under unusual conditions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thanks for link.
Maybe the journal should be renamed "Journal of Cosmology and the Kitchen Sink" given the relevance the paper has in cosmology.

It's known as a 'fringe' journal; it's where the editor, Rudolf Schild, publishes his more controversial 'out there' ideas. James Randi called it a 'crackpot journal'. I note that it welcomes speculative papers and that submitting authors are asked to provide a list of reviewers for the peer review...