OT: How to profit from AGW?

Henrik Svensmark and Jasper Kirkby do beleive that cosmic rays influence cloud formation, and they probably do, but nowhere near as much as the fine dust that is always floating around in the air (though probably not inside cloud chambers at CERN).

Jasper Kirkby may have lectured about it as CERN, but that doesn't make it a widely accepted opinion. The idea is "controversial", to put it politely.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Rubbish.

Joke. You designed your own house, and closely supevised the sub- contractors that built it? You designed your own car, you own fridge, your own computer?

If you did, and showed the same level of judgement in the process as you do when you talk about climate science, your house would have fallen down and your car wouldn't start.

.

Forest fires aren't necessarily anthropogenic - lighting does a perfectly adequate job in teh absence of careless smokers.

...

Which is to say, very little.

t

...

. e l l

You have. You didn't need to. Every decent exposition of the subject talks about minor greehouse gases and aerosols. You haven't put numbers on any of the various minor causes, and none of them is all that important compared with CO2 (water excepted, but water works purely as a positive feedback mechanism, so you tackle it by working on the longer-lived greenhouse gases).

Wrong. Granting your pathetic expertise in the area, this has a David and Goliath element, except that your sling would be loaded with grapes rather than pebbles.

Wrong. CO2 is the most important of the permanent greenhouse gases, and the one we have to get under control.

Wrong - you don't know enough about how they measure stuff and what they measure to have any useful opinion on the subject. Your rantings about the Greenland and Antarctic ice core temperatures showed you comparing apples and pears, and you not only failed to work this out for yourself, but also failed to follow up the clue I gave you that told me that we were talking about two different kinds of temperature measurements, telling us about temperatures at two rather different locations.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

SNIP

I have problems with wikipedia as a source of information on controversial topics. It has been known for some time that it has a pro AGW bias.

I looked up the younger dryas this morning and had a look at the graph. Produced by William Connolley a green member of the hockey team.

I looked at your link on Svensmark. Edited by Connolley on 20th December.

And Connolley is controversial. See below. He is a fruit cake but your kind of fruit cake so you'll think all is OK.

At least I understand why you prefer wikipedia links rather than links to real science.

/quote

He then focuses on RealClimate.org co-founder William Connolley, who has ?touched? 5,428 Wikipedia articles with his unique brand of RC centric editing:

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn?t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it ? more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred ? over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley?s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia?s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

/end quote

/quote

In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley?s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming.

/end quote

It's not so much a pro-AGW bias as a well-informed outlook on reality. Right-wingers do beleive that instititutions should favour their favourite brand of nonsense, and cry "bias" whenever they come across an even-handed report.

There are other sources of information about the Yonger Dryas, and they do tell the same story.

Except that he doesn't seem to be a fruit-cake. You do happen to be a fruit-cake, and your judgement on the subject is less than reliable.

The wikipedia articles are short and aimed a people who don't know much about the subject - my target audience on this user-group. I'm perfectly happy to link to real science if it accessible - a lot of it requires more background knowledge than you have (by way of example), and quite a bit more requires that you pay $31.50 if you want to read the full text.

I even write my own wikipedia-level explanations from time to time, but it takes time and effort, and there's only one of me, so the error- checking isn't a good.

My own reading certainly isn't restricted to wikipedia articles, nor to the science that you can find by following up wikipedia references and links. I cite wikipedia articles when - in my judgement - they do give a well-balanced picture of reality.

You don't have much of a grip on the reality of climate science and don't trust my judgement. You could solve your problem by learning a bit more about the subject, but choose instead to complain that the experts have conspired to present a view of reality that doesn't line up with your delusions. This is the attitude of a paranoid.

As I mentioned above, right-wingers do believe that instititutions should favour their favourite brand of nonsense, and cry "bias" whenever they come across an even-handed report.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

data

and

Spiked BS well on this one.

data

and

Actually, he didn't. The Greenland ice core that that he'd dug up was new and interesting, but the people who put it togheter were using a new and complciated technique to work how cold the surface of that bit of the Greenland ice-cap had been when the snow had originally been deposited.

Since he was using this to draw conclusions about the current changes in the global temperature, averaged over the whole surface of the earth, he was - as usual - comparing apples and pears.

The ice core data that I'd been talking about on the 20th December were the good old-fashioned deuterium ratio measurements that give you the temperature of the water in the ice core not when it fell as snow, but when it was last evaporated - from the surface of the ocean somewhere, or from a water droplet in a cloud somewhere where it wasn't so cold that water didn't evaporate.

In short, I wasn't either lying, cheating or changing my story - Ravinghorde just hadn't known what he was talking about, again, and had drawn the wrong conclusion, again.

As have you.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

SNIP

Billy Liar loves to have the last word and is at it again.

"New and interesting" it was data from a paper published in 2000, virtually pre history is climate papers.

The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland Quaternary Science Reviews Volume 19, Issues 1-5, 1 January 2000, Pages 213-226.

Since I had been posting the link to the paper and data for about two weeks and BS the BS had been responding you would have thought he would have paid attention to the detail.

BS the BS likes to throw the Younger Dryas in from time to time but doesn't like it when I use the data.

Sits back and waits for BS to denounce us all as idiots, shills etc. Bill it's boring.

SNIP

In , Bill Sloman wrote: (in part)

Have a look at:

Amount ot red vs. blue appears to me to be in phase with the 1st derivative of AMO (after some appropriate smoothing), maybe lagging a couple years. I see it being mostly red from 1976 through 2006, mostly blue from 1950 to 1976.

Or, that may be related to the lower frequency component of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation - possibly loosely linked to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation by tropical weather systems.

According to Wiki, it is called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, not the North Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

Although the Wiki article says it shows up ma "It alternately obscures and exaggerates the global increase in temperatures due to human-induced global warming."

Have a look at how that first graph in that article compares to HadCRUT-3. A periodic component with period around 65 years appears obvious to me.

As for how merely shifting heat around the world can change global temperature? Answer: when heat is shifted to an area that is a hotspot of surface albedo feedback - such as North Atlantic and nearby parts of the Arctic.

Any models that come up with the amount of warming that occurred from

1970 to 2005, or any time stretch shorter than 65 years including a full upswing of AMO, and shows such results without considering AMO, will need to be adjusted to show only the amount of warming unrelated to this significant periodic factor.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

as

It was new to me, and I've not seen anything on the way of comment about it, which does surprise me.

And who reads Quaternary Science Review?

Actually you posted a link to a blog which seems to suffer from your tendency to compare apples (in the shape of local temperature measurements) with pears (global temperatures).

The blog linked back to

which you posted as

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2...

and clearly didn't understand. I eventually dug out the reference to the Quaternary Science Review publication, which is the peer-reviewed version of the NOAA data, but no use if you aren't prepared to pay $31.50 to view the text, so I went on to dig out the freely accessible

which does tell you roughly what was going on.

Use the data? As usual, you abused it. You clearly didn't understand what it meant, otherwise you wouldn't have misused it by comparing local temperatures from the top of the Greenland ice-cap (which are notoriously variable) with temperatures averaged over the entire globe.

You present complicated (if invalid) arguments, so you aren't an idiot, and you make too many ignorant pratfalls - like this one - for anybody to be paying for your efforts, so you aren't a conscious shill, but you are both ignorant and over-confident. If you were a little less self-satisfied you might be capable of recognising the extent of your ignorance, and could conceivably go to the trouble of doing something to educate yourself. Sadly, you never learn.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

In , Bill Sloman wrote in part:

This is a paid article - I have not seen it, but it blames 4-8% of global warming and 1/5 of Arctic warming on commerical aviation.

(Commercial avaiation burns 2-3% of the world's fossil fuels according to:

20consumption%22&f=false )

Since I did not pay for this Nature article, I did not see the data and methodology. If I did, I might find upticks in temperature correlating to upticks in commercial aviation also correlating to factors not mentioned in the article but also upticking in correlating ways - possibly for example, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

I also don't know how the peer review on that Nature article went.

Also the commentary relating to 9/11 appears to me based on what I sense as irrelevant - the "48 state" portion of USA had temperature 1.1 degrees C above normal during the 3 days of aviation ban starting on

9/11. Some like to call that significicant.

This is a mere 3 days, and on time scales that short it is common for the "48 states USA" as a whole to have temperature a degree C or two deviating from normal one way or another. Heck, I think I've seen "contiguous USA" deviate from "normal" by 3 degrees C for 3 days, and over

1 degree C for a "calendar month"!

Furthermore, USA's temperature swings more east of the Rockies. I have heard news commentary suggesting that the terrorists chose a day early in a period of forecast "nicer weather" in eastern USA to stage a newsworthy event. So the temperature uptick's negative correlation with commercial aviation may not have been only a mere common-enough random event, but also resulting in some part from the terrorists using weather forecasts for planning when to stage a newsworthy event.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

There are areas where I leave things to the pros and where I like to "be my own dog".

I don't bother fabricating circuit boards. I work on expertise elsewhere - and get paid more for time spent laying them out and testing them than I can get paid for competing against existing PCB fab houses. (I still assemble prototype boards myself.)

I don't bother designing cars, even though I find flaws in some marketed designs (which I attribute to excessive pressure from "bean counters"). USA's and Japan's automotive industries employ enough engineers to get me a better car for my money and time than I can build.

However, I do work in niche areas where someone who is not part of some big herd succeeds - and in my case, it is usually for electronic design (tends to be simple) and optical design to get something a bit specialized to produce light (or UV or IR) suitable for an application or some range of applications, on a budget.

As for "the science" related to AGW: I sense that "The Pros" are excessively divided/pushed into politically polarized camps. One side has most of the real scientists, but I still sense political polarization.

It appears to me that real scientists will modify whatever consensus they have if and when significant conflicting data comes in. It also appears to me that those who are quicker to make good use of later conflicting data will get more than 15 minutes of fame for doing so.

Meanwhile, I sense this political polarization. So, I make the attempt to be an amateur scientist so that I can be my own dog here. I have some qualification - thousands of hours as a hobby studying weather and atmospheric science, as well as knowing and studying physics including thermal radiation and spectral properties of substances - in part, for looking for better ways to get xenon and sodium vapor to glow.

I don't need to get this right to such an extent as to build a house with nothing wrong with it or to build a better, safer, more reliable car than those with gigabuck budgets have done. All I think I need to do here in a lower budget, more-politically-polarized area is to see if I can learn enough stuff to make sense out of all the data that I can find and that is presented to me to figure out how much global warming or lack thereof is based on "bad data", extent of biases, how much temperature change in either direction is due to one-time and periodic factors, and how much warming AGW has caused and will cause.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

No, no, no; you have it all wrong. The terrorists themselves cause global warming; ban them and the problem will go away!

The press release appears to have disappeared from the original link. See here:

SNIP

I discussed this with Bill on the 20th December. Note I quoted temperatures.

/quote

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

The latest point is 95 years before present with a temperature of

-31.59C. The warmest point is 7817 before present, or about 5800BC with a temperature of -28.70 or 2.9C higher than the most recent. So even allowing Central Greenland to have warmed 1.5C since 1905 we are still nowhere near the peak for the Holocene.

/end quote

and here:

Clearly the data is not popular on the cherry picking alarmist sites that Bill thinks give an honest view of the world.

The data is clearly available on the NOAA icecore site. If debating icecores this seems an obvious data source:

Bill is reverting to a temporal paradox again using a paper published in 2008 as his explanation for Alley's paper published in 2000. Unfortunately Alley didn't have access to this later paper.

Of course if he wanted to understand he would have looked at the original paper here:

And the predictable BS BS rant which he thinks makes him look thoughtful and knowledgeable:

Robert Baer wrote in news:vb-dncE7VcOAT6PWnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@posted.localnet:

all those bombs exploding sure make a lot of harmful gasses.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

SNIP

Sheesh. Bill again squirms because he cites an irrelevent paper.

Keep up at the back.

I found the right reference. So what's your problem? Go on, admit I know more than you:)

Nor do you. You're too tight to pay, too lazy to search for it.

And then say it must be wrong despite not reading it.

Yeah right we all believe you know what you are talking about;)

On the contrary, it's complicated, which makes it unpopular with the cherry-picking denialist sites that Ravinghorde (amongst others) seems to rely on and which consequently drive most of the discussion that appears here. The blog that seems to have introduced Ravinghorde to the data

while happily identify the Greenland ice core temperatures as local and specific to the surface of the ice-cap, then goes on to compare them with Vostock temperatures, which are based soley on deuterium ratios and correspondingly less localised, without mentioning that the two records are different in kind, probably because the blogger wasn't aware of the difference, any more than Ravinghorde seems to have been.

Alley et al discussed these differences back in 1997.

But the data is only meaningful when set in context.

Lots of tabulated data, not a lot of commentary.

It explains what Alley had done - which was all I was looking for. Why you should think that this involves any kind of temporal paradox escapes me.

If I could have found it. The "icebubbles" link tells much the same story, and gave me enough to let me stop looking.

It's telling that Ravinghorde doesn't waste a line arguing that his interpretation of the temperature data was defensible - in effect conceding that it isn't - but carries on as if finding web-sites is the important activity, rather than developing some understanding of the information that they present.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ic

l e h , e

pot

I didn't say that merely shifting heat around the world wouldn't change the global temperature, I merely said that it wouldn't change it much. The mechanism for the change is obvious enough - the heat radiated by the earth is proportional to the forth power of temperature, so making the equator hotter and the poles cooler cools the earth as a whole

The unusually strong El Nino of 1998 was good for some 0.5K of global warming, which is quite a lot when we are worrying about 0.74K of anthropogenic global warming, but it went away with the El Nino, while the anthropogenic global warming does seem to be as persistent as the elevated atmospheric CO2 levels that seems to have produced most of it.

Sure. But if you look at the temperature record since 1880 you can see two cycles of that 65-year oscillation, and the anthropogenic warming is clearly bigger.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

It was scarcely irrelevant - since it made abundantly clear that the author's professional interest was in ozone destruction and chlorofluorocarbons, rather than Svensmark's daft ideas about cosmic rays determining whether clouds form (or not).

You may claim to know more, but you understand a lot less.

I do read some of it, as do you, but I mostly keep up by reading New Scientist and the stuff the the Dutch science journalists come up with. If I was an academic climatologist, I'd do better, in part because I'd have direct access to the primary literature.

You own access is equally obviously second hand, and clearly includes a number of denialist web-sites.

The claim about "dominating the climate over the next fifty years" doesn't sound like something you'd find in a peer-reviewed paper.

Since you really don't know what you are talking about, you are free to believe whatever nonsense takes your fancy, as you remind us, all too frequently.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen