That's rubbish. Nobody has suggested that they didn't know where it was - they'd found it once when they used it to generate their publications and it wouldn't have wandered off in the meantime.
Pulling it all together into a neat package - collated and in one place - is work that they hadn't had to do. You seem to think that they should have done, but you don't explain why.
as
That too is rubbish. Researchers are under no obligation to make their back-ground data neat and well organised. Tidy people work like that, but not everybody is tidy-minded. That kind of sorting and organisation takes time, and if you have a good memory, you can get by without it.
> August was cooler than August 2009, about the same as 2005, and cooler th=
an 2001 and 1998.
r 2009, 2008,
st
rming
It's not so much an "admission" as a statement of the obvious. There's a lot of noise on the climate record - look at hockey stick curve sometime - and it took something like 30 years and 40ppm of CO2 level increase - from 1958 to around 1988 - for the current global warming to become statistically significant. That you are fussing about the temperature variations over the last decade or so makes it clear that you haven't got a clue about what kind of variation might count as significant.
The problem is that while it has taken 30 years to add 40ppm to the atmospheric CO2 level, the rate of increase is increasing, the last twenty years have been good for another 30ppm, and the next twenty years should see rather more. We really don't want to keep on building up the CO2 levels in the atmosphere to make the consequent warming blindingly obvious to the dimmest denialist.
But you are imagining a system that is so chaotic that it can't be predicted for two weeks, but somehow it returnes to predictability over a period of years. Planets don't behave that way.
As R points out, the UK is covered with snow, in contradiction of predictions from 10 years ago.
I know, I know, "the models are better now"... because the models say so.
I've been doing nonlinear systems simulation since I was a teenager. The first system I simulated was a 32,000 horsepower steam turbine, propeller/ship/water and all. And it worked, the simulation and the control system.
I don't make a lot of particulates. We use natural gas for heat.
If you average over a year or better 11 to take out any solar component then you get something that is a lot more tractable. Low pass filtering does a lot to help extract a systematic signal from noise.
OK. Lets take something that does then. You use the word chaos and throw your hands in the air and say it cannot be done. But even though we cannot predict exact weather behaviour three weeks ahead we can still make good predictions about seasonal variations every year.
Those predictions are too simplistic. The UK is insanely far north - our winter weather is reverting to type for a latitude of 55N. And at the moment with a cold continental wind blowing in the wrong direction and over a warmer than normal North Sea we have lots of snow coming in.
You don't seem to have understood the technical meaning of chaos though. Taking a fairly current example of the chaotic dripping tap. Predicting the interval to the next drip is impossible, but if you plot the time intervals between successive drips in 3D as x,y,z the correlation becomes apparent. Chaos may make predictions of micro events impossible but it does not necessarily prevent macro scale ensemble predictions. The average flow rate is still well defined.
Here is a reasonably accessible presentation online:
formatting link
Taking it one stage further the growth of icicles despite the drips being chaotic can still be parameterised and solved as a free boundary problem with very good levels of agreement to experiment.
formatting link
The ripples and spontaneous symmetry breaking are much harder to model though some progress has been made with the former.
I agree the prediction was simplistic, it came from UAH, CRU in 2000:
/quote
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event"
/end quote
So we can agree the work of the CRU is simplistic. But you trust their work on climate prediction?
But the earth's temperature seems to be very noisy on all time scales, which is a property of many chaotic systems. Certainly solar input and orbital dynamics can be seen in the data, but that's on top of huge unexplained swings, like ice ages and warming periods. Sloman agrees that weather is chaotic with a predictability that goes to zero in weeks. The fact that we have seasons is trivial; it's the variation from average seasonal paterns that kill people, and we seem to have no ability to predict those variations other than to observe that there seem to be some periodicities.
So, at what time scale does climate stop being chaotic and become predictable by simulation? There may be no such time. Tuning the models to agree with past patterns is just curve-fitting random data.
A microsecond-by-microsecond forecast of the state of the output stage of a class D amplifier is unlikely to hold up for a second. However, the duty cycle of that switching as a function of input voltage and supply voltage is easy to model and predict.
The thing about the climate models is that they are claimed to be valid just beyond the time scale over which they are observed to be wrong! That's a little fishy to me.
What if weather is erratic in the fractal sense, like white noise, over all time scales. It sure looks that way.
Appeals to authority do not hack it. That is why we have the peer reviewed literature. This statement wouldn't survive any peer review. Most people in the UK have no feel for what our weather would be like if it were not for the North Atlantic conveyor and a prevailing SW wind.
There are palm trees growing outside on the W coast of Scotland.
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
One guy makes an overly simplistic press statement to get the story across to the public and you want me to condemn the entire institution? Scientists are human - they can make mistakes just like anyone else.
It is likely that if the world warms and all other things remain equal that snow will become more unusual in the UK. It is already infrequent enough that the authorities are never well prepared when it comes and we have a winter on average every year. Spring is already much earlier.
However, if as a result of *global* warming the winter airflows around the UK are altered so that the prevailing wind comes off the continent more often then we will get a heck of a lot of snow just like the Western coast of Japan does. It is particularly bad now because the North Sea is still quite warm and the very cold air is picking up a lot of water vapour from its surface and dumping it on the East coast.
But that isn't the point. Here you have a chaotic system, but its large scale behaviour has some important properties that can be accurately predicted and modelled. This is the exact opposite of what you believe.
WOW. Must have been a pretty vicious sustained wind to do that!
You can pretty much get the ice ages predicted by modelling effective insolation at latitude 65N. The feedback mechanism is that increases in permanent snow cover on the northern land masses alters the Earth's albedo and accelerates cooling. The Earths orbital elements are subject to perturbations as the polar axis precesses.
This will change as better models are developed. I think I may have identified one of the ignored underlying driving forces and am in the process of trying to get a paper published. Have to wait and see if it will survive peer review. I cannot say more at this time.
I would be inclined to say that at decadal timescales and with global averages there is a sporting chance of modelling it against the known slowly altering orbital parameters. There is always going to be short scale chaos, but a chaotic system is not random. There will be some clever way of interpreting the climate data (and quite possibly the weather too) just like with the dripping tap. You still can't predict when the next drip will come, but you can establish where the other attractors are and what conditions will trigger a transition.
eg for the dripping tap as you increase the flow rate there will eventually be a transition to steady flow. Once that steady flow is established you have to back off the flow rate considerably before it goes back to dripping again.
At one level you can do a fairly cunning physicists trick of putting an imaginary surface in space above the Earth and monitoring the energy transfer across that surface by satellite. This measures average global properties without having to worry about the details of local weather.
The warmista predictions are given to the press by credible sources to keep the AGW pot boiling. Normally these are far enough in the future to be unverviable. If like this prediction it is falsified it can be disowned as not peer reviewed.
The whole time the warmista camp keeps claiming the science is settled and failed predictions are because the press over dramatise the issue.
And if one points to peer reviewed articles which contradict this religion then it is disowned by the likes of BS as the wrong kind of journal.
The game is rigged. All evidence, however cotradictory, supports the warmist cause. Less snow in the UK? That's global warming. More snow in the UK? That's global warming. A hot summer? That's global warming. A cold winter? That's weather.
I know the UK is insanely far north, I live there. I understand the basics of UK weather. That's why I know this warmist propoganda is utter and complete crap.
Central England Temperature, the longest instrument record there is, reached the record low for the date at the Novemeber. As cold as it has been since 1772. The December figure to date is 6.8C (12.2F) below normal. And if you don't know CET roughly covers Lancashire to Oxfordshire.
It's foggy again, that means no wind so the great windmill non fossil fuel piss take is not generating any electricity again, just like last winter. No sun so no solar heating either. Aren't these non fossil fuel subsidies doing a great job!
Can't build the Severn barrage so I sure hope someone starts building some coal fired power stations soon.
A new NASA computer modeling effort has found that additional growth of plants and trees in a world with doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would create a new negative feedback ? a cooling effect ? in the Earth's climate system that could work to reduce future global warming.
The cooling effect would be -0.3 degrees Celsius (C) (-0.5 Fahrenheit (F)) globally and -0.6 degrees C (-1.1 F) over land, compared to simulations where the feedback was not included,
/end quote
That compares to 1.94C increase without the feedback.
As you often say CO2 is good for plants.
If they find anymore negative feedbacks we'll have an ice age.
Slight mistake on my behalf here, it was Mann not Jones.
This was Steve McIntyre's first contact with Steve Mann......
Dear Dr. Mann, I have been studying MBH98 and 99. I located datasets for the 13 series used in MBH99 ? and was interested in locating similar information on the 112 proxies referred to in MBH98 Thank you for your attention. Yours truly, Stephen McIntyre, Toronto, Canada
Dear Mr. McIntyre, These data are available on an anonymous ftp site we have set up. I've forgotten the exact location, but I've asked my Colleague Dr. Scott Rutherford if he can provide you with that information. best regards, Mike Mann
Steve, The proxies aren't actually all in one ftp site (at least not to my knowledge). I can get them together if you give me a few days. Do you want the raw 300+ proxies or the 112 that were used in the MBH98 reconstruction? Scott
They were all over the place, Mann didn't know where, and they must have been fairly well distributed for it to take 'a few days' to collate it all.
If you ask me for the project data for any job I've done over the last
10 years I could get it for you in a matter of minutes.
From
formatting link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"There is far more independent due diligence on the smallest prospectus offering securities to the public than on a Nature article that might end up having a tremendous impact on policy."
It's obvious that if papers are published with the social and economic impact the warmists have had over the recent years that it should be independantly verified.
If someone published a paper saying there was goign to be a catastophic asteroid collision with the earth you'd expect a few people to check the results before rushing off spending billions on a 'solution'.
Bill, are you a sock puppet?
If they are under no obligation to make their data organised (and available) then we are under no obligation to believe them.
But then it's all OK if they have a good memory.
I have posted this link before and I urge you to read it.
formatting link
In your arrogance you haven't even considered the idea that there might be some chinks in the AGW armour. Have you?
I believe that some systems are chaotic at all time scales, and that climate seems to be one of them.
No, the snow creeps down the roof and curls over the edge, as the icicles grow. The rates are apparently just right to form the curl.
You might note the variation in icicle shape and size. No icicle is predictable. Statistics on icicle behavior tell you mothing about any single icicle, as models of climate probably predict nothing about the mean temperature of the next century, beyond expecting some observed periodicities... if you trust the data.
Sure, that part is deterministic. The amount of feedback is conjectural.
Only if the process is not chaotic. If climate is anything like weather, the models will be forever useless, as they are now.
I think I may have
When we have 20,000 years of reliable satellite data, maybe we can develop better models.
How many times do we have to tell you that anthropogenic global warming is about climate, not weather. Newspapers have a tendency to translate predictions about climate into predictions about weather, which is stupid, but British journalists - even science journalists - aren't trained scientists and don't know any better.
The "prediction" - such as it was - didn't come out of the anthropological global warming community.
The press aren't "over-dramatising" the issue. They are making invalid extrapolations from data they don't understand, and presenting them to their readers as if they were "scientific predictions" rather than journalistic incompetence.
Not because it came from the wrong kind of journal, but because it was a bad paper written by incompetent authors. As with everything else, there is a pecking order amongst journals and the journal of hydrological science isn't high on the list. This means that it is a journal of last resort, which gets papers that have been rejected by every journal with competent editors and some vestigial remnant of self-respect.
Sure. It is rigged against incompetent researchers.
Not really. Most of your "evidence" isn't evidence of global warming. Ignorant and idle journalists like to dress up weather stories with references to global warming, but this doesn't make these weather stories "evidence" for or against global warming.
You don't know anything of the sort. You'd like to believe that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming was weaker than it is, and you gleefully pounce on any rubbish the the denialist propaganda machine has managed to slip into the low-rent end of the scientific publication business, then howl like a stuck pig because we point out that "peer-reviewed" isn't a magical guarantee of quality.
So what. Every few hundred years you have a coldest temperature for the last few hundred years. Look at enough discrete regions and one of them will have had such an episode recently
Not at the moment, but CO2 has a lifetime of about 800 years in the atmosphere, so writing off the program on the basis of this week's results is probably a little premature.
Or nuclear plants, or coal-fired stations with CO2 sequestration.
So you are disowning Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia as not part of the AGW community. He really cocked up didn't he.
/quote from 10th January 2010
Dr Viner last week said he still stood by that prediction: ?We?ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn?t change anything.
'This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event.
/end quote
What about the IPCC 2007 claim that the Himalayian glaciers will be melted by 2030? They've had to disown that piece of agitprop.
Do I see the warmistas complaining to the press that they are being misrepresented? Of course not because they plant most of the stories in the first place.
Unfortunately the politicians are as stupid as the press.
Funnily enough you throw out the phrase peer reviewed as your standard defence of the AGW cause.
formatting link
Wind and solar power will never be particularly useful in the UK. There's a prediction for you.
Everytime we get this sort of weather the windmills stop. This year, last year, the year before that...
Most AGW supporters are enviro nuts and oppose nuclear as well so there goes nuclear.
Those swings aren't unexplained. You don't understand the explanations, but that's not a problem with the science, but a problem with your science education
So you do understand that seasons are climate and that seansons are predictalbe, even if weather isn't.
The repeating cycles of ice ages and interglacials doesn't look as if it is intrinsically unpredictable. David Archer's "The Long Thaw" iSBN
978-0-691-14811-3 points out that we had a long integlacial - about
50,000 years - about 400,000 years ago, when the details of the earth's orbit were very much like the current conditions. It was as nearly circular then as it is now. This is a fairly subtle feature, but we are getting to recognise more of them.
This seems unlikely. Agriculture would never have got going if climate wasn't pretty predictable over decades and centuries.
m data.
It can be - in incompetent hands. Anybody who has an experience in serious curve-fitting/model-tuning is alive to exactly this problem, and knows how you can avoid fooling yourself.
And the ice core data doesn't look random. We have yet to nail down all the physical processes underlying the regularities that we keep on finding. David Larch introduced me to the Dansgaard-Oeschger and Heinrich events, and I imagine that there are more to be found and explained.
I am trying not to chip in that much, anymore. Few here seem to remember much of their training, if they remember any of it at all, and seem to rely now on experience and not upon theory. I don't know why they've lost touch.
One of the things that I've gathered (and if one had spent any time on the subject, they'd realize too) is that even the earlier climate scientists had a few things right, despite lacking data and lacking computers. von Neumann, whom most will recognize here, was one of the early, strong promoters of using computers (he used ENIAC, and in fact justified its expense in part, for climate research) for climate studies. At the time, of course, this idea was sold to the military as they were "hot" on the idea of controlling weather (as you say, not to be confused with climate... but the sale of the idea worked, anyway.) But something that was "obvious" to von Neumann and Russby and other PhD mathematician/physicists at the time was this: "atmospheric conditions...have become, due to the lapse of very long time intervals, causally and statistically independent of whatever initial conditions may have existed." And it was a theoretical meterologist, Edward Lorenz, who first discovered "chaos theory" while working with atmospheric models in the early 1960's.
These experiments were run even on the more simplistic models of the day. To make the point, Norman Philips carried out his first numerical experiment in 1956 on a computer known as the IAS. (J. M. Lewis writes about it in 1998.) He had available to him 1kb of main memory and 2kb of magnetic drum storage at the time. His grid points were 625km (latitude) by 375km (longitude.) He initialized it with zero wind, nominal uniform temperature, etc. The theorists wanted to know if, starting with a blank slate and only some basic physics in play, whether or not key features that had been observed would be recreated without putting them in, in the first place. To simplify still more, in accomodating limitations of the computer memory, he set it up more as a cylindrical model (as you can imagine from the above.) He used a 1-day time step and simulated for 130 days only. (He would have had to simulate for 14 years or more for it to stabilize -- tested later.)
Effectively, no observational input. And the model contained no clouds, no moisture. So in the end, it did fail to reproduce some characteristics. But it did replicate easterly-westerly-easterly zonal distribution of surface winds, a reasonably looking jet stream, a net transport of heat from equator to pole and is generally regarded now as the first "working" numerically-based GCM. And that's well before steady state was allowed. And even with widely differing input conditions, it would have resolved out the same way given time.
Computer power has moved long past, data is far more available for comparison, and tThis whole argument, the "weather is chaos, so climate is too", your basic "flapping butterfly wings in Brazil causing tornados in Timbucktoo" argument, completely fails to understand just what climate studies study and why models can succeed well enough to ascertain anthropogenic contribution levels.
Engineers here need to spent a little of _their_ time before speaking.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.