2011-04-08 00:02:01Christy Crock #2: Jumping to Conclusions?
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

Christy Crock #2 - Jumping to Conclusions?

I went with the IPCC detection and attribution, IPCC antro v natural modelling, and then the fingerprinting of human influence.  I stayed away from details on what natural varibility would like, if not for anthropogenic factors, because I just wanted to highlight the big picture.  And i ended with an Emanuel quote which fits the theme nicely.

2011-04-08 01:40:48variability
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Well I think you've got a good rebuttal to "it's not us" there grypo.  However, it doesn't specifically address "internal variability" per say.  In fact I think this is a better response to his quote #4:

"I think there's been too much jumping to conclusions about seeing something happening in the climate and saying 'well the only way that can happen is human effects'"

So I would suggest two options - either change the quote from #3 to #4, or address both in one post.

The tricky part about #3 is that Christy is very unspecific about what he's talking about, even in his written testimony.  Here's the most detail he goes into about internal variability (page 21-22):

"For example, why doesn’t the IPCC report on (and funding agencies invest in) major research about the internal dynamical properties of the climate system? At present these properties are incapably represented in climate models to date, and yet have been shown to be a major source of the variability we’ve seen."

It sounds to me like he's talking about Spencer's internal radiative forcing hypothesis, whereby some unknown mechanism causes cloud cover to change, changing albedo, causing warming or cooling.  I touched a bit on that hypothesis here.

If you want to address both #3 and #4, I would add a section specifically about internal variability which addresses

1) How much of a temperature change internal variability causes on timescales of decades (generally no more than 0.2 to 0.3°C - need to find a good reference for this), and

2) Specifically address the merits of Spencer's hypothesis.  You can use my discussion of fingerprints which don't match with Spencer's hypothesis (and perhaps tie that in with your section about "thumbprints"), and there was also the exchange between Dessler and Spencer.  Emails and Dessler (2010)

Or just use this for #4, and I (or someone else) can do another post specific to the internal variability hypothesis.

2011-04-08 03:09:53
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Grypo,

I think that Dana makes some valid points concerning to which quotes your current write up applies.  It is well written though, so do not be discouraged, it is just a question of finding the best fit.

Re "How much of a temperature change internal variability causes on timescales of decades (generally no more than 0.2 to 0.3°C - need to find a good reference for this),"

Try these and citations therein:

Swanson et al. (2009)

Thompson et al. (2009)

Trenberth et al. (2002) 

Stouffer et al. (1994)

Wigley and Raper (1990)

2011-04-08 03:13:15
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

Thanks.  I'll make some modifications and switch it to #4.  #3 does deserve it's own post, which I think someone else would likely do a better job on than me.  Usisng the Dessler exchange would work well if the connection is made to Spencer's work.  What I find interesting that several skeptical scientists discuss Spencer's ideas without ever actually pointing directly at his work.  It's always very vague, as if they know there's no evidence and it it really is just another fringe theory.

2011-04-08 03:15:03
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Re Spencer,

Have a look at this....deep breaths Dana ;)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/04/on-recent-criticisms-of-my-research/

I actually laughed out loud when I read his diatribe.

2011-04-08 03:22:27Spencer
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I agree with Albatross that your post is good for "it's not us", grypo.  I also agree doing a seperate post for "internal variability" would be a good idea, because we also need to create a rebuttal for that argument.  By the way, this will likely be Christy Crock #2, grypo.

Albatross - you interested in doing a post/rebuttal on internal variability?  I could probably do it, but it's not a subject I'm terribly strong on.

Spencer's craziness is funny.  It doesn't occur to him that maybe Science doesn't publish some of his or Lindzen's stuff because it's just not good science.  No, it must be because Science is biased!  Barry Bickmore had an excellent post in response to Spencer's.

2011-04-08 03:55:57
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

As you have noticed, I am fairly good at finding references and floating ideas, but when it comes to committing to a blog post I am rather reticent. One reason is time management.  Today I should be replying to the reviewers' comments on a paper, but I'm procrastinating here instead.

Internal climate variability is not my forte, far form it.  Perhaps my reticence is b/c I am very nervous about taking the big leap and putting pen to paper-- I admire those who write blog posts, as I am quite sure it is not as easy or quick as some might think.

The internal variability is a messy topic though, so addressing it will require more work than say "no warming since 1998"-- recent work by deSole et al. has been taken out of context, as has work by Swanson and Tsonis. So maybe we should tackle the low lying fruit first, like you did with the "70s cooling myth"?

Is working on the internal variability together an option?

2011-04-08 04:16:56
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Anyone can tag-team an article (Mauri Pelto and I are working on one right now).

John is even re-doing the code to allow co-authors of blog posts.

2011-04-08 04:42:14combo
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Yes perhaps I could put together a skeleton and then pass it along to you to see if you have more to add, Albatross?

Good point on Swanson and Tsonis, I had forgotten about that one.  It should definitely get a mention in the post/rebuttal.

2011-04-08 06:27:09
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Thanks Dana, that sounds great. Thank you!

This RC post by Swanson might be helpful.  I like the closing para:

"What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf. Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here. However, this apparent impulsive behavior explicitly highlights the fact that humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing – and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond."

 

Also, here is a link to the DelSole et al. (2011) paper.  And a relevant quote from the abstract:

"The amplitude and time scale of the IMP are such that its contribution to the trend dominates that of the forced component on time scales shorter than 16 yr, implying that the lack of warming trend during the past 10 yr is not statistically significant. Furthermore, since the IMP varies naturally on multidecadal time scales, it is potentially predictable on decadal time scales, providing a scientific rationale for decadal predictions. While the IMP can contribute significantly to trends for periods of 30 yr or shorter, it cannot account for the 0.8°C warming that has been observed in the twentieth-century spatially averaged SST"


2011-04-08 06:38:50nice
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

That's a very useful study, and the money quote at the end directly contradicts Christy's claim that the recent warming could just be natural variation.  I'll definitely incorporate that.  Nice plot in Swanson and Tsonis showing that internal variability hasn't had more than a 0.3°C influence on temps over the past century, and basically none over the past 25 years.  I'll use that too.  Thanks Alby.  What's your email address so I can pass along a rough draft of the post for you to look at?

2011-04-08 06:40:52grypo
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Don't mean to derail this discussion - grypo let us know when you've updated the post so we can comment on it again.

2011-04-08 06:56:59
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

Updated.  Small rhetorical changes, but same gist.

2011-04-08 07:04:25
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Dana,

No worries, glad to contribute :) My unofficial email address is:

stomatalaperture@gmail.com

I also like this observation made by Swanson et al. (2009) [my comment in square bracket]:

"Fig. 3 shows that the resulting cleaned signal [after removing internal variability] presents a nearly monotonic warming of the global mean surface temperature throughout the 20th century, and closely resembles a quadratic fit to the actual 20th century global mean temperature. Interdecadal 20th century temperature deviations, such as the accelerated observed 1910–1940 warming that has been attributed to an unverifiable increase in solar irradiance (471920), appear to instead be due to natural variability. The same is true for the observed mid-40s to mid-70s cooling, previously attributed to enhanced sulfate aerosol activity (4,6712). Finally, a fraction of the post-1970s warming also appears to be attributable to natural variability. The monotonic increase of the cleaned global temperature throughout the 20th century suggests increasing greenhouse gas forcing more-or-less consistently dominating sulfate aerosol forcing, although our technique cannot exclude other mechanisms not contained in the current generation of model forcing"

2011-04-08 07:12:44Re Swanson and Tsonis
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165
Before you reinvent the wheel, SkS already hit Tsonis et al

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-shift-synchronized-chaos.htm

2011-04-08 07:28:15climate regime shift?
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Thanks John, but "it's a climate regime shift"?  Never heard that argument before :-)  I see you took the quote from Lindzen completely misrepresenting their work.  That's lame!  Freaking Lindzen.

Here's the new link to grypo's updated post.  Comments for grypo:

"and faster changes occur during heat exchanges in the ocean  due to natural cycles like the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO)"

"but the questions that this committee was set out to answer is were (i) whether or not humans are likely to have caused recent climate responses, and even more important, (ii) will humans likely cause further and more rapid changes to our global climate system."

The IPCC figure captions are difficult to read.  You may want to crop out the captions and just type in a caption summary of your own.

"Scientists have also documented the human thumb fingerprint on the type of warming"

"The "It's Not Us" argument"

"-  Dr. Kerry A. Emanuel, Republican scientistI like to rub it in that Emanuel is a Republican too, but it doesn't really work here.

2011-04-08 08:37:34Note - updated this post to Christy Crock #2
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

And also tweaked the URL:

Christy Crock #2 - Jumping to Conclusions?

2011-04-08 08:57:51
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

Ok, ready to go.  Thank you.

2011-04-08 23:56:05
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

I changed the quote at the end.  This one fits the situation more precisely

beware those who deride predictive science in its entirety, for they are also making a prediction:  that we have nothing to worry about. And above all, do not shoot the messenger, for this is the coward’s way out of openly and honestly confronting the problem

2011-04-09 06:34:25Cracker of a quote!
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165
"beware those who deride predictive science in its entirety, for they are also making a prediction:  that we have nothing to worry about"

Beautifully framed!

2011-04-09 12:33:23
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Nicely done grypo-- that closing statement is a keeper!