CERN: Climate Models will need to be revised

[lukin]

Maybe some AGW alarmists should take a swim off Kugluktuk if they think it's so warm.

It's much easier telling someone how to live while in a 40,000 sq. ft. mansion, while peddling phony science to the sheep.

[waldo]

Hole in ozone over Arctic caused by extremely cold weather.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/record-ozone-loss-over-the-arctic-caused-by-extremely-cold-weather-scientists--130944043.html

Maybe some AGW alarmists should take a swim off Kugluktuk if they think it's so warm.

amateur hour!

a now quite dated circumstance associated with an early 2011 Jan/Feb extreme weather event... in all your apparent gleefulness perhaps you'd like to put up Arctic decadal temperature, sea ice extent and sea ice volume trends. You may also like to question why this is being pushed through the mainstream media now... cause you may want to comment on the related international backlash and concern coming forward relative to the announced Harper Conservative cuts to Environment Canada, particularly in regards to how those will affect, or are being interpreted to affect, Canadian ozone monitoring - something international resources and organizations rely on heavily.

you could also chew on this recent article: Canada's Arctic ice shelves breaking up fast - 'This is our coastline changing ... and they won't come back,' says researcher

Canada in just six years has lost nearly 50 percent of the massive ice shelf area that holds back glacial ice from melting into the ocean, scientists report.

Two of Canada's biggest ice shelves diminished significantly this summer, one nearly disappearing altogether. The two are among six that make up Canada's biggest shelves, all located on Ellesmere Island.

The loss is important as a marker of global warming, returning the Canadian Arctic to conditions that date back thousands of years, scientists say.

as for the actual early 2011 Arctic event and the paper being referenced - Unprecedented Arctic ozone loss in 2011 ... the real question for ongoing scientific analysis is what caused the 20km high stratosphere level to remain cold for several months longer than usually seen, year to year... as well as implications therein. As lead author Gloria Manney is quoted as saying:

"Day-to-day temperatures in the 2010-11 Arctic winter did not reach lower values than in previous cold Arctic winters," said lead author Gloria Manney of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in Socorro. "The difference from previous winters is that temperatures were low enough to produce ozone-destroying forms of chlorine for a much longer time.

This implies that if winter Arctic stratospheric temperatures drop just slightly in the future, for example as a result of climate change, then severe Arctic ozone loss may occur more frequently.

"

what's that waldo - stratospheric cooling and climate change??? Yes, quite right... a recognized fingerprint of the enhanced greenhouse effect is... a cooling stratosphere! And the effect of a cooling stratosphere on ozone depletion! Oh my... potentials for severe Arctic ozone depletion, as a result of climate change, may occur more frequently! Oh my!

[lukin]

You are wrong, waldo. you don't have any facts again.

Edited October 3, 2011 by lukin

[Michael Hardner]

Do you have anything to add ? His post was substantial.

[waldo]

You are wrong, waldo. you don't have any facts again.

yes, clearly... citing the papers main author is anything but a 'lukinFact'. In any case, I liked your initial reply - the one before your walked-back edit!

[waldo]

Do you have anything to add ? His post was substantial.

yes, Michael; obviously your post was in reply to the original lukin post... before he pulled back with an edit. Apparently, lukin takes great exception to someone pointing out the failure of another one of his blindly referenced, without comment, "ta da" style linkapaloozas - go figure.

[lukin]

yes, Michael; obviously your post was in reply to the original lukin post... before he pulled back with an edit. Apparently, lukin takes great exception to someone pointing out the failure of another one of his blindly referenced, without comment, "ta da" style linkapaloozas - go figure.

You wanted me banned for asking that question waldo. I had to change it.

[waldo]

You wanted me banned for asking that question waldo. I had to change it.

it would appear that your recent self-announced time-out has helped you to self-moderate - good on ya!

[lukin]

it would appear that your recent self-announced time-out has helped you to self-moderate - good on ya!

Not at all.

Do you feel like a "big Man" sitting behind a monitor "tattling' on anyone who says something you don't like? Does that make you feel "big and tough"?

[waldo]

it would appear that your recent self-announced time-out has helped you to self-moderate - good on ya!

Not at all.

Do you feel like a "big Man" sitting behind a monitor "tattling' on anyone who says something you don't like? Does that make you feel "big and tough"?

you further discredit MLW by casting suggestion that MLW moderation would be so reactive as to act on just a single report from anyone... versus an ongoing, repeat pattern.

[Michael Hardner]

If you feel that a post goes against forum policy, then report it via the 'report' button.

I am not a moderator - I don't discipline or ban people - I am a facilitator, which means I try to move the discussion along.

My post to lukin was an attempt to keep this discussion going, nothing more. I'm also urging everyone to move past this side discussion and get back to the issue; I think that it's waldo's defense of the NASA ozone study.

[Pliny]

cite the, 'already done', cite please

Ignore. Deny. Refute. Negate. It doesn't exist in waldo world.

Science, in the same manner as religion, must be stripped of political influence. It isn't supposed to metamorphose into them, waldo - which seems your inclination - replete with messiahs and prophets.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Pliny

[Pliny]

what's that waldo - stratospheric cooling and climate change??? Yes, quite right... a recognized fingerprint of the enhanced greenhouse effect is... a cooling stratosphere! And the effect of a cooling stratosphere on ozone depletion! Oh my... potentials for severe Arctic ozone depletion, as a result of climate change, may occur more frequently! Oh my!

I believe that one poster here said that we had saved ourselves from ozone depletion thanks to our elimination/reduction of aerosol use. Does this mean that our action to save it was irrelevant or at least of nominal effect?

If you were interested in a purely scientific discussion you should have mentioned this at the time, waldo. But you didn't, you allowed us to think that our political policy had resolved the problem. A rather disingenuous omission in your "purely" scientific argument, in my view. Harumph!

Edited October 4, 2011 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

Note the wording. Tjilander is not saying the data *might* be contaminated. Tjilander is saying it *IS* contaminated and the switch in sign is *probably* due to accelerating agricultural use. Mann is either deliberately lying or simply incompetent when he suggests that this data can be used during the last 200 years. http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/others/Tiljanderetal.pdf

Ok... if the data is contaminated for the last 200 years but it has no significant impact are we back to the tree ring argument again ?

[TimG]

Ok... if the data is contaminated for the last 200 years but it has no significant impact are we back to the tree ring argument again ?

A completely different issue. In this case the algorithm Mann used requires good data in the last 200 years to calibrate the proxy to actual temperature values. If there is no good data that algorithm cannot be used on that data and the results are spurious. The data must be excluded from the reconstruction. There is no other scientifically acceptable response.

[Michael Hardner]

A completely different issue. In this case the algorithm Mann used requires good data in the last 200 years to calibrate the proxy to actual temperature values. If there is no good data that algorithm cannot be used on that data and the results are spurious. The data must be excluded from the reconstruction. There is no other scientifically acceptable response.

It sounds like the same issue. No good recent data, so all data has to be thrown out ?

[waldo]

Well, CERN has presented information that requires the "consensus" be reviewed.

cite please

Already done.

cite the, 'already done', cite please

Ignore. Deny. Refute. Negate. It doesn't exist in waldo world.

Science, in the same manner as religion, must be stripped of political influence. It isn't supposed to metamorphose into them, waldo - which seems your inclination - replete with messiahs and prophets.

perfect Pliny... so, you're all about the science! Yet, in repeated attempts to have you cite a scientific founded basis for your claim that, as you stated, "CERN has presented information that requires the "consensus" be reviewed"... you refuse to cite a scientific foundation; rather, instead, you bluster away. Ergo => PlinyBluster = PlinyScience

[waldo]

as for the actual early 2011 Arctic event and the paper being referenced - Unprecedented Arctic ozone loss in 2011 ... the real question for ongoing scientific analysis is what caused the 20km high stratosphere level to remain cold for several months longer than usually seen, year to year... as well as implications therein. As lead author Gloria Manney is quoted as saying:

"Day-to-day temperatures in the 2010-11 Arctic winter did not reach lower values than in previous cold Arctic winters," said lead author Gloria Manney of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in Socorro. "The difference from previous winters is that temperatures were low enough to produce ozone-destroying forms of chlorine for a much longer time. This implies that if winter Arctic stratospheric temperatures drop just slightly in the future, for example as a result of climate change, then severe Arctic ozone loss may occur more frequently."

what's that waldo - stratospheric cooling and climate change??? Yes, quite right... a recognized fingerprint of the enhanced greenhouse effect is... a cooling stratosphere! And the effect of a cooling stratosphere on ozone depletion! Oh my... potentials for severe Arctic ozone depletion, as a result of climate change, may occur more frequently! Oh my!

I believe that one poster here said that we had saved ourselves from ozone depletion thanks to our elimination/reduction of aerosol use. Does this mean that our action to save it was irrelevant or at least of nominal effect?

If you were interested in a purely scientific discussion you should have mentioned this at the time, waldo. But you didn't, you allowed us to think that our political policy had resolved the problem. A rather disingenuous omission in your "purely" scientific argument, in my view. Harumph!

Harumph... indeed! Pliny, wasn't the, as you say, "one poster here", wasn't that you playing your stated guessing game - sure it was! See Pliny, in your now, trumped up Harumph, I acknowledged you actually recognized "this one" of your guessing game playlist, was fixed and responded to your stated suspicion by suggesting you, "don't hesitate to provide support for your stated suspicion". You chose not to.

- then there was the ozone hole, that would have irradiated all of life on the planet - we got rid of aerosols to fix that, but I have a suspicion that if we used aerosols again it wouldn't make too much difference [

waldo: so you acknowledge this one... a "fixed one", as you say. Don't hesitate to provide support for your stated "suspicion"

]

in any case, you clearly (still) are mixing the two distinctly different (but related) issues of stratospheric ozone depletion and stratospheric cooling associated with climate change. Yes, most certainly, the Montreal Protocol has been a success in helping to bring a leveling off of chlorine compounds in the atmosphere... to see the beginning of their decline. Equally, per the recognized Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, the relationship between global warming in the troposphere and ozone loss in the stratosphere... clearly identifies that a growing problem related to global warming may be worsening another, preexisting man-made condition; i.e., ozone depletion.

[TimG]

It sounds like the same issue. No good recent data, so all data has to be thrown out ?

No it is not. Do you understand the algorithm that Mann is using? He is regressing proxies to temperatures over the last 100 years and using those results to determine the orientation of the proxy and to convert proxy units to degrees. If there is no good data in the calibration period then the regression cannot be done.

You seem to think that if there is data it must be possible use it. This is false. Sometimes data simply cannot be used.

Edited October 4, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

A completely different issue. In this case the algorithm Mann used requires good data in the last 200 years to calibrate the proxy to actual temperature values. If there is no good data that algorithm cannot be used on that data and the results are spurious. The data must be excluded from the reconstruction. There is no other scientifically acceptable response.

the Mann08/09 methodology and data are public domain... isn't there a never-ending shamway self-styled auditor to the denialsphere in the house? Surely, surely, someone could formally challenge the Mann08/09 reconstruction results given the methodology and data are public domain. Is there a problem? Clearly, a formal challenge would put to end a decades+ long never-ending pursuit... is there a problem? Surely, surely, someone could formally refute the favoured McIntyre labeled "meatgrinder" algorithm... surely, surely, someone could formally refute the calibration stage of the Mann08/09 methodology. Surely, surely, someone could formally refute the validation stage of the Mann08/09 methodology. Surely, surely, someone could formally refute the sensitivity testing stage of the Mann08/09 methodology. Surely, surely... there must be a never-ending shamway dispenser somewhere! Is there a problem?

[Michael Hardner]

No it is not. Do you understand the algorithm that Mann is using? He is regressing proxies to temperatures over the last 100 years and using those results to determine the orientation of the proxy and to convert proxy units to degrees. If there is no good data in the calibration period then the regression cannot be done.

You seem to think that if there is data it must be possible use it. This is false. Sometimes data simply cannot be used.

I have to look at this again, then. I thought they were going further than 100 years back ?

[TimG]

I have to look at this again, then. I thought they were going further than 100 years back ?

They can only go as far back as we have temperature records for the region in question. In the case of the lake sediments in Finland there are only temperature measurements for the 100 years or so (I don't know the exact number - it is less than 200 years which is what matters). Once the calibration is done Mann then uses the proxies to estimate temperatures for the last 1000 years or so. Edited October 4, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

I have to look at this again, then. I thought they were going further than 100 years back?

the proxy that made no difference to the reconstruction, in or out (re: sensitivity test), the proxy that TimG continues to mindlessly ramble on about, that proxy was used in the temperature anomaly reconstruction by applying the 1850-1995 temperature correlations to the proxy varve record spanning between 200-1850 AD. I suspect you're referencing a 200 period as that is perceived to be the period where the proxy suffers degrees of 'contamination' related to mankind's impact on related infrastructure in the vicinity of the proxy.

the real question TimG consistently avoids is what non-climate signal exists to presume to overwhelm the climate signal within the proxy... just how good is the proxy? He keeps ridiculously linking to a 2D graphic image... a simple picture... within the proxy author's paper as a basis for presuming to refute the Mann08/09 results/calibration/validation/sensitivity test. Of course, in TimG bizarro world, a 2D graphic image is certainly more than enough to refute a published account, one inclusive of a scientific basis that supports the published Mann08/09 results. Equally, TimG ignores the very fact the proxy author has never... never... claimed the proxy had no value and could not be used for reconstruction purposes. More pointedly, TimG, in presuming to argue from authority, "magnanimously" declared the proxy author's paper as the "authoritative source"... and in that TimG context:

... Fine: the proxy author, Tiljander,

from your declared authoritative source paper

, summarily states:

However, it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated.

yes...

from your declared authoritative source

:

difficult... but could be estimated

; i.e.; difficult... but not impossible. Again, as stated in Mann08, from the same verbatim statements you refuse to acknowledge, as a caveat reference, Mann speaks to a possible data quality aspect in association with utilizing the proxies (i.e.; difficult/problematic... but not impossible... but could be estimated).

Per your declared authoritative source!

Standard proxy calibration technique involves normalizing a series to an annual resolved variance level... I expect Mann might have extended upon

your declared authority

to estimate calibrations, "averaged over a few years". Of course, as I stated several times earlier to you... the real salient question to arise is whether or not the calibration is on/close across the full range - hence, sensitivity testing... which, again, was done... which, again, resulted in no appreciable difference, whether the proxies were in... or out. No appreciable difference.

[TimG]

the proxy that made no difference to the reconstruction, in or out (re: sensitivity test)

A bogus argument that is a distraction at this point. I will rebut it later.

the period where the proxy suffers degrees of 'contamination' related to mankind's impact on related infrastructure in the vicinity of the proxy.

Containmination that is so large the sign of the temperature correlation changes. You remind me of the CSI shows where the computer whiz zooms in on a few pixels in a image, applies some "magic" and out pops the suspect's picture. In the real world such feats are impossible because there is no true signal in the image. But such facts don't make good drama.

He keeps ridiculously linking to a 2D graphic image... a simple picture...

A simple picture which accurately illustrates the 2D proxy data. You are getting desperate if you think you can claim that the graph does not contain all you need to know in order to reject the lake sediments as proxy for Mann's algorithm. Edited October 4, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

A bogus argument that is a distraction at this point. I will rebut it later.

oh spare me... it's the same point made a brazillion times previously within this thread... has something now so emboldened you that you'll actually address it... now? The only distraction is you - you continue to bluster without substantiation. Where's the formal refute to Mann08/09? Plain and simple... where's the formal refutation to the published Mann08/09 results/methodology? Plain and simple! Stop the TimG distracting insanity!!!

Containmination that is so large the sign of the temperature correlation changes. You remind me of the CSI shows where the computer whiz zooms in on a few pixels in a image, applies some "magic" and out pops the suspect's picture. In the real world such feats are impossible because there is no true signal in the image.

and you're still obtuse clinging to some ridiculous claim that correlations change! There are no mystical TimG temperature correlation changes... a proxy is either positively or negatively correlated.

A simple picture which accurately illustrates the 2D proxy data. You are getting desperate if you think you can claim that the graph does not contain all you need to know in order to reject the lake sediments as proxy for Mann's algorithm.

whaaa! TimG doubles-down on the TV weatherman huckster Anthony Watts school of analysis by picture!!!

as I said, if you had anything, if there was anything, there would be a formal challenge to the Mann08/09 published results... there isn't... in spite of your lovefest for McIntyre. What's he waiting for? Is there a problem? Is there a reason your parroted favorite never-ending shamway distributor just can't quite make it to publish a paper to formally refute the reconstruction? Is there a reason McIntyre has never, ever, published a reconstruction on his own? Is there a problem? I hear Remote Sensing has become a favoured denier publication; of course, there's always E&E... surely there's a formal journal... somewhere! Is there a problem?

Again: these are the prevailing items of note: neither of which you have... or can... provide a formal counter against.

=> the prevailing journal comment:

MannBradleyHughes: Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust

=> the prevailing reconstruction results statement of account:

Update 22 Aug 2010

: Additional significance tests that we have performed indicate that the NH land+ocean Had reconstruction with all tree-ring data and 7 potential "problem" proxies removed (see original Supp Info where this reconstruction is shown) yields a reconstruction that passes RE at just below the 95% level (approximately 94% level) back to AD 1300 and the 90% level back to AD 1100 (they pass CE at similar respective levels). So if one were to set the significant threshold just a bit lower than our rather stringent 95% significant requirement, the reconstruction stands back to AD 1100 with these data withheld. Recent work by Saltzer et al [ Salzer et al, Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 2009] suggests there is little reason to withhold tree-ring data however.

=> alternatively, in the face of failing to provide formal countering position/statement, the prevailing TimG contribution: bluster bus! Notwithstanding,

The Debunking of TimG's Nonsense - The TimG Parroting of McIntyre - Exposed!