Live blogging . Will add slides and commentary as it proceeds.
Well attended maybe 400 ppl here.
This is the crux of the problem with climatology forecasts.
Nice to see a familiar face used. Heard David Appell and Richard Somerville who were sitting near me both grunt when WUWT was displayed.
Jeez – “Death by Powerpoint for Dummies” V1.0!
This presentation is looking good and appears to be taking in all sides of the discussion – so far, so good.
On a more serious note, will you post all slides and notes or a link to same? They should be readily available from the author as a complete PPT/PPTX file, if she is open to the scientific method.
The very bottom of the “Earth’s Energy Budget” tells why this is all BS. You cannot add F to F and get a higher F. Does not work. Cannot add K to K either. Cannot add w/m^2 either as heat will only go from higher to lower, spontaneously.
“Climate change is … (a) political issue: Surface temperature is its primary metric“
Oh my. Judy is going to catch some $#!^ for that. Party line is now that the primary metric is ocean heat, as measured by vigorous handwaving and as expressed in Hiroshimas. Surface temperature? Denier!!!!
She is one of the few in this ‘field’ that have actually demonstrated possession of sufficient gonads to lay out a specific observed surface temp criterion by which she will call BS on her own position if it is not reached. She is about out of time on that one. Will be interesting to see what she does.
What does.. “59 degrees F equals 59 degrees F , [check mark] … just right” mean?
Could make a foolish snarky comment but this seems a serious attempt to make a decent presentation for high schoolers but I don’t understand how one makes the simple addition. It looks kind of silly but I’ll wait for and explanation as to how the good Dr. spoke to this simplification. Nice slides though but without the context it would be easy to make gratuitous comments that are way off the mark. At least various issues are listed. That is a good start. Many conclusions are possible so looking forward to a summary.
(sigh!)
The AGU crowd considers “warming” to be settled science agreed to by 97% of scientists, SO WHY DO THEY NEED A CONFERENCE TO REHASH TIRED, OLD, DEMONSTRABLY UNTRUE STUFF? I’m guessing it’s to inoculate new/wanna-be scientists against the truth (especially the data).
I assume these presentations will soon be decorating various virtual and physical trash cans.
Complex, multivariable systems wherein relationships between variables aren’t well established become playgrounds for speculation. Add to that speculation statistical uncertainty.
“Less than 15% natural / greater than 80% human” placed in a “Statistical components” bag is a bit of a tell. Looks like a swag to me.
Wall of text powerpoint presentation ,absolute amateur hour.
I like Bugs Man comment on “Death by PowerPoint.” My thought, as a retired instructor well versed in PowerPoint was “overly busy slides.” Lots of pretty pictures and colors, though. ZZZZZZZ!
Sorry I missed it, which chart shows the measured changes in our(earths) atmosphere?
I assume any powerpoint on this topic, would show actual measured changes since we started measuring, date we started to accumulate accurate data and assumptions made to define the “normal” past atmospheric conditions from which current deviations are measured.
w/m2 is not a measure of temperature but of energy. Energy does not stop flowing from a body just because it is adjacent to a warmer body. There will, though, be a net flow of an energy from the warmer body to the cooler one.
I am really curious what she had to say about stratospheric cooling, or the lack thereof, lo these twenty years.
The last slide claims “Anthropogenic components…>80%….” in red type. How do they know that? I say no one knows that, it is unknowable. My BS detector pegged.
The conclusion: “Anthropogenic influences dominate over many decades.”
True insofar as we are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, there will be a physical heating forcing due to that (plus landuse factors, of course). POSSIBLY correct in that the natural factors of negative feedback and variability, including solar or cloud creation features, MAY be less than the A-CO2 intrinsic effect. But actually unknown, and some evidence says that the natural factors may well have 2X the CO2 effect. Either way.
In this time of scientific certainty, we don’t know what time will bring us naturally, nor what the power of that will be. So while we can model an outcome based on rising A-CO2, we cannot yet predict what will actually happen even if we wanted to. That is why we deal with “uncertainty” and not “risk” in any true scientific discourse – much to the frustration of the eco-green who want the end nailed down, even if it is nailed down within limits.
Solar activity over longer periods have a grater degree of change than one or two “pronounced 11 year solar cycles”, If we have 70-80 years of weak 11 year solar cycles and decreased emissions of UV and X-rays etc… and if we have 70-80 years of strong 11 year solar cycles and increased emissions of UV and X-rays, then the sum of the solar forcing between the two periods will be 70-80% greater than the total forcing between solar maximum and minimum of one 11 year solar cycle.
And still nothing about one of the the largest natural factors of climate change, variability and change in planetary orbits.
Judith Lean is not one of the types that tried to do away with the Medieval Warm Period, she isn’t someone who tries to twist the science to meet political ends, she is a straight shooter. That doesn’t mean she is right — how certain can we be that the next Maunder Minimum type minimun is 2400 years away? — but she deserves respect for playing things straight, in a way that many of the warmists do not.
John Finn says:
December 10, 2013 at 11:27 am
John please note the words “heat” and “spontaneously”. And I never said w/m^2 was a measure of temperature again note the word “either”.
John says:
December 10, 2013 at 12:08 pm
“she deserves respect for playing things straight, in a way that many of the warmists do not.”
Agree. I will quibble with the use of short periodicity solar cycles juxtaposed to multi-decade trends in CO2 / surface temps in her slides. She really didn’t take up long range cycles in her slides (unless I missed it) which might leave one to think that solar cycles are only short and therefore not relevant to longer term trends.
But at least she is willing to talk about it and plays it straight.
Well, it got her a trip to AGU and something to add to the vita.
Beyond showing up, it’s not exactly Feynman science or even the concept of science in practice.
From the “Earth’s Energy Budget” slide: 20% of the sun’s energy reflected into space, by clouds. No mention in any other slide that this amount could change over time, and impact the climate,.
What caused climate changes in the past that were not anthropogenic? Is she telling us that there have not been changes, or that they were caused by things other than the natural components that are now 80% of the driving force is increasing?
Her level of certainty, is not matched by the completeness of the data “in hand”.
Will a new Maunder Minimum cancel global warming….No! Just look at these graphs…
Did anyone else notice the slide on “is melting Arctic Ice Causing Anomalously Cool Northern Hemisphere Winters?”
HA ha ha ha ha!
I guess I can’t use “greater than” “less than” characters.
Above should read:
What caused climate changes in the past, that were not anthropogenic? Is she telling us that there have not been changes in the past, or that they were caused by the natural components that are now “less than” 15%? Why have the surface temps stopped rising, when the ‘greater than” 80% driving force is increasing?