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.
“Too bad they chose something physically meaningless as their primary metric.”
If that’s not a facetious comment, it’s wrong.
¡Ay! Mucho acerca de nada. It’s hard not to trip over one of the many loose phalli in here.
Sorry, posted this to the wrong thread – what point was Dr Lean making when she referred to this blog?
Anthropogenic influences dominate, modulated by natural processes?
I don’t think so, Dear Doctor. There is more in the heavens and on Earth than your philosophy speaks of.
I have no issue with the logically unhinged – they are quite amusing really,
But i do object to them when they waste an expensive education, then compound it by continuing to bludge (look it up) on the public purse.
NOTE to all politicians entrusted with fiscal control, CUT the funding now, and let these zealots make it on their own expense as they pursue a monstrous myth (Carbon dioxide induced climate change) first postulated by an American wind bag who got pretty much everything else wrong in ‘his field’ in the late 19th century.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 10, 2013 at 2:44 pm
An active sun reduces ozone and cools the stratosphere.
A quiet sun increases ozone and warms the stratosphere.
Stephen, it is the opposite: an active sun emits 10% more UV than a quiet sun. That increases ozone formation in the lower stratosphere and more ozone absorbs more UV and therefore warms up. The difference in the lower stratosphere is ~1 K between an active and a quiet sun.
That increases the equator – poles gradient, pushing the jet streams more polewards, including the adjacent cloud/rain patterns. That is visible in the waterstreams like the Nile, the Po, the Douro, the Mississippi in the NH and South African rivers for the SH.
“This is the crux of the problem with climatology forecasts.”:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/wpid-wp-1386702236783.jpg
It’s back to front, natural variations at the scale of weather dictate the climatic changes. It takes very long range forecasting at the scale of monthly weather to have any clue where the climate will be going.
“A new Maunder Minimum will NOT cancel global warming or cause another little ice age”:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/wpid-wp-1386702727455.jpg
Rubbish, we have already been getting Maunder Minimum type land temperatures occurring since 2009, and there’s plenty more to come.
No it’s not wrong. There is no global temperature.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
December 11, 2013 at 2:59 am
I know that is the conventional view but observations suggest the opposite.
The solar effect is greater at the poles and above 45km and appears to influence ozone amounts below 45km after a while.
Joanna Haigh acknowledged that there is a reverse sign solar effect in parts of the atmosphere which requires investigation.
============================================================
Perhaps a kangaroo kicked him?
To Mike Jonas:
Replying to your point 1:
The signing of the Montreal protocol banning CFCs in in 1987 was not accompanied by
a long-term demonstrable decline in ozone. The “Antarctic ozone hole” was first noted
in 1956 by British scientist G. Dobson (atmospheric ozone is quoted in “Dobson units”).
He characterized it as “one of the most interesting results … to come out of the IGY
(International Geophysical Year).” It’s related to a cold polar vortex which forms during
the Antarctic winter. In 1985 a sharp, unexpected drop occurred in the ongoing observations
of Antarctic ozone. NASA reanalyzed previous satellite ozone records. Previously,
anomalously low Antarctic ozone levels had been thrown out as unreliable. The new
re-analysis concluded that worldwide ozone levels had gone down by around 5 percent
from just 1979 to 1986.
By itself, this should not have triggered alarm. Unless you’ve worked in geophysical
space science, you cannot conceive of how noisy the data are. A single sunspot
cycle shows larger variation than 5 percent! What triggered alarm is how well this
seemed to fit with results demonstrated on a laboratory bench by two University of
California scientists in 1974. Sherwood & Molina put forth a hypothesis that CFCs
which managed to diffuse into the upper atmospheric might be disassociated into
chlorine gas which would catalyze the destruction of ozone. Essentially, their
hypothesis was that a single chlorine atom could catalyze the removal of many
thousands of ozone excimers from the upper stratosphere. (Notice, though, that
ozone is being continually re-created by solar UV. The presence of chlorine would
result in a new equilibrium, possibly lower, NOT complete destruction of the ozone
layer, as portrayed by the public press.)
Well, this drop from 1979 to 1985 was associated with the Sherwoord-Molina hypothesis
in the public press, whether this was scientifically demonstrated or not. THAT put
the cat among the pigeons. World mean total ozone had INCREASED by 5 & 1/2
percent from 1962 to 1979. Not important to the public press. In vain did serious
scientists point out that you can’t tell a trend from less than one full sunspot cycle.
The environmentalists stampeded world politicians into signing the Montreal protocol.
So okay, maybe it was needed, maybe not. We will probably never know. Two things
to note: (1) All the patents that covered CFCs were held by a handful of companies
and were about to expire. That may have been why the chemical industry was so
quiet about the whole thing–no percentage in it. (2) The environmentalists, pumped
up by their success in stampeding world politicians into the Montreal protocol by
dodgy science, took it as a model for how to influence future policy. I think it’s no
coincidence that the use of dodgy science in climatology, the substitution of PR for
good science, false claims of total certainty that CO2 was responsible for all
temperature changes, etc., took a big upswing after 1987.
AGU 2013 seems like an ideal group to ask about the impact of anthropogenic forcings on global temperatures.
0-20%, 20-40%, 40-60%, 60-80% or 80-100%?
It’s not complicated.
thisisnotgoodtogo says:
December 10, 2013 at 9:51 pm
”
“Too bad they chose something physically meaningless as their primary metric.”
If that’s not a facetious comment, it’s wrong.”
No it’s not wrong. There is no global temperature.
True, but it is called “global averaged”, not “global temp”
Jeff, I agree that it’s been misused, and now even disowned by former proponents of The Cause , but I think it’s going too far to say it’s totally meaningless.
I should have said ” ‘former of it’s proponents’ joined in The Cause.
It’s physically meaningless. Like saying the average human has 1 testicle and one breast. An average of intensive variables gives the false impression that the system moves as one. That couldn’t be further from the truth.
Hockey Schtick says:
So do tell Appell, specifically what did happen when the WUWT slide was displayed? Please include all reactions from yourself and others, and your thoughts in reaction to the factually correct headline on WUWT that Lean displayed.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2013/12/anthony-watts-lying-again.html
I was paying attention to the speaker, not the the reactions of those around me.
Oldseadog says:
David Appell –
On this blog to call someone a liar is bad manners even if backed up with an explanation. Please give your reason for saying this.
Because I didn’t “grunt,” especially insofar as Judith Lean put up her WUWT slide as an example of the kind of _bad science_ that gets tossed around.
I know my own reactions. Watts is a liar. But that’s hardly surprising.
=====================================================================
Said by the paragon of truth.
To the tune of “Stuck in the Middle with You”
Well I don’t know why I caused such a fright,
I had the feeling that something ain’t right,
I made a scare of some emails out there,
And I’m wondering how my rep now will fare,
Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am,
Stuck in Yamal on a yew.
Yes I’m stuck in Yamal on a yew,
The “threats” were against kangaroos,
It’s so hard to keep this egg off my face,
I’ll say, yeah, “Someone invaded their space,”
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in Yamal on a yew.
Normally a presentation alone is not a suitable format to put forward a scientific content.
In a serious conference I would expect that the presentation is support for an oral presentation of an academic paper. I would expect the paper to be published in the proceedings. (In academia, proceedings are the collection of academic papers published in the context of an academic conference.)
I find it peculiar if the presentation is not supported by an academic paper. If not supported by a paper, the presentation is hardly of any use at all.
Or he has bad hearing.
‘methinks the lady doth…’
The fact that Appell uses the emotive word ‘liar’ firstly followed by ‘bad hearing’ is, IMO, clearly a Freudian slip,