More Evidence Against The "hockey Stick"

[Admiral_Bobski]

I'm sorry V.P. I'm not quite following. I'm trying to ask if we know of any other 'long cycle' driver, other than Milankovich, whose impacts appear in our geological record as showing influence.

My past posts are accepting of the impact of a variable (by spacial positioning in our precesional orbit) solar input.

The minor variations (duration ,not necessarily in terms of impacts) in the sun as he cycles through his spot cycles, combination of spot cycles etc. (and the impacts that any reduction in the solar wind has on our magnetosphere's potential to negate the burden of 'background' cosmic radiation') seem to be far less persuasive in their impacts on the planet than the slow, irresistible drive, of our orbital distance/tilt of the planet and the glacial era it has driven since our atmospheric CO2 'balanced' itself out in the range it has occupied over that period (of forced glaciation/interglacial).

I would highly recommend reading the Wiki page on Milankovitch cycles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

There are several problems with the theory, which are outlined quite nicely on that page. One of these is that the 100,000 year cycle should, by all rights, have the weakest impact on Earth of the various overlapping cycles, and yet it appears to have the most well defined effect. The article states that "Some models can however reproduce the 100,000 year cycles as a result of non-linear interactions between small changes in the Earth's orbit and internal oscillations of the climate system."

Small changes in Earth's orbit equate to small changes in insolation; small changes in solar activity equate to small changes in insolation.

Long periods of low insolation correlate with long periods of cold. What about shorter periods of low (or high) insolation? How do they correlate with temperatures? Can we tell from ice cores?

The 100,000 year cycle is well shown in ice cores, but what is the resolution of those data? Can 50- or 100-year periods be identified? How does the current 50- to 100-year period fit into that data record?

These are the kind of details that are relevant to the current period of climate change. Broad brush strokes that eliminate these details are of no help.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm sorry to drag you back to this C-Bob but the one thing we do know is that CO2 levels have been rising, for the past hundred years or so, in a way most un-natural and are now well above what our climate records tell us has been the norm for many 100's of thousands (if not many millions ) of years.

Is it not in our best interests to actually focus on what is happening ,right now and by our own hands, in case it could force a climate disaster?

Is it not in our best interests to discover how our planet has been whilst under such a CO2 burden in the past? Does it serve us at all to deflect our attentions in spending our time rooting around to find other causes for the 'co-incidental'? (or not) changes we have been logging for this past generation?

[MR EXTREMES]

this really is going round in circles i cant see its the highest for millions of years total rubbish.

its high granted but graywolf unless you got a tardis we just dont know the total truthfull answer to that,

i can see this co2 stuff going on and on and on.

thats whay id rather talk about what the solar cycle might do to our climate.

and graywolf i dont see a major panic going on nothing unexpected is going on.

Edited October 21, 2009 by badboy657

[Gray-Wolf]

badboy;

http://www.geolsoc.o...s/page4291.html

http://www.wun.ac.uk...people/psu.html

http://www.trackpads...transition.html

http://www3.intersci...ETRY=1&SRETRY=0

and if you care to 'Google' "Eocene atmospheric reconstructions" you can wade through the rest.

I cannot agree with C-Bobs contention that the record is 'un-representative' or too incomplete for our science to give a reasonable reconstruction of the paleo -environment (to close to the creationist's wanting to see each individual change to accept the main drive of Darwinism for me!)

We have the reasons that the CO2 became so elevated ,we know the temps were 'greenhouse' we know of no 'novel driver' that could account for ,over such a long period of geological time, the temps we see but we do see the CO2.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

We have the reasons that the CO2 became so elevated ,we know the temps were 'greenhouse' we know of no 'novel driver' that could account for ,over such a long period of geological time, the temps we see but we do see the CO2.

• What are the reasons that CO2 became so elevated?
  
• And, with an error of at least 5kyr, you know the temps, were greenhouse because?
  
• Why does such a driver have to be novel?
  
• The sun has been around longer than the Earth - is that long enough to account for geological time?
  

[Admiral_Bobski]

I'm sorry to drag you back to this C-Bob but the one thing we do know is that CO2 levels have been rising, for the past hundred years or so, in a way most un-natural and are now well above what our climate records tell us has been the norm for many 100's of thousands (if not many millions ) of years.

Is it not in our best interests to actually focus on what is happening ,right now and by our own hands, in case it could force a climate disaster?

Is it not in our best interests to discover how our planet has been whilst under such a CO2 burden in the past? Does it serve us at all to deflect our attentions in spending our time rooting around to find other causes for the 'co-incidental'? (or not) changes we have been logging for this past generation?

I shall say this again (for I have said it many, many times before):

At this point I am not interested in CO2 policy or whether or not we should "do something" about CO2 levels. My argument is purely scientific.

Should we reduce our carbon emissions? Yes we should, not least because we're going to run out of fossil fuels eventually and we could really do with a replacement energy source before that time comes. Is that relevant to the science of global warming? Not at all.

So let's forget about the "protecting the future" argument, and let's forget about the "man is destroying the planet" argument and let's instead focus on the matter at hand: is CO2 responsible, in whole or in part, for 20th century warming?

It strikes me that the argument you have just put forward is the one that crops up time and time again when the skeptic argument becomes too strong or too complex to argue against.

We already have threads in which people can argue the politics and the morality of the "fight against climate change" and I do not generally post in those threads because that aspect of the debate bores me. I like to discuss science. If you are unable to do that then maybe you should focus on the political threads.

CB

Edited October 22, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Methuselah]

Making allowances for all the myriad natural climate drivers (IMO, we'll never understand them all) I am always left with one question: what is the cumulative climatological effect of our activities?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Making allowances for all the myriad natural climate drivers (IMO, we'll never understand them all) I am always left with one question: what is the cumulative climatological effect of our activities?

That's a really difficult question to answer. The way I see it is that we will never know unless we gain a far greater understanding of the climate drivers we know about, starting with the natural ones.

To use an algebraic analogy, if x+y=z (where x is natural drivers, y is manmade drivers and z is the effect on climate) and we know the value of z, how do we determine the values of x and y?

Working out x should be an easier task because we have aeons of history to look at for the effects of natural drivers, and only a couple of hundred years, maybe, for manmade drivers. So, if we can quantify x then that will give us y.

CB

Edited October 22, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Gray-Wolf]

I shall say this again (for I have said it many, many times before):

At this point I am not interested in CO2 policy or whether or not we should "do something" about CO2 levels. My argument is purely scientific.

Should we reduce our carbon emissions? Yes we should, not least because we're going to run out of fossil fuels eventually and we could really do with a replacement energy source before that time comes. Is that relevant to the science of global warming? Not at all.

So let's forget about the "protecting the future" argument, and let's forget about the "man is destroying the planet" argument and let's instead focus on the matter at hand: is CO2 responsible, in whole or in part, for 20th century warming?

It strikes me that the argument you have just put forward is the one that crops up time and time again when the skeptic argument becomes too strong or too complex to argue against.

We already have threads in which people can argue the politics and the morality of the "fight against climate change" and I do not generally post in those threads because that aspect of the debate bores me. I like to discuss science. If you are unable to do that then maybe you should focus on the political threads.

CB

A very enlightening answer C-Bob.

When I joined this forum, and first engaged within the climate discussion, I made a plea that we should be as inclusive as possible in our language and efforts so as to empower the majority of folk, who wish to 'know' but are put off when they encounter matters being discussed in a way that excludes them due to difficulties of language or their perceived mathematical competence.

V.P. on wishing to address this opened the L.I. thread.

Now you are seeking to exclude folk from a thread exploring the 'hockey stick' because they are not following what you perceive should be the guidelines.

By doing so what exactly do you seek to achieve? a broader understanding ,by most, of the topic at hand or an intellectual apartheid?

[VillagePlank]

V.P. on wishing to address this opened the L.I. thread.

Unfortunately, there is an old adage that as soon as you use an equation you lose 80% of your audience - particularly when the point is embedded at one side or another of an equals sign - which was my primary motivation for doing the walk-throughs. Maths in action, one might say. As can be seen over the last few pages, I find it very difficult to describe what I mean in natural English, so, the maths has crept back in again.

That'll be a problem with me, and not the reader, of course.

[Admiral_Bobski]

A very enlightening answer C-Bob.

When I joined this forum, and first engaged within the climate discussion, I made a plea that we should be as inclusive as possible in our language and efforts so as to empower the majority of folk, who wish to 'know' but are put off when they encounter matters being discussed in a way that excludes them due to difficulties of language or their perceived mathematical competence.

V.P. on wishing to address this opened the L.I. thread.

Now you are seeking to exclude folk from a thread exploring the 'hockey stick' because they are not following what you perceive should be the guidelines.

By doing so what exactly do you seek to achieve? a broader understanding ,by most, of the topic at hand or an intellectual apartheid?

You remind me of Charles Durning - "I love to dance the sidestep..."

I am not seeking to exclude anybody - I phrase my posts in layman's terms, and if people choose to skip past my posts then that is a matter for them.

I am currently engaged in a discussion with you about CO2's effect, past and present, on temperatures (which surely is acceptable in a discussion about the "hockey stick"?). Saying "it can't hurt to reduce CO2 emissions, because the science might be right" has nothing whatsoever to do with the hockey stick.

I am being inclusive as a discussion like this can be - I am not using mathematical formulae (save for my very basic x+y=z comment in my last post) or esoteric scientific arguments; I am forwarding arguments based solely upon everyday logic, which most anybody should be able to understand.

Meanwhile, you continue to evade my questions.

CB

[Thundery wintry showers]

That's a really difficult question to answer. The way I see it is that we will never know unless we gain a far greater understanding of the climate drivers we know about, starting with the natural ones.

To use an algebraic analogy, if x+y=z (where x is natural drivers, y is manmade drivers and z is the effect on climate) and we know the value of z, how do we determine the values of x and y?

Working out x should be an easier task because we have aeons of history to look at for the effects of natural drivers, and only a couple of hundred years, maybe, for manmade drivers. So, if we can quantify x then that will give us y.

CB

Unfortunately I'm not sure whether working out x would be easier, simply because the natural drivers are more numerous, and more prone to significant changes, and harder to keep track of except on very generalised terms as we look back through geological timescales. I have a feeling that both sides of the puzzle are comparably difficult for different reasons.

That said, I do think current research would be better off focusing on both sides of the equation rather than the mainstream philosophy of working out the anthropogenic contribution first and then determining the natural contribution.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Unfortunately I'm not sure whether working out x would be easier, simply because the natural drivers are more numerous, and more prone to significant changes, and harder to keep track of except on very generalised terms as we look back through geological timescales. I have a feeling that both sides of the puzzle are comparably difficult for different reasons.

That said, I do think current research would be better off focusing on both sides of the equation rather than the mainstream philosophy of working out the anthropogenic contribution first and then determining the natural contribution.

I agree that there are fewer anthropogenic components to assess, but we only have 150 years (or thereabouts) of data to derive the effects from. By comparison we have (with admittedly increasing uncertainty, and fewer datapoints) upwards of a billion years of geological data to work from in determining natural components.

Furthermore, without determining the combined effects of the natural factors, which constitute the "background" climate, the job of determining the additional (anthropogenic) factors becomes rather complicated.

My thoughts are that figuring out the natural factors would be an easier task, though a longer one.

:lol:

CB

[Thundery wintry showers]

What you say may well be right in itself. The issue is whether it would be superior to follow that path, as opposed to looking at both sides of the equation- if it takes longer, then it may take longer to get a larger understanding of the anthropogenic component. After all, if it turns out that the IPCC are close to the mark, we may not have much time...

Where I certainly don't have any arguments is with the notion that focusing primarily or solely on deriving the anthropogenic component is a flawed idea, for like you say, the natural forcings add up to provide the base that any anthropogenic forcing acts on top of, and if we don't understand that well then we're going to struggle regarding feedback processes.

[VillagePlank]

Where I certainly don't have any arguments is with the notion that focusing primarily or solely on deriving the anthropogenic component is a flawed idea, for like you say, the natural forcings add up to provide the base that any anthropogenic forcing acts on top of, and if we don't understand that well then we're going to struggle regarding feedback processes.

Research to both natural and anthropogenic sources are useful because (and using C-Bob's equation) ...

x+y=z,

So, if we find out y, we can find out x: x=z-y. Conversely, if we find x, we can find out y: y=z-x.

Of course, it's not that simple as algebraic manipulation, but the logical premise is sound. And the corrolary is that if we claim to know either y, or x, then, necessarily we must know what the other is. If that is not true, then the premise for either y, or x, is unsound.

In laymens terms, if we know the AGW component (y), we must know the sum of the forcing for the natural component (x), such that together they add up to observation (z) and vice-versa.

Does this hold true?

Edited October 22, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Admiral_Bobski]

I don't think it actually matters. Research to both natural and anthropogenic sources are useful because (and using C-Bob's equation) ...

x+y=z,

So, if we find out y, we can find out x: x=z-y. Conversely, if we find x, we can find out y: y=z-x.

Of course, it's not that simple as algebraic manipulation, but the logical premise is sound. And the corrolary is that if we claim to know either y, or x, then, necessarily we must know what the other is. If that is not true, then the premise for either y, or x, is unsound.

In laymens terms, if we know the AGW component (y), we must know the sum of the forcing for the natural component (x), such that together they add up to observation (z) and vice-versa.

Does this hold true?

That's certainly true both mathematically and logically, insofar as the case is presented. In reality the situation is slightly more complicated though (or, at least, that's the way I see it). The reasoning I have for focusing more on x (natural) to determine y (manmade) is that to determine y we need to be able to either extract that information from the background of x, or else to derive it from first principles. Neither of these seem to be particularly easy.

On the flip side, determining x should be a simpler task because we should be able to extract that information from the aeons of data (incomplete though it is) that we have, without having to derive it from first principles. Extracting that information would be easier for x because there is no y component to have to filter out.

The ideal solution, of course, would be to derive all off the information from first principles and then test it out to see if it works - the good ol' Scientific Method.

While this research was underway I would still recommend cutting back on carbon emissions (for sustainability reasons, as I have said before) and generally cleaning up our act. Using the science as an excuse to rush headlong into "solutions" is an abuse of the science at its current level; a steady, economically viable push towards sustainability is, in my opinion, the only sensible way to proceed.

CB

Edited October 22, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

This is what I think the warmists will say

x+yp=z

x = natural causes

y = CO2

p = unknown effect of CO2 (p for precautionary principle, of course)

Since we're on equations here's my one for Climate Model predictions (can't guarantee the equation actually makes sense)

1 - x(nt)

1 = probability of correct climate temperature prediction in 100 years (starts at 100%)

x = errors in input data

n = model imperfections (feedbacks, unaccounted for cooling/warming processes)

t = number of years ahead projection is made

[Gray-Wolf]

There is no way that the sum total of mans impacts, since the begining of his 'influence' on the planet began, is viewed in terms of CO2 alone A.F.! Your 'y' has to include mans many impacts upon the globe and their interaction with the climate system surely?

In the simplistic form of x+y=z you change y (which before man was 0) and you change z. Are we noticing a change in 'z'?

Though I'm sure it would be delightful to better explain the 'x' and the 'y' values (as is being tried on the LI) the sum remains the same.

Change either x or y and you alter z.

We know that y is in a state of rapid alteration and so z must also be in a state of readjustment from the figure it was prior to man's intervention.

If we were to plot this on a graph I'd imagine a long period of no change and then ,recently as man has impacted, the graph will change.

What common object might we liken this shape to?

Edited October 22, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

What you say may well be right in itself. The issue is whether it would be superior to follow that path, as opposed to looking at both sides of the equation- if it takes longer, then it may take longer to get a larger understanding of the anthropogenic component. After all, if it turns out that the IPCC are close to the mark, we may not have much time...

Where I certainly don't have any arguments is with the notion that focusing primarily or solely on deriving the anthropogenic component is a flawed idea, for like you say, the natural forcings add up to provide the base that any anthropogenic forcing acts on top of, and if we don't understand that well then we're going to struggle regarding feedback processes.

This is exactly what I have been saying for a long time - hence my 'cart before the horse' analogy

That's certainly true both mathematically and logically, insofar as the case is presented. In reality the situation is slightly more complicated though (or, at least, that's the way I see it). The reasoning I have for focusing more on x (natural) to determine y (manmade) is that to determine y we need to be able to either extract that information from the background of x, or else to derive it from first principles. Neither of these seem to be particularly easy.

On the flip side, determining x should be a simpler task because we should be able to extract that information from the aeons of data (incomplete though it is) that we have, without having to derive it from first principles. Extracting that information would be easier for x because there is no y component to have to filter out.

The ideal solution, of course, would be to derive all off the information from first principles and then test it out to see if it works - the good ol' Scientific Method.

While this research was underway I would still recommend cutting back on carbon emissions (for sustainability reasons, as I have said before) and generally cleaning up our act. Using the science as an excuse to rush headlong into "solutions" is an abuse of the science at its current level; a steady, economically viable push towards sustainability is, in my opinion, the only sensible way to proceed.

CB

I agree entirely with your thinking and approach. It is frustrating waiting and wishing it was adopted!

Edited October 22, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Thundery wintry showers]

While this research was underway I would still recommend cutting back on carbon emissions (for sustainability reasons, as I have said before) and generally cleaning up our act. Using the science as an excuse to rush headlong into "solutions" is an abuse of the science at its current level; a steady, economically viable push towards sustainability is, in my opinion, the only sensible way to proceed.

CB

I've no arguments there either...

[Gray-Wolf]

and of the 'lumping together' ,of all the varied 'natural forcings' that we have been prey to over the past 5 or 6 glacial periods, and they being viewed as a 'constant' 'x', and mans impacts (since he first started burning reeds to produce fresh pasture and hence 'killing fields' for wild game) as being 'y' and then all then equalling 'z'?

For the 5 previous, and the majority of the 6th glacial periods mans 'y' has been 0 has it not?

What of 'z' now man is impacting the planet and his 'y' is changing in value?

How do folk feel about the changing 'y' value having to change the 'z' value?

Is this not the topic we struggle with? do we not expect a graph , over time, to show a startling move away from the constant value of the past 6 glaciations over recent times?

Will it not resemble a 'hockey stick'?

Surely unless someone can bring foreword a 'novel driver' that has not been present in either it's influence or configuration with other drivers, over that time span then the only 'novel ' driver at play is man's 'y' value???

It is surely quite swell to know one's own planet and the forcings that react and interact upon it's climate system but if they have always 'been' present (in the system) why is it wrong to note that man's intervention will impart change therein?

Edited October 22, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

....

It is surely quite swell to know one's own planet and the forcings that react and interact upon it's climate system but if they have always 'been' present (in the system) why is it wrong to note that man's intervention will impart change therein?

The short answer is because you are leaping to the conclusion that man's effect on climate is large.

...and you're still avoiding my and VP's questions...

CB

[Devonian]

The short answer is because you are leaping to the conclusion that man's effect on climate is large.

...and you're still avoiding my and VP's questions...

CB

I'm not sure it's GW doing the leaping tbh - but that's why we debate

Myself, I hope you and VP publish your ideas but I'm afraid I (as I've said) don't agree with them.

My view is we know there is a GH effect, that it's about 33C and that we know that because we ('science', scientists) understand greenhouse gasses and their effects. So, the premis of all this, that somehow CO2 might not be the GH gas it is, is rather dubious.

[Gray-Wolf]

The short answer is because you are leaping to the conclusion that man's effect on climate is large.

...and you're still avoiding my and VP's questions...

CB

Conclusions that mans effect on the climate is large? you advise that we should reduce consumption (with no guidance as to how) yet do not wish to engage in the fact that ,as we speak, man continues to amass his impacts on climate. Shall I procrastinate some more until you need concede that man's impacts on climate are a worry or can you possibly project and save us the time and planet?

How about expanding that to mans impact on the planet?

and whilst we are at it what about my questions regarding x+y=z?

as to V.P.'s questions where they not rhetorical?

[Admiral_Bobski]

I'm not sure it's GW doing the leaping tbh - but that's why we debate

Myself, I hope you and VP publish your ideas but I'm afraid I (as I've said) don't agree with them.

My view is we know there is a GH effect, that it's about 33C and that we know that because we ('science', scientists) understand greenhouse gasses and their effects. So, the premis of all this, that somehow CO2 might not be the GH gas it is, is rather dubious.

Would you still disagree with our ideas if they were peer-reviewed and not found wanting?

CB