In The News

[knocker]

<br /><br /><br />

Of course, water vapor measurements from radiosondes are notoriously unreliable, but one would think that if there was a spurious drying from a humidity sensor problem that it would show up at all altitudes, not just in the free troposphere. The fact that it switches sign right where the turbulent boundary layer pushes up against the free troposphere (around 850 mb, or 5,000 ft.) seems like too much of a coincidence.

I wonder whether you could clarify this for me. Do you have a genuine reference for the statement that "water vapor measurements from radiosondes are notoriously unreliable" and the follow up regarding spurious drying? Without claiming the humidty sensor to be 100% accurate I would need some pretty impressive evidence to confirm "notoriously unreliable".

The last part I'm afraid I don't understand at all. What do you mean by switches sign right at the top of the boundary layer?

Personally I think the Vaisala radiosonde is a pretty impressive piece of kit and in recent years has become the internationally accepted sonde.

Edited September 28, 2010 by weather ship

[jethro]

One is reminded of C.S.Lewis. Denialists are masters of what he termed 'bulverism', a method of argument that avoids the need to prove that someone is wrong by first assuming their claim is wrong and then explaining why the person could hold such a fallacious view.

Bulverism, I love it!

At long last a term which isn't denier or pro of AGW but can be applied equally to both sides.

[Yorkshiresnows]

I wonder whether you could clarify this for me. Do you have a genuine reference for the statement that "water vapor measurements from radiosondes are notoriously unreliable" and the follow up regarding spurious drying? Without claiming the humidty sensor to be 100% accurate I would need some pretty impressive evidence to confirm "notoriously unreliable".

The last part I'm afraid I don't understand at all. What do you mean by switches sign right at the top of the boundary layer?

Personally I think the Vaisala radiosonde is a pretty impressive piece of kit and in recent years has become the internationally accepted sonde.

Hi There,

My apologies, but I think some of the problems have been in some issues with the way in which I made that last post. I am having issues with posting and what happens to text and graphs when posted together.

None of the graphs posted, so a lot of the text does not quite sit right.

I provided a link to Roy Spencers blog in which I cut the last part of my post.

Here is the link again: http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Cheers

Y.S

[knocker]

Hi Yorkshiresnows

In that case I'm still none the wiser. Let's settle for the fact that I don't agree that it's true or even makes sense. The humidity sensors on the Vaisala sonde are pretty good and I must avoid becoming a Bulverite.

[weather eater]

Hi Yorkshiresnows

In that case I'm still none the wiser. Let's settle for the fact that I don't agree that it's true or even makes sense. The humidity sensors on the Vaisala sonde are pretty good and I must avoid becoming a Bulverite.

Bulverite what a good word, could it be some sort of Bulgarian marmite.

[Guest mycroft]

Oh dear this will ruffle a few feathers me thinks, No 32,A worthy nomination though.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/09/global-influence-world-2

[jethro]

Bulverite what a good word, could it be some sort of Bulgarian marmite.

Marmite :)

[weather eater]

Oh dear this will ruffle a few feathers me thinks, No 32,A worthy nomination though.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/09/global-influence-world-2

More worrying is the fact Sarah Palin is at no 13, Rupert Murdoch is no 1 and look who is no 3 Mahmoud Ahmedinijad, my word we have come a long way as a species. while I may not agree with Stephen McIntyre, he's got more brains than those three combined.

Marmite :bad:

Me to, tis vile indeed

[sunny starry skies]

Claims about net feedbacks being much lower than IPCC projections, Y.S., still fail woefully to account for palaeoclimate, quite apart from being materially observed, in contrary to what you posted. Remind me how you get glacial-interglacial cycles without positive feedbacks, and remind me again why those same feedback mechanisms should not operate today (and why clouds should have even a chance to reduce the CO2 doubling effect to <=1C as you suggest. While you're there, you should take in the fact that the tropospheric hotspot merely indicates a warming world, not what causes the warming. Fingerprints, which clouds don't explain are the stratospheric cooling, extra nighttime warming etc. Your continued reliance on Spencer and Taylor is, as ever, illuminating, as are the accusations such as 'the climate system is assumed to be hypersensitive' - it's not 'assumed', as the feedbacks are a natual product of the physics, and match well with observations of increased water vapour, reduced albedo etc. If it didn't we couldn't have had ice ages!

[knocker]

More worrying is the fact Sarah Palin is at no 13, Rupert Murdoch is no 1 and look who is no 3 Mahmoud Ahmedinijad, my word we have come a long way as a species. while I may not agree with Stephen McIntyre, he's got more brains than those three combined.

Brains can of course be very dangerous if they choose to saunter down the wrong path. Edward Teller and Lowell Wood (Dr Evil) spring to mind. It is occasionally interesting to pop back 60 years or so and see how exceptionally brainy people considered the best approach to global problems.

In 1954 the eminent geoscientist Harrison Brown wrote a book, in which he proposed solving world hungerby increasing the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere to stimulate plant growth.Brown suggested the construction of 'huge carbon-dioxide generators pouring gas into the atmosphere', and calculated that doubling the amount in the atmosphere would require the burning of at least 500 billion tonnes of coal. Brown's book was endorsed by Albert Einstein.

Just as well that wasn’t implemented or we may have been sitting in the UK with the central heating going full blast.

Curiously, it was one of Brown's students, Charles David Keeling, who a decade later, from his measuring station on Mauna Loa in Hawaii, first alerted the world to the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and its implications for the warming of the world.

Edited September 29, 2010 by weather ship

[Essan]

Einstein doesn't have a very good track record with these things. He also endorsed Hapgood's theory of Earth Crust Displacement - though to be fair Einstein was no more a geologist than he was a brain surgeon and Plate Tectonics theory was in its infancy at the time.

[Methuselah]

One is reminded of C.S.Lewis. Denialists are masters of what he termed 'bulverism', a method of argument that avoids the need to prove that someone is wrong by first assuming their claim is wrong and then explaining why the person could hold such a fallacious view.

I like that, WS. And I agree with jethro: there are 'bulverists' at both extremes!

More worrying is the fact Sarah Palin is at no 13, Rupert Murdoch is no 1 and look who is no 3 Mahmoud Ahmedinijad, my word we have come a long way as a species. while I may not agree with Stephen McIntyre, he's got more brains than those three combined.

So has my pet mouse. And he's been dead for 42 years!

[Gray-Wolf]

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/a_troubling_decline_in_the_caribou_herds_of_the_arctic_/2321/

Yet more troubling news from the north.

Once again we hear no 'folk lore' from the indigenous folks of this being a cyclical event that their ancestors met and dealt with over the hundreds of generations that comprise their 'knowledge base' which enables them to thrive in such a harsh environment.?

[VillagePlank]

Once again we hear no 'folk lore' from the indigenous folks of this being a cyclical event that their ancestors met and dealt with over the hundreds of generations that comprise their 'knowledge base' which enables them to thrive in such a harsh environment.?

Yeah man, but we do know of a great flood that caused the near mass exinction of the planet ....

[Gray-Wolf]

Yeah man, but we do know of a great flood that caused the near mass extinction of the planet ....

Indeed! but we need be careful as to whether the ''folk memory' reflects the loss of lands at the end of the last glaciation (Like the lands in the North/Irish sea) or the later event of the Black sea flood which would have happened much faster (water coming in like a Morecambe bay tide i.e. at walking pace?).

Being a race who followed the coastlines, as we spread around the globe from our 'African home', many 'settled' communities would have lost their homes and been forced inland by an encroaching sea level . The breach of the Bosporus would have been a much more 'dramatic' event as the folklore from the surrounding lands (including the Judeo-christian 'filched version') attest to?

Edited September 29, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Yorkshiresnows]

<br />Claims about net feedbacks being much lower than IPCC projections, Y.S., still fail woefully to account for palaeoclimate, quite apart from being materially observed, in contrary to what you posted.  Remind me how you get glacial-interglacial cycles without positive feedbacks, and remind me again why those same feedback mechanisms should not operate today (and why clouds should have even a chance to reduce the CO2 doubling effect to <=1C as you suggest.  While you're there, you should take in the fact that the tropospheric hotspot merely indicates a warming world, not what causes the warming.  Fingerprints, which clouds don't explain are the stratospheric cooling, extra nighttime warming etc.  Your continued reliance on Spencer and Taylor is, as ever, illuminating, as are the accusations such as 'the climate system is assumed to be hypersensitive' - it's not 'assumed', as the feedbacks are a natual product of the physics, and match well with observations of increased water vapour, reduced albedo etc.  If it didn't we couldn't have had ice ages!<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I'm tired of arguing with you. I really think you are talking nonsence.

If my thoughts / beliefs are correct then the next few years should show a cooling or a continuing plateau of global temps and the work of Dr Spencer shown to be correct. If not and we continue to warm, ..... well then I'm wrong.

Can't say fairer that that.

Also, I've read up on a lot more than just the works of Spencer and Taylor, but I refuse to keep 'going round the houses' with you.

Y.S

[knocker]

Bulverism and now Possibilianism. When I was out this morning I picked up the New Scientist and on browsing through it came across an article, Why I am a ‘Possibilian’, by David Eagleman. A small extract.

Possibilianism emphasises the active exploration of new, unconsidered notions. A possibilian is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind and is not driven by the idea of fighting for a single, particular story. The key emphasis of possibilianism is to shine a flashlight around the possibility space. It is a plea not simply for open-mindedness, but for an active exploration of new ideas.

Is possibilianism compatible with a scientific career? Indeed, it represents the heart of science. Real science operates by holding limitless possibilities in mind and working to see which one is most supported by the data.

Streuth, that's a tad radical.

The article ends with a quote from Voltaire. “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.â€

Edited September 29, 2010 by weather ship

[Gray-Wolf]

The article ends with a quote from Voltaire. “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.â€

I kinda like that. We are all 'possiblians' on here though surely? We none of us know the way our future (the planet) will pan out but I'm sure we have a good notion of the direction for the next 1,000yrs or so?

Edited September 29, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

I kinda like that. We are all 'possiblians' on here though surely?

Nice to see a touch of whimsy creeping in GW.:o

[PersianPaladin]

The Real ClimateGate, Part 1: Getting over the non-existent 'climate email' fiasco

Over the last few weeks, in the run-up to the official UK release of my new book A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilization on 4^th October, I’ve been inundated with angry and often exasperated claims that one of the key crises I address in the book – human-induced climate change – is merely a myth, lacks serious scientific evidence, and/or is the sinister result of deliberate ‘scare-mongering.’

My experience is that public opinion is now seriously confused about the science of climate change, and that increasingly people either feel they fall into an agnostic camp, or categorize themselves as wholesale ‘sceptics’. Recent polls of American public opinion in August found that as much as 45 per cent of people believe that global warming “is caused by long-term planetary trendsâ€, while only 40 per cent are convinced that “human activity is the main contributor.†In the UK, the number of people who believe climate change is “definitely†a reality dropped by a massive 30 per cent over the preceding year, from 44 to 31 per cent.

http://nafeez.blogsp...tting-over.html

Edited September 29, 2010 by PersianPaladin

[sunny starry skies]

Bulverism and now Possibilianism. When I was out this morning I picked up the New Scientist and on browsing through it came across an article, Why I am a ‘Possibilian’, by David Eagleman. A small extract.

Possibilianism emphasises the active exploration of new, unconsidered notions. A possibilian is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind and is not driven by the idea of fighting for a single, particular story. The key emphasis of possibilianism is to shine a flashlight around the possibility space. It is a plea not simply for open-mindedness, but for an active exploration of new ideas.

Is possibilianism compatible with a scientific career? Indeed, it represents the heart of science. Real science operates by holding limitless possibilities in mind and working to see which one is most supported by the data.

Streuth, that's a tad radical.

The article ends with a quote from Voltaire. “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.â€

Intriguing, slightly mind-bending stuff! I agree with you that such notions lie at the heart of science, but I would follow it up with the notion that every brand new idea you come up with has to be tested against the known reality or the known physics, and if it fails that test, then the idea should be discarded.

For example, what if someone comes up with the idea that the Moon is made of cheese [hey, it's an idea, right... it's 'possible'!]? Sounds absurd, but it's little more absurd than many of the self-contradictory ideas floating around some climate skeptics' heads. Obviously, the man in the street cannot test that idea, in that unless you have a dog called Gromit, you're not likely to be taking a trip to the Moon anytime soon. But scientific knowledge of the Moon's properties, including its density, spectral properties, and the samples retrieved by astronauts tell us unequivocally that the Moon is in fact a ball of rock, not of cheese. People are willing to trust the science on this matter, even if they can't test it themselves.

A similar argument can be forged around observations of global climate and the plausible dominant forcing factors - internal oscillations, solar variability or other non-anthropogenic factors come up against some very serious observational problems - they do not fit the data, be it the observed radiative properties of Earth or the scale of the forcings they can plausibly exert. Yet people continue to support these notions, sometimes with considerable passion, often claiming that they cannot be dismissed because they are 'possible'. Yes, they might have been 'possible' at one point, but once they have been tested, surely they must be excluded from the realms of 'possible'?

{in case anyone thinks otherwise, I am not arguing for solar/internal oscillations having no effect at all, just that they cannot be the dominant forcing factor in operation in recent times}

[Devonian]

Intriguing, slightly mind-bending stuff! I agree with you that such notions lie at the heart of science, but I would follow it up with the notion that every brand new idea you come up with has to be tested against the known reality or the known physics, and if it fails that test, then the idea should be discarded.

For example, what if someone comes up with the idea that the Moon is made of cheese [hey, it's an idea, right... it's 'possible'!]? Sounds absurd, but it's little more absurd than many of the self-contradictory ideas floating around some climate skeptics' heads. Obviously, the man in the street cannot test that idea, in that unless you have a dog called Gromit, you're not likely to be taking a trip to the Moon anytime soon. But scientific knowledge of the Moon's properties, including its density, spectral properties, and the samples retrieved by astronauts tell us unequivocally that the Moon is in fact a ball of rock, not of cheese. People are willing to trust the science on this matter, even if they can't test it themselves.

A similar argument can be forged around observations of global climate and the plausible dominant forcing factors - internal oscillations, solar variability or other non-anthropogenic factors come up against some very serious observational problems - they do not fit the data, be it the observed radiative properties of Earth or the scale of the forcings they can plausibly exert. Yet people continue to support these notions, sometimes with considerable passion, often claiming that they cannot be dismissed because they are 'possible'. Yes, they might have been 'possible' at one point, but once they have been tested, surely they must be excluded from the realms of 'possible'?

{in case anyone thinks otherwise, I am not arguing for solar/internal oscillations having no effect at all, just that they cannot be the dominant forcing factor in operation in recent times}

There are odder ideas about out there, like for example the idea that aircraft exhaust plumes materially effect weather station temperature records, that some people wont exclude. There are other people out there far worse. so in some ways we're lucky.

I dunno why it is like this. But like it it most certainly is . I think, essentially, the meme has been spread that science like you quote can't be trusted. We should ask why such memes are spread and why they find some fertile soil in which to grow. It's a communication problem, but good people have been trying for ages to communicate. I guess we've just got to keep trying?

[jethro]

There are odder ideas about out there, like for example the idea that aircraft exhaust plumes materially effect weather station temperature records, that some people wont exclude. There are other people out there far worse. so in some ways we're lucky.

I dunno why it is like this. But like it it most certainly is . I think, essentially, the meme has been spread that science like you quote can't be trusted. We should ask why such memes are spread and why they find some fertile soil in which to grow. It's a communication problem, but good people have been trying for ages to communicate. I guess we've just got to keep trying?

Wouldn't it be better to not link to sites like that? Every time the info is passed on it is publicity and promotion; why feed it?

[knocker]

Intriguing, slightly mind-bending stuff! I agree with you that such notions lie at the heart of science, but I would follow it up with the notion that every brand new idea you come up with has to be tested against the known reality or the known physics, and if it fails that test, then the idea should be discarded.

I agree with your comments but just to add this can sometimes work in reverse. Freak huge waves are a case in point.

For many years seamen used to report encountering huge waves, anywhere between 80-120 feet in height. They were never believed because waves of this height were thought impossible because they didn’t fit the wave physics at the time. Oceanographers and meteorologists had long used a mathematical system called the linear model to predict wave height.

But eventually so many ships had disappeared for no obvious reason or reports of freak waves were supported by evidence that couldn’t be ignored, there was clearly another effect investigators needed to find.

Except someone already had: it existed (on paper at least) in the world of quantum physics. Al Osborne was a wave mathematician with 30 years experience devising equations to describe open ocean wave patterns. Quantum physics has at its heart a concept called the Schrodinger Equation, a way of expressing the probability of something happening that is far more complex than the simple linear model. Osborne’s theory was based on the notion that in certain unstable conditions, waves can steal energy from their neighbours. Adjacent waves shrink while the one at the focus can grow to an enormous size. His modified Schrodinger Equation had been rejected in the past as implausible, but with research attention centered on analyzing these rogue waves - including global satellite radar surveillance by the new European Remote Sensing Satellite - data began to emerge backing his case. When he came across the New Year's Day 1985 wave profiles from the Draupner oil rig, he saw his mathematical model played out in the real world.

Al's Osborne’s work - if correct - suggests that there are two kinds of waves out on the high seas; the classical undulating type described by the linear model and an unstable non-linear monster - a wave that at any time can start sucking up energy from waves around it to become a towering freak.

The moral I suppose is don’t ignore reality just because it doesn’t fit the science.

Edited September 30, 2010 by weather ship

[Guest mycroft]

Oops more ruffled feathers,

http://royalsociety.org/Royal-Society-launches-new-climate-change-guide/