The AAPT meeting last week had Benjamin Santer (climate scientist who has testified in Congress) as a plenary speaker. He had (at least) two interesting points.
1. There is a unique ‘fingerprint’ to the current climate change that points to humans: the lower atmosphere is warming while the upper atmosphere is cooling. If warming were due to other influences (sun activity for example) both lower and upper atmosphere would be warming. The fact that climate models accurately predict this upper cooling with lower warming indicate they are correctly modeling what is happening and that it is caused by added greenhouse gasses from human activity.
2. The apparent recent slowdown in warming is possibly due to increased low level volcanic activity resulting in more sulfate aerosols. Big volcanoes (eg. Penatubo) make obvious changes (cooling) and are included in climate models but until recently lesser volcanoes were not accurately accounted for. Including them indicates that the model predictions may actually be too conservative (they were only slightly higher than what actually happened during the “hiatus” but should have been even higher).
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
phys-l-request@www.phys-l.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
phys-l-owner@www.phys-l.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Phys-l digest..."
Wow, that seems like the poster child for what *not* to do.
There is an accumulation of evidence that such an attack is
likely to backfire, producing negative progress ... not to
mention all the collateral damage to basic civil and scientific
institutions.
Most evidence suggests that the best approach is to first
establish trust. This takes time. Typically it starts
with discussing something else, something non-controversial
and non-confrontational.
This is why I suggest starting with tack-tossing and similar
simple data-driven exercises. This gives people a chance
to become proficient at looking at noisy data. Among other
things, they learn that it pays to look at the data in many
different ways. They can bring their creativity to bear.
It took me a while to understand what is being shown there.
It is not your usual map. It is more like a spacetime diagram,
only upside down, with time running vertically downwards. Just
west of 120?E there are some structures that pop up, sit there
for a while, and then disappear. They appear as vertical streaks
on the diagram. Meanwhile, in the eastern half of the ocean
there are structures that pop up, move eastward, and then
disappear. They appear as streaks running in the \ direction.
There is nothing uniquely wonderful about this representation.
The real point here is that the Japan Meteorological Agency guys
have tons of data ... and many, many ways of looking at it. If
you look at the data in only one way -- or worse, if you let some
corrupt politician pick one drop out of the ocean and show it
to you -- then you might get fooled. OTOH if you look at all
of the data, and look at it lots of different ways, it becomes
much harder to get fooled.
Back on 06/08/2015 10:01 PM, I wrote:
the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15
years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half
of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of
a ?slowdown? in the increase of global surface temperature.
And that was based on data collected long before the current
El Ni?o set in.
Memo from the unsurprising news department: Last month was
the warmest December on record, by huge margin.
I don't think that is what a "slowdown" is supposed to look like.
Also November 2015 was the warmest November on record.
Ditto October.
Ditto September.
Every year for the past 18 years, the professional liars have
been comparing non-El-Ni?o years to an El-Ni?o year. Now
that we have a chance to compare apples to apples, El-Ni?o
to El-Ni?o, they cry boo-hoo that's not fair, it must be
just a fluctuation. Well, OK, we can compare oranges to
oranges if you'd prefer. Let's discount this El Ni?o *and*
the 1997-98 El Ni?o. We get the same long-term warming
trend from any fair comparison ... which is what I've been
saying for years and years: the data is noisy, but the
trend is clear, and has been clear for a long, long time.
These are the same liars who say we can't make any policy
decisions because there isn't enough data ... then they
cherry-pick one drop out of the whole ocean of data, then
twist it until it /superficially appears/ to support their
agenda, and then ask us to make important decisions on that
basis. As Trevor Noah put it (Daily Show, 14-Dec-2015) we
don't normally measure time in 18-year intervals ... unless
you are calculating child support.
Noisy data is a lot more useful than no data.
GPS signals are /at least/ 26 dB below the noise ... i.e. the
signal is many hundreds of times weaker than the noise ...
yet the receiver is able to pull it out. The climate data is
not nearly that noisy. It takes "some" skill to figure out
who's lying and who isn't ... some, but not very much.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 23:18:38 -0800
From: Bernard Cleyet <bernard@cleyet.org>
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] climate change continues apace
Message-ID: <C4B60C04-F422-4D21-B97C-603ECF17F651@cleyet.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
On 2016, Jan 16, , at 19:06, John Denker <jsd@av8n.com> wrote:
End of Phys-l Digest, Vol 133, Issue 14
***************************************
------------------------------
"Naturally the common people don't want war. But they can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders. Tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and endangering the country. It works the same in every country."
Herman Goering - Hitler's Reichsmarschall