As Climate Worsens, a Cascade of Tipping Points Looms

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by skepticalmike, Dec 15, 2019.

  1. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    29,966
    Likes Received:
    19,291
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The extinction is imaginary.
     
  2. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    12,331
    Likes Received:
    3,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It does nothing of the sort. It merely bends a proxy model into a pretzel.
    There's nothing to refute. His proxy model pretzel behaves just as he describes it. It just doesn't describe reality.
    ISTM you are the one who doesn't grasp what he did.
     
  3. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    29,966
    Likes Received:
    19,291
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Please see the IUCN Red List data linked in #623.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2021
  4. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,867
    Likes Received:
    1,630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I attack your irrational embrace of a stupid paper because as bringiton astutely explains..., "Because it substitutes a modeled proxy for actual instrumental data."

    I post the actual Satellite data and you ignored it.

    The initial versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the tropical surface had warmed more than the troposphere, while climate models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases, as shown by the diagrams above. This observation gave rise to deep concern, and resulted in a number of studies (e.g. NRC 2000) where strong attempts were made to find warming in the troposphere. As new data sets have been made available and new corrections introduced, the scientific literature have witnessed a number of attempts of reconciling the modelled and the observed atmospheric warming pattern. Conflicting conclusions have, however, been reached. Some scientists conclude that a discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates still exists, while other argue that there is no longer a serious discrepancy. A few key references on this debate are represented by Lindzen 1999 and 2007, NRC 2000, Douglass et al 2007, and Santer et al 2008. Ongoing web-based discussions can be followed here and here. This debate reflects the importance of the point raised by Lindzen (1999) on monitoring temperature changes at the height in the troposphere corresponding to an infrared optical depth near 1.


    [​IMG]

    Now here is the rest of it from the link showing what Satellite data shows about the two regions of the Tropical Troposphere:


    [​IMG]

    Temperature change at 200hPa (c. 12 km height) between 20oN and 20oS since 1979, according to HadAT. The thin blue line shows the monthly values, while the thick blue line represents the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. The stippled red line shows the linear fit for the period shown, with basic statistics shown in the upper left corner of the diagram. The data were normalised by setting the average of their initial 120 months (10 years) from January 1979 to December 1988 = 0. Last month shown: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013.

    and,

    [​IMG]

    Temperature change at 300hPa (c. 9 km height) between 20oN and 20oS since 1979, according to HadAT. The thin blue line shows the monthly values, while the thick blue line represents the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. The stippled red line shows the linear fit for the period shown, with basic statistics shown in the upper left corner of the diagram. The data were normalised by setting the average of their initial 120 months (10 years) from January 1979 to December 1988 = 0. Last month shown: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013.

    LINK HERE

    ======

    From Sherwood garbage paper, where he excitedly says he kridges and homogenizes data:

    "We present an updated version of the radiosonde dataset homogenized by Iterative Universal Kriging (IUKv2), now extended through February 2013, following the method used in the original version (Sherwood et al 2008 Robust tropospheric warming revealed by iteratively homogenized radiosonde data J. Clim. 21 5336–52)...."

    bolding mine

    A comment caught my attention:

    No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot.”

    We present an updated version of the radiosonde dataset homogenized by Iterative Universal Kriging (IUKv2), now extended through February 2013, following the method used in the original version (Sherwood et al 2008 Robust tropospheric warming revealed by iteratively homogenized radiosonde data J. Clim. 21 5336?52). This method, in effect, performs a multiple linear regression of the data onto a structural model…
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007

    In statistics, originally in geostatistics, Kriging or Gaussian process regression is a method of interpolation for which the interpolated values are modeled…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriging

    So if no “climate models” were used, were these fashion models?"

    bolding mine

    ======

    Now here are the RATPAC-A data:

    From climate4you,

    Vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere; weather balloons

    Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate (RATPAC)

    [​IMG]

    Seasonal global upper air temperature anomalies at 300-100 mb according to RATPAC-A Version 2. The thin lines represent the seasonal (3-month) average, and the thick line the simple running 13-season average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. Last season shown: July-September 2018. Last diagram update: 28 October 2018.

    and,

    [​IMG]

    Seasonal global upper air temperature anomalies at 100-50 mb according to RATPAC-A Version 2. The thin lines represent the seasonal (3-month) average, and the thick line the simple running 13-season average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. Last season shown: July-September 2018. Last diagram update: 28 October 2018.

    Nope Radiosonde data doesn't show the hot spot at all either.

    ================

    Here is the official data center for Radiosonde,

    NOAA

    Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate (RATPAC)

    There is ZERO evidence that Dr. Sherwood's "updated version of the radiosonde dataset homogenized by Iterative Universal Kriging (IUKv2)" was accepted by the NOAA. not found on the website at all.

    You should realize that both Satellite and Radiosonde data doesn't support Sherwood at all.

    You have nothing left.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2021
    Jack Hays likes this.
  5. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,867
    Likes Received:
    1,630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why are you STILL ignoring post 623?
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  6. dgrichards

    dgrichards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2020
    Messages:
    1,279
    Likes Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'll see your 623 and link and raise you it's official: scientists say we are now in the 6th extinction and it's our fault, plus there is no guarantee that we will survive it. On your side is one pathetic post and an outlier link. On the other, a massive showing of unanimity from the science community. Guess which side I am listening too? GSM.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2021
  7. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,867
    Likes Received:
    1,630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ha ha ha, Post 623 was posted by........ JACK HAYES!

    It is clear you have ignored it.

    POST 623 HERE

    Your ranting is silly since you keep staying away from a real debate, just insulting seems to be all you can do.

    What Jack posted IS the official extinction database, but you ignore it anyway, not impressed with your disinterest in seeing all points of the debate.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2021
  8. dgrichards

    dgrichards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2020
    Messages:
    1,279
    Likes Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Like I said, among scientists a unanimity of agreement. Let's test your knowledge. Assume for the sake of argument that we are in the midst of the 6th extinction with extinction rates 100 to 1000 times greater than background natural extinctions. When would you say ir began?
     
  9. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,867
    Likes Received:
    1,630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The link you ignore will help you, IF you have the courage to go beyond your bias, it is how you learn more about it.
     
  10. dgrichards

    dgrichards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2020
    Messages:
    1,279
    Likes Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I would love to argue with you, but you are not equipped. It would be like dueling with an unarmed opponent. If you can't even come up with the universally agreed start point, even after I left a large cookie crumb, you are definitely not ready for me. Come back when you figure out the start point and can identify the cookie crumb.
     
  11. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,867
    Likes Received:
    1,630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You talk like a child, too bad you can't get beyond your irrational fear of discussing it.

    I accept your defeat.

    Cheers.
     
  12. dgrichards

    dgrichards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2020
    Messages:
    1,279
    Likes Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Whatever lets you sleep at night. I do note absence of start point and failure to identify really obvious cookie crumb. I accept your retirement from the field. Probably the smartest thing you have done for awhile. Remember, start point, cookie crumb. Otherwise no response from me. I suspect I won't be hearing from you again.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2021
  13. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,867
    Likes Received:
    1,630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So far you are batting zero on the extinction discussion you are on record saying you don't want to discuss it, you refuse to see the link, you did the same to others as well, you are TROLLING.

    YOU are the one who refuses to discuss anything, that is why you are becoming a liar here, you either debate it or shaddap!
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2021
    Jack Hays likes this.
  14. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    29,966
    Likes Received:
    19,291
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Since the extinctions are imaginary, the start point would be imaginary. Meanwhile, "unanimity of agreement" is both redundant and meaningless.
    “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough. [In response to the book "Hundred Authors Against Einstein"]”

    ― Albert Einstein
     
  15. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    29,966
    Likes Received:
    19,291
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The IUCN is the "official" keeper on extinction statistics.
     
  16. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,867
    Likes Received:
    1,630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The fool doesn't care, he has an ideology to hang onto because evidence at post 623 scares him badly, that is why he treats it like holy water.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  17. dgrichards

    dgrichards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2020
    Messages:
    1,279
    Likes Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    More than 37,400 species threatened with extinction. What's your point. Supports my point, don't you think? Maybe you don't? Why"? How is it not a mass extinction? Couple the more than 37,400 with the known holocene and anthropocene extinctions and you gave a truly horrifying scenario. I don't understand your fixation with the IUCN red list. It's not even close to the whole story. How do you hope to hold your own in a thread if you ignore completely published data?
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2021
  18. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,867
    Likes Received:
    1,630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  19. dgrichards

    dgrichards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2020
    Messages:
    1,279
    Likes Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Don't become fixated on one chart or data point. See the whole board, the whole picture. Nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with your science. Your red list and the rest of the story. I swear, sometime it's like dealing with unruly, ignorant children. Read farther. Use your head and think for crying out loud.
     
  20. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,867
    Likes Received:
    1,630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You still have nothing to say and your ignoring post 623 makes you a hypocrite.

    Seriously are you that dumb?
     
  21. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,867
    Likes Received:
    1,630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You ignored his link, that makes you look foolish, since you have no idea what it is about.

    Really your prejudice is making you ignorant.

    I have seen and read many extinction claims over the years, one thing I learned is that extinction numbers are always wildly different from other extinction numbers mainly because there is no true documentation to support them, they are speculative numbers made for propaganda use, nothing more.

    It is likely I know more about this than you do, which is why your ignoring post 623 link makes me think you are the typical programmed follower of an uncertain ideology that is all over the place in their numbers.

    The fact that you are unaware of this convinces me that you have superficial knowledge of this topic.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2021
  22. dgrichards

    dgrichards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2020
    Messages:
    1,279
    Likes Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I ignored his link? You haven't been paying attention. Get yourself up to speed and then come talk to me. I promise to go easy on you! I'm dealing with children! Did you even read my post before responding? The certainty is this: you either did not read my post or you did not read link, for you would not have made that response if either were true. Just kidding! Of course you would, regardless!
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2021
  23. dgrichards

    dgrichards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2020
    Messages:
    1,279
    Likes Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    To be clear, I made no such prediction. I posted data from a link, a link that you are enamored of, and commented on it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2021
  24. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    12,331
    Likes Received:
    3,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It seems to be a flaw in the human psyche that many if not most of us are attracted to the idea of apocalypse. We like the idea that even the mightiest will fall, everything familiar be overturned, and evildoers get their comeuppance. Christianity and Islam both have their prophecies of "end-times" when everything will be destroyed (except the righteous, among whom we ourselves are of course always numbered). I'm old enough to remember a considerable sequence of such threats in the popular media: nuclear war, overpopulation, global cooling ( :roll: ), ozone depletion, pollution, deforestation, and now the CO2calypse. Problem is, the doomsayers are never embarrassed by getting their prognostications wrong, and just move on to touting the next cataclysmic threat.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2021
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  25. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank-you for spending the time to present your opinions and data. You did a good job. I need to study this and get back in a few days.

    Sherwood mentioned in his 2013 paper that there was decreased reliability of radiosonde measurements with height, in particular the upper troposphere.He also mentions that the models over estimated surface warming so that led to an over estimation of tropospheric warming- there should be less of a hot spot.

    The IPCC AR5 mentions Sherwood's 2008 paper on the radiosonde homogenized data by IUK, this was probably an earlier version.

    IPCC AR5 2.4.4 Upper Air Temperature

    https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/09/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

    AR4 summarized that globally the troposphere had warmed at a rate greater than the GMST over the radiosonde record, while over the shorter satellite era the GMST and tropospheric warming rates were indistinguishable. Trends in the tropics were more uncertain than global trends although even this region was concluded to be warming. Globally, the stratosphere was reported to be cooling over the satellite era starting in 1979. New advances since AR4 have highlighted the substantial degree of uncertainty in both satellite and balloon-borne radiosonde records and led to some revisions and improvements in existing products and the creation of a number of new data products.

    2.4.4.1 a portion of it - note contamination of upper troposphere measurements from the stratosphere: "The ‘Mid-Tropospheric’ (MT) MSU channel that most directly corresponds to the troposphere has 10 to 15% of its signal from both the skin temperature of the Earth’s surface and the stratosphere. Two alternative approaches have been suggested for removing the stratospheric component based on differencing of view angles (LT) and statistical recombination (*G) with the ‘Lower Stratosphere’ (LS) channel (Spencer and Christy, 1992; Fu et al., 2004). The MSU satellite series also included a Stratospheric Sounding Unit (SSU) that measured at higher"

    Another portion of 2.4.4.1
    "Sherwood and colleagues developed an iterative universal kriging approach for radiosonde data to create IUK (Sherwood et al., 2008) and concluded that non-climatic data issues leading to spurious cooling remained in the deep tropics even after homogenization. The HadAT group created an automated version, undertook systematic experimentation and concluded that the parametric uncertainty (Box 2.1) was of the same order of magnitude as the apparent climate signal (McCarthy et al., 2008; Titchner et al., 2009; Thorne et al., 2011). A similar ensemble approach has also been applied to the RICH product (Haimberger et al., 2012). These various ensembles and new products exhibit more tropospheric warming / less stratospheric cooling than pre-existing products at all levels. Globally the radiosonde records all imply the troposphere has warmed and the stratosphere cooled since 1958 but with uncertainty that grows with height and is much greater outside the better-sampled NH extra-tropics (Thorne et al., 2011; Haimberger et al., 2012), where it is of the order 0.1°C per decade.

    Another mention of Sherwood's methodology, note the mention of Radiosonde temperatures being affected by time-varying biases and that is why he uses Radiosonde winds :

    Atmospheric winds are driven by thermal gradients. Radiosonde winds are far less affected by time-varying biases than their temperatures (Gruber and Haimberger, 2008; Sherwood et al., 2008; Section 2.7.3). Allen and Sherwood (2007) initially used radiosonde wind to infer temperatures within the Tropical West Pacific warm pool region, then extended this to a global analysis (Allen and Sherwood, 2008) yielding a distinct tropical upper tropospheric warming trend maximum within the vertical profile, but with large uncertainty. Winds can only quantify relative changes and require an initialization (location and trend at that location) (Allen and Sherwood, 2008). The large uncertainty range was predominantly driven by this initialization choice, a finding later confirmed by Christy et al. (2010), who in addition questioned the stability given the sparse geographical sampling, particularly in the tropics, and possible systematic sampling effects amongst other potential issues. Initializing closer to the tropics tended to reduce or remove the appearance of a tropical upper tropospheric warming trend maximum (Allen and Sherwood, 2008; Christy et al., 2010). There is only low confidence in trends inferred from ‘thermal winds’ given the relative immaturity of the analyses and their large uncertainties.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2021

Share This Page