Big Brother is all bluff and bluster, afraid of his own shadow. World leaders and wannabe scientists have only succeeded in “painting themselves into a corner.”
I started with the Paleo part and soon found this gem:
“New palaeoclimate information and ice sheet models suggest that the West Antarctic and Greenland ice
sheets are highly sensitive to polar warming and CO2 concentrations. Stability thresholds may be close to
the present day climate implying potential future irreversible melting.”
It will take me a day or two to understand why they think that CO2 is anything but a minor player for the ~800,000 years covered by the ice sheet records. No mention of the fact that CO2 lags temperature!
Then I decided to see which researchers are cited most. My counting is manual so I hope someone can redo this with an automated counter to get the numbers correct. The low numbers will stand up:
Lindzen = 0 …….That’s OK as Richard is not into Paleo.
Baliunas = 0 …….Do they think we have forgotten?
Soon = 0 …….The IPCC ignores measurements and work confirming Hubert Lamb’s MWP.
Shariv = 0 …….No need to even mention cosmic rays!
Kirkby = 0 …….The IPCC scorns hard science. CERN schmern! CO2 rools!
Loehle = 1 …….Dismissed as a “Low Resolution” study. (Translation “No Dendrochronology”)
Briffa = 16 …….Trees rool!
Jones = 19 …….Still a star in spite of some naughtiness.
Ammann = 52 ……A legend in his own mind.
Mann = 109 ……The IPCC still loves the Hockey Team! Penn State keep circling the wagons.
The IPCC’s blinkers prevent them from seeing anything but CO2. Pitiful!
The failure to even mention Shariv or Kirkby in the “Paleo” report shows that the IPCC exists in its own “Virtual Reality”.
@Lucia;
Actually, the downloads are very fast; it’s the waiting for the ‘non-premium regular download’ to kick in that’s slow!
I just opened the links one after the other in separate tabs, so all the waitings were almost simultaneous. I then clicked each download link, and set them to open in Foxit Reader, and from there saved to my dedicated Climate Change directory.
Very fast and smooth.
“New palaeoclimate information and ice sheet models suggest that the West Antarctic and Greenland ice
sheets are highly sensitive to polar warming and CO2 concentrations. Stability thresholds may be close to
the present day climate implying potential future irreversible melting.”
This makes no sense! If polar amplification works as advertised, then the warming at the poles should affect all of Antarctica and not just West Antarctica!
And thus the near-random introduction of ozone as the cause. After all, the ozone hole is still blamed on humans. They really don’t have a satisfactory answer yet for the differences in poles IMO.
Are you talking about why the ozone hole is larger in the Antarctic than the Arctic? The mechanism for this is really well established. You’ll find a detailed explanation in most atmospheric chemistry textbooks (e.g. Chapter 5.7 of Seinfeld and Pandis, 2006)
The short story is that polar stratospheric clouds (PSC) provide sites for heterogeneous chemistry which activate halogen-containing reservoir species which catalytically destroy ozone. Gas-phase ClOx- and NOx-accelerated destruction of ozone is known to be too slow of explaining the observed rate of destruction, and this is mostly due to the rate at which active chlorine can be liberated from inactive reservoir species (mostly HCl and ClONO2). PSC mediated heterogenous reactions take HCl(s) + ClONO2 and ultimately produce ClO and nitric acid, with Cl2 involved as well. ClO accumulates, and ultimately trips ClOx, NOx, and BrOx catalysis of ozone destruction.
PSCs are important because they provide the sites for heterogeneous chemistry which can tap/deplete reservoir species more quickly. The thing is, in the Arctic, you don’t get PSC’s anywhere near as frequently as the Antarctic. Even in years where there *are* PSC’s, they tend not to persist long enough for solar radiation to start getting into the Arctic stratosphere and providing for photolysis. In addition to this, the Arctic Polar Vortex is much weaker than the Antarctic, so you actually can still efficiently transport ozone into the Arctic year round.
In the Antarctic, the polar vortex is much stronger and once it sets up, nothing is getting in from the mid-latitudes. You get a longer period of cooling in the stratosphere and persistent PSC’s
These chemical mechanisms have been predicted from theory, observed in situ, verified numerically in the lab, and are generally reasonably-well repoduced in models. What specifically do you find un-“satisfactory” about this explanation?
Are you talking about why the ozone hole is larger in the Antarctic than the Arctic? – no
I’m talking about using it as a convenient rationale for problems in models. It’s a lot like the ‘fertilization’ excuse for various trees when they don’t match temp. Nobody really knows but they say it anyway.
I was questioning the polar amplification statements, in lieu of O’Donnell ’10 refuting Steig’s supposition that the entire continent had been warming. Looking at a map, it’s clear that the vast majority of the land area has seen no warming. Therefore, the claim that the situation there supports the “polar amplification” concept doesn’t match the data.
Jeff then said that the powers that be are using the ozone hole (and maybe the aerosols that cause it) as a convenient excuse to disregard the data…even though they can’t quantify with any certainty how the ozone hole is actually affecting the temperature.
Except the aerosols show no transport mechanism or timing correlation or any other indication that they “caused it”. Purest hand-waving. The Montreal Protocol was a hyper-expensive waste of time and money.
My understanding of the “Wayback Machine” is that it will take many months before we can recover anything from those links that died.
For those of us who don’t like the waiting or the uncertainty, why not put the files up on a friendly site. I made a copy of the WGI ZOD paleo file and would be delighted to forward it to anyone interested.
Surely other folks copied some of the other ZOD files. Probably we can reconstruct the whole thing………….
the Air Vent 
I suppose while I still have computers, we can discuss the science some more.
Dr. Curry had some question on attribution. Pretty good timing it looks like.
The links I tried take me to advertising or games or download poker.
Dale,
Look for the counter and wait it out.
Dale– It’s a really slow download. I’m sure they want you to play poker while you wait!
Hang in there, Jeff!
Big Brother is all bluff and bluster, afraid of his own shadow. World leaders and wannabe scientists have only succeeded in “painting themselves into a corner.”
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/tallblokes-computer-siezed-jeff-id-threatened-in-climategate-retaliation-its-intimidation/#comment-838580
Now Big Brother is acting like a “Delinquent Teenager,”
Unwilling to accept reality and admit totally powerlessness over Nature.
The universe is in good hands,
Oliver K. Manuel
Click to access Fear_Not.pdf
The link to Ch4 is wrong (points to Ch3).
“Is this a good time?”
Yes – it is. There are some unhappy campers at camp Pachauri.
Here is a working link to Ch4:
http://www.box.com/s/764ydn4kngpqgs7vy3e4
Jeff,
I started with the Paleo part and soon found this gem:
“New palaeoclimate information and ice sheet models suggest that the West Antarctic and Greenland ice
sheets are highly sensitive to polar warming and CO2 concentrations. Stability thresholds may be close to
the present day climate implying potential future irreversible melting.”
It will take me a day or two to understand why they think that CO2 is anything but a minor player for the ~800,000 years covered by the ice sheet records. No mention of the fact that CO2 lags temperature!
Then I decided to see which researchers are cited most. My counting is manual so I hope someone can redo this with an automated counter to get the numbers correct. The low numbers will stand up:
Lindzen = 0 …….That’s OK as Richard is not into Paleo.
Baliunas = 0 …….Do they think we have forgotten?
Soon = 0 …….The IPCC ignores measurements and work confirming Hubert Lamb’s MWP.
Shariv = 0 …….No need to even mention cosmic rays!
Kirkby = 0 …….The IPCC scorns hard science. CERN schmern! CO2 rools!
Loehle = 1 …….Dismissed as a “Low Resolution” study. (Translation “No Dendrochronology”)
Briffa = 16 …….Trees rool!
Jones = 19 …….Still a star in spite of some naughtiness.
Ammann = 52 ……A legend in his own mind.
Mann = 109 ……The IPCC still loves the Hockey Team! Penn State keep circling the wagons.
The IPCC’s blinkers prevent them from seeing anything but CO2. Pitiful!
The failure to even mention Shariv or Kirkby in the “Paleo” report shows that the IPCC exists in its own “Virtual Reality”.
@Lucia;
Actually, the downloads are very fast; it’s the waiting for the ‘non-premium regular download’ to kick in that’s slow!
I just opened the links one after the other in separate tabs, so all the waitings were almost simultaneous. I then clicked each download link, and set them to open in Foxit Reader, and from there saved to my dedicated Climate Change directory.
Very fast and smooth.
I notice all the drafts are dated April 15, 2011. What have they been up to in the last 8 months? Being polished and perfected, possibly?
The failure to even mention Shariv or Kirkby….
Shaviv, Nir http://www.sciencebits.com/
“New palaeoclimate information and ice sheet models suggest that the West Antarctic and Greenland ice
sheets are highly sensitive to polar warming and CO2 concentrations. Stability thresholds may be close to
the present day climate implying potential future irreversible melting.”
This makes no sense! If polar amplification works as advertised, then the warming at the poles should affect all of Antarctica and not just West Antarctica!
Dean,
And thus the near-random introduction of ozone as the cause. After all, the ozone hole is still blamed on humans. They really don’t have a satisfactory answer yet for the differences in poles IMO.
Jeff,
Are you talking about why the ozone hole is larger in the Antarctic than the Arctic? The mechanism for this is really well established. You’ll find a detailed explanation in most atmospheric chemistry textbooks (e.g. Chapter 5.7 of Seinfeld and Pandis, 2006)
The short story is that polar stratospheric clouds (PSC) provide sites for heterogeneous chemistry which activate halogen-containing reservoir species which catalytically destroy ozone. Gas-phase ClOx- and NOx-accelerated destruction of ozone is known to be too slow of explaining the observed rate of destruction, and this is mostly due to the rate at which active chlorine can be liberated from inactive reservoir species (mostly HCl and ClONO2). PSC mediated heterogenous reactions take HCl(s) + ClONO2 and ultimately produce ClO and nitric acid, with Cl2 involved as well. ClO accumulates, and ultimately trips ClOx, NOx, and BrOx catalysis of ozone destruction.
PSCs are important because they provide the sites for heterogeneous chemistry which can tap/deplete reservoir species more quickly. The thing is, in the Arctic, you don’t get PSC’s anywhere near as frequently as the Antarctic. Even in years where there *are* PSC’s, they tend not to persist long enough for solar radiation to start getting into the Arctic stratosphere and providing for photolysis. In addition to this, the Arctic Polar Vortex is much weaker than the Antarctic, so you actually can still efficiently transport ozone into the Arctic year round.
In the Antarctic, the polar vortex is much stronger and once it sets up, nothing is getting in from the mid-latitudes. You get a longer period of cooling in the stratosphere and persistent PSC’s
These chemical mechanisms have been predicted from theory, observed in situ, verified numerically in the lab, and are generally reasonably-well repoduced in models. What specifically do you find un-“satisfactory” about this explanation?
Are you talking about why the ozone hole is larger in the Antarctic than the Arctic? – no
I’m talking about using it as a convenient rationale for problems in models. It’s a lot like the ‘fertilization’ excuse for various trees when they don’t match temp. Nobody really knows but they say it anyway.
What “convenient rationale for problems in models?” I’m curious what you’re referring to.
Is this a good time?
It’s a curious time, since today is the day the FOD is released to reviewers!
Counters,
I was questioning the polar amplification statements, in lieu of O’Donnell ’10 refuting Steig’s supposition that the entire continent had been warming. Looking at a map, it’s clear that the vast majority of the land area has seen no warming. Therefore, the claim that the situation there supports the “polar amplification” concept doesn’t match the data.
Jeff then said that the powers that be are using the ozone hole (and maybe the aerosols that cause it) as a convenient excuse to disregard the data…even though they can’t quantify with any certainty how the ozone hole is actually affecting the temperature.
Dean has it right.
Ah, thanks for clarifying. Apparently I didn’t follow the thread closely enough.
Well its upset someone, all links removed. Someones obviously sent megaupload a DMCA notice.
It had to happen.
Whoever’s leaking these is on thin ground. It would not be too hard to trace down who the leaker is with some changes to IPCC’s website.
dean_1230, @16,
That statement appears to be utter nonsense. It may be an “Ex Cathedra” utterance that needs no facts to support it.
Except the aerosols show no transport mechanism or timing correlation or any other indication that they “caused it”. Purest hand-waving. The Montreal Protocol was a hyper-expensive waste of time and money.
Dang, I only got up to Ch 5.
Plan B ?
RR
Ruhroh;
email me at brianfh01-at-yahoo.ca listing the ones you need. Same for anyone else.
#27, I don’t know who it is and I’m not asking!
My understanding of the “Wayback Machine” is that it will take many months before we can recover anything from those links that died.
For those of us who don’t like the waiting or the uncertainty, why not put the files up on a friendly site. I made a copy of the WGI ZOD paleo file and would be delighted to forward it to anyone interested.
Surely other folks copied some of the other ZOD files. Probably we can reconstruct the whole thing………….