Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 Next
Comments 50001 to 50050:
-
Tom Curtis at 09:35 AM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Addendum to my post @16: I have since learnt that the Met Office used HadCRUT3 rather than HadCRUT4 as the basis of the predictions. That means my results will need revising, although the basic points should still stand. It also means that the fastest warming part of the Earth (the Arctic) is essentially excluded from the prediction, meaning the prediction is biased low. -
dana1981 at 09:31 AM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Nick Palmer @18 - I wouldn't necessarily say smarter, but some contrarians try to blame global warming on galactic cosmic rays, whose quantity reaching Earth is determined by the strength of the solar magnetic field. I addressed that myth here. -
Nick Palmer at 09:22 AM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Dana @7 Thanks. I'm not confident enough with statistics at a high enough level to criticise it myself. Noted your points about TSI and sunspots but don't some of the smarter sceptics rather claim that it is the Sun's magnetic activity that is responsible for the "anything but CO2" beef nowadays? -
Bert from Eltham at 08:52 AM on 11 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
This video is simply brilliant because it is brilliantly simple! Very well done. Bert -
Tom Curtis at 07:52 AM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Clyde @8, the paper you link to does not debunk the data from Nuccitelli et al, 2012. It attempts unsuccessfully to debunk the relevance of that data to the argument made by Douglas and Knox in "Ocean heat content and Earthʼs radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts", but that attempt, even if it were successful would not call the heat content data into question. -
Tom Curtis at 07:44 AM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
The obvious misdirection from Delingpole is suggesting the new prediction predicts "no more global warming til at least 2017", when in fact the new prediction predicts record breaking warmth in 2015 and 2016. A prediction of new records is not "no more global warming". More subtly, based on digitizing the graph, the trend from 1996-2017 inclusive (0.097 C per decade) is nearly double the the sixteen year trend from December 1996 (1996.92) to November 2012 (2012.83) (0.053 +/- 0.125 C per decade). Deniers have been claiming the later is "no warming in sixteen years" because it is not statistically distinguishable from a trend of zero (or from IPCC projections). However, with an additional five years, and nearly double the trend, the claim of statistical insignificance is highly dubious. I can't do the maths, but the HadCRUT4 trend from August 1964 (1964.58) to July 1986 (1986.5) is also 0.097 C per decade, with an error range of +/- 0.085 C per decade, making it clearly statistically significant. It is very likely the equivalent predicted trend is also statistically significant. So, when you come right down to it, the deniers are claiming prediction predicts "no more global warming" when it predicts: * Near double the trend; * New global temperature records in two out of five years; and * A warming trend that is statistically significant. Little could better demonstrate their intellectual bankruptcy! -
Doug Bostrom at 07:21 AM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Re Cornelius' pointer to the Met Office comprehensive correction of James Delingpole, would surely be nice to see that cross-posted here. -
adelady at 06:26 AM on 11 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Well done. Very impressive, guys. -
JosHagelaars at 06:17 AM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
I added the trend line of the average of the three data sets (1970 to nov. 2012) with a photo-editor to the MET Office image and extrapolated it to 2020. See this link. The slope is 0.16 °C/decade. I can't see any stalling, the blue line is close to the trend line. -
Cornelius Breadbasket at 06:01 AM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
The MET office have just issued a smackdown of James Dellingbole's very poor article about this in the Telegraph. It is well worth reading. -
dana1981 at 05:57 AM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
As Bob @9 notes, Figure 3 in this post is Figure 1 in Nuccitelli et al., whose OHC data come from Levitus and land ocean atmosphere heating data come from Church (referenced in the paper, linked in the figure caption). Coincidentally, Levitus thought our paper was quite good (and Church was one of our co-authors). As for 'climate shifts', that's basically what Douglass & Knox call any little bit of noise in the data. But that's off topic here, so I won't delve into it. We considered responding to their response, but it had so many problems that we got bogged down in the details, and ultimately decided it wasn't worth the effort. -
Albatross at 05:57 AM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
clyde@8, I think "attempted refutation" is the term you are looking for. Debunk does not mean what you seem to think it means. This thread does, however, try and debunk myths and memes promulgated by fake skeptics surrounding the UK Met Office's experimental forecast. As Bob has noted @9, all Douglass and Knox's reply to Nuccitelli et al (2012) demonstrated is that they were doubling down and not open to considering data and methods that challenge their misguided ideas (e.g., climate shifts). Regardless, of what DK might believe, it does not affect the reality of the actual data ahown in Figs. 1-3 in the post. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:53 AM on 11 January 2013The Y-Axis of Evil
Philip, I don't want to be a downer and certainly your efforts should be lauded. However, I understood for myself years ago that any time spent at WUWT is wasted. The crowd's response there to the carbonic snow incident revealed a mixture of intellectual indigence coupled with ideological fanatism, the combination of which can not respond to any amount of rational thinking. -
dana1981 at 05:52 AM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Clyde @8 - no, Nuccitelli et al. (2012) was responded to, quite poorly at that, but certainly not 'debunked'. In fact Douglass & Knox did not dispute most of the points in our paper in their response, particularly our main conclusions. They mostly continued to argue that 'climate shifts' really do exist. But they didn't dispute our heat content data or the associated figure. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:46 AM on 11 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Thanks Kevin, I didn't think it was anywhere near significant, just wanted to point out the irony... -
angliss at 05:45 AM on 11 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Great video. Just posted it and a driveby linking back here at scholarsandrogues.com. -
Bob Loblaw at 05:42 AM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Clyde: If you define "debunked" as "reasserting the original claim", then maybe. Nuccitelli et al is a comment on a paper by Douglass and Knox, and the "debunk" you point to is Douglass and Knox' reply. They make three points: - they are sticking to their guns about their imagined "climate shifts" analysis. - they don't like the data used by Nuccitelli et al, and still want to use the noise instead of the signal, - they don't like Nuccitelli et al's interpetation of some CO2 feedback issues. The executive summary of this "debunk" is pretty much "you can't make us change our minds". As for figure 3's source - the caption says "From Nuccitelli et al (2012)". It looks exactly like figure 1 in my copy of that paper. Have you not read Nuccitelli et al (2012)? Perhaps you are commenting on something that you haven't actually read? -
Clyde at 05:17 AM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Wasn't Nuccitelli et al. (2012) debunked? Can you give me the source for figure 3? -
Pete Dunkelberg at 05:02 AM on 11 January 2013Dark matter for Greenland melting
YubeDude, it may be that combustion chemistry and fire dynamics were different in the past. Perhaps previous warmings did not lead to more fire-days per year. What your views on this, you are welcome to them. -
dana1981 at 03:57 AM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Nick Palmer @5 - is "that's a very shoddy analysis" enough of a bullet? To start with, Lasner's HadCRUT data is outdated (HadCRUT4 shows more recent warming than HadCRUT3 did). Second he criticizes the use of TSI (for no apparent reason), but if he'd read the paper, he would know Foster and Rahmstorf also did the anlysis using sunspot number, with no significant change to the results. Lasner also suggests using solar factors which have little if any impact on the climate, like cosmic rays, instead of using the solar factor with a direct impact on global temps - TSI. It also appears that Lasner is trying to remove the individual short-term influences one-by-one, which is a statistical no-no. You have to use multiple linear regression to fit the variables to the data all at once. Long story short, Lasner has no idea what he's doing. And if he has a criticism of the paper, he should submit it as a comment and subject it to the peer-review process (which it would not pass, because as noted above, he doesn't know what he's doing). -
jyyh at 03:48 AM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Marking for later reference... guessing it'll go in the upmost quartile. Are they assuming the heat exchage between upper and deeper ocean will prevent el Ninos. They really do not want to be called alarmists. -
Nick Palmer at 03:46 AM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Is there a quick bullet to shoot this rather hand wavy "analysis" down? Frank Lansner on Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 -
Esop at 03:36 AM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Current lower troposhere temperatures are way above those of the same dates for the previous record year (2010), so we could very well be headed for a new record this year. Will that shut up the deniers? Of course not, as their noise level increases proportionally with their level of desperation. However, the new global record will likely increase the public understanding of the problem. It is thus much better to set that new record in 2013 than during a later year, as the earlier society wakes up, the better. Same goes for Arctic sea ice, etc. We know that the records will be broken in the next coming years, and we know that the public and in turn politicians will not wake up unless the records are broken, so for the possibility of any action being taken to reduce the damage to the climate in the long term, the faster the records break, the better. Will we see a third La Nina in a row instead of a troposhere/surface record? I would not be surprised, but that means even more energy will be stored for a monster year when a Nino finally hits. -
LarryM at 03:31 AM on 11 January 2013Putting an End to the Myth that Renewable Energy is too Expensive
Here is a good UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) summary article that supplements Dana's post and the Washington Post article about the tragic push by ALEC, Heartland, Koch bros. and their ilk to undermine state renewable energy standards with the Orwellian-named "Electricity Freedom Act": Misinformation about Renewable Energy: Coming to Your State? -
Albatross at 02:27 AM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Agreed Dana. Certain journalists and media outlets share the responsibility for aiding fake skeptics pursue their agenda, to everyone's detriment in the end. Sadly journalism today is, for the most part, not the honorable profession that it used to be and journalists seem far less concerned with getting the story and facts right than they are in presenting fake balance or fabricating a "controversy". -
dana1981 at 02:17 AM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
This is the umpteenth time we've had to debunk media articles arguing that global warming has magically stopped. The only reason to keep making this ridiculous argument is to delay action to solve the problem. Frankly it's irresponsible journalism. -
Stephen Baines at 01:56 AM on 11 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Guys...haven't had time to post on here of late, but had to chime in about how this video rocks! Checks all the boxes re effective communication in a digital era. Are you planning more on this front? -
Albatross at 01:54 AM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Many good points made by you Dana, so sad that "skeptics" and those in denial continue to intentionally misrepresent the facts. Another day and another myth born in "skeptic" land. I would especially like to second this point made by you: " So let's stop looking for distractions and excuses to delay action, and get on with solving the problem, before we run out of time." Indeed! Just when will the radical "skeptic" elements be able to summon the integrity to stop playing their disingenuous and unethical games? There has to be a little voice somewhere in their head reminding them that doing so is the honorable thing to do..... Their intent will be determined by whether they accept the facts, or if they choose to double down. -
Dikran Marsupial at 01:49 AM on 11 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
excellent video! -
Kevin C at 23:51 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
The use of GISTEMP was on the basis of coverage - see this figure:
Figure 1: Coverage maps for various temperature series. Colors represent mean change in temperature between the periods 1996-2000 and 2006-2010, from +2C (dark red) to -2C (dark blue). Note that the cylindrical projection exaggerates the polar regions of the map.
The other indices don't have good coverage at the poles where, according to GISTEMP, UAH and the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis dataset warming has been fastest over the 15 year period shown.
If my analysis of HadCRUT4 here is correct, then this is particularly serious over the period post 1998, with coverage bias in HadCRUT4 shifting from a warm bias around 1998 to a cool bias now. Of course UAH is the only set of measurements we have for these regions, and probably suffers ground contamination over the antarctic, however the possibility that there is a huge cooling trend over one of the poles which hasn't been picked up by any observations or models is farfetched.
On this basis I think that GISTEMP is the best choice for measuring global trends. I'm working on kriging HadCRUT4 to provide a global version for comparison.
-
tobyjoyce at 23:41 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Well done, lads. The "pauses" and "no warming for * years" brigade from been in full cry recently, no doubt hoping to disract from the extreme weather news from around the globe (UK 2nd wettest year ever, Sandy largest exra-tropical cyclone, USA warmest year ever, Australian heat records shattered, Arctic lowest ever ice extent, extreme cold records broken in China and Russia). -
cynicus at 22:35 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Very nicely done! I assume that the corrections for natural causes depend on indexes? Which indexes have been used and why that index? I have faith that the indexes and values are (largely) correct, but I'm just asking to have answers before the other side of the mirror does... -
CBDunkerson at 22:34 PM on 10 January 2013A Brief Note on the Latest Release of Draft IPCC Documents
Doug Hutcheson @14 wrote: "I imagine many products and services we take for granted in a high-fossil-carbon economy will become, at least, more expensive; at worst, unobtainable, when we turn off the pumps." I do not. Most of our current fossil fuel use comes from precisely two things... electricity generation and automobiles. We now have technology which can generate all of our electricity needs without any fossil fuels and cars that can run from rechargeable batteries. Ergo, we can 'turn off the pumps' just as soon as we build the infrastructure to convert to these new technologies. At that point the CO2 content of the atmosphere is decreasing and we can still use petroleum, coal, natural gas, et cetera for everything else we do currently... and have a lot more of those resources available for these other uses. More supply at fixed demand equals lower costs for other applications after we 'turn off the pumps'. Also: "I don't expect it to be business as usual, but have only a hazy idea of how Mr. and Mrs. Average would conduct their daily lives." I expect it to be business as usual... except that you'd park your car over an induction charger in the driveway each night rather than periodically going to something called a 'gas station'. Long term there'd also be vast health and economic benefits, but there are too many variables in how those would play out to predict changes on everyday life. -
John Brookes at 22:32 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
When we have the next strong El Nino, the "skeptics" will be hiding. And that could be pretty soon. -
skywatcher at 20:43 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Really nice animation and description. These kinds of videos have real communication power to reach large audiences that may have neitehr the time nor the inclination to read the literature. Well done! Leo Hickman's article is pretty poor IMHO - far too much time devoted to known denial enablers, such as Tisdale or the Daily Fail. Throughout the piece, Hickman demonstrates precious little comprehension of the concept that the change in trend is statistically insignificant, while the long-term trend remains strongly statistically significant. The long-term trend is, in many cases, steeper when you include post-2000 data than it is when you leave it out. Does that sound like a "slowing down"? Remedial stats class required! Armed with this information, Hickman could actually critically evaluate whether the likes of Tisdale or the Mail had anything worthwhile to say, rather than uncritically repeating the nonsense. Leo, if you read this, please do some proper critical analysis before repeating everything you read on the Internet! A ray in the confusion of the article is the posting of this great video, however. -
Cornelius Breadbasket at 20:19 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
dorlomin @ 28. Then tweet him a link. That is our job - Kevin has done his. -
dorlomin at 20:09 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Cheers for this, but even on the Guardian, Leo Hickman has been touting the 'no warming' meme. -
Cornelius Breadbasket at 19:51 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
A long-term skeptic tea-break colleague that is. -
Cornelius Breadbasket at 19:49 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Strike one. A long-term tea-break colleague convinced. Please can we have more of these short pithy little no-nonsense videos on the other most persistent myths? -
Kevin C at 19:41 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Philippe: Thanks. But don't over-interpret the slight change in trend, it is not remotely statistically significant - it's noise. Depending on the assumptions you make the difference can go either way - I just showed the most parsimonious model using all the data. Indeed using a 2-box model on the whole 130 years and taking into account the CFC reductions after Copenhagen the temperature trend is projected to be very marginally less after the mid 90's. Copenhagen really made a difference. There are (a few) more details in the advanced rebuttal. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:45 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
70rn Already done -
Rob Painting at 17:19 PM on 10 January 2013Observed Warming of the Ocean and Atmosphere is Incompatible with Natural Variation
Composer99 - It's actually the reduced thermal gradient through the cool-skin layer that causes the oceans to warm in response to elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations. I'll amend the text to remove any ambiguity. -
70rn at 16:54 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
This really needs to go on youtube - with a title like 'No Global warming for 16 years?' The problem with these websites is that they don't perhaps reach a large enough audience. Which ought to be everyone. -
gpwayne at 16:36 PM on 10 January 2013A Brief Note on the Latest Release of Draft IPCC Documents
It seems very unfortunate that we have to endure so much hypocrisy from climate change sceptics. Many of their attacks have been on the scientists rather than the science, which does not support their denial of the problem. In particular, the CRU emails focused on the probity and ethics of climate scientists. It appears that this is something of a one way street: demands for ethical behaviour are not accompanied by demonstrations of it. One rule for us, another for climate change deniers, apparently... -
Philippe Chantreau at 16:00 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
I'll my voice to congratulate you on a brilliant piece of work. The animation is excellent. It's interesting that the recent 16 year "trend", once removed the ENSO/volcanic influences, is actually a smidge faster than the trend since 1980... -
Philip Shehan at 15:40 PM on 10 January 2013The Y-Axis of Evil
Apologies to moderators for my personal remarks about Boehm, I have tried to be polite in discussions with folks over at WUWT even when they are slightly snarky and even abusive, but Boehm is apparently permitted to tip buckets of manure over people in post after post, and I had had enough of being on the receiving end. Tom Curtis informs me that we are not permitted to discuss "ethical issues" here, and that is what I was really getting stuck into Boehm about. Tom Curtis: Thank you for your explanation. I am still a little confused. According to the Wood For Trees help section: Mean (Months) Running mean over the given number of months. Keeps the number of samples the same, but smooths them by taking the average of that number of months around each sample. Isolate (Months) Does the same running mean as 'mean', but then subtracts this from the raw data to leave the 'noise' I thought the functions you mention were performed by (quoting from WFT help again) Scale (Scale factor) Multiplies each sample by the given scale factor Offset (Offset amount) Adds the given offset to each sample (can be negative) Normalise - Scales and offsets all samples so they fall into the range 0..1 I posted the following to you over at WUWT but appear to be now banned. Do you have any comment? My suspicions were aroused by informal inspection of the graph (and presentation of another graph from the same source in which extraneous processing had been used which did nothing but introduce extraneous lines which flattened the temperature data obscuring the curve of the data which the graph was supposed to be showing did not exist) shows that the match of the data sets is ridiculously good. Given that temperature is affected by solar cycles, aerosols, volcanic eruptions, El Niño and la Nina events etc etc, how could there be such a near perfect correlation between temperature and CO2 content alone? Well we now know there isn’t. -
Composer99 at 14:35 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
My congratulations as well to Kevin C and Daniel Bailey for their effort in putting this post and especially the video together. -
YubeDude at 14:21 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Hit the wrong button...please edit out the last 2 words and this post -
YubeDude at 14:20 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Is someone going to send a link to WUWT? Any chance we can get Climate Depot to review the video? Might have to rework my YT channel and make this video my homepage. Is it -
John Brookes at 13:37 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
This is right up there with the escalator as a beautiful exposition.
Prev 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 Next
