Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 Next
Comments 50451 to 50500:
-
ubrew12 at 03:45 AM on 29 December 2012The Y-Axis of Evil
One response to D Boehm is that yes, you can live from 0 to 30 C; you just can't feed yourself for long outside 14 to 16 C. -
keithpickering at 03:40 AM on 29 December 2012The Y-Axis of Evil
In addition to the Denial Depot post pointed to by Bob Loblaw, this post from Dr. Inferno takes on this kind of absurdity with almost exactly the same graph cooked up by Böehm. -
Albatross at 02:54 AM on 29 December 2012The Y-Axis of Evil
There are an astonishingly large number of examples demonstrating how fake skeptics and those in denial use graphics to mislead their audience. Here is another one Dick Lindzen used recently. Here is an example of Roger Pielke Jnr. misleading people by claiming the damage from Superstorm Sandy was about only half of the current estimate. His misleading graphic has not yet been updated. Other tricks employed by fake skeptics include failing to remove the annual cycle in temperature and sea ice data (for example), failing to apply the inverse barometer correction in sea level data so as to reduce sea-level rise, using uncorrected ENVIROSAT data in order to lower the rate of sea-level rise. The list goes on and on and on. At one point back in 2009 Roger Pielke Snr. was adamant that sea-level rise between 2006 and 2009 had "flattened" and that, by his misguided reckoning, this meant that sea levels was not rising at the upper bound of projections summarized in the IPCC reports. Now look where we are today, global sea level continue to rise at the upper end of the projections discussed in the IPCC assessment reports.
[Source]
All attempts by fake skeptics, contrarians and those in denial to do whatever it takes to hide the signal in a noisy data time series. They have no credibility and simply cannot and must not be trusted to report the science accurately and correctly, despite what they may try and claim to the contrary.
-
dana1981 at 02:33 AM on 29 December 2012Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
Ron King, I think most of your questions are answered in the above post. For the influences of solar, ENSO, and volcanoes, see my post on Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). Akasofu is roughly as close to the measured trend since 2000 as the AR4, but as noted in the post, virtually every natural temperature influence has been in the cooling direction over that timeframe, and when those are filtered out with the Foster and Rahmstorf methodology, he's way off and AR4 is spot on. Climate models include natural variability simulations, but when multiple model runs are averaged together, that natural variability gets averaged out, which is why the multi-model temperature projections are quite smooth. -
Bernard J. at 02:22 AM on 29 December 2012The Y-Axis of Evil
Jennifer Marohasy once posted using the same gambit as D Böehm. It shows ignorance - either wilful or otherwise - of the high school-level* concept of magnitude-of-variation versus consequence. If such folk do not understand the significance appropriate display of the magnitude of variations relative to sequelæ, they should consider the tolerance of humans to changes in core body temperature. Doesn't matter if one describes it in terms of kelvin or celsius - a few degrees way from optimum spells death, and even fractions of a degree have profound effects. Attempting to illustrate the tolerable physiological range on a kelvin scale starting at absolute zero would be nothing short of ridiculous. [*I see after refreshing the thread that bath_ed made the same observation] -
Tristan at 00:14 AM on 29 December 2012It's El Niño
Ron King. There is no period for which any oscillation has absolutely zero impact on a trend. As periods get longer, the impact gets smaller and smaller. In practice, over 130 years the impact of an ENSO magnitude oscillation is negligible. I haven't done the math required to figure out how long an interval you need to be confident that an ENSO magnitude oscillation would only impact the surface temp trend (for instance) +/- 0.01 c/decade. It'd be a fair bit more than 20 years. -
bath_ed at 23:46 PM on 28 December 2012The Y-Axis of Evil
What an excellent explanation of the difference between global average temperature changes and changes in weather temperature! It's something that can be hard to grasp because it can be counter-intuitive that the difference in global temperature between glaciation and alligators in the Arctic can be less than the day-to-day changes in temperature at a single place. I don't know who D Böehm is or what his or her background is, but for Dr Lindzen, who is an actual scientist, to use such a distortion is unforgivable. Choosing appropriate> values for the X and Y axes was one of the things that was drummed into us in secondary school science and I'm sure it must be a basic of any high school science education. We were always taught that one should choose values that start at or near the smallest data value and end at or near the largest one; for example if you were producing a graph showing people's height it would be absurd to start the Y axis at 0 cm as no person is 0 cm tall. -
BWTrainer at 23:27 PM on 28 December 2012The Y-Axis of Evil
KR: Clearly your sock puppet learned from the best - PT Barnum. He's notorious in PR circles for writing letters to the editors of several newspapers using multiple pseudonyms in order to increase awareness of his circus and sway public opinion. He even "criticized" himself under some names so that he could then defend himself under different ones. -
Ann Owen at 23:19 PM on 28 December 2012Food Security: the first big hit from Climate Change will be to our pockets
We grow veg for market on a tiny plot (1/4 acre)and have many years of experience of growing plants, but last spring and summer were as difficult as I've ever experienced. It wasn't just the low temperatures and the endless rain, but also the constant low light levels creating ideal conditions for pests and diseases. We're trying to adapt to unpredictable and chaotic weather and seasons by using poly tunnels and hugel culture, which is working to some extend, but are adding their own complications. All in all, growing food is becoming more difficult, more time consuming and the general public still think that anybody can do it after watching "Ground Force" a few times. This cannot end well... -
Mark-US at 23:01 PM on 28 December 2012Food Security: the first big hit from Climate Change will be to our pockets
PS Ooops sorry about not snipping my conclusion but what a riot.... I sound like a denialist..... "My guessing goes like this (I think)" -
Mark-US at 22:58 PM on 28 December 2012Food Security: the first big hit from Climate Change will be to our pockets
Hollow point ammunition..... Bushmaster assualt weapons..... Global warming, meet the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newton CT. The current shortages of weapons and ammunition at US gun stores is not due to government restrictions, but on a surge in demand. When the US population really is hungry, the resulting anarchy will be well-armed, and NRA nuts will feast on liberal tree hugger flesh, at least if you take various rightwing blogs seriously. Community gardens will be plundered, wildlife populations will be poached to decimation, and all will struggle. It makes me very morose, until I start thinking about the Toba catastrophe, and a personal hypothesis, formed after some interesting neuro research a year or two ago into people who tend to respond with fear, vs those who can keep conflicting info in their head at once. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111101173636.htm Think of humans as an "heirloom variety" with different populations having different traits, to better weather changing circumstances. Sure, aggression may benefit the gun nuts initially. But as things get worse, perhaps the genes for cooperation will pass thru a bottleneck of human evolution, like some say occurred after the Toba eruption reduced human pop to a few thousand souls. Add in religion... essentially a culturally accepted mythology.... and there is a chance we can rewrite the script. From a Christian perspective, more of a "stewardship" version of God's post-flood commands to Noah, than the resource exploitation version favored by contemporary industrialists (and consumers). In sum, I am hoping we really do miss those three meals. But only once in awhile, enough to perk people up so that they value good government intervention, instead of simply embracing mob rule. Anyway, in the US, when hunger comes, even the liberal treehugger peace and loveniks will realize just how many guns live on their street. Buckle up, Bones. . My guessing goes like this: I think -
Ron King at 22:58 PM on 28 December 2012Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
Tristan ENSO is supposed to be neutral. It is described as a cyclical redistribution of heat around the system according to Trenberth and others. If ENSO is not neutral over time then it becomes an external forcing which has not so far been accounted for in AR4 for example. There are several ENSO cycles over 20 years, so please nominate what time period is required for ENSO to become neutral.Moderator Response: [DB] Please take further discussion, including responses, about El Nino / La Nina / ENSO to the "It's El Nino" thread. -
Mark-US at 22:35 PM on 28 December 2012Arctic continues to break records in 2012: Becoming warmer, greener region with record losses of summer sea ice and late spring snow
@Terranova #12 Beats me why anyone expects to be taken seriously, when they claim a couple highly reductionist cherry-picked shimmies of the overall spider web of which we are part constitutes "ecological" speech. -
Tristan at 20:21 PM on 28 December 2012Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
ENSO isn't supposed to be neutral. It's an oscillation, hence over any given interval it will have a maximum possible influence on a trend line. 20 years certainly isn't long enough to be able to read an accurate air temperature gradient without controlling for ENSO. -
shoyemore at 19:03 PM on 28 December 2012The Y-Axis of Evil
Harold Wainers's Visual Revelations Chapter 1 - Rules of Bad Graphics Rule 1: Show as little data as possible Rule 2: Hide what data you do show .... hiding the data in the grid,.. hiding the data in the scale . . People like Wainer and Edward Tufte (The Visual Display of Quantitative Information) are already aware of the tricks of people like Böehm and Lindzen. -
Ron King at 17:53 PM on 28 December 2012Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
dana 1981 It seems that the best qualified skeptic Akasofu got closest to the actual 'averaged' temperatures. Presumably these averages are annual without any smoothing?? All the IPCC predictions are trending strongly up (0.19 deg/decade) - while the actual temperatures are slightly up (0.06 deg/decade). Akasofu at 0.02deg/decade cooling is closer than the IPCC. Why is he then the 'least wrong'? Fig 11 corrects the actual temperature observations to what they would have been without solar, volcanoes and ENSO and gets a better match with IPCC projections. Did the original IPCC projections exclude all these factors? I seem to recall AR4 mentioned volcanoes as an intermittent and unpredictable cooling effect, ENSO is supposed to be neutral over several cycles (20 years?) and solar is dismissed in AR4 as a minor forcing something like 0.12W/m-2 compared with a total radiative forcing of 1.6W/m-2. 20 years (1990-2010) is roughly 2 solar cycles - so the effect should be neutral over this period in any case unless more is made of longer term solar effects that does the IPCC in AR4. From what we know of ENSO, Solar and volcanic effects - why would they aggregate in the 1990-2010 period to a number significantly different to any random 20 year period? -
Albatross at 16:18 PM on 28 December 2012The Y-Axis of Evil
Nice post Rob. Dick Lindzen is guilty of using the same form of trickery with the y axis scale to mislead his audience. -
Bob Loblaw at 14:21 PM on 28 December 2012The Y-Axis of Evil
Similar issues on selection of graph scales have been covered over at Denial Depot, by good ol' Dr. Inferno... -
jyyh at 13:38 PM on 28 December 2012The Y-Axis of Evil
Please do not link to WTFIUWTW. I am also curious about the upper and lower bounds on that graph. I would have been nice if the producer of the graph would have found out the upper and lower limits of complex multicellular life, but no. These would have been c.+40 (°C) and -2 (°C), but maybe he's using some other scale. I mean, the '30' in that graph might well represent the Planck Temperature and the '0' might be 0 Kelvin. Of course it looks like the range between 10 and 20 is about the same as in Celsius scale, but I can't say for sure. No way this kind of graph would have passed in the secretary school, I hear. The X-scale is another matter, but given the incompetence in choosing the Y-axis endpoints, I'm afraid the producer of the graph may have misunderstood the 1850-2006 column in the ref. It is NOT the time of the day, but the year (which again is not shown in the graph.) Of course the above is just pure speculation about what's been going on in the mind of the producer of that graph. What I'm pretty sure of though, he doesn't want to draw attention to changes in global temperatures, and wants to have a bit of fun reading these responses. -
Doug Hutcheson at 13:23 PM on 28 December 2012The Y-Axis of Evil
Rob, thanks for the post. That last graph says everything worth saying: BAU will take us outside conditions that have existed for the past 5 million years. There's a sobering thought, as we approach another year of policy makers fiddling round the edges at best and deliberately making things worse at worst. Evolution has not fitted us to occupy our niche for very long, in geological terms. What a stupid species. -
Doug Hutcheson at 13:07 PM on 28 December 2012Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
dana1982 @ 13 thanks for persevering. I think it has sunk in now. John Russell @ 11, there are codes that provide all the common symbols. Some that we have discussed in this thread are:° renders as the degree symbol °. © renders as the copyright sign ©. – renders as an n dash –. — renders as an m dash —.
It would be best to review the pages linked to in earlier comments here, as HTML is off topic for the thread. Thank you, mods, for letting it run. -
Rob Honeycutt at 12:57 PM on 28 December 2012The Y-Axis of Evil
KR... That's interesting that our D Böehm has an actual history. Perhaps he'll be inclined to come and explain himself. (I'm not holding my breath on that one.) -
The Y-Axis of Evil
D Böehm aka Smokey aka dbs (a moderator on WUWT who likes to post under sock-puppets) has posted any number of monstrously distorted graphs - he appears to make a hobby of them. Over and over and over.. Now, I will note that I feel anonymity on the Web is a good thing. Sock-puppeting, however, is another story entirely - if a moderator on a site misrepresents himself/herself as a rather virulent poster or two (who seem oddly immune to moderation), that is not honest. I don't care what a posters real name is, or where they work, their posts should make sense on their own. But if they are mixing roles as moderator of a site and an unrestrained sock-puppet poster of distorted information and insults, that's just downright deceptive. And calls into question the site itself - if there's deception in an aspect as important as moderation, what else is going on? From the WUWT policy page:* Internet phantoms who have cryptic handles, no name, and no real email address get no respect here. If you think your opinion or idea is important, elevate your status by being open and honest. People that use their real name get more respect than phantoms with handles. I encourage open discussion. * Anonymity is not guaranteed on this blog. Posters that use a government or publicly funded ip address that assume false identities for the purpose of hiding their source of opinion while on the taxpayers dime get preferential treatment for full disclosure. * A real working email address that you own (as a commenter) is required, so that I may contact you if needed. False or misleading email addresses may earn banishment. Changing handles and/or changing email addresses to get around this will also earn the same fate.
Hmm... I sense an inconsistency. For a previous critique on this kind of graphic distortion, with no discernible purpose other than to deceive, see a comment on D Böehm/Smokey's work here.Summary: If you see a graph with unneeded compression or expansion, and in particular if you see one where [ ] the important data has been altered to change values, you can conclude one thing with certainty. The presenter of that graph is attempting to mislead. - KR
--- Disclosure: I have been banned from that particular site since a post of mine that mentioned "D Böehm/Smokey", i.e. calling attention to the sock-puppet. Annoying, but rather unsurprising. -
Tom Curtis at 12:16 PM on 28 December 2012The Y-Axis of Evil
VictorVenema @1, the natural upper bound is the Planck Temperature, or 1.416834*10^32 degrees K. Clearly, on a graph properly displayed, not only is recent global warming completely inconsequential, but current global temperatures are, to a first approximation, zero (being 22 orders of magnitude smaller than the accuracy to which the Planck temperature is known, and hence massive warming by millions of degrees Kelvin is an absolute necessity for the future survival of life on Earth ... At least, I think that's how Böehm's reasoning goes. -
littlerobbergirl at 12:15 PM on 28 December 2012The Y-Axis of Evil
Nice build up. Fig 3, getting worried, but that bau line is the killer - welcome to the oligocene! -
littlerobbergirl at 11:41 AM on 28 December 2012Food Security: the first big hit from Climate Change will be to our pockets
Villabolo, more hopeful types here: global ecovillage network http://gen.ecovillage.org/ worldwide network of permaculture and similar groups and communities In uk and spreading fast transition towns http://www.transitionnetwork.org/ Spaerica i have that nightmare its replaced the nuclear one ill be an old lady with my bees and chickens easy meat for the roving gangs of brutalised starving townies. We have to make a better vision, enough nuclei of rational self sufficiency to spread to all. The great turning is the vision, it might sound impossible right now but has to be tried. Mutate and survive! John - forgot to say leeks did brilliantly and i did get early potatos and sarpo mains, they definately worth growing. I have been doing nearly everything in plugs and twice what i should need, and lots different stuff and varieties so at least i get something, i sell or swap gluts which gets me to meet the neighbors - more building community. Some things have gone feral and come up every year: chard, lambs lettuce, watercress, parsnips (really! They still dont come up from bought seed but 'my' ones pop up everywhere). But i have 1/2 acre to play with, and most of it is nettles :/ -
VictorVenema at 11:39 AM on 28 December 2012The Y-Axis of Evil
Why start the y-axis at 0°C? The only objective lower temperature limit is zero Kelvin. :-) Any suggestions for an objective upper limit? -
Tom Curtis at 10:31 AM on 28 December 2012Other planets are warming
Saparonia @19, Solanki 2004 shows the following reconstructions of sunspot numbers based on icecore isotopes:
With two out of three reconstructions showing negative sunspot numbers in some periods, and the third significantly under representing solar variability, it is clear that these methods are not sufficient to make so definitive a statement about sunspot numbers.
Even should we accept the reconstructions at face value, however, the fact is that solar forcing between twentieth century maximum and maunder minimum is about 0.3 W/m^2 at Earth's distance from the Sun. for Mars and the outer planets, the forcing is much less because of the inverse square law. Why we should ignore the 1.8 W/m^2 forcing from CO2 in favour of the much smaller solar forcing remains a mystery. Even more mysterious is why we should do so when the solar forcing has been declining over the last 30-50 years.
-
Saparonia at 09:17 AM on 28 December 2012Other planets are warming
This is a recent study of ice cores that seems to show that the Sun is actually more active on a longer timescale and it's activity has increased. A&A 413, 745-751 (2004) DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031533 "Reconstruction of solar activity for the last millennium using 10Be data" I. G. Usoskin1, K. Mursula2, S. Solanki3, M. Sch?ssler3 and K. Alanko2 The study used ice cores. The authors concluded "In conclusion, we have presented here a new reconstruction of solar activity on the millennium time scale based upon a description of the related physical processes. It implies that the present high level of sunspot activity is unprecedented on the millennium time scale. The results will be the subject of further analysis." -
michael sweet at 06:37 AM on 28 December 2012Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
Dana, Excellent post as always. You should consider sending a copy of this post to the lead author of the IPCC chapter. There is some room for misunderstanding their original graph. -
dana1981 at 06:27 AM on 28 December 2012West Antarctica warming more than expected
The caption did initially say it was a measure of temperature - I changed it to temperature correlation, since that's what the figure is actually showing. -
John Hartz at 05:29 AM on 28 December 2012West Antarctica warming more than expected
@Philip M Cohen #1: There is no discrepency between the caption under the graphic and the graphic's legend. Both use the term, "temperature correlation." We have invited the paper's co-author, David Bromwich, professor of geography at Ohio State University and senior research scientist at the Byrd Polar Research Center, to particpate in this discussion thread and clear-up any confusion about what the graphic portrays. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:20 AM on 28 December 2012Food Security: the first big hit from Climate Change will be to our pockets
villabolo, I picture a Mad Max style assault on Arcosanti, where the attacking horde wants not gasoline but a sustainable lifestyle, even though their very numbers will preclude it. Still, when people are hungry, logic goes out the window (actually, it seems that when people are wealthy and happy, logic goes out the window, as well). Arcosanti may seem sustainable, but it is not a solution that can be used for 7 billion people. And I imagine that it is taking a huge amount of energy and global resources to construct, unless it is being build with horse-and-man-power alone, and only locally attained resources like precious metals. No... in the long run, Humongous would sit before his punked-out horde in his souped-up cobbled-together roadster, announcing over the loudspeaker that if the Arcosanti will abandon their stronghold, he will let them live. And when they refuse, Arcosanti will be overrun, and what is there will be destroyed. It's a nice thought, but probably not a viable, globally applicable solution. -
dana1981 at 02:30 AM on 28 December 2012Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
JosHag @12 - if I were to extend Figure 9 back further in time, it would look essentially the same as Gavin's figure, though slightly different has he's using A1B and I'm using A2. Our baselines are probably also different. I just set the model mean value in 2000 equal to the 1998-2002 average temperature anomaly. I'm using the A2 model mean data from here, but you're right that the trend should be 0.18 or 0.19°C per decade to this point. I'm not sure how I got 0.16°C, I'll have to check on that later, but I've revised the post accordingly. -
dana1981 at 02:18 AM on 28 December 2012Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
Doug @9, as I noted @2, it's not as simple as adjusting for different ECS estimates because we're not in equilibrium. -
OPatrick at 00:31 AM on 28 December 2012Food Security: the first big hit from Climate Change will be to our pockets
John, I'm one of those who gave up this year. If the rain holds off I might head off down there this afternoon and start preparing the ground for next year - hope springs eternal. I think food security is something most people are still blithely unaware of and it's something we should be coming back to time and again. Events like Sandy grab people's attention but it's important that we use those opportunities to point to these issues which will impact on everyone. For people like me it just means a depressing patch of weedy mud and a few more pounds and pence on the weekly shop. For many people around the world a poor harvest means devestation. -
JosHagelaars at 21:08 PM on 27 December 2012Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
Dana, many thanks for the informative posting. I compared your figure 9 for the A4 multi-model projections with this figure of Gavin Schmidt. Schmidt plotted the observational data together with the A1B model data and due to i.a. the La-Nina's in 2008 and 2011 the observations are running a bit lower than the model average. This is also visible in your figure 9, but due to the different scaling it is less distinct than in the RealClimate image. How would the scaling you use in figure 9 work out for the hindcast as is shown in the RealClimate image? I checked the IPCC A2 model data and calculated a warming trend over 2000-2012 from the average of the A2 model data and got 0.19 °C/decade (ranging from min 0.03 to max 0.35). You got 0.16 °C/decade. Am I using the wrong data? -
John Russell at 21:04 PM on 27 December 2012Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
I just noticed that one can drag-and-drop the '©' symbol from the bottom left corner of this page where it says '© Copyright 2012 John Cook'. Can I suggest a degree (°) symbol is placed somewhere near there—or alongside the heading 'Post a Comment'—then anyone can drag and drop it into their comment while typing. Speaking personally I'd also like a '—' character too. I usually have to use two hyphens--like this--but the correct symbol would be useful. -
mikeh1 at 20:21 PM on 27 December 2012Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
@Doug H "& deg;" is a HTML code which applies to all op systems. See the full list here. http://www.w3schools.com/tags/ref_entities.asp -
John Mason at 20:08 PM on 27 December 2012Food Security: the first big hit from Climate Change will be to our pockets
Joe (#7) - yes I'm sure I have some stuff at home which I'll dig into when I get back. My personal experience of one C3 plant - the potato - is that if there's one thing guaranteed to lead to wipeout - as the Irish sadly discovered in the early 19th Century - is prolonged and very damp, humid and mild conditions - the conditions under which blight thrives. So we have two clear sets of variables (among many) to contend with here - potential yield and potential hazards (biological, meteorological and so on). -
Doug Hutcheson at 17:53 PM on 27 December 2012Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
dana1981 @ 8, thanks for the explanation. FAR and SAR were based on models using a lower ECS than the IPCC thought they were using. I take it that the graphs would look different again (worse), if we plugged in the current best estimate for ECS (3°C). As for the degree symbol, I am using Linux. It turns out that I can use the HTML code '& deg;' with no spaces - see this page. -
dana1981 at 17:24 PM on 27 December 2012Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
Doug @3 - no, what I was trying to say is that the FAR and SAR thought they were using models with 2.5°C ECS; however, because they overestimated the forcing associated with doubled CO2, the actual ECS of the models was about 2.1°C. All I've done in my graphs is take actual GHG emissions into account - I haven't done anything with regards to climate sensitivity there. On a Mac the degree symbol is shift-option-8, by the way. On a PC it's Alt-176 I think. -
Rob Honeycutt at 14:46 PM on 27 December 2012Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
Well, Dana has special cyborg powers, so creating such symbols is easy for him. ;-) -
Doug Hutcheson at 13:50 PM on 27 December 2012Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
Rob @ 5, yes, it was because Dana is using it that I thought it must be invoked by using special html code. The standard HTML for superscript is 'sup', but that does not work here. Never thought of cutting and pasting it - doh! "8-\ -
Rob Honeycutt at 13:37 PM on 27 December 2012Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
Hm... No sooner did I post that then I noticed Dana able to use the ° symbol. (I just cut and pasted it from Dana's post.) -
Rob Honeycutt at 13:35 PM on 27 December 2012Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
Doug... I'd suggest just using "C" to denote temp. That's pretty much the standard format used everywhere. Remember, lots of folks are in the US where the degree symbol will be construed as degrees F. -
Doug Hutcheson at 12:55 PM on 27 December 2012Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
dana1981 @ 2, I'm still confused, so I am obviously missing something. If I have read the OP correctly, FAR and SAR originally used 2.5o ECS, the revised graphs were based on 2.1o and the real ECS is approx. 3o. To my confused little mind, the revised graphs should use 3o. Where am I going wrong? PS: I still cannot get superscript tags to work, to render the degrees symbol: I am using the HTML codes 'sup' and '/sup' inside pointed brackets, but that is not working. -
villabolo at 12:37 PM on 27 December 2012Food Security: the first big hit from Climate Change will be to our pockets
Doug @ #10 I think that the attitude the conservative elite in the US, political and religious, have regarding disaster victims will spark civil unrest at some time in the near future. These people are so arrogant as to blame the victims of Sandy and Katrina for their plight. They actually state that the homeless were negligent because they chose not to have flood insurance! As for the role that religion will play in the future we have no further than the past to look for answers. The clerical elite will serve as an opiate for the masses to deaden the pain. Yes we're living in interesting times. -
dana1981 at 12:24 PM on 27 December 2012Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
Thanks Doug @1, typo fixed. Yes, the current best equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) estimate is 3°C. However, remember that's equilibrium sensitivity, and we're far out of equilibrium. More relevant would be the transient climate response, but that wasn't reported in earlier IPCC reports. It's not so simple as adjusting for lower ECS, because it could just be that the model transient response is too fast or too slow, irrespective of ECS. So while the 'best estimate' models in the FAR and SAR had roughly 2.1°C ECS, we don't know what their transient climate responses were, so we can't adjust for that. -
Doug Hutcheson at 12:04 PM on 27 December 2012Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
Minor niggle: under 'Don Easterbook' you have the typo 'bsaed', instead of 'based'.The SAR also maintained the "best estimate" equilibrium climate sensitivity used in the FAR of 2.5°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. However, as in the FAR, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than current estimates, the actual "best estimate" model sensitivity was closer to 2.1°C for doubled CO2.
I'm confused by this. I thought the current best estimate of equilibrium sensitivity was about 3oC? I gather from the text that, if we take models used in FAR and apply a 2.1oC sensitivity, we come closer to observations. Is that a correct understanding, or am I missing the point? Mods: what is the correct code to render a degree sign?
Prev 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 Next
