Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 Next
Comments 60601 to 60650:
-
muoncounter at 04:09 AM on 5 April 2012Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)
Spoke too soon. If the frequency of volcanic eruptions increase during solar minima, the next step would be to drag in the cosmic ray increase during solar minima. Et voila: Ebisuzaki 2011: The strong negative correlation observed between the timing of silica-rich eruptions and solar activity can be explained by variations in cosmic-ray flux arising from solar modulation. ... such magma exists ... relatively close to the surface, within the penetration range of cosmic-ray muons (1–10 GeV). These muons can contribute to nucleation in supersaturated magma ... . This radiation-induced nucleation can lead to the pre-eruptive exsolution of H2O in the silica-rich magma. We note the possibility that the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption was triggered by the same mechanism: an increase in cosmic-ray flux triggered by Typhoon Yunya, as a decrease in atmospheric pressure results in an increase in cosmic-ray flux. Staggering. Low point in the solar cycle has increased cosmic ray flux, which supposedly triggers explosive volcanic eruptions. Such eruptions lead to cooling. But low solar supposedly also leads to cooling. And typhoons trigger volcanoes (more cooling). If warming oceans lead to more vigorous typhoons, then does warming actually lead inexorably to cooling? And if all these natural factors lead to cooling, why is it still warming? -
muoncounter at 03:56 AM on 5 April 2012Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)
actually thoughtful, The solar-volcanic correlation is weak, but not random and it's been known for a while. From Stothers 1989: The historical record of large volcanic eruptions from 1500 to 1980, ... is subjected to detailed time series analysis. Two weak, but probably statistically significant, periodicities of ~11 and ~80 years are detected. Both cycles appear to correlate with well-known cycles of solar activity; the phasing is such that the frequency of volcanic eruptions increases (decreases) slightly around the times of solar minimum (maximum). Speculate about a causal relationship at your own peril! -
dana1981 at 01:21 AM on 5 April 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Thanks John Russell, some very good points in that critique. -
Eric (skeptic) at 01:02 AM on 5 April 2012Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues
Roy Spencer's March update is out with the unlabeled sinusoid overlay: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ I assume that means it is no longer entertainment but a prediction. What is interesting is that the initial downward part of the curve was mainly a blip from the two volcanic eruptions. Perhaps Dr Spencer is predicting more volcanic eruptions? -
Composer99 at 23:32 PM on 4 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 2)
... OK, cliked "Submit" at the wrong time. Anyway, between all those, it's a shame anyone will still find his presentations at all convincing. -
Composer99 at 23:31 PM on 4 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 2)
Between the various deconstructions of his nonsense by the Skeptical Science team, John Abraham, and Peter Hadfield (too bad Watts closed down their online debate, allowing Monckton to play the brave Sir Robin). -
Fran Barlow at 22:34 PM on 4 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 2)
he has plotted them at 5:1 rather than 3:1. Get your rulers out and see for yourself!
Well he had to leave space for the text on the "credibility gap". That was much more important than minor matters such as having different years in different places, assuming that ceteris paribus applies and certainly the gradient in a trend. Semantic note: If something is "blinding" can it still be "obvious"? Surely if one is blinded, nothing is obvious, except perhaps that one is blinded. -
macoles at 21:53 PM on 4 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 2)
Monckton's Credibility Gap (figure 1) is absolutely laughable. The lines are described as having 3K/century and 1K/century slopes, but he has plotted them at 5:1 rather than 3:1. Get your rulers out and see for yourself! So not only can he instantaneously time travel between 1950 and 2000 at the chart's origin, but it seams that he can warp the entire 2D space as well! -
John Russell at 21:40 PM on 4 April 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
A very detailed critique of Lindzen's Feb 22nd London lecture has now been published. The authors are B. Hoskins; J. Mitchel; T. Palmer; K. Shine & E. Wolff. It's well worth a read. The conclusion is interesting:"A pervasive aspect of RSL’s presentation was the conflation of uncertainty with ignorance; in his view, because we are uncertain about some aspect, we therefore know nothing about it and any estimate of it is mere guesswork. In this way we believe RSL does a disservice to the scientific method, which seeks to develop understanding in the face of inevitable uncertainties in our knowledge of the world in which we live. The scientific method has served society well for many hundreds of years, and we see no reason to doubt its validity for trying to quantify the risk of climate change and its impacts on society this century. On this basis we reassert that there is a substantial risk of human-induced climate change considerably larger than 1oC in global average this century and beyond. There is nothing in RSL’s talk to cast doubt on the existence of this risk. It is up to policy makers, not scientists, to decide whether governments should take concerted mitigating action to try to reduce this risk."
Let's hope all the attendees are sent a copy! -
John Russell at 20:16 PM on 4 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 2)
@Doug H I think you're dead right about Monckton's rhetoric and his lawyerly debating ability. Winning an argument, for him, is about verbal skill and tactics -- not about seeking truth. One of Monckton's favourite phrases is, "...it's blindingly obvious...". I would suggest this sums up his approach. He looks at elements of climate science right up to the point where his limited understanding tells him what he wants to read and then stops. Sometimes he gets no further than the title of a paper or article, sometimes he has to dig deeper, but either way he finds a point which, superficially, appears to support his view and then he extracts and uses it. In that sense he's like a lawyer representing a client: cherry-picking the positive and avoiding reference to the negative. Science must seem very strange to him: I mean why would you consider aspects of the case -- sorry, 'subject' -- that don't support your argument? One thing I will say for him; his slides are highly coloured -- in more ways than one! -
Doug Hutcheson at 17:33 PM on 4 April 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #13
I avidly read ([pedantry]or should that grammatically be 'read avidly'?[/pedantry]) every post and use the 'Comments' link to keep up to date with unfolding conversations. Therefore:- Do you subscribe to the daily email notice of newly posted articles on SkS? No
- Would you subscribe to a weekly email notice of newly posted articles if the option to do so was provided? No
-
Doug Hutcheson at 16:40 PM on 4 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 2)
Monckton believes he can convince
Monckton has a degree in Classics, according to wikipedia:Monckton was educated at Harrow School and Churchill College, Cambridge, where he received an BA/MA(Cambs.) in classics in 1974
Now, I have not had the benefit of an education in Classics, so perhaps I should be an obedient serf and not question my betters, but I am vaguely aware that a Classics degree may have touched upon the gentlemanly art of Rhetoric. In my twisted little mind, it would appear that Monckton has been trained to speak convincingly, in a lawyer-like manner, regardless of whether what he says exists in a factual vacuum. I can well believe that m'lud thinks he can convince uncritical people, because he plainly can. What I cannot decide is whether what he says bears any relationship to what he thinks. It is incredible to me that an apparently intelligent person, which I credit Monckton as being, could actually himself believe such a litany of misinformation. I am left to suppose that he knows better. -
Same Ordinary Fool at 14:00 PM on 4 April 2012Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues
Here's another way of looking at some of the golden oldies in Happer's blogpost editorial...explicitly in terms of SkS's Skeptic Arguments. The Fixed Numbers numbering system in the Argument drop down box, is used because it is permanent. The other lists are in order of popularity, so their numbering will change over time. Fixed Numbers "Par" is the number of Happer's paragraph, followed by its first two words. Next comes a brief summary of Happer's statement. Followed by the Fixed Number, and the shortie description of the Skeptic Argument. Par 2 What is... For 10 years...........Fx7-1998 Par 3 The lack... Statistical significance..........Fx82-1995 Par 4 CO2 is... CO2 not a pollutant..........Fx42-pollutant Higher CO2 levels..........Fx45-pastco2 Plants grow better..........Fx120-plant Exaggerated effects..........Fx12-impacts Fossil fuel countries..........Fx177-expensive Par 5 The direct... Low sensitivity..........Fx30-sensitivity Positive feedback..........Fx-143-clouds Par 6 There has... Early warming..........Fx1-sun Natural causes..........Fx35-pre1940 Par 7 Frustrated by... Extreme weather..........Fx41-extreme Par 9 Large fluctuations... US cold weather..........Fx15-cold Par 13 It is... Computer models..........Fx5-model On its editorial pages, on the global warming issue, the Wall Street Journal plays a strange kind of favoritism towards the fossil fuel, and fossil fuel dependent, industries. While deceiving another constituency: all those who read the WSJ for long term investment advice. In this instance an atomic physicist writing as an authority on climate science declares that global temperatures have not increased much in the last 10 years. Yet we see from Foster and Rahmsdorf's graph in Fx7-1998 that, after removing the ENSO signal and the effects of solar and volcanic activity, that the global temperatures are actually still increasing relentlessly at the same rate as they have been since 1979. -
actually thoughtful at 13:49 PM on 4 April 2012Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)
Ari's latest post has a paper about the (apparently random) correlation between volcanic activity and solar cycles over the last century. Could the combination of major volcanic activity and solar minimum produce a causal relationship when both happen at the same time? -
dana1981 at 13:43 PM on 4 April 2012Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)
To be blunt for a moment, David Archibald is kind of a joke. I mean, the man tries to argue for solar warming by using temperature data from Hanover, New Hampshire. He's a notorious cherry picker. He's the author of possibly the worst climate paper ever. The only reason we have to continually debunk his nonsense is that the so-called "skeptics" take him seriously. I think Archibald is the posterboy for what's wrong with the global warming "skeptic" movement. -
Bernard J. at 13:38 PM on 4 April 2012Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)
Curiously, the second Archibald thread on WWWT was closed soon after mention of this thread was made on Digest 12's 'Coming soon' list. As far as I can fathom, the WWWT threads aren't usually closed so soon, so it appears that they were pre-empting some postings that might spoil the premise of the thread. Either that, or they thought that I might try to tweak Archibald's nose again as I already did at the bottom of the thread. If so, they were right - I was going to have another bash at his refusal to explain himself when I discovered that the door had been shut. -
actually thoughtful at 13:36 PM on 4 April 2012Weather records due to climate change: A game with loaded dice
I think the focus on 2 meters is, in a way, misleading. Storm surges will create Katrina like events in coastal cities long before the actual 2 meters is hit. Of course storm surges on top of 2 meters is so far beyond ugly that I can't honestly truly comprehend it. Sadly, on the current track, we shall indeed see. -
actually thoughtful at 13:07 PM on 4 April 2012New research from last week 13/2012
The Rypdal paper concerning random volcanic eruptions influence on our understanding of the solar cycle could use the SkS treatment. I suspect it won't much change our understanding of climate sensitivity, but it does challenge one important leg of our understanding (response to solar variation). -
John Hartz at 11:54 AM on 4 April 2012Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)
The results of the study detailed in this NSF news release bear directly on the issues being discussed on this comment thread. “Scientists Find Slow Subsidence of Earth's Crust Beneath the Mississippi Delta: But Gulf Coast sea-level rise rate five times higher now than in pre-industrial times.” To access this NSF news release, click here. -
scaddenp at 10:29 AM on 4 April 2012Stauning and Friis-Christensen on Solar Cycle Length and Global Warming
Looks to me like this paper might be relevant to claims of solar causality. -
Alex C at 06:16 AM on 4 April 2012Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)
@pauls at 03:20 AM on 4 April, 2012 Sorry, I understood your point when you said it first, my bad for not being clearer in my response. I think it would be good to consider pointing out as shown by the case study of the satellite record, but I don't know to what extent I can dismiss variation in past records as being due to tidal gauge variability. Perhaps though the methodology undertaken by Church and White 2011 undercuts that complaint though? @CTG at 05:14 AM on 4 April, 2012 Thanks for the suggestion, it's more than welcome. @dana1981 at 05:45 AM on 4 April, 2012 Thanks, but I already have the Church and White 2011 data in full, including their satellite data. I had obtained it a while back with the intent of using it in a later post. I cited the results from Jason and such given by the University of Colorado because it was the first satellite data source that came to mind when I wanted to use it for another previous purpose. -
dana1981 at 05:45 AM on 4 April 2012Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)
Alex, I've got the Church and White GMSL data mentioned by pauls @6 if you want to use it. -
CTG at 05:14 AM on 4 April 2012Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)
If you want to determine whether two cyclical looking trends do in fact have a causal relationship, another useful analysis is PCA. This will tell you whether there is synchronisation between the cycles, and which of the two is leading/lagging. I used this to analyse the 11-year cycle of Canadian lynx and Snowshoe hare populations, and determined that it was the hare population that was driving the cycle of the lynx population. I have a strong suspicion that PCA would show very clearly that there is a lack of synchronisation between GMSL and sunspots. -
pauls at 03:20 AM on 4 April 2012Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)
It's not much of an issue until you reach the twenty-first century (or, end of the twentieth) when we actually do have satellite altimetry, so we have to rely on tidal/coastal measurements beforehand. My point was that inferences concerning decadal global sea level trends aren't well-supported by reference to CMSL data since the two don't necessarily resolve to the same result over such a timescale. Church & White 2011 is an attempt to reconstruct a global sea level picture by calibrating tide gauge data to satellite alitimeters and then extrapolating that relationship back to the 19th Century. -
MA Rodger at 03:02 AM on 4 April 2012Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)
I always go cautious when Holgate 2007 is brought out. The 9 tidal gauge records it uses provide the data that "skeptics" like to use to say that sea level rise is decelerating, being lower on average in the second half of the twentieth century than in the first half. Holgate helpfully even does the arithmatic for them in the Abstract. -
Alex C at 02:38 AM on 4 April 2012Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)
@pauls at 02:11 AM on 4 April, 2012 That's a good point about coastal sea level trends v. global sea level, indeed Holgate 2007 used coastal gauges so perhaps my continued use of "GMSL trend" is misguided. It's not much of an issue until you reach the twenty-first century (or, end of the twentieth) when we actually do have satellite altimetry, so we have to rely on tidal/coastal measurements beforehand. I was planning on doing some discussion on satellite data in Part 2, but I will look into the paper you suggest and the issue of decadal variability in coastal measurements v. more stable satellite altimetry. I don't quite get the same values as you though with the satellite data - from U.Colorado's monthly data I calculated annual values and ran the same 10-year moving derivative that Holgate 2007 did, and I obtained a plot that peaked in ~2000 (1996-2005) at about 4mm/yr and dropped smoothly to ~2.3mm/yr in 2006 (2002-2011). Similar to an upside-down parabola. I suspect the end value is heavily influenced by the 2011 La Nina though. -
pauls at 02:11 AM on 4 April 2012Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)
I recently watched a talk by Jasper Kirkby of CLOUD fame (from 2009 apparently, available on Youtube). He also showed a comparison between Holgate 2007 and the solar cycle. Unlike Archibald, Kirkby didn't draw any strong conclusions but stated he was surprised that Holgate 2007 was published without having to explain or mention this apparent correlation. What Archibald and Kirkby both miss (and isn't mentioned in this article - perhaps Part2?) is that tide gauges provide a measure of coastal mean sea level (CMSL) and not global mean sea level (GMSL). Even if it had perfect coastal coverage, the variability seen in Holgate 2007 relates to coastal sea level trends, which is not necessarily indicative of the total global picture (by which I mean the decadal variability, not the multidecadal trend). Prandi 2009 provides a useful comparison between the two metrics. Really we should expect some influence on sea level change from the solar cycle but it doesn't appear to be very significant compared to other factors. I just tried a quick calculation using the annual altimeter data available for Church & White 2011. The trends from 1996-2002 (min to max) and 2002-2009 (max to min) are pretty much indistinguishable at ~3mm/yr. -
Westerwick at 02:07 AM on 4 April 2012Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)
Very nice analysis, Alex, but my initial thoughts on seeing the problem posed is "You've got to be kidding me!" The two underlying problems with Archibald's are that he is ignoring sea level and showing a very tenuous relationship between sea level change and sunspots, and that the entire argument lacks causality. I didn't go back to retrieve the GMSL data to run through a linear regression, but just a quick engineer's eyeball curve looks like the mean sea level rise during this period is about 1.5 to 2 mm/yr. Extrapolate this for 120 years and we are looking at about 0.25 metres using his data. No need to mention that it will be significantly higher using more recent measurements. The second major problem is causality. When I was fifth grader in California, our science teacher presented us with a graph showing the relationship between people drowning and ice cream sales at Coney Island, which showed two curves that were scaled to look very similar. He then asked us if we could eliminate drowning deaths by stopping sales of ice cream. It didn't take a group of 10 and 11 year olds too long to figure out that ice cream sales didn't cause drowning, and that the common cause was that people both swam and ate ice cream when it was warm out. I find it incredible to hear that a group of adults would just blithely accept some magical relationship between sunspots and the rate of sea level change without looking for a common cause. I would hope that the good citizens of NSW would demand more of their elected representatives than I saw with my grade school classmates. -
citizenschallenge at 01:33 AM on 4 April 2012Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)
Nice job Alex! And how many times do such great explanations need to be repeated? :-( It's all there. What's that they say about horses and water, it's the same thing with Repubs and learning. How to deal with the willful ignorance? Allow me to share a thought: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ While there are still plenty of AGW denialists a close examination of their arguments consistently show a tactical disregard for the full spectrum of science, and Earth Observation. Instead they present fictitious-science where facts are omitted or distorted to suit. Thus it is critical we stop entertaining the gang of usually over-the-hill “skeptical” non-climate scientists & engineers with ideological axes to grind – instead we should be listening to actual Climatologists, people who are doing the real scientific work in this field as opposed to armchair nitpicking misdirection intent on spreading confusion rather than learning Time to start honestly facing our situation. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
Kevin C at 21:35 PM on 3 April 2012Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues
KR: I ought to at least cross-link the two pages, and authors need to be careful about which one they link. (I'm thinking simulated tabs within the page are probably the most intuitive user interface element for this purpose.) Merging them though is potentially much more confusing - at the moment we have one tool for up-to-date observed data, and one for comparing a fixed snapshot of the observed data against the adjusted data, which is only available for some datasets. (One thing which is often opaque to people is how hard intuitive data presentation and intuitive user interface design are. I've lost many nights sleep on both. When writing a paper you always want to present as much information as possible, but if you do so no-one else can understand it. And I've lost track of the number of incomprehensible graphs I've seen at conferences.) -
CBDunkerson at 21:00 PM on 3 April 2012New research from last week 13/2012
"They say that slow-flying bats reduce their activity in the presence of LED street lighting, but how that goes with the saying "blind as a bat"?" Bats aren't really blind. Many species of microchiroptera have 'poor' eyesight, but megachiroptera (large fruit bats) actually tend to have very good eyesight. (Yes, I realize you were kidding). I have to wonder if changes in bat activity around street lights don't have more to do with changes in insect activity around street lights than any impact of the light itself on the bats. However, I haven't been able to find the full paper to check if they address that. From what I can gather, based on various statements on their web-site and elsewhere, it seems like they found hedge rows that served as 'guideposts' from bat roosting areas to common feeding areas, measured bat activity at the feeding area, put up LED lights along the hedge row 'travel route', and then found less bat activity in the feeding area. Thus, some of the bats are going somewhere else... but I'd wonder if they weren't then eating insects gathered around the new LED lights themselves and therefor never making it to the previous feeding ground. If that isn't the case then the apparent conclusion of the study, that the lights represent a 'road block' because the bats avoid them and thus have a harder time establishing routes to feeding sites, seems reasonable. -
jyyh at 16:07 PM on 3 April 2012Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
Spring is clearly progressing in Finland, Photo 2.4.2012, people are out in terraces: https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/559036_10150664808032933_602142932_9408187_1661815028_n.jpg -
caerbannog at 15:26 PM on 3 April 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #13
#7 Just the "meteorological stations" (air temps) index. Too lazy to bother with the land/ocean temp data ;) -
Tom Curtis at 15:17 PM on 3 April 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #13
caerbannog @6, very interesting. One question though, did you compare with the Gistemp land ocean temperature index, or with the Air Temperature Anomalies Only (meteorological station data)? -
Tom Curtis at 15:00 PM on 3 April 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
scaddenp @51, but didn't you know? A significance of 94% means the evidence does not exist, and even supports the contrary hypothesis if you don't like what the evidence appears to say. Deniers are quite aware of this fundamental principle, and use it all the time. / sarc -
Tom Curtis at 14:58 PM on 3 April 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
shoyemore @49, based on your example, the controversial part of Lu et al's finding should have been stated as:"Our most recent crystals suggest a warming relative to the LIA in the last century, possibly as part of the regional recent rapid warming, but this climatic signature is not yet as extreme in nature as the MWPMCA . The resolution of our record is insufficient to constrain the ages of these climatic oscillationsvariations in the Southern hemisphere relative to their expression in the Northern hemisphere, but our ikaite record builds the case that the oscillationsimpacts of the MWPMCA and LIA are global in their extent and their impact reaches as far South ashad temperature variations had the same sign in the Antarctic Peninsula as in Europe, while prior studies in the AP region have had mixed results."
(deletions struck through, additions in bold, quoted from WUWT) The point here is that as originally written, whether intended or not, the amended passage carried the implication of increased warmth in all regions in the MCA relative to the early 20th century. That implication just cannot be sustained by the evidence presented. Eleven temperature datums at just one location cannot establish the prima facie case for global warmth that would be needed for that statement to be valid without severe qualification. (Note: if anybody thinks I am contradicting my earlier claims, they need to revise their understanding of just how weak is the relationship, "is evidence of".) To see this clearly, consider the actual evidence presented in the paper:
The ikaite proxies are the eleven dots shown against climate proxies from the nearby region, two from the eastern Antarctic Peninsular, one from the western Antarctic Peninsula, and one from East Antarctica. Note that the temperature equivalence is inverted for part (a) compared to the other three. The original caption reads:
"Fig. 6. δ18Ohydra profile (in green) plotted with other climate records, assuming sedimentation rate of 0.96 cm/yr and ikaite formation depth of 3.04±0.57 m. δ18Ohydra variability among different crystals found at the same depth is about±0.33‰. A–B: Magnetic susceptibility and TOC of JPC2 are plotted against age. C: SST at Palmer Deep, the line represents a five-point moving average (Shevenell et al., 2011). D: δ18OEPICA data are smoothed by a ten-point moving average. E: Timing of climatic events summarized for the AP region and citations (1 — Pudsey and Evans (2001); 2 — Jones et al. (2000); 3 — Brachfeld et al. (2003); 4 — Khim et al. (2002); 5 — Hall et al. (2010); 6 — Domack et al. (1995); 7 — Liu et al. (2005))."
(quoted from WUWT) The dates of the eleven samples are approximately: Modern Era: 1920, 1885, LIA: 1630, MCA: 1465, 1325, 1150, Other: 855, 770, 665, 370, 215 All dates are plus or minus 60 years. Further, I have assumed the "present" is 2010 for calculating years before present. By convention it is often 1950, but may be as late as 2012. In any event, it is very clear that "our most recent crystals" whose "climactic signature is not yet as extreme in nature as the MWP actually comes from the late 19th century to middle twentieth century, and is not representative of late twentieth century temperatures. So the evidence in the study neither supports nor contradicts the claim that Antarctic Peninsular temperatures in the MCA where greater than they are in the late 20th and early 21st century. It has no comparable temperature proxy in that period to make the comparison.Moderator Response: [DB] Note that the strike hash tag command is currently not operative. -
caerbannog at 14:49 PM on 3 April 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #13
Not too long ago, I tried an experiment where I computed global-average temperature anomalies from raw data taken from just a few dozen rural GHCN stations. Got results that were surprisingly close to the NASA/GISS "meteorological stations" index. Well, I'd been thinking about how to add a bit of "visual punch" to those results that might help sway "skeptical" laypeople. A few days ago, I found the time to revisit that little project. This time, I added some code that generates simple .kml files. The .kml files contain station latitude/longitude info that can be viewed with GoogleEarth. Also updated the code to process GHCN V3 data (not that it makes much difference -- the V3 and V2 GHCN results are almost identical). I put up the results on my hometown newspaper's on-line message board, and included the corresponding station lat/long .kml files as attachments. My post there shows the results of two "sparse rural station" processing runs, plotted along with the NASA/GISS "meteorological stations" index. I also provide details about the processing (pretty simple, actually). You can view the results (and download the GoogleEarth .kml files) here. (Unlike a lot of discussion-boards, the UT San Diego board allows you to download post attachments without registering first.) The plotted results, along with GoogleEarth visualization of the station data, hopefully will provide folks here with some ammo to help convince skeptical co-workers/friends/family-members that denier attacks on the global temperature results published by NASA, etc. really are completely without merit. The "sparse stations" results really do "kill two birds with one stone": they provide solid refutations of both the UHI and "dropped stations" claims pushed by Watts and Co. The fact that data from few dozen rural stations will produce results similar to the results published by NASA/GISS pretty much disproves the notion that UHI is responsible for the observed global warming. (Bird #1) In addition, the fact that you can still get results similar to NASA's when you drop 98 percent of the stations pretty much tells you all you need to know about Anthony Watts' fussing over a much smaller number of "dropped stations". (Bird #2). I should emphasize that all results were generated with *raw* (not homogenized) temperature data. The results and GoogleEarth visualizations also provide very powerful visual support for Dr. Jim Hansen's loudly-disputed claims about very long temperature anomaly correlation distances. I'm hoping that some folks here will find this material useful. -
barry1487 at 12:58 PM on 3 April 2012Mars is warming
Just wanted to add to this thread the study that posits Uranus cooling from 1983 to 1998. "The secular increase in temperature seen during the period 1977–1983 has reversed." http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf I brought this up at WUWT a few years ago when this meme was being trotted out more often, and the responses were that Uranus has particular orbital characteristics that might account for its 'anomalous' climate behaviour. When I replied that other planets may likewise have characteristics particular to them that account for (apparent) warming, no one responded. -
scaddenp at 12:23 PM on 3 April 2012Weather records due to climate change: A game with loaded dice
West129 - most of "what if" is in human control. IF you emit at this rate, THEN you will likely get sealevel rise of x metres. Just like theory of gravity says IF you provide this much thrust to your rocket, THEN you will end up there. That said there is no denying very considerable uncertainties because of the highly non-linear behaviour of ice-sheets. The models are semi-empirical, based on past ice sheet behaviour. However, what source says sealevel will go down? The physics says melt rate will at worse than linear but hard to estimate by how much. What they all say, is that continuing to emit GHGs will cause at very least expensive levels of sea-level rise. No amount of semantics about "predictions" or "forecasts" change that. If you dont like the prediction, then change the emissions.Moderator Response: TC: The comments policy forbids all caps. Please comply in future so that moderators are not forced into deciding whether to snip or delete. -
West129 at 11:52 AM on 3 April 2012Weather records due to climate change: A game with loaded dice
@ Daniel Bailey 14: You proved my point: This is a science based forum. { snip }Moderator Response: [mc] Incomprehensible, non-science based commentary snipped. Please refer to the Comments Policy. -
michael sweet at 11:34 AM on 3 April 2012Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
RealClimate has a new post describing an article from Hansen 1981 and its prediction of future warming. Hansen was about 30% lower than observed warming for this 30 year validation. Perhaps a review of this article could be added to the predictions link. Unfortunately, that prediction calls for a rapid increase in global warming in the near future. -
TOP at 11:18 AM on 3 April 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Judging how messed up this thread was (technically) over the weekend I'm just not sure. Fortunately or unfortunately my three comments to #131 were removed. I was wondering if the intruder had left a trojan or something.Moderator Response: [DB] There were technical issues centering around how the server dealt with time zones, and especially daylight savings time, in some areas. As a result, the sequencing of some comments may have been affected. Comments not fully germane to the discussion and detracting from the dialogue due to the aforesaid sequencing issues may have been moderated out. Apologies to all concerned. -
scaddenp at 11:08 AM on 3 April 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
Note by the way, that in Realclimate's "doing it yourself" article, it pointed to M&W excellent collection of code and data which allows you to run "no Tiljander", or "no tree ring" etc runs yourself. I'm lost to see Brandon's point about these being key to signal. Gavin notes "it's worth pointing out that validation for the no-dendro/no-Tilj is quite sensitive to the required significance, for EIV NH Land+Ocean it goes back to 1500 for 95%, but 1300 for 94% and 1100 AD for 90% " -
threadShredder at 11:04 AM on 3 April 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #13
Thanks for the response @1. I'd prefer the weekly email update, if it's implemented. (I get the RSS feed, but some articles don't seem to make it.) -
scaddenp at 10:58 AM on 3 April 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
"If the MWP could be as warm as current times without anthropogenic influences, how can we explain it? If we don't have an explanation, how do we know the same cause isn't have an influence now?" Firstly, warming is not the same as current times. Even historical records have different regions warming at different times, unlike current setup. And only in a few places is warming comparable to present. Whether the MWP was a global phenomena is open question but proxy evidence to date does not yet support that nor does the weak sealevel signiture. Secondly, as I pointed out earlier,when the postulated forcings operating in MWP are put into models, then they show warming at least for NH. (For reference papers, see the AR4 figure). The mystery is in the regional pattern, not the absence of sufficient forcing. -
Tom Curtis at 10:45 AM on 3 April 2012Weather records due to climate change: A game with loaded dice
muoncounter @16, thank you for the additional information. What I was missing, and what Bamber indicates (and thanks to Daniel for doing so) is that a collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet will both result in uplift in West Antarctica as the continent responds to reduced load, and the removal of substantial mass from West Antarctica to near the equator under the effect of the centripetal "force" from the Earth's rotation. Both effects will result in water moving from the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in a greater increase in sea level in the NH than in the SH. This combined effects are shown below. The contours are the normalized sea level rise, so that 1 represents the global average. Multiply by 3.2 to get the sea level rise in meters.
This increase does not take into account the effects of uplift or subsidence in North America due to isostatic rebound in North America. Consequently, while collapse fo the WAIS will bring 1.25 times global averge sea level rise in New York, it will bring much more south of New York along the US coast.
Still, Bamber et al is good news, on balance, as it reduces the expected sea level rise from a collapse of the WAIS. That does not reduce the final sea level rise expected from global warming as the ice expected to melt has not reduced, only the ice expected to collapse. But it does reduce the magnitude of the most rapid sea level rise.
-
R. Gates at 10:05 AM on 3 April 2012Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues
Sadly, I've seen some other well-known PhD climate researchers repeat these same inaccurate statements, while at the same time being both aware of the OHC information as well as attribution studies such as Foster & Rahmstorf. Very sad and disturbing. Thanks for continuing to attempt to illuminate the truth SkS! -
yocta at 08:18 AM on 3 April 2012Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues
Well done SkS team. The turn around between what the fake skeptics say and what rebuttals can be done is getting quicker and quicker. -
les at 06:37 AM on 3 April 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #13
70-80's: email? Not so much. 90-2k's I'm perfectly happy with the RSS feed - although, clearly, as you publish full articles there; it reduces your site hit-rate. 10k's I also wouldn't mind a more complete mirror / notification of new articles on Facebook. -
JMurphy at 06:36 AM on 3 April 2012It's not bad
mohyla103, we're going round in circles here and I admit to not making myself very clear in my last response - but you definitely have misread what I was trying to get across. Therefore, to make things as simple as possible, your claims of "misleading", "inaccurate", "misrepresentation of data", "sloppy use", "WRONG", "he definitely misrepresented data", "peer review completely missed the error", "proven to be wrong", "proves Barnett misrepresented the data" have yet to be proven because the average 49.1% you are basing all your claims on is just that - an average. Any of the ten years comprising that average may well have had snow- and glacier-melt contributions of over 50%. As well as that, certain periods may well have seen those contributions comprised totally of glacier-melt. Anyone who wanted to claim, therefore, what Barnett claimed, would need to have knowledge of the details of that 10-year study, as well as knowledge of snow- and glacier-melt in general. I have neither of those - do you ? If you don't, your claims are based on an average figure from one paper (which itself has references relating to snow- and glacier-melt, e.g. Hydrological characteristics of a Himalayan glacier and problems associated with discharge measurements in the glacier melt streams - Hydrology, 16: 30-51) and one average figure; whereas I reckon Barnett's claim is based on that paper (as well as its references), and his own knowledge of such studies. I also reckon that the peer-review system is sturdy and capable of making decisions as to which papers are substantiated and worthy of publication, and which aren't or which need further clarification. In the end, I don't have the time or resources to check every claim and rely on the science and scientists of each discipline to produce credible and reliable work. Even if that means accepting 49.1% as meaning the same as "as much as 50%", so be it. Obsession about words and extreme details are not my cup of tea. In fact, if you feel so certain about your claims, why not email him and let him know your feelings ? What have you got to lose ? timdotbarnett@ucsd.edu
Prev 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 Next
