Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 Next
Comments 60901 to 60950:
-
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 -
muoncounter at 05:34 AM on 3 April 2012Weather records due to climate change: A game with loaded dice
TomC #13: " I suspect, however, that New York would be near the "pivot point"" There's an abundance of data for this; no need to speculate. From Sella et al 2007: The uplift rates generally decrease with distance from Hudson Bay and change to subsidence (1 – 2 mm/yr) south of the Great Lakes. The ‘‘hinge line’’ separating uplift from subsidence is consistent with data from water level gauges along the Great Lakes, showing uplift along the northern shores and subsidence along the southern ones. They show the hinge line running off the east coast well north of NYC. That suggests that a major portion of the US coastline has SLR that is enhanced by negative GIA. However, if SLR was due only to GIA, it would not be accelerating. Yet that is exactly what it is doing, as shown here. Results clearly show that the 20th-century rate of sea-level rise is 2 millimeters higher than the background rate of the past 4,000 years. Furthermore, the magnitude of the sea-level rise increases in a southerly direction from Maine to South Carolina. On the US Gulf Coast, the issue of SLR is compounded by subsidence due to sedimentary compaction and dewatering, ground water removal and hydrocarbon production. Any way you slice it, this is not a favorable combination. -
funglestrumpet at 04:59 AM on 3 April 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #13
Issue of the week 1 Yes, I subscribe 2 I prefer the daily posts. I don't think I would find the time to read a week's worth in one session and no matter how sincere my intentions were to return for the remainder another day, I suspect that I would be like Robert Frost and they would be like his road not taken. (The week in review is a good check for any that I might have missed for some reason.) -
Phil at 04:57 AM on 3 April 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #13
I would opt for a weekly email notification, were it to be implemented -
shoyemore at 04:48 AM on 3 April 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
Tom Curtis #32 Yeah, yeah, I would go with Medieval Climate Anomaly as a vernacular, but I think no journal editor should accept a sentence like "The Medieval Climate Anomaly was global", but prefer "The Medieval Climate Anomaly, observed in Europe as a warming between 950 and 1250AD, extended to other parts of the planet." Or not! You are correct of course that the word "Medieval" is extended to region outside Europe which had parallel feudal organisations at some point between the 5th century and the 15th century. All the more reason to try to remove the vagueness the term brings to the discussion, which detracts from the science. BTW, some great posts of yours above. Well done. -
KR at 04:24 AM on 3 April 2012Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues
The SkS trend calculator linked in the OP is different from the one linked in the "Trend Calculator" button - the one Dana1981 linked here includes the Foster/Rahmstorf corrected records. The one linked from the button includes seven raw records, including NOAA and BEST, while the the FR corrected one includes only five records (not NOAA or BEST) and their FR corrections. Perhaps these need to be combined into a single tool? The seven raw records plus the five corrected for regressed variations? At the very least they should be cross-linked so that it's possible to work with all the data sets. -
AmericanIdle at 04:14 AM on 3 April 2012Weather records due to climate change: A game with loaded dice
Analogies compare shared characteristics of two different things to better explain the thing that is less well understood. I use the slugger on steroids analogy, given that more people watch baseball than roll dice in casinos. A single game/series performance is weak evidence. However, a dramatic change in a player’s physical appearance, season home run percentage and average distance is strong evidence. -
dana1981 at 02:54 AM on 3 April 2012Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues
mdension @11 - fair point, I removed the gapminder graph from the post. The main issue is that there's no reason the increased energy demands from 'prosperous' nations must be met with fossil fuels. -
dana1981 at 02:20 AM on 3 April 2012Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues
Kevin @10 - thanks, I thought that might be the case. The answer isn't terribly different from 2001 to 2011 (0.20 +/- 0.15°C/decade). Solidly statistically significant in either case. -
mdenison at 02:03 AM on 3 April 2012Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues
Using the gapminder site and plotting CO2 emissions per person against life expectancy shows a very clear correlation when plotted on a log scale for the x axis, as does energy use per person. In fact it strikes me they should be correlated. Rich nations are in general those with long life expectancy and those that use the most energy. As you point out there is no need for this energy to come from fossil fuels; which is of course the proper point that Happer is avoiding. Unfortunately this is not supported by the graph. I think you need to reconsider using it. I'm not optimistic of finding an alternative that can make the point that low CO2 emissions can still mean prosperity (as indicated by long life) since we all (rich or poor) live in a fossil fuel world. -
Kevin C at 01:58 AM on 3 April 2012Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues
Barry, Dana: The F&R version of the trend calculator uses the F&R distributed results, and so the data only runs to Dec 2010. So the best you can do is calculate to Jan 2001 - Dec 2010 (2001.0-2011.0). I hope to set up monthly updates on the F&R data eventually, although I expect this will create some confusion (the GISTEMP data changed significantly for example when they switched to GHCNv3). However I don't have it set up at this stage. -
dana1981 at 01:52 AM on 3 April 2012Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues
barry - I wasn't terribly precise, using 2002.2 as my starting point (February '02 should probably be 2002.13, if you want to be precise). -
MA Rodger at 01:39 AM on 3 April 2012Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues
Happer does present some truth in his WSJ Op Ed. He says "It is easy to be confused about climate." If your name is William Happer that really does hit the nail on the head. Happer's solo efforts at explaining climate science The Truth About Greenhouse Gases (linked in post's first paragraph) was published for a third time as the GWPF Briefing Paper No3. This gave me the delightful opportunity to 'whack them moles,' taking not one but two posts over at DeSmogBlog to do the subject justice. -
threadShredder at 01:20 AM on 3 April 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #13
In the "Issue of the Week" paragraph above, the question is asked: "Do you subscribe to the daily email notice of newly posted articles on SkS? Would you subscribe to a weekly email notice of newly posted articles if the option to do so was provided? Which option do you prefer?" My question is how does the reader make his or her preference known?Moderator Response: [JH] You should post your answers to the questions of this comment thread. Right now, the only option that exists, is to sign-up for the daily email alerts, We are hoping to implement the weekly only alert option in the near future. Unfortunately, the recent hack of this website has caused a delay in implementing planned changes to the website. -
Daniel Bailey at 01:09 AM on 3 April 2012Weather records due to climate change: A game with loaded dice
@ West "I missed the point of the OP on purpose" Ah, you were being purposefully obtuse! Well, that's all right then. Not. Please curtail the ideology and inflammatory rhetoric. This is a science-based forum. You lose credibility thusly. And do please bother to support your unsupported assertions with links (to credible source) as well. As for my source for 2 meters SLR, please note that I did not temporally attach it. Using your very own Stefan Rahmstorf you refer to: Has the IPCC underestimated the risk of sea level rise? In this paper, Dr. Rahmstorf documents the IPCC's underestimations (not over-estimations) of SLR and incorporates some of the latest estimates of SLR (124 centimetres by 2100 and 114 centimetres by 2095) Taking ice sheet dynamics into account, decadal doublings of mass-loss from both the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets are expected this century...and beyond. The present worst-case scenario in the literature (also the latest) which takes this into account is here (in press). Note the use of supportive links for assertions. And note, again, that I did not tie the 2 meter SLR to a particular date. That would be a false assumption on your part that I did. @ Tom: The Bamber paper has details. Edit: The Bamber paper can be found here (free download after free registration): Reassessment of the Potential Sea-Level Rise from a Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet -
Tom Curtis at 00:51 AM on 3 April 2012Weather records due to climate change: A game with loaded dice
Daniel Bailey @11, I believe US seaboards are, on average more threatened because of isostatic rebound. Because the great ice sheets are no longer weighing down the north of the continent, the north is rising, but the south is sinking. This is bad news for southern US coastal towns which will probably experience sea level rise greater than 25% above the global average. I suspect, however, that New York would be near the "pivot point", and possibly north of it. In either case it will experience sea level rises closer to the the global average than the rest of the US, and possibly less than the global average. I haven't checked the exact details, however. -
West129 at 00:34 AM on 3 April 2012Weather records due to climate change: A game with loaded dice
Daniel Bailey, I missed the point of the OP on purpose because the Rahmstorf, S. (2012): A Decade of Weather Extremes, Nature Climate Change [DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1452] report was, in my opinion, translated into the “PIK press release” that contradicts facts/reality but is meant to generate publicity and misleading propaganda. It is a summary of plain speculations that lack scientific merit and is are a disgrace to the German scientific community. . As to the increase in the sea level please, refer to the very alarming IPCC predictions (scenarios), “Prognosen des IPCC zum Meeresspiegelanstieg im 21. Jahrhundert [21]” (Increase of sea level for the 21st century): IPCC predicted 367 cm in 1990, 124 cm in 1995, 77 cm in 2001, 51 cm in 2007 and who knows what they will predict next, except that I am certain that it will be even lower. I wonder where the 2 meters you mention are coming from. The 3,67meters [12 ft] predicted by IPCC in 1990 has shrunk to ½ meter (1½ ft) in 2007 because their models have improved? No, because they were adjusted to reflect reality. Models run on computers are still no better than what used to be called crystal balls, not worth getting exited about or to command actions. The climatologists will loose their credibility if they continue to produce documents that contradict reality and seem to have no other purpose than to hype or terrorize the population. -
Daniel Bailey at 00:18 AM on 3 April 2012Weather records due to climate change: A game with loaded dice
"He pointed out that New York is at the same level as the Maldives." Actually, due to the unequal redistribution of the SLR (various gravitic/crustal rebound effects), New York City will face a disproportionate impact of that 2 meter SLR: "U.S. seaboards would rise 25 percent more than the global average and threaten cities like New York, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco" -
adelady at 00:11 AM on 3 April 2012Weather records due to climate change: A game with loaded dice
DB "... it's just the first 2 meters of SLR that matter." Yes. That came home to me quite strongly the other day reading a piece about the president (now former) of the Maldives. If anyone thinks that losing a few remote islands off the coast of India by a couple of metres of SLR is unimportant they should think again He pointed out that New York is at the same level as the Maldives. So if those 'insignificant' islands go under, life will not be too comfortable in the subways and carparks of NYC. -
Bernard J. at 23:31 PM on 2 April 2012Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues
Dikran Marsupial. I've posted a number of times, and on several sites, to criticise exactly what you discuss. In fact in the middle of last year I went to the trouble of fitting to each of the major temperature records, polynomial curves of all orders up to 6, and I then extended each terminus beyond the record period for at least a century in each direction, to show how the polynomials behaved. I had written an explanatory dissection of the whole... and about five minutes before I finished editing my hard drive crashed. By the time I replaced my drive I'd lost the inclination to repeat the exercise. Perhaps it might be a useful enterprise for one of the SkS authors, so that any future "entertainment" activity by a data dissembler can be quickly and decisively dismantled. -
Tom Curtis at 23:16 PM on 2 April 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
While on the topic of correcting errors, two days ago I posted this on WUWT:"Anthony, granted that the passage you quote is reasonable grounds for the claim that the study provides evidence that the MWP was global, so long as we interpret “provides evidence” in a strict but weak sense which does no over interpret the data. Specifically, it does not establish a prima facie case that the MWP was on average warmer than the first decade of the 21st century, or that all locations of the globe where warmer than the first decade of the 21st century (two possible interpretations of the claim that the MWP was global). It does contribute towards building such a prima facie case, but other evidence contributes to building the contrary case and only by consideration of the balance of all evidence can it be determined which theory is better supported. However, the Daily Mail article clearly misrepresented the contents of Lu et al, 2012. Nor did we need the corrections from Syracuse University and Dr Lu to know that. Specifically, the article claims that ikaite is “a rare mineral that records global temperatures”, which is blatantly false. It also claims that the study “Throws doubt on orthodoxies around ‘global warming’” which is also blatantly false (and tendentious). Given these clear misrepresentations by the article, why did you not provide a caveat with your link warning your readers of the misrepresentation by the Mail Online? This is of particular interest as, by your account, this post is for the benefit of people who have read the Mail Online article and were wondering why you had not posted on the topic. Surely for their benefit it was important to point out not only that you have covered it, but that the Mail Online article contained gross misrepresentations, and to correct those misrepresentations. I await your answer with interest."
So far Watt's has not deigned to respond. Evidently acknowledging and correcting the errors he did make on this paper, ie, his failure to point out the gross misrepresentation by the Mail Online article to which he linked, is not on his agenda. -
Tom Curtis at 22:55 PM on 2 April 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
Brandon Shollenberger @46 thank you for the links. However, having been able to peruse their contents, it is quite plain why you did not provide them previously. Let's start with Figure S8:
Your original claim was that Mann et al 2009 was "... entirely dependent upon tree ring data and uncalibratable data (which was used upside down)."
By examining the graph above it can be seen the the essential features of the Global Mean Temperature Reconstruction without dendro series, the four Tiljander series, and three other series which may have suspect data. Specifically, that reconstruction shows a LIA colder than the 20th century average, and a MWP warmer than the 20th century average but colder than end 20th century temperatures. The only way in which the reconstruction could be considered "entirely dependent" on the tree ring and tiljander data (combined) is on the issue of statistical validation. But it is no surprise that as you reduce the number of proxies, the period over which the reconstruction passes statistical validation reduces.
Indeed, the reason the reconstructions loose statistical skill with increased duration is that the number of proxies available for the full duration of the reconstruction falls. By excluding dendro plus seven other series, the number of available proxies in the period 1400-1499 after screening drops from 99 to 22. With dendro series still included that number rises to 68. So, it turns out that Brandon's case depends on arguing that the fact that 22 proxies is insufficient to reconstruct global temperatures is some how of great statistical significance.
Of course, he has an authority on his side, Gavin Schmidt. Except it turns out that what Schmidt actually wrote was:
"It's also worth spelling out some of McIntyre's thimble hiding here. First off, after a 7 years you'd think that he would be aware that the reconstructions are done in a step-wise fashion - i.e. you use as much information as is available as far back as you can. Back to 1500 you use everything that goes back that far, back to 1400 a little less etc. So a proper no-dendro/no-Tilj reconstruction will not just be made with what is available in 1000AD. Second, given all of the bluster about validation statistics, he never seems to compute any. Since the no-dendro CPS version only validates until 1500 AD (Mann et al (2008) ), it is hardly likely that the no-dendro/no-Tilj CPS version will validate any further back, so criticising how bad the 1000 AD network is using CPS is hardly germane. Note too that while the EIV no-dendro version does validate to 1000 AD, the no-dendro/no-Tilj only works going back to 1500 AD (Mann et al, 2009, SI). So again, McIntyre is setting up a strawman, not performing any 'due diligence' and simply making stuff up - all in order to demonstrate some statistical prestidigitation to the adoring commenters."
So, instead of affirming that the lack of validation for the no dendro, no tiljander data set prior to 1500 is some show significant, he is excoriating McIntyre's "thimble hiding", thimble hiding of a very similar nature to that by Brandon. If Brandon was serious about his argument, he would perform a Monte Carlo test. He would eliminate 1,039 proxy series and determine the earliest date at which the resulting reconstruction achieves validation using the Mann et al 2008 method. He would then rinse an repeat, doing the same thing several thousand times to find a probability function for the duration of statistical skill for similar trimmings of the proxy set. If, having done that he finds that statistical skill is preserved well earlier than 1500 AD in >95% of cases of similarly extensive censoring of the data, then he has a case. Failing such a test, however, all he as is the trivial fact that significantly reducing available data significantly reduces statistical skill. [sarc] Who would have thought it? [/sarc] Finally, Brandon says:"Incidentally, I don't claim removing 86% of the data is necessary to remove the hockey stick. I only go with that test because Mann himself specifically claimed his reconstruction passed it. And Mann's own work has acknowledged that isn't true. As has Mann's major supporter and friend, Gavin Schmidt."
This is a straightforward falsehood, or actually several of them. 1) Neither Mann nor Schmidt claimed that reducing the data "remove[s] the hockey stick". That is explicitly a claim about the shape of the curve resulting from removing the data, and as can be seen above removing the data does not significantly change the shape of the curve. More importantly, Mann and Schmidt made claims about the effect of censoring data on statistical skill, not on the shape of the curve. 2) In Mann et al, 2008, Mann made claims about statistical skill when removing all dendro series. He did not make any claims about statistical skill when removing all dendro series plus seven other series. Therefore the supplementary information to Mann et al 2009 does not show his claim in 2008 to have been wrong. 3) As Mann et al 2009 does not show Mann et al 2008 to be wrong, Schmidt cannot have acknowledged the non-existent error by citing the non-existent acknowledgement of the error. Given that the quoted claims by Brandon are direct falsehoods, I would hope he has the integrity to acknowledge his error, and correct it. But I fear he will just provide one more example of the truism, being a denier means never having to say your wrong. -
Daniel Bailey at 21:48 PM on 2 April 2012Weather records due to climate change: A game with loaded dice
West129, your comment shows that you have completely misunderstood the OP. Instead of undermining the level of urgency of actions needed to mitigate climate change, it heightens the imperative behind them, for it resolves with increasing clarity the outcomes awaiting us down the road we travel. This report is but one of many recent works, all coming to the same conclusion: AGW is bad, its worse than we thought, it's late in the game and time is running out to implement changes that can make a difference before time runs out on mitigation efforts. And then all we will have left is the "adapt or die" option. For it is not the 6 meters of SLR over 500 years from GIS melt that matters (and if the GIS goes, the WAIS will precede it by orders of magnitude, adding a like amount of SLR), it's just the first 2 meters of SLR that matter. That will force abandonment of the great cities of the coast the world over. You beat the lonely drum of "It's not bad" though the train has left the station, without you. -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:44 PM on 2 April 2012Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues
It will be interesting to see whether Dr Spencer keeps the cubic model fit on his updates of lower trophospheric temperatures once it starts to point upwards again.
He used to add a caveat that it was just for "entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever.", which he seems to have omitted in his most recent post. Even with the caveat I think this is deeply irresponsible as there are those that will reproduce the figure without the caveat as if it actually meant something (for example, see here and scroll down to the section "Decide for yourself if the trend should be curved ...").
I have to say that fitting models in excel with no attempt to determine their validity or error bars doesn't seem particularly entertaining to me!
-
Alexandre at 21:19 PM on 2 April 2012Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues
On that series "The Climate Wars", there's a scene where Spencer admits on camera that after they corrected the high profile mistake about those early sattellite measurements, they found a trend going up, "and it has been upwards ever since". I don't know why he brags so much on his blog every year a La Nina comes up. -
Paul D at 21:13 PM on 2 April 2012Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues
Further to my comment@3 Also I think leaf pores of plants in some regions tend to shrink with increases in CO2, that results in less water vapour being released and less cooling. http://carnegiescience.edu/news/co2_effects_plants_increase_global_warming_0 -
Paul D at 21:04 PM on 2 April 2012Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues
Even if you exclude warming, CO2 is still a pollutant because you are left with ocean acidification. And it seems that Happer has stated that the source is humans burning fossil fuels! Everything can be classed as a pollutant if there is to much of it, to the extent that it changes the environment with a detrimental impact on a species.
Prev 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 Next
