Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 Next
Comments 61751 to 61800:
-
chriskoz at 18:44 PM on 14 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Interesting article Dana, My reflections to Fig3: The coal price on this figure maybe a little out of date. The recent prices on quality AU coal commodity market can be found see here. They've been volatile for last couple years but current 10¢/kg is a decent average. Given anthracite coal energy density and recovery efficiency of 32MJ/kg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density I've calculated the maximum 3kWh/kg, therefore the cost to produce your coal electricity at peak performance is only 3¢/kWh. On your graph is looks some 6¢: twice higher. That indicates the average coal power plant efficiency of ~50%, so the useful energy density from coal is only 1.5kWh/kg. On the other hand, the carbon tax in AU is initially set to AUD23/t (C; not CO2) which is ~US2.4¢/kg. Comparing that figure to my 1.5kWh/kg above, I deduce the coal plants in AU will be paying 2.4/1.5 == 1.6¢/kWh for their CO2 pollution. That is some 2 times less than even MMN11 external cost estimate on your figure. Less conservative external cost estimate by E11 looks more than 10 times as much as AU carbon tax. Conclusion: AU carbon tax is cheap: it is far from covering even the most conservative external estimates. Did anyone make calculation like that for other externals? For example how is EPA taxing PM2.5 pollution, given PM2.5 cost estimate? -
Trent1492 at 17:11 PM on 14 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #10
@Scaddenp, I think you need to reevaluate why I offered that link. Skeptical Science asked, "Have you come across any climate denier memes during the past six months that do not show up on the SkS list of climate myths? If so, what are they and where did you first see them?" And so I provided one that I had not seen before. I originally saw it pop it up on a thread over at Scientific American. After perusing the myths list and not seeing it I thought it deserved some mention. If we truly want to lead people over to what the science actually says I think a little courtesy at the start of conversation may well be more productive than coming down on somebody with the rhetorical hatchet. And yes, I understand that about 95% of the people on the net who ask "honest" questions are really disingenuous ideologues. Let us remember though that we are writing for that other 5% and most importantly the lurkers. Thank you for the link. @DSL, I did go over to the original article, but it is behind a paywall and I am nowhere near any kind of a expert to pronounce a judgment on it. I can say that comparing what CO2 Science says and what the abstract says I can see one problem already. In the abstract I found this "records of this type from one site alone cannot be used to determine the extent of ice involved."Moderator Response: [JH] I concur that your response to question I had posed was appropriate. Having said that, what, in your opinion, is the new denier meme contained in the paper you have cited. -
bill4344 at 17:02 PM on 14 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
I've often wondered just how many Deniers aren't also Free Market™ Zealots? I can only offer Alexander Cockburn as the one anomaly that I can think of - the exception that proves the rule? In my experience the FM™Z figure runs damn-close to 100% among anti-'C'AGW commenters, commentators, and 'think'tanks, too. -
John Mason at 16:25 PM on 14 March 2012Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
Central, E and Southern Europe certainly had a severe blast this winter, but it was more like the classic pattern of cold air draining SW around the Siberian/Scandanavian High, AKA "Siberian Blast" (all UK tabloids) or "the Beast from the East" (snow-rampers on UK weather forums). -
Roger D at 16:21 PM on 14 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Dana -very informative article - thanks I think there's a typo about halfway down where you wrote "And of course, Spencer's argument that CO2 emissions will result in 'immense human suffering' is entirely without basis." Did you mean to say CO2 "limits" instead of "emissions" in that sentence.Response:[dana1981] Yes, thanks. Corrected.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 14:54 PM on 14 March 2012Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
what happens when we have an ice free arctic
All the energy currently consumed by melting ice will have to go somewhere. The atmosphere has a limited capacity to absorb energy, so will it go to heating the ocean? Will a warmer Arctic basin lead to the ocean releasing more CO2 than it absorbs? Will the spectre of the clathrate bomb come back to haunt us? These and more thrilling questions will be answered in our next episode of "Earth: The Human Waste Dump". -
owl905 at 14:23 PM on 14 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
From a commment above, there's a new 'butwhatabout' - the effect of shipping. Here's a PDF that lays out the influence (basically about the same as aircraft and 20% of the value of land transport). The SO2 reduction is offset by the CO2 production - and one of the articles gave it summary of neutral but not benign. AEA GHG Emissions from Shipping 2008 (3.5meg PDF) The one curiosity (no link available) is the link to the GCR cloud-cover issue. Based on satellite observation, the marginal increase in ocean cloud cover in the second half of the 20th century was so small it could be ascribed to increases in shipping (sorry, no link). -
owl905 at 14:11 PM on 14 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Dale @31 wrote:- "I'd be careful using a few days data to compare against cycle predictions." I don't. I've been following it daily for about six years. hth. -
muoncounter at 13:59 PM on 14 March 2012Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
The solar flare series of early-mid March has produced a Forbush decrease on the order of 10% at Oulu for several days. This fits Dragic's detectability criteria and should thus result in decreased cloud formation. If the Svensmarkers are to have any credibility going forward, this is their moment in the sun. Where I sit, its still pretty cloudy. -
Doug Bostrom at 12:18 PM on 14 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Great Stink of London
Terrific article, thank you. I've often used this analogy, am glad to see somebody making a splash (sorry) in such a comprehensive and entertaining way. London with its deep history is a wonderful microcosm for examining emergent effects, what needs to happen when people are packed together in their multitudes. -
Sceptical Wombat at 12:10 PM on 14 March 2012Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
It may have been relatively balmy in Wales this year but Italy certainly got plenty of snow (in Rome for instance) and ice (in the Venetian Lagoon for instance). It will be interesting (in the Chinese sense of the word I suspect) to see what happens when we have an ice free arctic. -
John Russell at 10:41 AM on 14 March 2012James Hansen's Motivation
I accept all that Hansen says. I just don't get the scientists who understand what Hansen understands and yet can play down the probable outcome and what it might mean, in practice, for their descendants. It says it all that the first line of Nasa's mission statement was deleted, never to appear again: "To understand and protect the home planet". -
scaddenp at 10:18 AM on 14 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #10
modus operandi for CO2"Science" seems to be to misrepresenting science. Have a look at Eldrett et al 2009 (an update with temperature data). "However, the relatively warm summer temperatures at that time mean that continental ice on East Greenland was probably restricted to alpine outlet glaciers" Not exactly the conclusion that the misinformers take. Still want to go there for information? How much misinformation would we have to demonstrate before you stopped visiting them.Moderator Response: [JH] the questions you posed are a tad "over the top." Please keep it civil when addressing another commentator. -
JulianRGP at 10:11 AM on 14 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
I find figure 1, with the blue bars for La Niña years, enlightening. If WMO also used another colour for El Niño years, that would be useful too. I would hazard a guess that there would be fewer outliers among the remaining pink bars. Of course, it would not be as precise as FR11 but could be useful for basic communication. -
Lloyd Flack at 09:35 AM on 14 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Since the flux of Galactic Cosmic Rays arriving on Earth is modulated by Solar variation its measured values should be correlated the measured values of Total Solar Irradiation. In a regression the high colinearaty of these effects will make it difficult to disentangle them. Adding cosmic ray flux as well as solar irradiation should have little effect on the temperature predictions but will lead to the parameter estimates for them being less precise than they would if only one was used. Foster & Rahmsdorf did check the exogenous variables that they used for colinearity and found that this was not going to be a problem. Adding variables that are highly colinear with variables that are already being used, while it will allways improve the fit to the data, can lead to a poorer predictor when you extrapolate the data. Be careful when adding variables. -
skywatcher at 09:02 AM on 14 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Dale, if I have an idea that gravity operates upwards instead of downwards, does it mean my idea actually has any merit?? Or do you think that every idea, however ludicrous or however much contradicted by the evidence, deserves equal standing in perpetuity? Svensmark has an idea that GCRs affect climate, and as many others have already pointed out to you, the evidence is quite spectacularly not in his favour. His idea has no merit based on quite a few lines of evidence either in recent history or in palaeoclimate. However, the impact of CO2, ENSO, and solar is not only an "idea" ("theory" is more apt), their impacts are well verified and quantified as being the strongest forcings outside occasional volcanic impacts, and Foster and Rahmstorf also show how they account for nearly all the year-to-year variability in climate.Moderator Response:[DB] As has been amply demonstrated, by you and others earlier on this thread, GCR's are pointedly not a driver of climate change and thus have no bearing on the OP. Interested parties, please take GCR's to a more appropriate thread. Thanks!
-
Dale at 09:01 AM on 14 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Dana @43 Saying GCR's are flat for the past 60 years is pretty misleading. It fluctuates by 20% in direct opposition to SSN's. It would be better to say "the trend is flat". And I'm not saying it may have a big effect, like I said above, a minuscule effect. In the big picture it's good to be researching the full effects of all forcings, even if they are statistically ineffective. If we have a baseline for all forcings at least then we can clearly know if one of those forcings changes. So whilst you guys may scoff at research such as CERN Cloud and Svensmark, I applaud it and welcome it. More knowledge means better decisions. Such as this article, if we had better knowledge of what the sun and ENSO will do over the next two years, maybe then the predictions being made in this thread could actually be considered serious rather than simply guesstimates. -
owl905 at 08:40 AM on 14 March 2012‘Storm of the Century’ to become ‘Storm of the Decade’
Adding to Bernard's comment - engineering design and costs are based on century extremes. They do not allow for changes to those extremes, until the event occurs (a disaster is the penalty). The key to the extreme-event consequence with AGW is the combination of speed and extent at which those extremes have, and will, change. It's basically the Achilles' Heel of the "adaptation" theory. If you need to understand why the century-rule won't be abandoned ... go talk to the cost engineer. -
dana1981 at 03:17 AM on 14 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Kevin - yes my solar coefficient is probably a bit off. I agree the GCR-warming theory is pretty well dead at this point. Svensmark is far from the only researcher looking at this, and many other studies have found a very small if any GCR-cloud link. On top of that, as has been noted, GCR flux on Earth has been flat for the past 60 years, and was particularly high during some of the hottest years on record, when the hypothetical GCR effect should have been causing cooling. If anything it's a very small effect, and can't account for any of the warming over the past 60 years. -
MA Rodger at 03:13 AM on 14 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
jzk @68 You could have warned me about the aweful music at the start of the second clip! Listening to the actual seminar (links @67), I can add to the comment @66. P13-14 uses graphs that stop in 1984 likely because as Lindzen says "No one's done this (analysis) in 20 years." Maybe he should have asked why nobody has. P35-36 He makes no mention of presenting a shuffled-up series of years. He perhaps mutters "decadal" as the final 4 are shown. There is no mention of winter trends or lack of trends, just "huge fluctuations." He says "And they're kinda random," (Ah ha, but is he referring to the fluctuations or the presented graphs?) However his main point is that there is physics at work here in the Arctic "...which is completely lost when you take annual mean temperatures." He is here entirely dismissive of any Arctic trend being anything to do with AGW, thus the throw-in 1922 report. I would add for jzk's benefit - the audience is never appraised that they are not being shown a time sequence of graphs while 'lack of summer trend' & an all-random fluctuating winter is proposed. That is plain sneeky. P15 was introduced with the words "But here's something that'll give you a little perspective on it." and after explaining the graph "Put in perspective of you regular experience." Perhaps most telling is a message from his 'take-away' from this section. "Say at least, so far, I mean if some day I see there are changes 20 times what I've seen so far, that would be certainly remarkable. But nothing so far looks that way." This refers to the global average temperature fluctuations so 20 times 0.5-0.7 deg C = 10 - 14 deg C!!!! Richard Lindzen - an alleged climatologist who doubts that anything short of 'Snowball Earth' or a 'Steam-Soaked Sphere' is worthy of remark. -
Djon at 03:11 AM on 14 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
@Dale "GCR's are just one of a heap of forcings on climate." Nitpicky of me but I think you mean GCR's may be just one of a heap of forcings on climate. Since you acknowledge that Svensmark's theory is "just another unproven claim". -
DSL at 02:59 AM on 14 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #10
Actually, Trent1492, that's a link to an analysis from a couple of paid misinformers: Craig Idso and Keith Sherwood. Perhaps you could provide your own analysis of the Eldrett et al. 2007 article that I'm betting Idso and Sherwood grossly misread. -
DMCarey at 02:46 AM on 14 March 2012New research from last week 10/2012
@Composer99 Is it ever. I'm currently on a placement in Ottawa and the skating season on the Canal was abysmal this year. Lasted I believe around 5 weeks until it had to close during Winterlude -
Trent1492 at 02:33 AM on 14 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #10
I got a new one that I have not seen before: The Tenacity of Greenland Ice. -
jzk at 02:26 AM on 14 March 2012New research from last week 10/2012
Someone is actually trying to make the case that double cropping causes an increase in temperature? Could it be that double cropping is suitable in places that have longer growing seasons, and hence higher daily temperatures? I would love to read this entire paper, but it seems only the abstract is available... -
jzk at 02:12 AM on 14 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Sphaerica@69, My comment was that Lindzen made no claim about there being "no trend" in the Arctic. His claim was that summer temperatures are not changing, but winter temperatures are quite variable. What does that have to do with the point you are making? -
Bob Lacatena at 02:06 AM on 14 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
68, jzk, You seem to have missed this point from the article above:...many studies have examined this issue and found that there is a complex seasonality in the Arctic in how heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and ocean throughout the year...
I'm sure that at least one factor is the heat of fusion, the fact that no matter how warm the air in the Arctic might get, a lot of that summer energy is going to go into melting the ice instead of heating the atmosphere. This will naturally to some extent moderate summer temperatures. Lord help us when the ice melts soon enough that that cannot be the case. -
jzk at 01:49 AM on 14 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
MA Rodger@66, Going through each year of the Arctic daily mean temperatures seems to bolster Lindzen's point that the summer temperatures are not changing while there is great variability in the winter temperatures. I could find no mention of a trend in the Arctic other than the introductory sentence, so I am not sure what difference it makes in which order the graphs are presented in his talk. The discussion of the Arctic happens at about 20:00 in the second part of the talk. Maybe you could point to where he says that there is no trend? -
Composer99 at 01:39 AM on 14 March 2012New research from last week 10/2012
Given the importance of outdoor skating to Ottawa via the Rideau Canal skateway, the shortening of the Canadian skating season is definitely a big minus economically and culturally. -
Dale at 01:36 AM on 14 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Robert & cynicus @38 & 39 Please read this sentence again: "it's all just a part of the general mix of forcings". GCR's are just one of a heap of forcings on climate. This article itself highlights another three, two of which bounce up and down too. GCR's don't have to explain the warming of the last decades. Isn't a famous SkS line to "look at the whole picture"?Moderator Response:[DB] "Isn't a famous SkS line to "look at the whole picture"?"
Indeed. When looking at the whole picture of drivers of climate change, the observer will note that GCR flux is but a fleck in the corner of the picture.
-
ScaredAmoeba at 00:44 AM on 14 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Lindzen's London Illusions the videos. Note: The first part at least has been altered and a note added to mention the alleged screw-up, but I'm not aware that any further corrections have been made to remove the other errors. Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRAzbfqydoY Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz_EYi2U3Wg Q&A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69kmPGDh1Gs -
Doc Snow at 00:31 AM on 14 March 2012New research from last week 10/2012
Indeed. I found the decadal rate of increase in mean temperature (.6 C) to be rather eye-popping. -
Kevin C at 23:57 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
I've just noticed that the solar coefficient here is 0.7 - was that read off the graph in the F&R paper? If so, then it's a touch high. Tamino gave a corrected version of the figure here, but the most precise source is the rates.txt file:
Following on from Tom's question on uncertainties, I've started looking at this, but there is a problem. I'm probably wrong, but I think Tamino may have plotted 4-sigma uncertainties on the coefficients by mistake, rather than 2-sigma. I've posted a question on his blog. The largest uncertainty is in the solar coefficient. Assuming the version in the table above is correct, it has a 95% chance of it lying between 0.030 and 0.092. ENSO plays a bigger role but is much better determined.mei volc solar tau giss 0.079103 -2.369368 0.061322 0.017092 se.giss 0.014634 0.477819 0.030961 0.001591 -
cynicus at 23:30 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Dale, as Robert Murphy points out there are usually multiple lines of independent evidence for a given theory and they all need to agree or, if they disagree, at least need to be explained why they disagree. There are the known properties of GHG's and their rapid increases, there are the direct GCR measurements and there are the paleoclimate records that disagree with the theory of GCR's moderating climate for a large part. For the GCR theory to be true all the lines of evidence against the GCR theory need to be explained which is very difficult. Preponderance of evidence shows it's very unlikely that changes in GCR are the source of late 20th century warming. -
JMurphy at 22:53 PM on 13 March 2012It's not bad
mohyla103, I'm afraid you are still arguing based on incomplete information, which is never a good idea. As an illustration with regard to that 49% average, can you answer the following questions : What is the maximum percentage possible ? When does that maximum occur ? How much of that maximum is contributed by glacier-melt ? -
MA Rodger at 22:48 PM on 13 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
A bit of a Johnny-come-lately comment. I was prompted by a comment over on a RealClimate thread that said that Lindzen was now backtracking on the "significant warming" of the past century & now being dismissive of it. It occurred to me I had noticed that but not picked up on it. So I revisited the presentation & comment (also) here as this post is considering the London seminar in toto. pdf of seminar here P13-14 Lindzen goes all Winston Smith & presents temperatures 1851-1984. P35-36 Lindzen does a conjuring trick by shuffling the deck. The sequence of Artic temperatures he presents his audience is (filling in the gaps from here ) 2004, 2009, 1958, 2000, 1968, 1978, 1988, 1990. (His assertion that there is no trend is debunked by this post but I don't see mention of his sneeky shuffling trick.) And finally, the real unscientific stuff. P15 & his thin red line. (The 93rd Highlanders will be spinning in their graves!) Comparing Boston's weather with global climate is saying that variations in global mean temp of +/-4 deg C is not a problem (still "nomal") and +/-20 deg C would not be unprecidented. (Hope my F -> C convertion is correct.) In this I see Lindzen's membership of the Global Village Idiot Club having been upgraded to Full Life Membership. -
Robert Murphy at 21:06 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
@37 Dale, it doesn't matter if he shows a strong effect from GCR's on clouds; GCR's have not been trending down over the last 40-50 years as would be needed in order to produce less clouds and therefore warmer temps. He has to rewrite cosmic ray history in order to be vindicated. Good luck with that. -
Dale at 20:42 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Robert @36 If Svensmark can prove it, then it isn't effectively dead as an explanation. It puts it on the discussion table. But until that day, it's just another unproven claim. Besides as I said, it's all just a part of the general mix of forcings. -
Robert Murphy at 20:08 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Dale@ 35 It doesn't matter what Svensmark's paper says or shows. The GCR hypothesis is effectively dead as an explanation for recent warming. Even if there was a big effect from GCR's on clouds (a very big *if*), there has not been a trend of decreasing GCR's over the last 40-50 years, which the hypothesis requires. The Sun has been going in the wrong direction for Svensmark's claims. "then it's possible that radiation from other suns may too (even if a tiny tiny amount)." You're talking many, many orders of magnitude too small of an effect. Changes in our Sun's TSI has a very small effect; nothing other stars do will be measurable. -
Dale at 19:42 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Bern @33 The CERN experiments have really only started, so it's too early to tell. Svensmark has also announced he has a paper in review right now which is the last component of his theory. Once again, too early to tell. But I think it's fair to say that if radiation from our sun affects our climate, then it's possible that radiation from other suns may too (even if a tiny tiny amount). However it only takes a minute change in clouds to cause a big effect. It's all just a part of the general mix of forcings that make up our climate. :) -
Rob Painting at 19:24 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Michael Hauber @30 - the MSU satellite record exhibits greater year-to-year variability than the land surface temperature records, so in a statistical sense the chances of the next two years breaking the 1998 record are smaller. In other words, you could well be right - for satellite temperatures at least. -
Bern at 18:47 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Dale @ 32: what are you sceptical of, then? The magnitude of AGW, compared to natural forcings (and thus the expected warming impacts over the next century or two)? Also re GCRs - I presume you read the SkS posts on that? -
Dale at 18:21 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
scaddenp @25 A sceptic is not allowed to believe in an AGW effect? ;) As for GCR's, let's wait till Svensmark and CERN have finished their little projects, eh? But note I did predict it would be a very weak effect.Moderator Response: [JH] GCR = Galatic Cosmic Rays -
Dale at 18:15 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
owl905 @26 I'd be careful using a few days data to compare against cycle predictions. Sure, this week SSN's may be anything up to 100, but less than 2 weeks ago it was around 33. Month by month SSN fluctuate wildly and we're seeing high SSN's right now due to the CME's. I'm sure by the end of the month SSN's will have calmed right down again. Flux is still pretty low, a small indication the cycle is still "calm".Moderator Response: [JH] CME = Coronal Mass Ejection, i.e., a massive burst of solar wind, other light isotope plasma, and magnetic fields rising above the solar corona or being released into space. SSN = Smoothed Sunspot Number -
Doug Hutcheson at 17:37 PM on 13 March 2012New research from last week 10/2012
In Saudi Arabia temperatures have increased and precipitation has decreased significantly
I wonder if the Saudi leaders will look at this result and question whether their own crude oil exports are so good for the common people after all. Those who have acquired riches from oil can afford to relocate, but what about the rest of them? As a very wise man once said, the love of money is the root of all evil. -
Michael Hauber at 17:13 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
I've done some analysis of UAH monthly temperatures and ENSO and concluded that a 2-4 month lag of ENSO state is not the most accurate way to model the impact on temperature. I prefer a seasonal cycle, and the peak ENSO influence and temperature impact is actually in the same month. However a lag on average appears because a typical ENSO event builds gradually from the middle of the year, whereas the temperature impact is negligable until around November or December when the temperature change becomes quite rapid. Once the peak impact is reached in January an ENSO event typically decays steadily until roughly the middle of the year. However the temperature impact only reduces quite slowly until about the middle of the year when the temperature influence finally reduces relatively rapidly. The upshot of this is that the temperature of 2012 has been largely determined by the current ENSO phase. Any impact from a developing warm ENSO event will not be felt until very late in the year. With current UAH temperatures quite low, I can't see any more than a very low chance that UAH will challenge for the record on an annual basis. However late in the year (after June) will see a substantial rise in temperature and I believe would be a high chance of achieving a daily record (for day of year) and a moderate chance of achieving a monthly record at some stage. However a warm ENSO phase for 12/13 would then pretty much lock 2013 in as being a very warm, with a high chance of breaking the annual record. My current gut feel is that we will see a short lived warming ENSO event that will return to cool-neutral during the critical peak months around Dec-Jan, and that 2013 will have a very slight cool influence from ENSO, and will not reach a record. This is for UAH, which tends to react more to ENSO then GISS does, and I haven't looked in as much detail at the link between ENSO and temperature for GISS. I think the forecast in this article looks quite reasonable. -
mohyla103 at 16:28 PM on 13 March 2012It's not bad
MarkOhio: Thank you. JMurphy: When I do find a way to get access to the articles I will read them. I don't understand why you would say "what's the point". Saying that it "would appear that [I am] not here to discuss, but only to make baseless accusations and to stick to [my] beliefs come what may" is not only rude but is also baseless and should be withdrawn. I *still* stand by my claim. Here is the HARD EVIDENCE which you have requested but, even though I presented it above, you have not yet confronted: The Singh, Jain, Kumar paper's abstract states "The average snow and glacier runoff contribution to the annual flow of the Chenab River at Akhnoor is estimated to be about 49 percent." It doesn't really matter what the rest of the paper says, the abstract already tells me that snow and glacier melt together make up less than 50 percent of the flow in this river. There's no way the paper can have any figure higher than 49 percent for glacial melt alone... unless snowmelt somehow imparts a negative amount of water to the river. Also, unless snow melt accounts for 0% of the flow in the river, the amount from glaciers MUST be even less than 49%. So for Barnett to cite this source as evidence for a 50-60% glacial melt contribution is in fact WRONG. Please acknowledge this or I will have to believe it is you who is going to stick to his beliefs come what may. Considering he definitely misrepresented data from at least this source, wouldn't you think it reasonable to examine the other sources more closely as similar errors are likely? Apparently peer review completely missed the error in Barnett citing this source, which is why I don't have the same "confidence that those who have produced all the papers referred to did so using figures that have been checked and confirmed by others" like you do. In light of recent discussion, I will restate my position: 1. "misleading claims that make me skeptical of AGW reporting accuracy in general;" I stand by this, as Barnett's use of data has been proven to be wrong in at least one case. Notice I said skeptical of "AGW reporting" not "AGW itself". It's the exaggerations in reporting that irritate me. 2. "Glaciers and annual snowfall are quite different things but Barnett seems to ignore the difference.;" I can rephrase this as "Barnett seems to ignore the difference in citing at least one paper, where he cited a 49% for combined glacier and snow melt figure as evidence for 50-60% contribution from glacial melt alone". 3. "After checking the three sources for these figures, I find this claim to be very misleading!" can be rephrased as "After checking the abstracts of these three sources, I find Barnett's claim to be misleading. At least one abstract proves Barnett misrepresented the data, so careful examination of the other 2 sources is definitely warranted." 4. "But I hope you'll agree, that Barnett's paper is misleading and a misrepresentation of data." can be rephrased as "But I hope you'll agree that the figures in this part of Barnett's paper are misleading and a misrepresentation of data." -
Bernard J. at 16:24 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
As Table 1 shows, 2012 may break the temperature record, though the prediction is well within the margin of error. Thus if the El Niño doesn't form as soon or as strong as expected, or if solar cycle 24 stalls, or if one of the factors not included in this simple analysis (such as aerosols or clouds or other ocean cycles) acts in the cooling direction, 2012 will probably not break the record.
I had a stab at this prediction a few months ago, although I framed it thus:The annual GISS January-December land-and-sea mean global temperature anomaly for the next WMO-defined El Niño year will be: 0.70 ± 0.10 degree celcius.
I'm happy to stand by it. -
jyyh at 16:06 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Is there a need for an alarmist view on things to come wrt to the global temperature? I started writing something of the 'known unknowns' as an exercise, and I'm currently on track to get nearly double values for the 2013 or rather for 2014, some of the effects are just too slow. The exercise: To get maximum value for delta-T in short term predictions (2-5 years), one would have to argue for the suppression of the arctic (and antarctic) ice loss by the incoming currents (possibly by the THC shutdown mechanism?), while stating what the sudden ultra-large methane bursts would do. Additionally one has to make arguments of the continued rise of ocean surface temperatures (increased stratification) to get the maximum effect on temperature. Clean up of SOx in China and the lack of volcanic eruptions (because the world gets rounder with the glacier loss) would have an effect. And then there's the possibility of the solar cycle to continue for long since the sun had a long rest period (giving hydrogen more time to sink to the fusion layer of solar innards). All this while all the oil/gas pipeline networks have fatal failures for a solar flare so large the controlling circuits fuse together (here you might guess this is made somewhat tongue in cheek). The text has very little maths currently, so it's easy to read! I won't post it here though. Maybe nowhere, since it's an exercise. -
R. Gates at 15:39 PM on 13 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
Excellent post Dana. With the caveats you've noted, I think you're pretty close to being on target. Now how well can we predict how the skeptics will respond to a new record warmth in he next few years? My guesses as to what they'll say: 1) It was all ENSO and Solar 2) Continued recovery from the Little Ice Age 3) Reduced cosmic rays caused less clouds 4) The uncertainty monster had a fever 5) Urban heat island effects 6) Residual effects from the 1998 super El Niño 7) Mars is warming too 8) Can we talk about "Climategate" instead? 9) Who cares? Plants love it! 10) Isn't Monckton an awesome debater! Finally, while over the long-term, there is little doubt as too the direction of tropospheric temperatures in the 21st century, with or without a new Maunder- type minimum, and also little doubt as to the cause of that increase, I am still more interested in watching ocean heat content, and certainly hope we can get more readings at deeper levels very soon. The troposphere can be quite fickle with such a low heat capacity compared to the ocean. Whereas the ocean is both s better record of the past and is key to dictating how warm we'll be getting from our antropogenic experiment on our planet's energy balance.
Prev 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 Next
