Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 Next
Comments 67801 to 67850:
-
littlerobbergirl at 06:42 AM on 22 December 2011Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
fyd.. and where is that buffer coming from in shallow water where these fish babies are? oh yes, mainly the shells of reef forming organisms. slowly, and patchily. so it's quite possible to get extreme acidity locally, as mentioned in the article. the 'steady state' model just doesn't fit on less than geological time scales or smaller than ocean wide geographical scales. -
pbjamm at 06:26 AM on 22 December 2011Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
fydijkstra@2 Do you have a link to your paper/study? -
John Hartz at 06:17 AM on 22 December 2011The Media & Global Climate Science Communication
Speaking as a Yank, why on earth did Australians let Murdoch's news empire gain control 70% of the country's print media? -
fydijkstra at 06:08 AM on 22 December 2011Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
The oceans form a pH-buffered system. This means (check your lower grade chemistry lessons) that large changes in CO2-concentration will result in small changes in pH. The present pH-change is insignificant. Predictions of extreme pH-changes are incredible. Not much to worry about.Moderator Response: Your comment demonstrates you have not read our extensive OA not OK series. Please read this before commenting further. I consider your comment to be trolling and will delete further trolling without notice. [Doug] [muon] fixed link -
dana1981 at 05:42 AM on 22 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
Hi Gerda. I haven't researched exactly how AOD is developed, but I don't think so. Look at Figure 2b above - volcanic eruptions are clear, but there's no indication of human aerosol influences. -
littlerobbergirl at 05:42 AM on 22 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
oh bother! sorry, didnt read the second page of comments. -
dana1981 at 05:41 AM on 22 December 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Tristan - that's an interesting idea, though it seems a little mean :-) I wouldn't want to imply that because the UAH trend estimates have been trending upward at 'x' °C per decade, that trend will necessarily continue. The trend might be worth a brief mention though, with that caveat. -
littlerobbergirl at 05:38 AM on 22 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
hi dana, nice graphs! i get it, only too well. am i right in thinking the optical index will filter out effects not only from volcanic activity, but also from human produced black carbon etc? if so, why no mention? i'm thinking of changing my handle to 'einstein's barmaid' :D -
AussieinUSA at 05:37 AM on 22 December 2011The Media & Global Climate Science Communication
#6 - While I applaud Julia for what she is achieving, I do wonder if she would be implementing any Carbon Tax if she had a clear majority after the elections. IMO I don't think she would have. Thank goodness for a hung parliment! @14 - You have hit the nail on the head with one of your quotes about the person with the loudspeaker. I find this to be quite common even in basic dialogue with fellow workers. One denialist shouts or yells out loud that AGW is a hoax, so everyone likes to believe him and think he is an expert. Frankly it reminds me of one of my childrens temper tandrums. However as he shouts it out loud I think the average Joe see's this as confidence and therefore believe he must know what he is talking about. -
michael sweet at 05:22 AM on 22 December 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
CBD: excellent graph. It should be added to every post about Spencer and Christy. The entire Post article was a good read. -
Tristan at 05:17 AM on 22 December 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Dana, I hope you fit a line to their predictions ;) -
Mikemcc at 04:59 AM on 22 December 2011Animals and plants can adapt
The link to Univ of Texas climate change impact article (marked by the text "timing of breeding, migration, flowering, and so on") is broken. It looks like they've moved the article. I think the link was to this article http://web5.cns.utexas.edu/news/2004/11/global-warming-2/ -
DrTsk at 04:41 AM on 22 December 2011The Media & Global Climate Science Communication
@JH Not off topic at all, when it is presented as a clear example of the problems that we are facing with respect to accurate and effective communication by the media. The guy with the loudspeaker trumps all voices. Especially, with all the social media noise. I like the saying "Death by data", where you generate so much irrelevant data for a project that in the end you don't have time to analyze or even find the relevant data. The same is true with information : "Death by information". That is the problem that social media have generated for people that do not have the time, the will, or event the tools (mental or otherwise) to collect, analyze, draw conclusions etc. I despair looking at the fact that politicians, forming the policy for the response or not to global warming, are IMO at a low point with respect to the quality and accuracy of information that are fed to them by their underlings.Moderator Response: [JH] With all due respect, you re-posted a statement made by a climate denier on a comment thread to an article. The original post is about how the mainstream media in Australia covered climate change policy-making in Australia. -
dana1981 at 04:10 AM on 22 December 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Yes, look for our response to the UAH 33rd anniversay release, probably on Monday. -
Albatross at 03:23 AM on 22 December 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
CBDunkerson @27, Agreed. Spencer and Christy have way too much confidence in their product. Other satellite products such as STAR show much greater rates of warming in the mid-troposphere than do UAH and RSS. So to claim that the satellite data are the gold standard or the benchmark for global temperatures is just plain wrong. This was a pretty blatant PR exercise and misinformation campaign by Christy and Spencer-- and I suspect that we will keep hearing them repeating the same debunked myths each year. They seem to be under the impression that if they keep repeating falsehoods they will become true. That was a pretty good article by Freeman, good for him for calling Spencer and Christy on their misinformation. But no worries, SkS is on the case and will have something posted soon :) -
skept.fr at 03:19 AM on 22 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
#53 KR : I agree with your presentation of FR2011, the near-linearity of the signal suggest residual noise (if any) is probably weak. But the fact that there is no acceleration in the trend could also suggest that there is a residual natural cooling noise in the past decade (and/or warming in the previous). If so, the AGW rate would accelerate in reality. I don't know, but I'm pretty sure FR2011 cannot be interpreted firmly in a "reassuring" way (you know, interpretation like "don't worry, warming rate is steady, it proves that we will get 1,7 K in 2100 in BAU scenario"). #dana1981 : the anthropogenic sources of aerosols is supposed to have decreased in the 1980-1990s (works of Martin Wild and co-authors on "global brightening"), then increased in 2000s due to global increase of coal plant emissions (Chinese and emerging countries). (So again, one should note this a cooling trend in the 2000s decade.) Is there a reference web source explaining how the AOD is calculated (methods, sites, etc.)? For example, I don't know how the indirect effect (in cloudy sky) can be measured. -
dana1981 at 03:13 AM on 22 December 2011Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Really good post Rob, but rather disturbing that we keep finding new unintended consequences of anthropogenic climate change. A lot of people rely heavily on fish for food - decreasing stocks due to acidification would be really bad news. -
Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
dana1981 - I agree on the human aerosols. I suspect our data on the subject (given the regional nature and short lifespan of human aerosols) isn't terribly good, but I've suggested the same over at Tamino's blog. In the meantime, I don't think F&R have in any way claimed that these are the only exogenous influences on climate - simply that they are large ones, and that accounting for them improves our view of GHG influences. -
dana1981 at 02:57 AM on 22 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
Agreed with KR @53 - this paper certainly doesn't remove all exogeneous factors, just 3 big ones (3 of the biggest, in fact). The one criticism at WUWT that I'd like to see implemented is the influence of human aerosol emissions. That would make for an interesting addition to the analysis, if we could get good enough emissions data. -
muoncounter at 02:37 AM on 22 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
skept.fr#52: "The 2000s decade could well have been the definite proof that natural factors are henceforth unable to cool the Earth, even in the most favorable condtions for that." Fair point. I noted here that quiet solar conditions (a natural variation if ever there is one) were ideal for the onset of cooling; F&R's important result show no evidence of that happening. But surely the pseudo-skeptics will cry, 'wait 'til next year!' -
Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
skept.fr - As I (personally) interpret F&R 2011, the purpose of the paper was to remove large, known sources of variability from the temperature signal, and see how they affected the statistical relevance of an underlying warming trend. Hence their regression against ENSO (known to affect temperatures, with at least a partially understood physical basis for those effects), volcanic/sulfur aerosols (simply on the basis of albedo), TSI (goes without saying), and the annual cycle. The results indicate a very strong agreement among the five temperature records, a clear linear trend, and greatly reduced variability in that identified trend. In addition the correlation strength and lag times are quite interesting, and match reasonable expectations of the physical basis for their effects on temperatures. Remaining variability may be (I would almost say "would have to be") due to other effects. But - given the statistically linear residuals of the data after these components, these other potential influences do not show a cyclic effect, or for that matter a dominant effect, on the data that we have so far. Perhaps after some time, with more data, we might have enough to tease out other cyclic or acyclic influences on temperature. Right now, with the data used in the F&R paper, limited by (among other things) the length of the satellite record - there's little evidence for it. -
skept.fr at 00:54 AM on 22 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
Tom : thank you. Bert : read my first message in #13, my point was clear about signal-noise disambiguation, and my conclusion was clear too : "I think FR get the broad picture with their choices, but I don't know if the decadal trends they obtain from their removals are very precise. Maybe lower, maybe higher." (My emphasis). In my opinion, if multidecadal unforced variability exists and is assessed, the real AGW signal may well be higher (not lower) that the conclusion of FR2011. For example, if you look at this recent Douglass guest post on Curry's blog, you see that the author suggests the internal variability modes could have known a very low shift at the beginning of the 2000s, the lowest of the past 70 yrs (figure 1 from Towsley et al 2011). If he is correct (that I don't know, and remind this is just a blog post without real scientific value), it would mean that instead of a slight warming, and the warmest T from instrumental records, past decade should have known a very sharp cooling. So, maybe we underestimate (even FR2011) the real signal of AGW in climate. That is why even people who refers to the sun or the natural variability, frequently in a perspective of denialism, doesn't understand the real implication of what they advance for climate. The 2000s decade could well have been the definite proof that natural factors are henceforth unable to cool the Earth, even in the most favorable condtions for that. And this would be quite a bad news for all us. You must really keep an open mind on all these questions. I'm skeptic, not denier. -
Yvan Dutil at 23:35 PM on 21 December 2011The Media & Global Climate Science Communication
I don't share your optimism about the effectiveness of a good communication strategy. I have a Ph.D. in astrophysics and have given a countless number of interview. Many time, an astrologer was invited in the same news report to give a "balanced" view. In addition, I dis some science journalism. I can confirm, there is ZERO time to check your sources. Even putting things in context is very hard due to the limited amount of space. -
CBDunkerson at 23:02 PM on 21 December 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Spencer and Christy are at it again, using the 33rd anniversary of the satellite record to repeat their claims that their satellite records 'disprove' climate model projections and that the observed warming is therefor mostly 'natural variability'. A Washington Post article on these claims included a great rebuttal in image form;
This was apparently created by John Abraham and sent to them by Andrew Dessler. In any case, I hadn't seen it before and it really brings home just how many serious problems there have been with Spencer & Christy's work and how they have consistently been biased in one direction.
The temperature trend Spencer & Christy show now is more than 0.2 C per decade higher than their original claims. If we apply that as a 'demonstrated uncertainty range' around their current claim then the possible spread on their current value includes warming much greater than any of the mainstream projections.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:00 PM on 21 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
Bert @50, while I may be disappointed in the end, on evidence to date I do not think you have skept.fr's measure at all. He is not a carbon copy denier, and should not be treated as one. Further, suggestions that he has simply trying to distract us from the obvious are not helpful. -
Bert from Eltham at 21:10 PM on 21 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
skept.fr The core of your question is now differentiating signal from noise?! I will say this very simply that the eddies in the flow of heat have been subtracted from the measured signal by FR 2011. These are real perturbations of the GTA caused by both the drivers and mediators apart from our CO2 pollution. The resultant signal is our contribution to the temperature increase of SpaceShip Earth You are complicating what is a simple scenario by pointing to red herrings. I reckon I have your measure. Bert -
Tom Curtis at 20:31 PM on 21 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
skept.fr @48:"Tom : only one such "oscillation" has a proven effect on global climate - ENSO I think we disagree on this point, because I consider there is a debate in climate community."
You misunderstand me. There is debate about the effect of several of these oscillations on global temperatures, most particularly the AMO and the PDO. But for just one oscillation has the debate moved to the point where it is beyond reasonable dispute that that oscillation effects global temperatures, ie, for ENSO. For all other candidates, you will find evidence and scientists on both sides of the debate. -
skept.fr at 20:16 PM on 21 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
#45 Tom : "what we are finding puzzling about your concentration on the AMO is, as has been pointed out, it is just one of many posited oceanic quasi-periodic fluctuations" Agree with that, but note that my concentration on AMO comes from the fact that Tamino has written on it on his blog, so I took this as an example of what I called in my very first message "the other Os". Following the advice of muoncounter, I posted a question on Tamino's blog, so I'll let you know. My question had no mention of AMO, here it is for information: I miss a point. In IPCC AR4 3.3.6 (2007), several patterns of variability are described, Southern Oscillation being one among others. On long term, these oscillations are centered on a zero mean value (they don’t create heat). But for a shorter term as 1979-2010, why should we consider the sole ENSO as a multidecadal “noise”? Or more precisely, on a 32 yrs period, from which physical arguments must we choose one oscillation in particular, rather than zero oscillation or all oscillations? Thanks. Tom : only one such "oscillation" has a proven effect on global climate - ENSO I think we disagree on this point, because I consider there is a debate in climate community. That's why I quoted Swanson, Tsonis or Latif as examples of scientists having recently published on multidecadal effects on internal (or unforced) variability. Real Climate had published a guest blog of Swanson (link above), so I suppose it is not a scoop. And in fact, IPCC AR4 3.6.8 2007 already said : Decadal variations in teleconnections considerably complicate the interpretation of climate change. Since the TAR, it has become clear that a small number of teleconnection patterns account for much of the seasonal to interannual variability in the extratropics. On monthly time scales, the SAM, NAM and NAO are dominant in the extratropics. The NAM and NAO are closely related, and are mostly independent from the SAM, except perhaps on decadal time scales. Many other patterns can be explained through combinations of the NAM and PNA in the NH, and the SAM and PSA in the SH, plus ENSO-related global patterns. Both the NAM/NAO and the SAM have exhibited trends towards their positive phase (strengthened mid-latitude westerlies) over the last three to four decades, although both have returned to near their long-term mean state in the last five years. In the NH, this trend has been associated with the observed winter change in storm tracks, precipitation and temperature patterns. In the SH, SAM changes are related to contrasting trends of strong warming in the Antarctic Peninsula and a cooling over most of interior Antarctica. The increasing positive phase of the SAM has been linked to stratospheric ozone depletion and to greenhouse gas increases. Multi-decadal variability is also evident in the Atlantic, and appears to be related to the THC. (My emphasis) So as you can see, the IPCC 2007 acknowledges that there have been decadal change in some pattern inside the 1979-2011 period, for NAM/NAO, SAM, Atlantic MOC, not only ENSO.The fact that ENSO have the strongest signature on T does not imply that coupling / decoupling of other patterns of variability during there decades have no signature at all on regional T and so mean global T. #47 Bert : "You either do not really understand the physics or you are as is usual with the deniers of AGW, casting doubt on the basic premise by pointing out a meaningless anomaly that has no basis in reality. Or you are genuine and simply misguided. Which is it?" You've a lot of hypothesis about me, I'd prefer a lot of hypothesis about my questions! That is I prefer ad rem to ad hominem. Of course, oscillations do not create heat, but just change its pattern of distribution between ocean and atmosphere. The point of the discussion is not to say that oscillations produce GW — nonsensical as I've already said (so please read me more attentively), they oscillate around a zero mean —, but to understand how FR 2011 can separate signal and noise. That is the core of their approach, and the core of my questions. -
Bert from Eltham at 19:35 PM on 21 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
skept.fr When dealing with slightly turbulent flow it is useless to dwell on one of the vortices as a driver of the overall flow. It is a property of the flow rather than a cause. All the 'oscillations' are just this. You either do not really understand the physics or you are as is usual with the deniers of AGW, casting doubt on the basic premise by pointing out a meaningless anomaly that has no basis in reality. Or you are genuine and simply misguided. Which is it? Bert -
Tristan at 18:19 PM on 21 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
Tom It's not just somewhat arbitrary, it's entirely arbitrary. P-values, and more importantly, likelihood distributions give us information with which to make decisions. A p-value of 0.05 will result in some decision being made. A p-value of 0.07 will result in some decision being made. They might result in the same decision, they might not. Most decisions are more finely grained than simply 'do' or 'don't'. In the case of this study, the p-value is stacked against a pretty strong body of work that implies that the AMO isn't an actor in global temperatures. I think it'd take much more than p:0.05 to shed doubt on what we currently believe. -
Mond from Oz at 18:14 PM on 21 December 2011Correction to the True Cost of Coal Power - MMN11
(apologies if this is off topic) Today (21/12) SMH 'Business News' writes that some 32 billion AUD is to be spent on mergers and acquisitions in coal production in Australia. Question: On average rough estimate how much does it cost to get a ton of coal out of the ground? In other words, how much coal is this talking about? -
DSL at 15:29 PM on 21 December 2011The Media & Global Climate Science Communication
DrTsk, I wonder if Althouse is also a 9/11 Toother. He should be picking cherries out of his teeth for brushing aside all other atmospheric scientists in favor of the Happer stance.Moderator Response: [JH] Off topic. -
Tom Curtis at 14:33 PM on 21 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
skept.fr, what we are finding puzzling about your concentration on the AMO is, as has been pointed out, it is just one of many posited oceanic quasi-periodic fluctuations. Among other posited (and in most cases well established) periodic variations are: The Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD); The Benguela Nino; (Both of which are analogues of ENSO in their respective oceans.) The AMO; The PDO; The Arctic Oscillation; The North Pacific Gyre Oscillation (which is part of the North Pacific Oscillation, an atmosphere/ocean oscillation) There is also a significant oscillation measured by the pressure difference between Hobart and Chatham Island whose name I forget, and no doubt many others. All of these "oscillations" have significant regional effects. The IOD effects climate not just in India and North Africa (as you would expect) but also in South Eastern Australia. However, only one such "oscillation" has a proven effect on global climate - ENSO. If others were to have a global influence, most logically it would be one (or both) of the two ENSO analogues. In the meantime, what can be said about the AMO is, if it is real, its long term effect could not be distinguished from the global warming trend in a study that only covers a half cycle period, and that its short term fluctuations do not correspond well with the residual of F&R's analysis, suggesting that its short term cycle, at least, has little bearing on global temperatures. -
DrTsk at 13:56 PM on 21 December 2011The Media & Global Climate Science Communication
At AccuWeather.com -> http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/does-satellite-temperature-dat-1/59306Elliott M. Althouse · Georgetown U. School of Dentistry The blog is wrong. Raw surface station temperature is adjusted all the time, and never down. The 14k and 25k mid troposphere temps are virtually at record lows for the satellite era. I believe the atmospheric physicists (e.g. Happer at Princeton)_are already dismissing greenhouse gas forcing as a major player in climate change in favor of their cosmic/solar models, and are concentrating much research into climate.
I guess the Dentists have spoken!!!Moderator Response: [JH] Off topic. -
muoncounter at 13:16 PM on 21 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
skept.fr#41. A precise interpretation? I prefer precise information: -- The earliest mention of 'AMO' in this page is your #13, where it is one among a number of possible oscillations you suggest need consideration. -- Stephen Baines offered a reasonable suggestion as to why Foster and Rahmstorf did not show AMO as a factor, but that is brushed aside here. -- There is then some back and forth, culminating in Tom Curtis' characteristically precise explanation of tamino's earlier work in this context. -- And so on (and that is not meant to diss any of the other excellent contributions to this thread; space is limited). My point was that there is no strong evidence for treating AMO as a factor here (as opposed to ENSO, which has had readily observable effects on global temperature). The observation that "there are currently many discussions on AMO" is hardly compelling. FYI, we have AMO threads which could be informative to consult. Please forgive my use of 'chimera' as my personal opinion of the importance of AMO; that was a needless and irrelevant confusion. Let's put it very simply: Why not post the AMO question directly to tamino's discussion of F&R 2011? He is remarkably clear in his responses to such questions and would no doubt provide more insight than I ever could. -
Tom Curtis at 12:53 PM on 21 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
Tristran @32, while I agree that the 95% confidence level is somewhat arbitrary, and would much prefer the use of Bayesian approaches to statistics, never-the-less the difference between a 95% and a 93% confidence level is not small. The 95% confidence level can be glossed as saying there is a 1 in 20 chance the result would be produced "by chance". The 93% confidence level, in contrast, equates to a 1 in 14.3 chance, a 40% increase of a chance result. Consequently the conventional standard of 95% for statistical significance is a convention, but not entirely arbitrary. That said, the Knudsen paper is tantalizing in its result. Just not statistically significant. -
alan_marshall at 12:52 PM on 21 December 2011The Media & Global Climate Science Communication
Brian, I hope someone has submitted this study to the Australian federal government's current Independent Media Inquiry. News Ltd. needs to be held to account. The Daily Telegraph, for example, is blatantly in breach of its own "code of ethics". -
Utahn at 11:45 AM on 21 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
Perhaps I see your point skept.fr: since one oscillation was included, why not others? I think the bottom line is that ENSO is universally accepted as a defined entity which produces marked short term global temperature noise, whereas the definitions for and likely magnitudes of effect of the other possible oscillations are in much (to put it mildly) debate. Is the lack of evidence for significant oscillation in the thirty years of this study evidence for a lack of global effect of the other oscillations(at least as currently defined)? My guess is yes, but I can't say I know enough to be certain... -
skept.fr at 11:18 AM on 21 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
#40 muoncounter : It is probably just my interpretation, but in some of your comments, you seem to be seeing things that aren't there and assuming these chimera must have some unexplored significance. Hence the suggestion that it could be AMO - on the basis that there are several current papers about it. Whatever your interpretation, it should be more precise. I wrote "My point is not to say a huge part of warming come from AMO (non sensical)", so what do you mean for your part by "it could be AMO" when you interpret my point? What could be AMO exactly? When you speak of "chimera", what do you refer to, the articles I linked or my bad understanding of the conclusions of these articles? The former as the latter may be well true, but I guess one or other merits to be explained. -
Tom Curtis at 10:49 AM on 21 December 2011The Media & Global Climate Science Communication
chriskoz @7, I would dispute your analysis of the Liberal Parties' position on Climate Change. In fact the Liberal Party is deeply divided on the science of climate change. While some Liberal Party MPs (of which Turnbull is the most noted example) accept the science, others (Bill Heffernan comes to mind) are clearly deniers. Opinion is divided as to whether Tony Abbot, the leader of the Liberal Party denies climate change out of conviction or convenience, it remains the fact that he has said that "Climate Change is crap." As Turnbull has observed, the only significant virtue of the Liberal Party's policy is that it is an easy policy to stop. It exists as a screen against attacks on the party that they are climate change deniers, which are perceived as politically damaging. However, as the very expensive policy is associated with no funding proposal, and the Liberal Party is committed to reducing taxes and hence revenue overall, the correct interpretation is that this is a policy designed to not be implemented. It is a smoke screen only. -
muoncounter at 10:29 AM on 21 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
skept.fr#24: "I see the very precise distinction between noise and signal as a difficult exercise." I am sure tamino would agree. Why don't you ask? "There are many other convergent lines of evidence to consider the ~0,15 K /dec signal as the very likely result of GHGs forcing," Yes indeed; a most important observation. "but to say for example this GHG decadal signal is really 0,15 K rather than 0,11 K or 0,19 K seems to me very difficult," Foster and Rahmstorf do not make any claim of such exacting precision. Examine Table 1 in this post: decadal rates (adjusted) range from 0.141 to 0.175; uncertainties are given. That range alone provides an arithmetic mean of 0.158 +/-0.017. #31: "there are currently many discussions on AMO periodicity (or reality) on different timescales" It is probably just my interpretation, but in some of your comments, you seem to be seeing things that aren't there and assuming these chimera must have some unexplored significance. Hence the suggestion that it could be AMO - on the basis that there are several current papers about it. As we have seen in other cases, the mere number of papers is not a good indicator of their relevance. -
Stevo at 10:07 AM on 21 December 2011The Media & Global Climate Science Communication
Thanks for an interesting article Brian. It will be interesting to compare this study of the reporting of climate policy with the soon to be released study of the reporting of climate science. I expect the results will make the Australian print media look rather dismal. -
chriskoz at 10:05 AM on 21 December 2011The Media & Global Climate Science Communication
I think the political situation in Australia with respect to AGW is quite different to that in US. Here, not only the gov but also the opposition accept that the globe is warming and that sth must be done about it. If you look at the liberal policy here you find not a single word denying the climate science. The disagreement is only about the policy: liberals favour their "direct action" and try disproving the carbon tax method being implemented by govs. If Tony Abbott digress sometimes that "science is not settled yet", that's because Tony's mind is influenced more by some external events like 'lord' Monckton speaches rather than his own reasoning. Look at other liberal leaders, like Malcolm Turnball for more reasonable representatives. So, this report, as confirmed by Brian, is about the climate policy. The one about climate sicence will be different. IMO. -
skept.fr at 09:48 AM on 21 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
#37 Sphaerica : AMO, on the other hand, is a black box. We're not even sure that it really is periodic or even exists at all. It may be a mere artifact of coincidence with actual, distinct forcings that in the past 100 years first temperatures down, then up (increase in TSI), then down (increase in human aerosols overpowering GHGs) and then up again (less aerosols, more GHGs) in a seeming cycle that does not actually exist. We have logical evidence to accompany changes in global temperature, and the AMO then mirrors those changes in global temperature. I suggest you're a bit "extreme" in your presentation of AMO. IPCC AR4 3.6.6 (2007) has presented the AMO among other "patterns of atmospheric circulation variability", including the Southern Oscillation, and what I read here from climate scientists is not exactly what you say. I mean, there are 17 years of publication on AMO since the first description in Schlesinger and Ramankutty, 1994, so it not just "a black box". Furthermore, if your prefer to speak about other patterns, why not : my question would be valuable for the better defined NAO or NAM, for example. I've no fixed idea on AMO. My point is a question of logical coherence rather than empirical evidence on such or such oscillation. If you think that oscillations (or patterns of variability or teleconnections) do not change surface temperature on long term, beyond interannual variability, you have no particular reason to include any oscillation in a 32 yrs analysis. It will oscillates around the zero mean on such a long period, by definition. This is quite independent of our exact level of understanding about ENSO, AMO, NAO, and so on. But if you include one oscillation, you must at least explain the statistical / physical reasons for excluding all the others. Why would one then go looking at the AMO as a cause rather than an effect? In fact some scientists do. So you should ask to them, not to me! For example in J Clim, Ting 2010 : "Comparing the results to observations, it is argued that the long-term, observed, North Atlantic basin-averaged SSTs combine a forced global warming trend with a distinct, local multidecadal “oscillation” that is outside of the range of the model-simulated, forced component and most likely arose from internal variability. This internal variability produced a cold interval between 1900 and 1930, followed by 30 yr of relative warmth and another cold phase from 1960 to 1990, and a warming since then." (My emphasis on produce) Also in J Clim, DelSole 2011 : "An unforced internal component that varies on multidecadal time scales is identified by a new statistical method that maximizes integral time scale. This component, called the internal multidecadal pattern (IMP), is stochastic and hence does not contribute to trends on long time scales; however, it can contribute significantly to short-term trends. Observational estimates indicate that the trend in the spatially averaged “well observed” sea surface temperature (SST) due to the forced component has an approximately constant value of 0.1 K decade−1, while the IMP can contribute about ±0.08 K decade−1 for a 30-yr trend. The warming and cooling of the IMP matches that of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation and is of sufficient amplitude to explain the acceleration in warming during 1977–2008 as compared to 1946–77, despite the forced component increasing at the same rate during these two periods."(my emphasis) I've no idea of the value of these studies, but they suggest internal variability (and particularly AMO here) can be something like the cause of some mutlidecadal warming / cooling. That's why I speak previously of a debate among climate community on the origin, cause and effect of these oscillations, and particularly on relatively short period like 1979-2011. See also Latif and Keenlyside 2011 for a recent review on decadal climate variability and predictability. -
Bob Lacatena at 08:32 AM on 21 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
36, skept.fr, To put it another way, you find a bullet embedded in the wall. You trace the angle of entry, look across the room, and see a smoking gun lying on a table. You now conclude that the bullet must have thrown the gun across the room onto the table. The correlation between the two is obvious. The expectation of cause and effect is absurd. -
Bob Lacatena at 08:28 AM on 21 December 2011Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
36, skept.fr, You also neglect the fact that much of the mechanics of ENSO are understood. We know, physically, what happens to cause the warming and cooling. We don't yet know what controls the transition between states so we can't predict when any state will appear or how strong it will be, but we do understand how and why it affects temperatures, and this allows us to understand that it could not possibly have a long term effect on global mean temperature. AMO, on the other hand, is a black box. We're not even sure that it really is periodic or even exists at all. It may be a mere artifact of coincidence with actual, distinct forcings that in the past 100 years first temperatures down, then up (increase in TSI), then down (increase in human aerosols overpowering GHGs) and then up again (less aerosols, more GHGs) in a seeming cycle that does not actually exist. We have logical evidence to accompany changes in global temperature, and the AMO then mirrors those changes in global temperature. Why would one then go looking at the AMO as a cause rather than an effect? This has nothing to do with statistics. It has to do with misinterpreting the correlation and so putting the cart before the horse. -
shoyemore at 08:21 AM on 21 December 2011The Media & Global Climate Science Communication
I am amazed at these statistics. Julia Gillard is an unusually courageous politician to take on this type of print media opposition. It is surprising that climate change science retains a hold on the Australian public. Is this repeated in other media? Or have bloggers and science communicators been unusually effective by other means? -
scaddenp at 07:22 AM on 21 December 2011The End of the Hothouse
A quick look at GeoCarb revealed another tool that I had forgotten - Sr isotopes as a proxy for weathering rate. eg this paper. Quite definitely a himalayan signal here. -
AussieinUSA at 07:20 AM on 21 December 2011The Media & Global Climate Science Communication
Thanks Brian and also John for the interesting links. -
cRR Kampen at 07:13 AM on 21 December 2011Arctic settles into new phase – warmer, greener, and less ice
John et al, thank you for the additional lecture. Btw I noticed the authorship of the title but only responded to the title's content. #18, that's what is sharpening the annual cycle of anomalies. Catastrophe theory (the mathematics/physics interpretation) is imo a useful concept. E.g. around a threshold average thickness below which, in summertime, ice cover breaks up and melts vastly more quickly. Positive feedback like open sea area, menacing the protective fogs and low stratus over the pack.
Prev 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 Next
