Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 Next
Comments 71451 to 71500:
-
CBDunkerson at 22:07 PM on 28 October 2011Bad, Badder, BEST
The video shows portions of an animated world map with the BEST study temperature reading coverage over time. Does anyone know the source of that animation? I couldn't find it on the BEST site. -
Hans5565 at 22:05 PM on 28 October 2011Not so Permanent Permafrost
I feel that the last paragraph in your response to Charlie is totally inappropriate. He raises a valid question about using figures from an activist organization in a supposedly scientific post. Given the flack generated recently from the use of such information in other supposedly scientific reports, I would think that extra care would be taken to avoid such actions. The use of WWF information is perfectly appropriate for other political or activists purposes. However, scientific accounts should relie on the most accurately available, peer-reviewed data. If this was not intended as a scientific review of the permafrost issue, then please forgive my rantings. Trying to focus on scientific research, rather than activist postings, does not equate to "burying ones head in the sand." -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 20:45 PM on 28 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
How long will the BEST papers clear peer review? -
alan_marshall at 19:19 PM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
I suggest to Moribato and his friends on WUWT that "skeptics" need to give attention to these three questions: What is the equilibrium sea level rise for a warming of 2, 3 or 4 degrees C? Can the 40 percent of the world's human population living in the tropical zone (as opposed to more comfortable latitudes in the USA) tolerate a rise of 2, 3 or 4 degrees C? What percentage of the world’s biodiversity will be destroyed by a rise of 2, 3 or 4 degrees C? Honestly, they haven’t got a clue, have they? -
shoyemore at 18:12 PM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
Thanks for posting this. From my perspective, I have noticed many deniers in my own corner of the world have lapsed into (stunned?) silence, at least temporarily, since the BEST results. They have danced all over "hide the decline" so often, it is hard for them to get the words out. It is important to re-iterate the reasons for the warming of the planet, as the fallback position are "is it man-made?", and "it is natural variability" etc. -
Albatross at 18:04 PM on 28 October 2011Not so Permanent Permafrost
Charlie @14, Sorry my post is too long for your liking, but please read my post again, you seem to have missed a couple of important points that I made. But I'll reiterate. The data in Figure 2 above are in all likelihood from model simulations presented in Lawrence et al. (2008). Specifically from their Figure 5 for one of the traces for SOILCARB simulations (which they find are superior than the control), most likely SOILCARB_DS125, the most 'optimistic' simulation. I am willing to bet that Figure 2 above is a digitized version of the SOILCARB_DS125 trace shown their Figure 5. "The difference is around 2 million sq km for most years, and the projected graph shows decelerating loss in 21st century whereas the SkS/WWF graph show accelerating loss for the 21st century." No, both Fig. 2 above and Figure 5 (SOILCARB simulation) in Lawrence et al. (2008) show a deceleration in the rate of loss after ~2060, with the greatest loss shown to occur between about 2040 and 2060. Also, both show an expected decrease from near 10 million km^2 circa 2000 to about 1 million km^2 circa 2100. That is what is important here, and something you seem intent on avoiding accepting. I have already stated that I agree the caption needs amending, perhaps you missed that. Agnostic will fix the caption, once they have heard back from UNEP and have confirmation. So some patience please. "In further research though, it appears that early 20th century variations are artifacts of how the model was initialized." It would help everyone a great deal if you back up such assertions with a citation. You also now appear to be giving excuses to dismiss the model data. The early 20th century peak and subsequent decline (associated with the warming in the early 20th century), is evident in all traces shown in their Figure 5 and in their Figure 1b. It is unlikely anything to do with how the model was initialized, as it is a robust feature in all versions of the model output. Additionally, all versions of the model used the same forcing in the 20th century, what changed (what was improved) was the land-surface scheme as is explained in the paper. None of your attempts to undermine the post changes the fact that we are losing permafrost. I understand that fact is unsettling, but that is not an excuse to bury ones head in the ground or try to wish it away or dismiss reality. -
Dikran Marsupial at 17:58 PM on 28 October 20119 Months After McLean
Fred Staples wrote: "The CET record is a reasonably close proxy for the Northern hemisphere". You obviously don't know that the temperatures in the U.K. are strongly buffered by the thermal inertia of the Altantic ocean due to the gulf stream and due to the prevailing wind direction being from the west. This means that Central England Temperatures are not even representative of Central European Temperatures, nevermind the Northern Hemisphere! -
skywatcher at 17:01 PM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
Do you need any extra straws to clutch, Dale, or will that one do? Scientifically, this study was largely irrelevant before it even started, as its 'results' have already been repeatedly demonstrated by different independent groups. We already knew the Earth was warming, that UHI was largely irrelevant, and that the HADCRU record was probably on the low side. But unfortunately, certain nice people like Anthony "I'm prepared to accept the results of BEST even if they prove my premise wrong" Watts and his ilk simply refuse to accept that the good people at NASA, NOAA and the Hadley Centre could possibly do good science. It is for showing exactly the kind of cognitive dissonance going on in people like Watts, Nova, and others, that the BEST study was worth every one of its Koch-funded dollars. -
bill4344 at 17:00 PM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
...QED -
Dale at 16:44 PM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
Since BEST only used land data (30% of the surface) and also found 1/3 of all stations cooled, all they proved was that 20% of the planet's surface warmed. Is that reason for all your celebrations? ;) -
bill4344 at 16:36 PM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
Yep, Nova's post is such an absurd jumble that I though I was looking at a title/precis page for series of posts, and kept re-hitting the title link to see the article on BEST. Then I realised this dog's-breakfast was the article!... Nobody could be persuaded by this nonsense, surely? Then you read the comments below. I think it's fair to say that the BEST results have finally winnowed away pretty-well all of the flighty chaff (any susceptible to being borne aloft on the winds of evidence) and left behind only the true grit; they're right, evidence notwithstanding, and they'll never be persuaded otherwise... -
dana1981 at 15:48 PM on 28 October 2011Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
The BEST trend since 1978 is also 0.29°C per decade. We've got a post in the works on the subject. The BEST trend over that period is also identical to the NOAA land-only trend. -
dana1981 at 15:45 PM on 28 October 20119 Months After McLean
Fred @36:"The CET record is a reasonably close proxy for the Northern hemisphere"
Wow, you have a very different definition of "reasonably close" than me. I wouldn't call any one geographic location a reasonably close proxy for an entire hemisphere. That's kind of whacky. -
Charlie A at 15:08 PM on 28 October 2011Not so Permanent Permafrost
@13: the long post by Albatross that doesn't address basic questionw of what Figure 2 of this article is supposed to be showing, and the provenance of that data. Perhaps the author of the article can comment on the following points. 1. Figure 2 of this article is from a WWF report, not a peer reviewed article. More specifically, the source appears to be Figure 5d from chapter 5 of Arctic Climate Feedbacks: Global Implications , Correct? 2. Although the caption of SkS Figure 2 is "Fig. 2 Actual and projected loss of permafrost.", both the 20th century data and the 21st century data are computer simulation rather than actual data. The caption in the WWF report is "(d) Time series of simulated global permafrost area (excluding glacial Greenland and Antarctica)" Please confirm whether Figure 2 is actual data or simulated data. 3. Although the World Wildlife Fund report includes references to peer reviewed articles, the relevant reference (see inline response to comment #5 for link) has significantly different data for near-surface permafrost north of N45. See figure 1B of that article. The difference is around 2 million sq km for most years, and the projected graph shows decelerating loss in 21st century whereas the SkS/WWF graph show accelerating loss for the 21st century. 4. My comment on this article was in regards to the very rapid rise and fall of near-surface permafrost in the early 20th century. If the graph were what SkS says -- "actual" -- then we could learn much by looking at these past variations. In further research though, it appears that early 20th century variations are artifacts of how the model was initialized. -
Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
Sphaerica I have in the past commented on both WUWT and JoNova. Anthony's crowd is generally straightforwardly nasty, Jo's sometimes has folks who are honestly looking for information - either way, I have found it worth my effort to (on occasion) put some of the actual science up, as I know it. But now?!? After the BEST publicity/papers both Anthony and Jo have gone into tinfoil hat mode. They're posting truly stunning collections of (unprintable adjectives here) that have zero connection with reality. It's like they're not even trying. Not much to do in the face of that kind of outright denial - except laugh, and suggest psych evaluations and possibly medication... -
Stevo at 14:44 PM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
Spherica @20, I'm glad you got a laugh. I couldn't even fathom whatever it was she thought she was rambling on about. Mercury based life forms, encroaching ice age quotes from the '70s...... -
Bob Lacatena at 14:17 PM on 28 October 20119 Months After McLean
37, skywatcher, Maybe Fred needs to stop taking his "free pass" and instead admit to cherry picking in order to warp the discussion in his favor. [Sorry, I've grown very tired of outright, outrageous denial. Coming up with something resembling a remotely decent argument is one thing. Cherry picking distortion of this sort by this point is just plain unacceptable.] -
Bob Lacatena at 14:01 PM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
19, Stevo, I saw that and was going to comment, but I fell off of my seat laughing. I never even got to the comments. Nova's post was just too funny to get past. Man, talk about desperation. Of course, she still clings to the CO2-lags-temperature and "hot spot, hot spot" stuff, so what can one expect? She's probably the most embarrassing of all of the denial bloggers, because she doesn't even try (and her legion of followers fit that bill perfectly -- co2isnotevil hails from there). -
Stevo at 13:32 PM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
For those ineterested in how climate denial spin is reacting to BEST, then have a look at Jo Nova's site. If you do go there could you please point out any links to peer reviewed science you might find there? I'm not saying there is no sound science there, just that I haven't been able to find any. -
muoncounter at 13:02 PM on 28 October 2011Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
The BEST time series data are now available at Wood for Trees. That '2002 change in trend' looks even less robust with these data:The short line segment (mid 2001-mid 2008) appears parallel to the 40 year trend. The only way to make it look like a change in trend is to include the last 2 1/2 years; at that point the short linear fit is (still) just about meaningless.
If anyone is counting, that 40 year trend is very close to 0.25 deg C/decade.
-
Rob Painting at 12:35 PM on 28 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
Karamanski @ 5 - as CBD has discussed, Malhi & Wright suggest it may be related to ENSO, but other studies also suggest the cutting down of large tracts of tropical forest (lower evaporative cooling) may play a part. I've not read anything definitive on it. logicman @ 6 - many Amazon River systems were at their lowest level ever recorded. I tend to have a bit more faith in Greenpeace than you. Stephen Leahy @ 8 - thanks. I've a few more posts lined up on the Amazon over the coming months. I'll eventually link them together via a summary at the end, and this will serve as a rebuttal. Hopefully this will help public understanding when the next extreme drought occurs, because it is definitely not appreciated by the public at large that tropical rainforests (and the many insects and animals that live in them) are in great danger. They have evolved to thrive in a cooler climate, have a very narrow heat tolerance threshold, and are now having to adapt to unprecedented change. Their future is hugely uncertain. -
skywatcher at 11:51 AM on 28 October 20119 Months After McLean
Maybe Fred needs to follow Dikran's excellent step-by-step lesson on how the presence of a cooler body can add heat to a warmer body. Can't recall which thread it was on though? Fred, I dread to wonder how you got on debating timeseries Tamino (couldn't locate your handle there?), given the depth of your understanding shown here. The latest 30-year trendline, including the last decade, for the CET shows a slope of 0.03C p.a. in my graph. Evaluating trends over short time periods, e.g. a decade or less, is a fool's errand as you'll get the slope of the noise, not the signal, especially in a very noisy dataset like the CET. The departure that the CET moving average makes from the Northern Hemisphere moving average over the past few years, notably 2010, is large, driven in part by the anomalously cool winters that occurred locally to the CET. There are some interesting possible reasons for that (local cooling during global warmth), one idea being the loss of sea ice affecting early winter weather patterns. But using a short timeseries (last decade) and a small region (CET area) is classic cherry picking. Here's my cherry - the warmest CET anomaly... April 2011. And we didn't start emitting CO2 in 1949! -
Chemware at 11:47 AM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
adelady, KR - not so much on ice (it will melt too soon), as on roller-skates :D -
Daniel Bailey at 11:00 AM on 28 October 2011Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
Exogenous factors aside, my expectation of the combined Land+Ocean temps is that there would be less of a decadal variation than is seen, provided we had the spatio-temporal network in place to adequately monitor the ocean deeps for a long enough period of time. If so, I would then expect the LOTI to have shallower valleys in some places and no valleys in others. Then we would have essentially a closed global energy budget, provided we also had better quantification of aerosol forcings. Thus the periods in the LOTI now that some point to, post-2002 for example, and say "See! It's flattening!" wouldn't actually be there as they are an artifact created by an incomplete measuring network (and yes, this is, succinctly, my position). But this is all magic-wand-fueled speculation. Hence the differing opinions & hypothesis' to try and close the global energy budget. -
skywatcher at 09:48 AM on 28 October 2011Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
#44 DB - well said indeed! David Lewis, is it your main contention that SkS has not actually produced a post discussing explicitly the differences between Trenberth and Hansen's views on this? Remembering of course that if they are so far apart on this, SkS is hardly likely to be able to identify the "right" answer! #46 mouoncounter - I would have thought that the position was that the existence of a decade or so of reduced temperature rise in the surface/TLT temperature record is not disputed; however the statistical significance of that 'hiatus' is of course disputed. Such periods have of course occurred before (e.g. the 1980s) and don't alter the overall trend. Adding the last decade's temperatures to the 1970-2000 data often actually increases the trend. Surely that statement is in agreement with both of your points? For OHC, it may be different, as the mechanisms are different, though clearly a plausible mechanism for a 'hiatus' even within a continuing rising overall trend is outlined above. -
John Hartz at 09:46 AM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
If you have not already done so, you might want to check out "Koch-Funded Study Confirms Climate Data" by Al Gore posted on Huffington Post on Oct 26. The comment thread now has more than 800 comments. The Climate Denial Spin Machine is now in over-drive. -
Fred Staples at 09:31 AM on 28 October 20119 Months After McLean
You are, of course, quite right Composer, 33, but you can often learn much about peoples’ attitudes from their jokes. I debated seriously the CET record with Tamino on his Open World blog several years ago, when he thought he detected a rate of increase through the last decade of 0.05 degrees pa. This would have brought the closing temperature to more than 11 degrees C, a level which had never previously been reached. Needless to say, it did not happen (the trend across the decade was actually negative). The CET record is a reasonably close proxy for the Northern hemisphere, and it is useful because it runs across the little ice age. The average from 1800 to date is 9.36 degrees C. The average in the decade ending 1949 (before CO2) was 9.67 degrees C. Only the two decades ending 1999 and 2009 were higher, 10.1 and 10.36 respectively. You can see this effect in all the long-run indexes, including DB’s response, 21. Is it cherry-picking to base AGW on the last two or three decades? My comments on the G and T thread, Daniel Bailey, 34, (the second law) were also serious - an attempt to demonstrate that most of what is written about AGW is non-physical. In any energy transfer the quantity of energy will be conserved, but the quality will deteriorate (entropy will increase). That is why heat transfer is always source to sink – earth to atmosphere, atmosphere to space, never the other way round. The only plausible explanation of AGW is the “higher is colder” theory, but that and the relevant data is another story.Response:[DB] "This would have brought the closing temperature to more than 11 degrees C, a level which had never previously been reached. Needless to say, it did not happen (the trend across the decade was actually negative)."
Visual inspection of the temperature graphics posted above shows you wrong on this, even for just the CET. You compund your error by conflating that into the global arena.
"My comments on the G and T thread, Daniel Bailey, 34, (the second law) were also serious - an attempt to demonstrate that most of what is written about AGW is non-physical."
As for the G&T/2nd Law threads, you were shown to be wrong there as well, repeatedly. Which you again compound by repeating your unfounded errors.
"The only plausible explanation of AGW is the “higher is colder” theory, but that and the relevant data is another story."
Well, it's nice to see that you're at least consistent - albeit consistently wrong. If you wish again to take up your quest, and have something new to bring to the discussion, to tilt at the windmills of the 2nd Law/G&T, take it to the appropriate thread, not here.
-
Stephen Leahy at 09:26 AM on 28 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
Great summary, Rob. Having it in hand last Feb would have made it a lot easier to write my article on Lewis' research. Amazon Drought Accelerating Climate Change The important point is that new growth will not compensate for the die off. In an earlier article about a World-Bank-sponsored metastudy researchers warned about this, especially when combined with deforestation. The Amazon is shrinking fast. The REAL Amazon-gate: On the Brink of Collapse Reveals Million $ Study -
Daniel Bailey at 09:14 AM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
Given the changeling nature inherent to these yon movable goalposts I suspect hot air inflation by the "skeptic" contingent; the size & volume of the skeptic meme deflates upon closer inspection. -
Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
adelady - They don't have to be that muscular. After all, those goalposts have never been firmly fixed for these folks... Coming soon to a venue near you: Goalposts... On... Ice!!! - sliiiiiide... -
Bob Lacatena at 08:52 AM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
13, adelady, Ah ha! So you are saying the science is settled, are you? We knew it! Ah ha! Tomorrow's WUWT headline reads:Skeptical Science, That Closed Minded and Dogmatic Disinformation Site, Openly, Irrefutably (And Foolishly And Falsely) Declares That The Science Is Settled!
-
Bad, Badder, BEST
To Mal Adapted #24: Tell us how the talks and mostly the questions went! I am very interested! -
Rob Painting at 08:24 AM on 28 October 2011Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
David Lewis @ 41 - "You've dismissed me as insincere" That's not correct. In fact you strike as being very sincere, but a tad obsessed over this. I find your misrepresentations somewhat puzzling. I've written posts which examine both manmade pollution aerosols from Asia (Kaufmann [2011]), and natural ocean cycles (Meehl [2011]), as possible causes for the noughties slowdown in global temperatures. So I don't know why you think I support one proposed solution over the other. We will have to see whose interpretations the observations support, until then we're just going over the same ground again and again. Sadly science doesn't advance at the same rate we'd like to see our questions answered. From a selfish perspective, I hope James Hansen is right, because at the very least the real damage won't be felt for a while. If, on the other hand, Jerry Meehl is proven right, and we are in a hiatus decade, then we could see some very abrupt warming in the next decade. We will lose large swathes of coral reefs and tropical forest trees if that happens. -
adelady at 07:49 AM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
Well that settles it. No-one should ever accept any kind of physical challenge from any of these people. The muscle development from all that goalpost shifting must be absolutely massive. -
muoncounter at 07:45 AM on 28 October 2011Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
DB#44: "The narrowing differences between the positions of Trenberth and Hansen will be worked out, in time." No doubt time will tell; but we are currently taking a conflicting - and confusing - position. Here we say "we may currently be in one of these decade-long hiatus periods." Yet here we agree with tamino: None of the [most recent] 10-year trends is “statistically significant” but that’s only because the uncertainties are so large — 10 years isn’t long enough to determine the warming trend with sufficient precision. Given that dichotomy of views, David Lewis' comments are very appropriate. -
Albatross at 07:37 AM on 28 October 2011Not so Permanent Permafrost
Charlie @5, Yes, when it warms ice, including permafrost, tends to melt. Base don your comment a@5, you seem to agree then that as the planet warms, especially the land area in the northern high latitudes, the permafrost will melt and/or the active layer will deepen. By accepting the decrease in the early 20th century, you then also by default accept the modelling results of Lawrence at al. (2008), as their simulations captured the decline in permafrost response to the early 20th century warming. AGW is about where we are heading, the past is telling us that permafrost is sensitive to relatively small amounts of warming (at least relative to what awaits us). So the fact that the permafrost is melting on account of the observed warming does not bode well for the future does it? Especially when said permafrost contains CH4, a strong greenhouse gas (e.g., Schuur et al. 2008 and Tarnocai et al. 2009). Is that what you are hoping to try and distract people from here? As for your questions about the source. Agnostic actually says "Courtesy UNEP/GRID-Arendal ", not "Source UNEP/GRID-Arendal". Regarding the caption for Figure 2, "Actual and projected loss of permafrost" is probably referring to the following in the paper, "The original CCSM3 20th century simulation was forced with observed natural and anthropogenic forcings (greenhouse gases, sul- fate aerosols, volcanoes, ozone, solar variability, halocar- bons, and black carbon aerosols), whereas the 21st century simulation was forced with the midrange SRES A1B emission scenario. Regardless, the data presented in Figure 2 do appear to be based on data from a peer-reviewed paper in Journal of Geophysical Research by Lawrence et al. (2008). I agree though that the caption should be more specific and clearer. "The only observations estimate in that referenced paper is table 2, which shows an estimate of 11.2-13.5 million sq km for the 1970-1989 period while the simulations for that period range from 8.5-10.7 million sq km." You are not accurately reflecting the work of Lawrence et al. (2008). The focus of their paper was an improved model version, they say in their abstract (and show in Table 2 that): "When forced off-line with archived data from a fully coupled Community Climate System Model (CCSM3) simulation of 20th century climate, the revised version of CLM produces a near-surface permafrost extent of 10.7 X 10^6 km^2 (north of 45°N)" Their improved model agrees much better with the observed estimates for continuous and discontinuous permafrost area (11.2- 13.5 x 10^6 km^2). They conclude that: "The rate of near-surface permafrost degradation, in response to strong simulated Arctic warming (∼ +7.5°C over Arctic land from 1900 to 2100, A1B greenhouse gas emissions scenario), is slower in the improved version of CLM, particularly during the early 21st century (81,000 versus 111,000 km2 a−1, where a is years). Even at the depressed rate, however, the warming is enough to drive near-surface permafrost extent sharply down by 2100." Hardly encouraging news or reason to keep emitting GHGs. -
John Hartz at 07:26 AM on 28 October 2011Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
@Daniel Bailey (44): Well said! -
Albatross at 07:20 AM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
NewYorkJ @9, Great sleuthing. Yup, Singer is stuck in 1997, McIntyre is stuck in 1998.... rdr95, Actually I do not think Pielke Sr. is doing what he is doing for the money at all, I have a pretty good idea where he is coming from, but won't get into it here. Unless you can cite evidence for your claim, I would encourage you to retract it as it actually breaks the site's Comments policy. -
rdr95 at 07:08 AM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
" It baffles me that R.P. Sr would want to be associated in even the loosest way with this miserable display." Money talks, apparently.Response:[DB] Please clarify your point. If you are implying that RPSr receives untoward compensation for the positions he takes then that is a violation of the Comments Policy & you will have to rescind that implication.
-
Manwichstick at 07:03 AM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
When some folks at WUWT say with confidence that the earth hasn't warmed in the last 10 years... it makes me think that they look at scientific inquiry through the smallest of lenses - one that is truly ignorant of the hard work put in by people all over the world. If they don't believe climate change experts in the US, or the UK ...fine... trust the ones in Japan! -
NewYorkJ at 07:00 AM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
The Fred Singer claim is perplexing. It's similar to his claim in 2000. "But since 1979, our best measurements show that the climate has been cooling just slightly. Certainly, it has not been warming." "The surface record continues to go up. But you have to be very careful with the surface record. It is taken with thermometers that are mostly located in or near cities. And as cities expand, they get warmer. And therefore they affect the readings. And it's very difficult to eliminate this--what's called the urban heat island effect. So I personally prefer to trust in weather satellites." PBS Interview with Singer Now this interview was around the time all the big errors (diurnal drift, orbital decay) were being discovered and corrections made. Some of the corrections may have been applied earlier than his interview, and while that might lead one to believe Singer wasn't up-to-speed on the latest findings, what in the world is his excuse now? It's like he's stuck in 1997. Science moves on. Deniers are left behind. -
Albatross at 05:40 AM on 28 October 2011Bad, Badder, BEST
Mal Adapted and JMurphy, Great find @23 JMurphy. Oh dear, so I guess that Singer has, like Anthony Watts, reneged on his statement that he will have an open mind when it comes to the BEST results. But Ian Forrester on another thread shows what Fred Singer had to say in response to a Nature editorial on the BEST findings on 26 October 2011 (he was the first person to post a comment on that Nature editorial thread): "Why are you so jubilant about the findings of the Berkeley Climate Project that you can hardly contain yourself? What do you think they proved? They certainly added little to the ongoing debate on human causes of climate change." And Singer then makes a series of demonstrably false statements: "But unlike the land surface, the atmosphere has shown no warming trend, either over land or over ocean — according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons. This indicates to me that there is something very wrong with the land surface data. And did you know that climate models, run on super-computers, all insist that the atmosphere must warm faster than the surface? And so does theory. And finally, we have non-thermometer temperature data from so-called "proxies", tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites. They don't show any global warming since 1940!" He also says this: "One last word: You evidently haven't read the four scientific BEST papers, submitted for peer review. There, the Berkeley scientists disclaim knowing the cause of the temperature increase reported by their project. They conclude, however, "The human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated". I commend them for their honesty and skepticism. " Now that is a blatant distortion and misrepresentation of the BEST findings. Singer has evidently not read the paper, but is simply repeating a meme that originated with AGW denier Benny Peiser and which was propagated (uncritically) on WUWT by Anthony Watts. This latest misrepresentation and abuse of the science by those in denial about AGW has been dealt with here. So on the one hand Singer trashes BEST, and then when they say something that he wants to believe (which is not even necessartily true), he commends their "honesty". Singer speaking immediately after Muller and Rohde is priceless. -
Albatross at 05:38 AM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
Ian @4, That is interesting, because on another thread poster JMurphy found this quote by Fred Singer when referring to the BEST global temperature results: "I applaud and support what is being done by the Project — a very difficult but important undertaking. I personally have little faith in the quality of the surface data, having been exposed to the revealing work by Anthony Watts and others. However, I have an open mind on the issue and look forward to seeing the results of the Project in their forthcoming publications." But Watts and Delingpole et al. assure us that real 'skeptics' never doubted that the planet has been warming. So we know what that makes Singer then. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:19 AM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
Every month that goes by makes WUWT reveals itself for what it is. The efforts made by moderators there to give it an appearance of scientific relevance are a little pathetic. It baffles me that R.P. Sr would want to be associated in even the loosest way with this miserable display. -
dana1981 at 05:06 AM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
The satellites show no warming trend? Somebody should let RSS and UAH know their data is wrong. We've got a post in the works on the ratio of lower troposphere to surface warming over land in response to an error-riddled Eschenbach post on the subject at WUWT. -
Daniel Bailey at 04:56 AM on 28 October 2011Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
@ David Lewis (41) Seeing as the others have already weighed in on this to some degree, let me add a couple of things: First of all, let me thank you for your efforts in the realm of policy to help stabilize the composition of the atmosphere since 1988. Policy and politics are thankless endeavors and your efforts in that arena are appreciated. Secondly, blog posts at Skeptical Science are fairly narrow in focus, with the average post coming in between 800 and 1200 words. Trenberth's latest guest article clocked in at about 2500. One of Hansen's would be closer to 4000. Attempting to resolve the two sides in a blog post, and to do it justice, is outside the scope (and mission parameters) of Skeptical Science. Thirdly, the relevant works by Trenberth and Hansen in question have not yet completed their journey through the realm of academic peer-review. To say at this juncture that one is right and the other not is to avoid the more likely answer which is both will be found right to some degree. Lastly, science advances by filling in the grey areas on the map of our understanding of the world and universe in which we live. In this particular case, the pencil of science is busily erasing a picture of a sea monster so it can sketch in a clearer picture of an area. In this case, it is the global energy budget. Since it is just at the preliminary sketch phase with no paint yet applied to the canvas it is a bit premature to say with any certainty what the final inked picture will look like with exactitude. But we do have a sketch. Science is rolling back the fog and narrowing the bands of uncertainty roiling mist-like around the global energy budget. Today there still exists some myopia; given time, a better and more precise ocular prescription will bring greater clarity. But that is only a detail. From a policy perspective little has changed from the basics: 1. The climate, so long stable that civilization was able to appear, has been destabilized by the massive bolus of man-made GHGs injected into the carbon cycle. 2. The radiative physics of that bolus of GHGs dictate that the energy balance of the planet must change. 3. The polar regions of are world are particularly susceptible to energy budget alterations, with the Arctic Sea Ice being uniquely susceptible. 4. Long-predictable weather patterns, trade winds, polar jets, oceanic currents and even the Hadley Cells themselves have already been shifted out of their "normal" status. 5. This will continue to change for essentially the next hundred years. Even if we cease output of GHGs and hold emissions to zero for the next 40 years, the change will continue but then begin to level off. If we continue BAU, change will continue, but the rate of change (already 10X the rate as occurred during the PETM) will continue to increase. 6. We have already ensured that the world our ancestors lived in is gone. From a geological perspective we have ushered in a new age. What survives that transition, for that is what we have just embarked on as a species, is up to us. Whether the survivors include homo sapiens is still within our control. For now. So please continue your participation in policy discussions. The narrowing differences between the positions of Trenberth and Hansen will be worked out, in time. But time is fleeting, and our window to exert control over our destiny as a species dwindles...Moderator Response: [John Hartz] PETM: The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) was a period of natural global warming that took place almost 56 million years ago. -
Mal Adapted at 04:12 AM on 28 October 2011Bad, Badder, BEST
Heh! Singer follows Muller and Rohde on the program at the Third Santa Fe Conference on Global and Regional Climate Change next Tuesday. Singer's topic: "Is the reported global surface warming of 1979 to 1997 real?" -
CBDunkerson at 03:46 AM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
Ian wrote: "There is still one AGW denier who is denying that temperatures have risen since 1940." Oh, there are lots of them. Over on the McLean thread there was a guy claiming temperatures haven't risen since 1659. :] Of course, you'll also find alot of the exact same people also saying that nobody ever claimed temperatures weren't rising. Heck, I bet you Monckton will make both claims in the same speech. -
CBDunkerson at 03:42 AM on 28 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
Karamanski, I didn't see a proposed explanation for the accelerated tropical warming on a quick skim through Malhi & Wright 2004. However, note that while ice albedo feedback would obviously be much less in the tropics than in the Arctic the reverse would be true for water vapor feedback. So long as Arctic temperatures remain near freezing there will be virtually no water vapor feedback in that region. 100% relative humidity at 0 C is about 4.8 g/m^3 100% relative humidity at 5 C is about 6.8 g/m^3 100% relative humidity at 40 C is about 51.1 g/m^3 100% relative humidity at 45 C is about 65.4 g/m^3 An increase from 0 C to 5 C yields only an additional 2 g/m^3 of possible water vapor... while an increase from 40 C to 45 C yields an extra 14.3 g/m^3. Thus, we can see that the amount of water vapor which the atmosphere can hold increases in both total amount and rate of increase as the temperature goes up. Of course, the greenhouse warming of water vapor is logarithmic and thus DEcreases in rate as the total amount increases... and the figures above are for maximum possible humidity while actual values would usually be lower. So there are considerable complexities around the water vapor feedback. However, it might be the case that the polar regions will experience accelerated warming due to the most pronounced ice-albedo feedback while the tropics do due to the most pronounced water vapor feedback. Or maybe it is something else. The paper seems to suggest that tropical temperatures are highly influenced by ENSO. Perhaps ocean heating is causing stronger ENSO swings which in turn caused the recent pronounced tropical heating. -
Ian Forrester at 03:38 AM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
There is still one AGW denier who is denying that temperatures have risen since 1940. In a recent comment to a Nature editorial Fred Singer claims:But unlike the land surface, the atmosphere has shown no warming trend, either over land or over ocean — according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons. This indicates to me that there is something very wrong with the land surface data. And did you know that climate models, run on super-computers, all insist that the atmosphere must warm faster than the surface? And so does theory. And finally, we have non-thermometer temperature data from so-called ?proxies?: tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites. They don?t show any global warming since 1940!
Prev 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 Next
