Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 Next
Comments 71501 to 71550:
-
JCH at 12:51 PM on 29 October 2011A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
I see a lot of people claiming Scenario A is the one. What would be very helpful is if you would do a similar table on concentrations under A, and broader discussion of NET greenhouse gas forcings to date, which I believe is why Scenario A is not the one. -
Bob Lacatena at 12:38 PM on 29 October 2011Not so Permanent Permafrost
20, Charlie A, The figure appears to come from Vulnerability of permafrost carbon to global warming. Part II: sensitivity of permafrost carbon stock to global warming. Tellus 60B: 265–275. (Khvorostyanov DV, Ciais P, Krinner G, Zimov SA, Corradis Ch, Guggenberger G 2008). Unfortunately, I don't have access to the paper to confirm. It didn't seem all that hard to find, though. I'm not sure what the problem is here. -
WheelsOC at 10:27 AM on 29 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
I wish Dr. Pielke Snr. allowed comments on his post so that I could ask him exactly what is his point in trying to claim that lower troposphere warming "stopped" an insignificantly short period of time ago. -
Charlie A at 09:08 AM on 29 October 2011Not so Permanent Permafrost
#19 DSL says "This quibbling with WWF crud is goofy when there's a very large collection of existing research on the subject." Is it "goofy" to try and determine whether what SkS portrays as "actual" 20th century near-surface permafrost area is indeed based upon actual observations? Perhaps in that very large collection of existing research on permafrost there is a time series for near-surface permafrost area north of 45N, but I have not yet been able to find such a time series or graph. If anyone knows of such data, it would be helpful to compare simulations and observations. Only by following the trail back from UNEP to WWF to Lawrence et al 2008 was I able to determine that the "actual" graph is most likely the result of cascaded simulations. My current understanding of the method used to generate the data for Figure 2 is: a) Some estimated forcings for 1870 were used repeatedly to spin up a coupled climate model. b) Estimated forcings for the next 30 years were used to move the coupled model forward to 1900. c) The year 1900 output for one particular model run was then used repeatedly for 200 or 400 years to initialize a land model. d) After this initialization of the land model to one particular state the output of one particular run of a coupled model was used to generate forcings such as precipitation, air temperature, and specific humidity for the period after 1900. e) This new set of simulated forcings were then used to drive the initialized land model. The output from the cascaded series of models (which do not even attempt to use observed 20th century temperatures and precipitation) are what are called "actual" by this SkS article. My initial interest was caught by the strange variations in the "actual" near-surface permafrost graph of Figure 2 in the early 20th century, and my initial comment, #5, was about this oddity. This has become a moot point since it has become clear that the data is not what the SkS article claims it is -- "actual".Response:[DB] "Is it "goofy" to try and determine whether what SkS portrays as "actual" 20th century near-surface permafrost area is indeed based upon actual observations?"
You have been told that verification is being sought. Your continued intransigence in not patiently awaiting a reply speaks volumes.
"Only by following the trail back from UNEP to WWF to Lawrence et al 2008 was I able to determine that the "actual" graph is most likely the result of cascaded simulations."
"Likely"? "able to determine"? You speak as if this was some mythic revelation revealed only to you. Everything you surmise after this is mere supposition by you.
Again, confirmation is being sought. Patience is counseled.
"This has become a moot point since it has become clear that the data is not what the SkS article claims it is -- "actual"."
Now you pass from tedious through tepid to inflammatory. Do not presume malfeasance when mere human error is far more likely. And said error is not yet revealed to be on the part of SkS.
Further intimations of impropriety will be deleted outright.
-
Rob Painting at 07:56 AM on 29 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
Dave 123 - the ocean you "see" is the Green Ocean -
Rob Painting at 07:51 AM on 29 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
Sphaerica - thanks. What's with the "lowest Amazon river levels ever recorded" skeptics? Is it because it's a Greenpeace photo? Anyway see: The drought of 2010 in the context of historical droughts in the Amazon region - Marengo (2011). One of the papers I'll cover in future posts. -
DSL at 07:38 AM on 29 October 2011Not so Permanent Permafrost
Indeed, Philippe. Google scholar lists 3760 articles published since 2009 when queried for "permafrost" and "global warming." Charlie, develop a research-based position on permafrost and permafrost melt simulation, and then bring it. In addition to Philippe's suggestions, you might look at the work of Oleg Anisimov and others who tend to focus on Asian permafrost. This quibbling with WWF crud is goofy when there's a very large collection of existing research on the subject. It suggests ad hominem: because one is associated with the WWF, one is immediately uselessly biased. -
itscoldoutside at 07:35 AM on 29 October 2011Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
That @Hyperactive cites a UToronto paper is apt. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1070377--rolling-with-the-climate-change-punches#comments (Unfortunately, it isn't possible to cite posts within the thread, and the interface is terrible - why I didn't bother. The exchange is fairly predictable). -
muoncounter at 07:23 AM on 29 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
PhilMorris#35: If by 'hero,' you mean villain. -
michael sweet at 07:22 AM on 29 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
Dave, In the desert there is a shortage of water so the trees grow near the water. In the rain forest there is plenty of water so trees grow everywhere. The river washes away the trees in the river bed, so when the river is low there is bare sand next to the river. Think it through before you suggest there is a problem with the picture. -
John Hartz at 07:11 AM on 29 October 2011Arctic Ice Volume is diminishing even more rapidly than Area
Another excellent video, “Old ice becoming rare in the Arctic” has been posted on the NOAA website. To access it, click here. -
John Hartz at 06:58 AM on 29 October 2011The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
Suggested reading: “Deep Oceans May Mask Global Warming for Years at a Time: Computer simulations of global climate lead to new conclusions,” National Science Foundation, Sep 13, 2011 To access this article, click here. -
PhilMorris at 06:56 AM on 29 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
Fred Singer - one of the 'heros' in the book Merchants of Doubt. A good read and gives some insight of his ilk and why they doubt real - opps - peer reviewed science -
scaddenp at 06:53 AM on 29 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
Dale, do you know why people are not concerned about the sea temperatures? -
Albatross at 06:47 AM on 29 October 2011Not so Permanent Permafrost
Hans, "If this was not intended as a scientific review of the permafrost issue, then please forgive my rantings." I'm sorry you feel my firm response to Charlie is over the line-- perhaps you are not aware of his posting history here at SkS. Philippe hits the nail on the head with his assessment. I would not assume that that the above challenges are necessarily sincere and have scientific integrity in mind. Charlie is very clearly trying awfully hard to figure out a way to dismiss or cast doubt on the findings presented here. As I stated above, I am confident that the figure in question was indeed based on a peer-reviewed paper by respected scientists specializing in permafrost modelling (i.e., Dr. Lawrence and his colleagues). Charlie has been told that three times now, and I do not see how you failed to notice that when reading my post @ 15 that you took offense to. Please follow the link provided by Daniel above, look at their figure 5, specifically the trace for SOILCARB_DS125 and compare that with Figure 2 above. The fact that WWF and UNEP chose to use those peer-reviewed data/findings by Lawrence et al. (2008) is not relevant (ands since when is it a crime for WWF to reproduce scientific information?), what is relevant is that the graphic in question is in all likelihood based on a peer-reviewed scientific paper. So the post is still very much a scientific review as evidenced by the scientific citations included therein. Agnostic has contacted UNEP and we are waiting for them to get back to us. So before judging me and my response, please first wait until we have confirmation from UNEP. If the graphic is indeed based on the Figure 5 from Lawrence et al. (2008) (which will be evident if you make the comparison as suggested) will you agree that the argument is moot? -
Icarus at 06:35 AM on 29 October 2011Arctic Ice Volume is diminishing even more rapidly than Area
Thanks for the article Peter. Do you have an opinion on the magnitude of positive feedback entailed in having an essentially ice-free Arctic Ocean? Presumably as time goes on we will see more energy going into raising the temperature of the water rather than melting ice, and albedo will be reduced for longer and longer periods of the year (I'm assuming that for a while at least, the ice will return each autumn). -
John Hartz at 06:33 AM on 29 October 2011Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
itscoldoutside: How about providing us with a link to the comment thread you are referencing. -
wingding at 06:11 AM on 29 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
They are making "we never denied the earth was warming" statements not because that is true, but because they don't want to admit they were wrong. The best example of what they had been saying about the global temperature record is in the PDF "SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY-DRIVEN DECEPTION" published in 2010 by the SPPI, authored by Watt's and D'Aleo: "Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century" What BEST has done is not simply show there was warming, warming which "skeptics" doubted had happened, but it showed the pattern, timing and magnitude of warming was similar to what GISTEMP and HadCRUT3 already had demonstrated. In short it simply told us what we already knew - the false skeptic doubt was false doubt. They won't stop. They have only been forced to admit the planet has warmed temporarily as their response to being called out. Even now they are making the same old tired claims. Post #24 is a great example of this continuing. See if "skeptics" knew the world had warmed why is post #24 implying that maybe it hasn't. It was never about facts for them, or else they would have at least been consistent. They simultaneously cite the little ice age as a fact and cry outrage at the prospect of it being "removed", even as the muse that maybe the world hasn't warmed significantly since..the little ice age. Both views are convenient to them, so it doesn't matter that they are completely inconsistent. They aren't trying to be consistent. They are trying to sow doubt and when they have to they will try to cover their tracks. I think SkepticalScience should add a new skeptic claim for "skeptics never doubted the earth had warmed..." -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:08 AM on 29 October 2011Not so Permanent Permafrost
I do not totally agree with you Hans. First, because the aggressivity and ruthlessness of the so-called skeptics mandate a tone that's very firm. The time for being nice is over. From FOIA abuse to hacking to relentless accusations of fraud, to abuse of judicial powers, to lies and distortions, the war is on and it's very real. The source, whether original or intermediate, of the graph matters less than the data quality itself. I doubt that WWF came up with that graph, since there is so much ongoing study of the permafrost loss. Even if they did and the data are accurate and reviewed, then it is acceptable. It is a common pet peeve at SkS that data used by skeptics are presented out of context or distorted to suggest the opposite of what they actually show. Where the data come from is not nearly as much of a concern than where a certain interpretation will come from, as the data are often fine by themselves. I will add that many have presented here stuff as poor as opinion pieces from think tanks and equated their value with real factual information. The loss of permafrost and its relation to climate change in the Arctic is so far beyon doubt that quibbling about data sources is just that. I guess it is flattering in a way. SkS is being scrutinized for adherence to the strictest standards, which means that it has become a reference influential enough that skeptics will try to discredit it by all possible means. Meanwhile of course the "skeptic" outlets go on merrily misleading their audiences with the usual outrageous lies and distortions. Oh well. Perhaps Agnostic yielded to the convenience of graphs that showed most of the information in an at-a-glance format. Nonetheless, if we really want to consider the question of permafrost loss and climate change, there is so much info available: Interesting take here on a regional influence of snow cover: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/permafrost-loss-in-peatlands-of-northern-quebec-1957-2003 Model results here: http://www.mendeley.com/research/permafrost-zonation-and-climate-change-in-the-northern-hemisphere-results-from-transient-general-circulation-models/ Vladimir Romanovsky certainly is an expert in the matter, here is take at NOAA, with a wealth of further references: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/permafrost.htmlResponse:[DB] "Perhaps Agnostic yielded to the convenience of graphs that showed most of the information in an at-a-glance format."
Something that most authors do on a fairly regular basis - myself included.
A request for clarification has been sent.
-
Dave123 at 05:57 AM on 29 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
Well, I did follow the link to greenpeace, but obviously I wasn't diligent enough -
Composer99 at 05:24 AM on 29 October 2011Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
itscoldoutside: Assuming you have cut & pasted this fine commentary from a response to one of your own comments, I was amused to see your interlocutor's comment "Except, anyone who takes meteorology knows, the violence of a storm is based on the temperature differences in weather fronts." I'm sure he or she was a professional or dedicated hobbyist. :) -
Bob Lacatena at 05:20 AM on 29 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
Dave123, And here. I particularly like the picture of the boat resting on the dried up river bed. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:18 AM on 29 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
Dave123, Look at the pictures here. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:12 AM on 29 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
Dave123, If you follow the link to the Greenpeace page, you find that's a picture of the Rio Negro during its lowest ever recorded level. If you look at the Rio Negro, you find it's in the very heart of the Amazon (see map below). As such, the "ocean" you see in the distance is tropical forest.
-
itscoldoutside at 05:09 AM on 29 October 2011Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
@Hyperactive, NP. BTW, They were asked to post their response here. They declined; instead posting that rant (which even I can even see is wrong at so many levels); thought you might all appreciate the reaction this site is getting :-) And, having a table of standard arguments makes things much easier; appreciated. -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 04:52 AM on 29 October 2011Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
Ah, sorry I got a bit confused by your post. -
itscoldoutside at 04:35 AM on 29 October 2011Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
@Hyperactive A response [quoted verbatim, hence the italics and caps, I encountered] to this page being cited; [as you can see they are] not a happy camper. The same author is citing CO2science as a "scientific" resource .... -
Bob Lacatena at 04:03 AM on 29 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
31, Sasquatch, Visit this page and play with the options for any selected temperature record (in particular "mean" and "linear trend"). You'll probably want to look at a mean with a # of samples of 240 months (i.e. 10 years). Example -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 04:00 AM on 29 October 2011Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
itscoldoutside, "The evidence is clear, there is NO evidence of weather extremes changing." Really? Here is an interesting article that disagrees with your statement. Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas. And another article, this time focussed on England and Wales. The precise magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution remains uncertain, but in nine out of ten cases ourmodel results indicate that twentieth century anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased the risk of floods occurring in England and Wales in autumn 2000 by more than 20%, and in two out of three cases by more than 90%. -
Dave123 at 03:45 AM on 29 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
For what it's worth, my take on that picture is that the blue patch in the upper left is ocean. This then would be is a beach/delta area, and for all I know the white stuff is sand. This picture is also the opposite of what I'd expect, in the sense that in the American desert, vegtation clusters around a river, while at a distance the ground is bare. This is in no way a criticism of objective efforts to track Amazon drought or the reality of it....I'm just wondering about the picture itself. -
Sasquatch at 03:41 AM on 29 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
Is there a source with annual temperature data that can be viewed on decadal or other user defined criteria? It's readily apparent that the global temperature has been rising. No surprises there. It appears to have stalled, or at least slowed down in the past few years. But, I don't know where to look to see that. Any help would be much appreciated. -
itscoldoutside at 03:31 AM on 29 October 2011Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
A response to this page being cited; not a happy camper:I looked through your link, an UNSCIENTIFIC source. First there was NOTHING in there that showed any changes is because of our CO2, all it shows is there is changes in the climate system. DUH!!! OF COURSE. As they ADMIT they CANNOT attribute any of those events to AGW. Only that AGW might cause amplification of extreme weather events. Except, anyone who takes meteorology knows, the violence of a storm is based on the temperature differences in weather fronts. The warmer the cold air mass is, the LESS violent the storm. The evidence is clear, there is NO evidence of weather extremes changing.
Moderator Response: Clarification: The italicized text is a quote from someone other than itscoldoutside.Why do they think AGW causes only cold air, not warm air, to get warmer?
[Sph] blockquote added to clarify intent. -
Hans5565 at 02:04 AM on 29 October 20119 Months After McLean
With regards to the short-term trend (whether you refer to it as marginally cooling or a warming hiatus), a nice summary of the competing theories is summarized here: http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1 -
AussieinUSA at 01:18 AM on 29 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
Beautiful written piece, however I don't think we should stoop to the deniers level in our comments and gloat. -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:18 AM on 29 October 20119 Months After McLean
Fred Staples wrote "The trend from 2000 to 2009 is marginally (not significantly) negative." This is not in the least surprising; If the magnitude of the long term trend is small compared to the variability, then one ought to expect to be able to cherry-pick short term trends with a negative slope. This is even more true of sub-regional datasets (e.g. CET) than it is for global datasets as the variability becomes larger the smaller the spatial scale you look at. This is "analysis of climate data 101". If you want to show that this is interesting, then you need to show that such an observation is unlikely assuming that warming has been taking place at the same rate as the long term trend. This basically amounts to estimating the statistical power of the test, see the discussion with Prof. Pielke on this issue. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:10 AM on 29 October 20119 Months After McLean
43, Fred, Really? You're just going to continue as if nothing has happened?
-
Fred Staples at 00:04 AM on 29 October 20119 Months After McLean
No, Skywatcher, and you won't find the CET thread either. Tamino is ruthless with errors. Speaking of which, DB, glance again. The trend from 2000 to 2009 is marginally (not significantly) negative.Response:[DB] "No, Skywatcher, and you won't find the CET thread either. Tamino is ruthless with errors."
Actually, I linked to the CET thread earlier in my response to you. That post, and many more, are available from The Archives.
And Tamino is only ruthless with those who so lack a grip on the science that they cannot even understand that they are wrong. "Not even wrong" wrong.
"The trend from 2000 to 2009 is marginally (not significantly) negative."
And what of it? That is like noting that "the air is cool today". You yourself note that there is no significance to it. You are simply and tediously wasting everyone's time here. Desist.
-
Bob Lacatena at 23:08 PM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
The casual reader is invited to read Dale's comment at 24, and to determine for themselves if this represents truly rational, skeptical thinking or instead a desperate need to very simply ignore the facts and the science, to cover one's eyes, and the say over and over "it isn't there, it isn't there, it isn't there..." This behavior has been repeated over and over... a constant, irrational and often comical interpretation of facts and events. They can make it look good for a little while, and dress it up in so much complexity and obfuscation that it makes even an intelligent person stop and give it consideration. But as the evidence mounts... [Let me see if I can summarize the two positions... Dale: A new temperature study shows warming at 2/3 of the land stations which only represent 1/3 of the globe, so that only represents warming on 20% of the globe, so there is no warming. Science: 6 temperature studies (GISS, HADCRUT, NOAA, RSS, UAH, BEST) based on multiple data sources (including satellites and land and sea observations), all compiled and analyzed independently using entirely different (and in one case, UAH, even secret) methods all demonstrate clear and unequivocal warming. Two of those six records were produced by self-described skeptics. Simultaneously, Arctic, Greenland and glacial ice is melting at ever accelerating rates, and has reached historic lows. Historic floods, droughts, wild fires and heat waves are also being recorded in record numbers (a record squared!). The seas are rising consistent with both ice melt and thermal expansion. Humidity in the atmosphere has risen 4%, consistent with warming temperatures, increased evaporation, and an increased capacity of a warmed atmosphere to hold water vapor.] Sooner or later people have to catch on, and then to be themselves embarrassed that they ever took these people (Watts, Nova, etc.) and their followers seriously. -
Bob Lacatena at 22:44 PM on 28 October 20119 Months After McLean
The casual reader is invited to consider the absurdity of Fred's position, and to take this into account when reading any brand of denial tripe. No matter how good it looks at first, if you dig just a little, you find the man behind the curtain, telling you to ignore that man behind the curtain.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:27 PM on 28 October 2011Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
My impression of the 'conflicting' SkS articles on these issues has been, 'we do not know... it could be this or it could be that'. Which is precisely what I'd think we should be doing. We've discussed both at length. Noted the uncertainties surrounding them. Where exactly is the 'conflict' or 'one-sided' presentation. At that... claims of conflicting and one-sided presentations are directly contradictory to each other. :] -
CBDunkerson at 22:19 PM on 28 October 20119 Months After McLean
Fred, why would anyone take anything you say seriously when you come in with nonsensical claims about a detailed thermometer record dating back a century before the invention of thermometers capable of generating it... and then don't even admit to the mistake? Just continue on with the same ridiculous claims as if they weren't founded on pure fiction. Sorry, but you ignoring your mistakes (to preserve a fictitious belief system) does not mean that everyone else will. -
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
Prev 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 Next
