Recent Comments

Prev  1574  1575  1576  1577  1578  1579  1580  1581  1582  1583  1584  1585  1586  1587  1588  1589  Next

Comments 79051 to 79100:

79051. David Lewis at 16:13 PM on 17 July 2011
       Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
       The way Kaufmann et.al. express themselves in their first paragraph indicates they are attempting to counter what deniers are saying about the period between 1998 and 2008. Deniers and non specialists taken in by them who are foaming over about that time period aren't debating fine points of how to come up with better and more accurate explanations other than the old standbys of natural variability and/or its something we don't know. The deniers are using this time period to question the entire thing - whether global warming is happening at all. Now if what you wanted to do was to counter ignorant arguments that a certain ten year trend "proves" whatever, you'd start by laying out what scientists are generally agreed upon, which I take it is the IPCC AR4 chart produced by the group led by Trenberth, which is why I posted it in comment #63. I.e. the shortest meaningful time period the global warming "signal" is held to be seen clearly was taken by the IPCC AR4 to be 25 years. Trenberth reaffirms this as of late 2010. Obviously, I, or far less likely, Trenberth, or even the IPCC AR4 which after all had a cutoff date for data many years ago now, might not have a clue. I would defer to Kaufmann et.al. on what a meaningful time period generally accepted by climatologists is. But they don't bring up what the IPCC says, or anyone else, and they do not say what they believe, except they have a theory they suggest throws some light on the period in question which they publish seeking comment and recognition for. Fine, but they aren't restricting themselves to discussion of how to throw some light on what people have had to call natural variability and/or something we don't understand in the past. Their paper was produced to address the deniers and their gibberish, as they explained in their first paragraph. Kaufmann et.al. address alternate explanations, i.e. for instance, they say they don't agree with Solomon et.al., i.e. Solomon's suggestion in Contributions of stratospheric water vapour to decadal changes in the rate of global warming. They are offering their own theory to explain, as you say, "short term variability". But I can't forget their introductory paragraph where they told me they did this research to explain why a period with start and end points chosen by deniers that is far shorter than the minimum the IPCC found was generally agreed to be a meaningful period to look at this signal actually has meaning they can explain. Why play on the denier's playing field according to their rules? Just because deniers are making a big deal out of one ten year period that they say contradicts everything climatologists have ever said or will say, why do Kaufmann et.al. have to try to explain that ten year period without even mentioning that by the way, the IPCC used 25 years as the minimum meaningful period? What Hansen did in Global Surface Temperature Change was bring up and dismiss the deniers. He wrote: "of course it is possible to find almost any trend for a limited period via judicious choice of start and end dates". Then he took on Solomon et.al, which he called a "more moderate assessment" of the period in question by comparison with denier gibberish. He quoted Solomon: "the trend in global surface temperature has been nearly flat since the late 1990s despite continuing increases in the forcing due to the sum of the well-mixed greenhouse gases". Then he immediately and directly contradicted Solomon et.al. with "[this] is not supported by our data." And then he explained his groups latest examination of the long term trend data: "On the contrary, we conclude that there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20 degrees C per decade that began in the late 1970s". If you are discussing short term variability, then make it clear. The deniers aren't discussing that topic.
79052. DLB at 15:46 PM on 17 July 2011
       Great Barrier Reef Part 3: Acidification, Warming, and Past Coral Survival
       Tom C, of course I am aware of the sandy substrate Sth of Gladstone, there won't be much coral development there because of this reason. However 6000 year bp in Moreton Bay there was quite strong development of coral due to warmer temps and a metre higher sea level. Todays Mud Island in Moreton Bay is a former coral reef, it is only muddy because the Brisbane River estuary is now much closer due to lower sea levels and that water temps in the Bay are too cool. Although in some cleaner areas of the Bay like Peel Island, some coral does have a foothold. My point is not that The Reef will continue a march down the coast, but the coral of the Sth Barrier Reef will quickly be replaced by coral types from the Nth adapted to warmer water. If you can find some research that says the GBR did not exist 6000 years bp when water temps were higher then I may have to reconsider my argument. Doug M, I base my hypothesis on what I would consider is a normal curve distribution of a species along an environmental gradient. Could be a possible research project for someone.
79053. Chris G at 15:32 PM on 17 July 2011
       Citizen Science: Climatology for Everyone
       Tom Curtis #2, A couple of thoughts: I think it might be useful to get some unbiased observers in the mix. Though, how to handle different ratings for the same site might be a good puzzle for Watts et al. IDK, maybe they've figured out a solution for that already. It would be ironic (and somewhat humorous to me) if the bias toward down-grading perfectly good stations (probably encouraged by a desire to find fault with the surface station record) had anything to do with Watts' failure to find a difference between poorly- and well-cited stations. If you throw a number of good stations in with the bad, it waters down whatever signal might be there because of siting quality. Dawei #8, I have to agree with that.
79054. Norman at 15:02 PM on 17 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Rob Honeycutt @ 333 I do use Google searches for information. I try to find high quality material and I adapt my choices based upon feedback to my posts. I try to use good scientific sources for my points.
79055. Norman at 15:00 PM on 17 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       This is just a little thought experiment I conjured up to demonstrate the difficulty I have with the idea that reducing the temperature gradient between poles and equator will lead to more severe weather patterns in the future. It may not be a valid understanding of how CAPE works, it is an attempt to demonstrate my position. Note: This is a simplified version of CAPE and does not reflect the complexity of real world CAPE calculations. It is a conceptualization of a point that may or may not be valid. Source I used for simplified CAPE calculation. The thought experiment involves the setting off of a hydrogen bomb in the arctic ocean to generate a large parcel of warm air in a very cold region. Intitial Arctic Air I am using. -10 C at surface. I am using the stantard environmental lapse rate of -7 C/1000 m I am running the thought experiment from the ground up to 8000 meters. The moist air warmed by the hydrogen bomb is 25 C and I am using -6 C/1000 m as the moist adiabatic lapse rate. (not a real world situation and simplified to demonstrate a point). All data in equation: Surface Arctic air: -10 C (263 K) Arctic air at 8000 meters (-7 C/1000 m lapse rate): -66 C (207 K) H-Bomb surface air: 25 C (298 K) H-Bomb air at 8000 meters (-6 C/1000 m lapse rate): -23 C (250 K) [(298-263)/263+(250-207)/207]/2(9.8)(8000)=CAPE 13367.2 In the next calculation I will increase the polar temperature by 2 times the H-bomb temp. In this case I will not change the moist lapse rate but will in the next cycle. Now: Arctic Air: 0 C (10 C warmer) (273 K) Arctic Air at 8000 meters: (same lapse rate) -56 C (217 K) H-bomb air temp: 30 C (303 K) H-bomb air temp 8000 meters: -18 (255 K) [(303-273)/273+(255-217)/217]/2(9.8)(8000)=CAPE 11172.6 A considerable drop from the 13367.2 from above. Even though this is a simplistic calculation. The point I am trying to demonstrate with it is that as frontal systems in the US (low pressure) (which are supposed to get weaker with global warming as the horizontal temperture gradient is reduced...I have a link above on this) pull up warm moist air from the Gulf of Mexico and pull down cold Canadian air from the North, the cold north air will be less cold in the future relative to the warm gulf air. Side Note on what causes instability: "Causes of Instability • Cooling of the air aloft: –Winds bringing in colder air (cold advection) – Clouds (or the air) emitting IR radiation to space (radiational cooling) • Warming of the surface air: – Daytime solar heating of the surface –Winds bringing in warm air (warm advection) – Air moving over a warm surface" Source for above quote. I put in this note because in order for you to have an unstable atmophere you need a source of cold air. In the future that cold air will be relatively less than now when compared to the future warm air. On the next calculation I am going to change the warm air lapse rate since in the Trapp articles the claim is that the change in lapse rate because of the higher moisture content of future air will be enough to overcome the loss of vertical wind shear of future atmospheric conditions. Arctic Air. Still 0 C 8000 meter Arctic Air -56 (217 K) same lapse rate (but all indications suggest that the environmental lapse rate is going to change, become less as the globe warms) H-bomb air still 30 C Changed the lapse rate from -6 C/1000 m to -5 C/1000 m new temp at 8000 feet -10 C (reduced from -18 C above) or 263 K [(303-273)/273+(263-217)/217]/2(9.8)(8000)=CAPE 12617.8 At some point the change in the moist adiabatic rate will overcome the effect of having warmer polar temperatures. If I use -4 C/1000 m the CAPE value in the above equation will exceed the 13367.2. In this situation you get CAPE of 14061. At this time I do not see an obvious pattern that would easily demonstrate that weather will get more severe in the future with ongoing Global Warming. It might happen but it may not. I would think it would more closely mimic the tropical type weather patterns. More rain, less severe weather. Again, my major point is that as the system approaches equilibrium (the gradient between the opposites is reduced, be it gravity, heat, chemicals) the intensity of reactions goes down not up. I may be very wrong in my thinking but it would be nice for someone to point out the flaw.
79056. Tom Curtis at 14:29 PM on 17 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Norman @355: 1) Global warming has increased the level of the tropopause. That means as air rises in thermals, it is given a gains a stronger Easterly (blowing to the west) component due to angular momentum. The air is then carried north or south, and when it returns to Earth gains a stronger Westerly (blowing to the east) component for the same reason. 2) The Hadley cells have expanded with global warming meaning surface winds from air returning towards the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone have a stronger Easterly component due to angular momentum. 3) The atmosphere has a greater moisture content because it is warmer,and hence rises faster in thermals, thus drawing wind in faster at the base, creating stronger local winds. 4) The land is heating faster than the sea, resulting in stronger onshore winds. 5) As has been explained above, the greatest temperature differential between poles and tropics is in the winter, and the least in the summer. Warmer weather can trigger storms earlier in the year when the differential is greater. This may be partly or completely compensated for by differential heating between pole and tropics, but there can be no automatic assumption that it will be. 6) And most importantly, this general reasoning readily provided reasons to expect stronger and/or more frequent storms with global warming. Other considerations give reasons to expect less (perhaps). But general arguments like this and like yours cannot be used to make predictions. They are so vague that they cannot even definitively narrow down the sign of the predicted effect. (Actually, I think they strongly indicate stronger storms, but the reasoning is not conclusive.) To do that you need to do the mathematics, which in climate science means run the models. The models have been run and show consistently that situations favourable to storm formation will be more frequent.
79057. Doug Mackie at 14:25 PM on 17 July 2011
       OA not OK part 2: Thermodynamic duo
       Fritz, I am sorry to say that you are wrong. We have mostly written a detailed discussion of you 'seawater equilibria' post and the 'cb with buffering' document. I expect to send it to you early in the week.
79058. Norman at 14:06 PM on 17 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Rob Honeycutt @ 333 I still do not believe anyone has actually demonstrated why my reasoning is flawed or incorrect. It may well be as Albatross has pointed out. It is a postition that is based upon physics, however, so I would need a good reasoned response of why my thinking is not correct. Point. Hypothetically if all the Earth was warmed equally then the Earth would be mostly weatherless. It is the temperature gradient (both horizontal and vertical) that creates the pressure differences that drive weather and climate patterns. The AGW theory has the poles warming faster than the poles (in all the graphs it looks to be about twice as much).... Page 15 of this IPCC report shows the projected Global warming of various models. This pattern would lead the world closer to the weatherless system than the oppostite direction. So why would weather patterns intensify? In a two body system, it is not the temperature of a body that determines rate of heat flow, it is the difference between the two bodies. In the atmosphere, it is not the temperature of the tropics that determines wind intensity, it is the difference between tropics and poles. The gradient. How about two mountain river and turbulence? One river goes straight down the mountain with a large gradient difference between points on the vertical. The other winds around the mountain with very shallow gradients. Which of the two rivers will have more turbulence even though the overall graviational energy is the same. With Poles warming twice as fast as the equator it seems the push would be away from severity and turbulence and a push to less extremes. At least that is what my thinking sees it. I might be wrong, that is not the point. At this time I do not understand the flaw of my reasoning and would hope someone would point it out.
79059. Tom Curtis at 14:06 PM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       Camburn, it is not Tamino's analysis per se. It is Carter who ended his first false "trend line" in with the Dec 1996 datum, and started his second false "trend line" with the January 1999 datum. In order to analyze what Carter had done, Tamino had to do the same thing, only with real trend lines. Consequently your implied suggestion that Tamino was cherry picking is unwarranted. What is more, Tamino has already adressed the issue several times. Most recently he addressed it yesterday in discussing Steve Goddard's cherry pick of almost exactly the graph you cherry picked (he terminated his before the recent rises in global temperature since March). Before that he addressed it in "How fast is the Earth warming". And if you think I have been vitriolic, try posting that Tamino's analysis of Carter is correct, and that Carter is a "" on WUWT.
79060. Camburn at 13:48 PM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       Tom: I included the forgotten year in Tamino's analysis. As I said, I also did it to present confirmation of the UAH data with a short term graphic. I know you didn't like the results of the graph, so be it. I added one year to tamino's analysis. The main thing is that Tamino's analysis is mostly correct. There are trend change issues which will be addressed in the future. Mr. Carter's analysis is....appropriate word that won't get snipped.......showing a lack of basic knowledge of most everything. So old chap......keep plugging but learn to be a bit less vitriol. It will serve you well in life.
       Response:

       [DB] Overlooking the innuendo and lack of patience issues, you display much hubris in thinking to show Tamino "the error of his ways".

       Trend changes in climate science do not mirror those in grain futures and commodities where the market can be swayed by human perception and emotion.  Climate changes due to changes in forcings.  Increased understanding of those forcings and the physical processes underlying those forcings allows climate scientists to better predict future changes.  Without a physical process to attribute a change to, speculation on a graph "not looking right" is climastrology.

       Tamino has previously studied trend changes here:

       http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/changes/

        

       If you want to play Grasshopper to Tamino's Master Po, feel free to do it on his blog.

79061. Norman at 13:45 PM on 17 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Rob Honeycutt @ 333 Here is one presentation of effects of Global Warming. " Warmer temperature  more moisture can exist in air  Condensation of water vapor causes a huge amount of heating  Moisture causes lapse rate to be smaller  In other words: latent heating causes temperatures to cool less quickly with height" Source for above quote. The difference between an air parcel's lapse rate and the environmental lapse rate is how CAPE is determined. If the environmental lapse rate is getting smaller because of the heating caused by latent heat of condensed water vapor, why would storms intensify under global warming? From Trapp et al. (2009) "[18] The severe-thunderstorm forcing increases in time in spite of the decreases in vertical wind shear (Figure 1d), and because of compensating increases in CAPE (Figure 1e). Potential contributors to CAPE include the temperature lapse rate in the middle troposphere, the boundary-layer temperature, and the boundary-layer water vapor [e.g., Brooks et al., 2003]. For the current experiments, these are listed in increasing order of importance, with essentially no longterm trend indicated in the temperature lapse rates over a 3–5 km AGL layer (not shown), and a statistically significant positive trend in specific humidity q (Figure 1f). Considerable linear correlation between changes in CAPE and changes in q (Table 1) reinforces this attribution." If you check up on negative lapse rate because of Global warming, the results all seem to move in the direction that the upper atmosphere will warm and the environmental lapse rate overall will be less (currently at around -7 C per 1000 meters). Yet in the Trapp et. al (2009) article the models they are using show no change in the longterm lapse rate.
79062. Tom Curtis at 13:39 PM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       Camburn, the "innuendo started right away" as you put it because you lead of with a link to a cherry picked graph from woodfortrees. When called to justify that, you responded with two statements which are easily recognized as false. You do not get to do that and at the same time pretend to be an innocent enquirer after knowledge.
79063. Rob Honeycutt at 13:39 PM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       FYI, that chart comes directly from Spencer himself.
79064. Rob Honeycutt at 13:36 PM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       Carter also seems to have missed the most recent UAH data points... That calls for a Homer-style, "DOH!"
79065. Camburn at 13:16 PM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       Tom: Call it a mental block as I readily admit I should have been able to discern this. But I didn't.....and I got frustrated. I didn't read your total response at 13 because of the inuendo that started right away. I do get a bit tired of that. I posted the question because I did not discern something that should have been obvious to me. I always try to be a gentleman when posting as I do not know all the answers to climate science. I do have an excellent understanding of it, and recognize the error bars, the certainty and also the uncertainty. I glean what I can when I can that adds to that knowledge base.
79066. Tom Curtis at 13:07 PM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       Camburn, from my 13:

       "There is no question about the difference between the first two and later graphs as the only difference between them is the difference between annual averages and monthly averages, and can be determined by counting the number of data points per year."

       With regard 19, the image I displayed was the first image overlaid on the second image. That you thought it was just the third image is telling. For completeness, here is Tamino's fifth image overlaid on his third (ie Carter's). In this case it is monthly plot overlaid on monthly plot so there is no need to re-zero the mean: If you can tell the difference at 500 pixel width, you are doing better than I. I cannot distinguish them at 2000 pixel width. Finally, I find it very hard to credit that somebody who has been in this debate as long as you have cannot pick that data presented as annual and means have the same basic shape, nor see through the very slight differences introduced by differences of scale.
79067. Camburn at 12:41 PM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       Thank you Dave123 for noteing my question, and also the answer that Tamino was kind enough to present.
79068. Dave123 at 12:38 PM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       ah... I see you have an answer..and the difference is as I noted the baseline adjustment.
79069. Dave123 at 12:36 PM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       If Tom and Camburn would forgive an intervention here- In order for figure one and three to be the same, I have to do two things- 1 is conventional rescale...stretching and shrinking the x and y axes to line up. But the second thing I have to do is "re-zero" the y-axis from Tamino's plot in figure 1 to Carter's "After Spencer" plot in figure 3. ( about -0.35 degrees). If I do that, I get what Tom says and shows in his figure in 18. If I don't do that, I see the point Camburn is making.... that the graphs don't seem to be showing the same data. I suspect that there is a good reason for the re-zeroing, or "correcting an offset', but it would help the interests of civil discourse to have it explained.
79070. Camburn at 12:32 PM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       Tamino understood my question. Thank you for the recomendation DB. The answer is, which I should have been able to figure out, is that the 1st graph is annual temperatures. The 2nd graph is also annual temperatures. The 3rd graph is monthly averages. The baselines for the anomolies has been adjusted accordingly.
       Moderator Response: Ah, but it wasn't DB. Many a mystery moderator lurks here....
79071. Camburn at 12:04 PM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       Tom: That is the 3RD image. Come on man......look at the 1ST image please, and compare it to the 3rd image. And better yet, compare it to the UAH 5.3 anomoly further down. I give up. You apparantly don't understand my question at all, or don't want to understand it.
79072. Tom Curtis at 11:55 AM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       Camburn @15, below is the first image from Tamino's post, overlaid on the third (ie Carter's). If you look very closely you will see the black line of Tamino's annual average of UAH overlaid on the 13 month running average plotted by Carter. You do have to look very close. The only alteration made was to adjust both to the same scale. They are the same curve, and your questions are not legitimate.
79073. Camburn at 11:52 AM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       Tom@13: Where do you see a description of the baseline for the anomolies? I just re-read this and can find no source for the baselines. In any graph presented, there should be no difference in the UAH anomoly...yet there is. That is my question. I know that version 5.3 is different than version 5.4 as far as UAH as the baseline for the anomoly is now more extended as the time series of the data has increased. You are correct, I have been around for quit some time. Most of the time I can figure out what is being presented in a non-biased way. Concerning my question.....I can't. DB: I am going to post on the blog. Thank you.
79074. Camburn at 11:28 AM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       DB: Thank you for the link. I understand entirely what Tamino is trying to portray. One of the shortcomings of his type of trend analysis is failure to detect a turn in trend. This is a common failure in marketing of grains, which I won't go into in detail, but one area that I am very familiar with. However, with the above said, I still can't find the source of his graphs in fig 1 and 2 concerning UAH. A UAH anomoly graph is presented in figure three which just does not match the anomoly of fig 1 nor fig 2. When I see this being done in regards to any type of analysis it raises red flags to me. Maybe no one will ever figure the answer to my question out, but I would like to know an answer. I take it that some of the mods etc may be able to email him and ask him. Thank you in advance.
       Moderator Response: You should post a comment on his site, asking him.
79075. Camburn at 11:17 AM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       First Off: Thank you DB 2nd off: Tom...if you can't see that the first graph shows UAH and GISS as almost identical then you need glasses. Then the 2nd graph is presented, which is about the same as the 1st graph. Then.....the 3rd graph is presented of UAH alone....and it is not even close to the first two graphs that are suppose to be UAH temps. So, yes, I have legitimate questions as to the basis of said graphs. As far as Mr. Carter, my comment of what I think of him has been snipped twice. And appropriately so on consideration. In a more gentle tone..let's just say that in my humble opinion he has no validity. Good enough? Once again thank you DB. I look forward to reading tamino's post you posted.
79076. Daniel Bailey at 10:58 AM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       Tamino has a new post up on trends & noise: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/trend-and-noise/ Very timely and related to the ongoing understanding issues present.
79077. Tom Curtis at 10:51 AM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       Camburn, you give the game away, as if we did not already know it, when you write "Too many questions here to make a good analysis so far". Really? In what way can there be any doubt that simply picking three points at the same temperature instead of analyzing the linear trend is a bad analysis? In what way can there be any doubt that simply drawing in flat lines as a substitute for the actual linear trends is a bad analysis? Your questions of Tamino's analysis are clearly a desperate attempt to find a gnat to strain at so that we do not notice that Carter want's us to swallow camels. It will not work, and try as you might, you will not escape they fact that you have been caught blatantly cherry picking! You say, "He used a short baseline as well......remember? 1997 or such". No he did not! Every graph shown by Tamino above, including those by Carter show at least three decades. You say, "Another reason I used the shorter version is that the graph shows UAH and GISS extremely close. Yet when looking at the graphs further in the piece....they don't match the UAH graph in the first illustration." On the contrary, the match is very similar both before and post 1998. Indeed, the match is almost exact in all years except strong El Nino and La Nina years which are known to have a much larger effect on space born temperature measurements than on surface data (and has the same effect on the RSS index). There is no question about the difference between the first two and later graphs as the only difference between them is the difference between annual averages and monthly averages, and can be determined by counting the number of data points per year. There is no question about the difference between the UAH lower troposphere data as Tamino clearly labels it and the TLT 5.3 except that WoodforTrees (not Tamino) may be using the very slightly different version 5.3 of the UAH data rather than the current version 5.4. There is no question about the baseline of the anomalies, which is clearly identical. And there is no question that you have been around the woods long enough to pick up these things for yourself. So there is no legitimacy to your questions.
79078. Daniel Bailey at 10:51 AM on 17 July 2011
       Arctic sea ice has recovered
       Courtesy of Lord Soth, a reader and contributor on Neven's Arctic Sea Ice blog, the field markers (stadias) viewable from North Pole webcam 2 have gone from 4 markers: Down to 3: Apparently they don't float.
79079. Camburn at 10:26 AM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       Albatross: Maybe calling Carter an (-Snip-) is a bit strong. I can't figure out his conclusions either.
       Response:

       [DB] Inflammatory snipped.

79080. Camburn at 10:24 AM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       DB: But even with those removed.....what is he using? GISS and UAH.....it is obvious.......the graphs don't match and I don't know why, nor can figure out why. I thought someone might know.
       Response:

       [DB] Much of this analysis done by Tamino is based on work he had originally done earlier this year:

       http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/sharper-focus/

       http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/how-fast-is-earth-warming/

79081. Camburn at 10:23 AM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       Albatross: Carter is an (-Snip-). I am trying to do an analysis of Tamino's post but without more information it may be impossible.
       Response:

       [DB] Carter is many things, but that adjective applied to him is not correct, nor nice.  Tamino makes it clear that Carter, from a scientific and statistical standpoint, is being deceitful.

79082. villabolo at 10:04 AM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       Trivial question. Would filtering out Mt. Pinatubo, which should have been El Nino years, make much of a difference on the trend line?
       Response:

       [DB] Tamino's second figure has El Nino and volcanic effects removed.

79083. Albatross at 09:50 AM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       So Camburn, are you here to defend Carter's scientific misconduct or what? It sadly certainly seems so.
79084. Tom Curtis at 09:41 AM on 17 July 2011
       It's the sun
       Eric (skeptic) @872: 1) While the change in UV radiation absorbed in the stratosphere may change weather patterns because of its effect on jet streams and the Hadley circulation. It will not result in a different level of energy absorbed than that predicted by Line By Line models for that change. It certainly does not result in no effective change in the energy balance at either the top of the troposphere or the surface as you are implying. 2) The change in TSI associated with the solar cycle has been shown to have small effect on the solar cycle. The best prediction of the lag involved is 2 months (see discussion for Dikran's link). For large changes in solar output, as for example between 1910 and 1950, the lag is ten years. The reason for the difference is that the rate of change in surface temperature depends on the difference between the current temperature and the equilibrium temperature. For small changes as with the solar cycle, a small change in surface temperature will bring the surface close to equilibrium and slow further changes beneath the level of statistical detectability. For large continuous changes the disequilibrium is long lasting and hence the change in temperature detectable for a long time. 3) There is a difference between a change that induces a change in equilibrium, and a change that counters a previous change that effects equilibrium. If there is a forcing of +1 W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere, the surface needs to warm to bring OLR and solar radiation back into balance. The heat required to bring the temperature back to balance is large compared to the additional heat gained each year due to the imbalance, hence thermal lag. But if there is a temporary reduction in TOA forcing by 1 W/m^2, the surface is already at the right temperature for the new, but temporary TOA balance. As no change of temperature is required, not lag will be present. This is the circumstance when a solar minimum is superimposed on a background of rising temperatures due to a rising GHG concentration. The rising GHG concentration requires a higher surface temperature to re-establish equilibrium. But the solar minimum reduces the surface temperature required for the temporary equilibrium, thereby immediately reducing rates of warming.
79085. Camburn at 09:29 AM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       The next question is: What are the base years for the anomolies in the first temp graph? The base years would have to match or the illustration is not credible. Too many questions here to make a good analysis so far.
       Response:

       [DB] The obvious question at this point is:

       1. What statistical methodology is needed for a good "Camburn analysis"?
79086. Camburn at 09:26 AM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       Same thing in the 2nd graph......hence my question.
79087. Camburn at 09:25 AM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       Tom: Look at your longer version. Another reason I used the shorter version is that the graph shows UAH and GISS extremely close. Yet when looking at the graphs further in the piece....they don't match the UAH graph in the first illustration. Tamino is no dummy....so there must be a logical explanation, which I don't see.
79088. Camburn at 09:21 AM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       Tom: He used a short baseline as well......remember? 1997 or such. I am talking about the difference in the graphs. The first graph says it is UAH Mid Trop temps. Ok, the following graphs should be the same then...right? That is my first question....and you didn't answer it. The wood for trees analysis shows that you can do different things by cherry picking. My main question still is.....why the difference in the graphs? Aren't they suppose to be the same thing? And instead of being accusatory....this is a ligitimate question.
79089. Tom Curtis at 09:15 AM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       Camburn@2, it is odd, for when I follow your link I find this: But when I stop blatantly cherry picking, and use 1979 as the start date instead of 1998, I find this, which is obviously the same data as is being used by Tamino and Carter: So you have some explaining to do. Why did you post a link to such a blatantly cherry picked range of years when it is clear from Tamino's graphs that he is using the data from 1979 to present?
79090. hfranzen at 08:54 AM on 17 July 2011
       OA not OK part 2: Thermodynamic duo
       What I meant to say above is: Please know that I understand thoroughly that the ocean is not at equilibrium. I also know that all spontaneous processes proceed in the direction of equilibrium. Therefore as a starting point for considering the direction of chemical processes it is useful to start with a determination of the equilibrium of a model system. That is what I thought you were doing. My point is that the correct approach to considering the equilibrium state of a model system is to list the chemical species present,find all constarints on the system (one equilibrium constant for each independent net reaction and charge balance) and then solve the resultant equations for the equilibrium concentrations of the species. To say, as you do, that thermodynamics tells us the reaction 1 is spontaneous in the surface oceans is incorrect. What is correct is to say that on average the surface oceans are, so long as the partial pressure of carbon dioxide increases, continously perturbed by the addition of carbon dioxide from the vapor phase and that this pertubation results in an increase in the concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide, dissolved bicarbonate ion, dissolved hydrogen ion and, unless the ion product equals the solubity product, carbonate ion. If the local ion product equals or exceeds the solubity product of calcium carbonate then solid calcium carbonate sponateously precipitates. Your equation 1 implies a spontaneity without providing the perturbation driving it. Eq.1, in fact, implies that the precipitation of calcium carbonate drives an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the vapor hase whereas the opposite is the case.
79091. Rob Painting at 08:44 AM on 17 July 2011
       Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
       David Lewis - The linear trend in the IPCC graph totally obscures the recent 'slow-down'. Again - the point of the article is not that long-term global warming is happening (shucks, we know that), it's examining short-term variability.
79092. Camburn at 07:52 AM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       I looked at Woodfortrees to see if I could find a similiar UAH temperature record. This is what I found: UAH temperature record
79093. Camburn at 07:43 AM on 17 July 2011
       Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
       I have a question: The first graph supposedly shows UAH and GISS temp data. Then the UAH LT 5.3 shows something different. Which graph is the correct one? They can't both be as the data is different. Or am I reading this wrong?
79094. scaddenp at 07:03 AM on 17 July 2011
       Climate's changed before
       Doug, the heat flux through the earth is of enormous importance to the oil industry since it is a critical component for calculating when sediments with an organic components will produce oil and gas. As a result, it is measured. The heat flux from the core around 0.04W/m2 - 0.06W/m2. Compare this with 300+/W/m2 from sun.
79095. David Lewis at 06:49 AM on 17 July 2011
       Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
       Kevin Trenberth led the IPCC group that produced this chart:

       

       He says: "We used 25 years in Chapter 3 of IPCC as the lowest trend we provided that was meaningful…."

       All the denier noise about "trends" with shorter time periods is much ado about nothing.
       Moderator Response: [RH] Rescaled image to 450.
79096. BaerbelW at 06:46 AM on 17 July 2011
       Citizen Science: Climatology for Everyone
       Climate Progress has a recent post about citizen science as well: "Tapping Social Media To Muster a Vast Green Army".
79097. Dawei at 05:34 AM on 17 July 2011
       Citizen Science: Climatology for Everyone
       I understand that people are surprised that I included surfacestations.org to the list. The fact is that it does fit the definition of citizen climate science. Although some people contribute to the project with a bias in mind, it doesn't mean it isn't still a useful project, whose efforts the NCDC has already expressed appreciation for. To remove from the list what is surely the most popular citizen climate science project in the US simply because we disagree with the views of its participants would be a pretty biased action in my opinion.
79098. Dikran Marsupial at 04:48 AM on 17 July 2011
       It's the sun
       Eric (skeptic) The physics of transmission of radiation as a function of wavelength is pretty solid (e.g. MODTRAN); it really isn't a source of significant uncertainty. The comment regarding thermal inertia of the oceans is also misguided. The thermal inertia of the oceans is a large part of the reason that there is unrealised warming to come due to the CO2 emissions made so far. However that doesn't mean there is not also an "instantaneous" response to a change in forcings. To demonstrate that is the case, the aerosols from volcanic eruptions cause an immediate drop in temperatures for a couple of years. If thermal inertia of the oceans buffers use from changes in solar forcing, you need to explain why it doesn't also buffer us from the negative forcing from volcanos. If you think that the comment that the solar minimum should have an effect is unsubstantiated, then again you are incorrect. Tamino has shown that solar activity has a small, but non-zero effect on temperature, see this post for details, the plot of the effect of solar activity on temperatures is below The peak-to-trough difference is about 0.1-0.2 degrees C, depending on which dataset you look at.
79099. Bob Lacatena at 04:16 AM on 17 July 2011
       OA not OK part 6: Always take the weathering
       Doug:

       The oceans are not full of salts (NaCl and/or carbonate species etc).

       Is the word "not" supposed to be there?
       Moderator Response: The 'not' is correct. You can take seawater and add more salt to it. Therefore seawater is not full or saturated with salts. But good point about language use and that bullet point changed. Thanks. Doug.
79100. Composer99 at 02:35 AM on 17 July 2011
       OA not OK part 6: Always take the weathering
       Thanks for clearing that up, Patrick.

Prev  1574  1575  1576  1577  1578  1579  1580  1581  1582  1583  1584  1585  1586  1587  1588  1589  Next