Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 2218 Next
Comments 110501 to 110550:
-
Rob Painting at 22:26 PM on 9 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
HR @ 74 "The poorest data, as expressed in AchutaRao et al. 2007, can be found in the pre-ARGO data yet you maintain your strongest critisism for the data quality in the ARGO period." HR, the ARGO network is not without it's problems either, pressure sensors are failing in a number of floats: Two micro-leak defects leave some 25-35% of the Argo floats deployed between 11/2005 and 7/2009 vulnerable to errors in reported pressure and possible eventual failure Seems to be typical teething problems with new technology. -
chris1204 at 22:17 PM on 9 September 2010How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
However, Ned, I do think we ought to go back to Haigh's 2007 paper where she argues inter alia: 'Thus a better estimate of radiative forcing to solar irradiance changes should incorporate the effects of the influence of variations in UV on stratospheric temperature and composition (as first noted by Haigh, 1994).' This seems to be one divergence between dana1981 and Haigh who further writes: 'Recently an atmosphere-ocean GCM with fully coupled stratospheric chemistry has been run (despite huge computational demands) to simulate the effects of changes in solar irradiance between the Maunder Minimum and the present (Shindell et al., 2006). As in the previous studies the results show a weakened Hadley circulation when the Sun is more active, and they also suggest an impact on the hydrological cycle with greater tropical precipitation. Furthermore, they provide additional evidence that coupling with stratospheric chemistry enhances the solar signal near the surface.' Moreover: 'There is some observational evidence that variations in the strength of the polar vortex in the upper stratosphere may subsequently influence surface climate. A study of polar temperature trends by Thompson et al. (2005) suggests a downward influence, and modelling experiments by Gillett and Thompson (2003) demonstrate that depletion of stratospheric ozone over the south pole can affect the troposphere after about one month. Neither of these studies is specifically concerned with a solar influence but the accumulating evidence suggests that any factor influencing the strength of the polar stratospheric jet may be able to influence surface climate, at least at high latitudes.' I don't want to turn this into a quote mining exercise. To be perfectly honest, evaluating the claims and reconciling the seeming divergence between two thorough looking summaries of the literature, ie, dana1981 and Haigh (2007) is beyond me. But I'd be interested in hearing what others think on this score. As best as I can tell, Haigh seems to be saying that the sun keeps doing things to climate (or 'weather' if you prefer) at, to use an analogy from another discipline, the 'microeconomic' level while the papers cited in dana's response to omnologos seem to make a 'macroeconomic' assessment. I guess the question then is, is it valid to brush aside the microeconomic perspective or does this risk detracting substantially from our the macroeconomic perspective? Bear in mind that earlier posts have alluded to numerous sensitive feedbacks that go way beyond CO2 rises as causes for concern (eg, CH4 clathrate release and the like). -
omnologos at 22:06 PM on 9 September 2010How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
regarding the response to #13 So the Advanced Version contains fewer references than the Intermediate one? Go figure!Response: I guess my intermediate version is a broadbrush approach - just listing just about every paper on the topic with a single quote, while the advanced version picks a few papers to go into more indepth analysis. Then the basic version is the cliff notes version :-) -
Ned at 21:16 PM on 9 September 2010Climate and chaos
As far as I can tell, BP's contributions to this thread consist of the following: * A lot of fish died in Bolivia. * Something unclear about a "birdie" dropped from the leaning tower of Pisa. The point of the first comment seems to be that the fish might have died because it was cold, and if it was cold in Bolivia recently then global warming isn't occurring. Or something like that. I have no idea what the point of the second comment is. Perhaps it's an attempt to illustrate the subject matter of this thread (chaos) by randomly posting irrelevant remarks and seeing where the discussion goes? -
chris1204 at 21:14 PM on 9 September 2010How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
Ned @ 11 Fair point :-) -
scaddenp at 20:22 PM on 9 September 2010Climate and chaos
By birdie do you mean something to do with golf? A model for predicting ball location based mostly variation of angle of strike and force? Okay, so there is wind and bounce too but this doesnt seem either difficult nor to involve an dynamical system theory either. Of course the theory wont help you get one... -
Eric (skeptic) at 20:09 PM on 9 September 2010A detailed look at climate sensitivity
scaddenp (#11): my mantra is "all climate is local". There is no such thing as "messing an average" since the average is a function of all the locals. The satellite shot I showed may indicate some local uneven distribution of water vapor (at least in N. America and adjacent Atlantic right now), but that unevenness is NOT balanced by some evenness somewhere else to produce an average. If there is more unevenness elsewhere then the world is cooling, period. Tomorrow it might even out and we will have global warming. What happens is entirely up to the local weather. Your appeal to models falls flat. Computation of the effects of Pinatubo for example are very crude. The aerosols affected weather differently as they spread, not just an oversimplified reduction in solar radiation as is performed in the model. The weather response to Pinatubo also included the fact that we were in El Nino beforehand, also poorly modeled in the GCM. Once the GCM's can replicate (not predict obviously since that requires unknowable initial conditions) the frequency and magnitude of climate features like El Nino, then they will be believable for modeling the response to Pinatubo. BTW, proving that humidity has gone up on average means nothing. The distribution of water vapor is the only thing that causes or doesn't cause global warming. If water vapor is evenly distributed then there is global warming, if not, global cooling. There is a large natural range encompassing both cases and a lot in the middle. -
Berényi Péter at 19:49 PM on 9 September 2010Climate and chaos
#24 Ned at 00:53 AM on 9 September, 2010 Its behavior can be ascribed to obvious physical processes I wonder if anyone were capable to implement a computational birdie model based on those obvious physical processes that could predict the trajectory of birdies dropped. Or even say anything meaningful on the statistical population of such trajectories. -
Ned at 19:42 PM on 9 September 2010The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
chriscanaris, keep in mind that you're looking at the result of averaging large numbers of stations. Intuitively, one might guess that individual poorly sited stations would have larger variance in their trends (some with too much warming due to new pavement nearby, others with too much cooling due to the growth of trees, and of course many others might be poorly sited but nonetheless have no particular bias to their trends in either direction). To some extent, all of this will cancel out in the process of aggregating to the nationwide scale. In any case, I find this juxtaposition (from your comment) a bit odd: Scientists have nothing to lose if they present real data limiting adjustments only to what needs adjusting to ensure we're comparing apples with apples. I would feel far more comfortable with data showing wider divergence between well and poorly sited stations. Well, the Menne paper does just present real data comparing apples to apples. They just divided the set of stations into two groups, those classified as well-sited and those classified as poorly-sited, and then compared the average trends for both groups. There were no differences in how the two groups were handled or "adjusted". But it sounds like you still have some predetermined outcome that you want to see. Unless there's a divergence between the two mean trends, you won't feel comfortable. This does sound like a "lose-lose" proposition for Menne. -
gpwayne at 19:17 PM on 9 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Well, that's quite enough obfuscation for one thread. Let's get back to basics here and recall what all this was about - prior to attempts to change the subject. This is what Dr. Pielke Sr claimed: “Global warming, as diagnosed by upper ocean heat content has not been occurring since 2004”. I made the following observations: • one metric alone (ocean heat, however measured) cannot be indicative of the state of an entire climate system. • significance attributed to a four year period is specious because it’s too short a period from which to draw any kind of conclusion, especially when there is considerable uncertainty within the scientific community about the validity of the data, the methods of gathering it, and the analysis applied to it. • unqualified claims that global warming has not been occurring on the basis of contested ocean temperatures alone are highly misleading, and the certainty of the statement is both inappropriate and unscientific. While I appreciate Dr. Pielke engaging with us, I find there has been a concerted effort to change the subject, to deflect criticism, and a failure to answer what I believe are robust and clearly stated criticisms. Sophistry will not change my view, nor will hyperbole or obfuscation. My criticisms therefore stand as written, and I reject the rather circuitous attempts to defend statements that owe more to climate change skepticism than they do scientific research. I believe that clear bias is displayed in such incautious statements, and - most importantly - they present opportunities for less principled actors to distort, delay and pervert government, civil, media and legislative measures to address what is potentially the most serious problem mankind has ever faced. Dr. Pielke - I find you are handing live ammunition to the enemies of science e.g.the ones calling for climate change advocates to be flogged and books to be burned. Please be more circumspect about the inevitable politicisation of what you say. It's not what you say, it's the way you say it, right? -
Ned at 19:16 PM on 9 September 2010A detailed look at climate sensitivity
Hi, cruzn246. I agree that it was probably warmer than today at the peak of the previous interglacial; my point was just that we don't necessarily know exactly how much warmer because Antarctic ice cores aren't necessarily giving us the global mean temperature -- temperatures in the Southern Ocean are probably weighed more heavily. As for the distribution of plant communities, the biosphere had thousands of years to adjust to warming temperatures at the time. Right now we're raising CO2 and temperatures on a decadal-to-century time scale. It takes a while for things to come into equilibrium (which won't actually happen until after we stop increasing CO2 concentration). -
omnologos at 19:08 PM on 9 September 2010How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
I shall read with keen interest the links put in the response to #6. In the meanwhile, my original point has now been reinforced. This blog entry's text needs to be edited and the more up-to-date works added to it.Response: We have 3 different rebuttals to the "It's the sun" argument. This blog post is the Advanced version. All the papers posted in that earlier response come from the Intermediate version which features a fairly extensive list of peer-reviewed papers on the solar influence on climate. The Basic version hits the subject in a very brief, simple manner. Something for everyone. -
omnologos at 19:04 PM on 9 September 2010The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
chriscanaris @63: "What puzzles me..." Indeed..it puzzles you, me, Menne, Jim Meador and (I suspect) also John Cook and a great number of people. Alas, not everybody is as interested in the science. -
Ned at 18:59 PM on 9 September 2010How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
Argus, you're right that spectral reflectance varies as a function of incidence angle. In the analysis presented in this thread, the author simplifies this with the assumption of an overall average albedo of 0.3, or an absorptance of 0.7 (that's where the "0.7" comes from in the equation dF = 0.7 * d(TSI)/4 way up at the top). That's probably good enough for a nonspatial model like this. If you want to look at the energy balance of a particular point on the Earth's surface over time, then you're absolutely correct -- you might have to take into account variance in reflectance as a function of solar elevation angle. -
Ned at 18:52 PM on 9 September 2010How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
Hi, chriscanaris. Erlykin 2009 find that solar irradiance (and cosmic ray flux, for that matter) could explain at most 14% of the warming since 1956. It's an upper bound, not a best estimate. They don't attempt to come up with an actual estimate of the magnitude of warming attributable to TSI or CRF, just that for the period 1956-present it has to be less than 14% of the observed warming. You also want to keep in mind the difference in time periods. As noted above, some of the papers do find non-negligible values for the influence of solar irradiance on temperatures prior to the 1970s. But they pretty much all are in agreement that it's essentially zero since then. -
Argus at 18:51 PM on 9 September 2010How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
Thank you Ned, for a quick and clear answer! My thoughts concern the fact that most of earth's surface is ocean, and that a water surface has a varying reflectance (or reflectivity), which is depending on the angle of incidence. For an angle of 60 degrees the reflectivity is still less than 0.1, but for 80 it's almost 0.4 (then rising up towards 1.0). This means that not all of the incoming light (and infrared, etc?) is absorbed, which is what 'divided by 4' is presupposing. Actually a reflectivity of 0.0 is assumed for all angles of incidence. Maybe the constant should be around 4.5 instead? Or even 5? -
chris1204 at 18:10 PM on 9 September 2010How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
◦Erlykin 2009: 14% ◦Lockwood 2008: -1.3% +/- -0.7 to -1.9% That's a a huge spread of variability if you stop to think about it. Do we understand insolation quite as well as we think we do? 14% -> less than zero in a system acknowledged to have multiple sensitive feedbacks is an awful lot of variability with major implications for climate models and mitigation strategies. -
Ned at 18:04 PM on 9 September 2010How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
Argus, TSI is measured in a plane perpendicular to the earth-sun axis. In this plane, the area of illumination is a circle with area (pi r^2). However, when incident on the earth it is distributed over the spherical surface area of the earth, with area (4 pi r^2). -
Argus at 17:23 PM on 9 September 2010How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
What exactly is meant by the following: "... divided by 4 to account for spherical geometry" (in the second paragraph)? Can somebody explain this to me? I have higher education in math and physics, so I should be able to understand an explanation - it's just that I need a clue to where the 'universal constant of 4' comes from. -
omnologos at 17:11 PM on 9 September 2010How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
Not sure what the replies above are about. For example, Raypierre's non-peer-reviewed comments surely can't be put on the same level as peer-reviewed work? Let's go back to my points. The omission of Haigh's 2007 paper is even more glaring given that the first section of the blog mentions works of 2002, 2004 and 2005, plus AR4. Here's some other work of hers around that timeframe, again not referred to by the blog entry above: Gray, L.J., J.D. Haigh, and R.G. Harrison, 2005: Review of the Influences of Solar Changes on the Earth’s Climate. Hadley Centre Technical Note No. 62, Met Office Haigh, J.D., 2003: The effects of solar variability on the Earth’s climate. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. A, 361, 95–111. Furthermore, Haigh (2007)'s conclusions are pretty clear. And she already deals with the objection "there is NO trend over the last 30 years in any of the known solar factors that might influence climate" by writing in her abstract: "it is difficult to explain how the apparent response to the Sun, seen in many climate records, can be brought about by these rather small changes in radiation" Here's also some quotes from AR4-WG1-Chapter2: "empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change by identifying detectable tropospheric changes associated with solar variability, including during the solar cycle" "It is now well established from both empirical and model studies that solar cycle changes in UV radiation alter middle atmospheric ozone concentrations...solar forcing appears to induce a significant lower stratospheric response (Hood, 2003), which may have a dynamical origin caused by changes in temperature affecting planetary wave propagation, but it is not currently reproduced by models" ===== So in 2007 there was some work to do...this is what science at the time said, and this is exactly what the IPCC reported. Does anybody know of any peer-reviewed work on the overall topic of the sun's influence on global warming, updating AR4 and Haigh (2007), either confirming or refuting her statements? ======== Say, can't we even agree on taking AR4 as reference? The impression is that we're back in "more royalist than the king" territory...published science is telling us "we don't know enough", yet the blog post boldly states "we know it isn't the sun". Hardly what is expected from a website where science should be in command.Response: Some peer-reviewed research since the IPCC 2007 report:- Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."
- Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."
- Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."
- Lean 2008: "According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years..."
- Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."
-
VeryTallGuy at 16:26 PM on 9 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Dr Pielke "There does not need to be years of record to obtain statistically significant measures of upper ocean heat content. This is the point of using heat. We just need time slices with sufficient spatial data." In principle this might be right, but do you really believe the data is accurate enough quarter on quarter to provide a 3 month earth heat balance ? Given the noise in the data this seems so obviously wrong it's positively alarming coming from a reputable scientist. You repeat several times that the spacial coverage is what matters, but the noise in the data from the spacial coverage seems to show that it cannot be relied on at a snapshot level. Please comment -
HumanityRules at 16:12 PM on 9 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
73.Albatross I don't really want to reply to these sorts of comments because they really are going nowhere...... but I can't help it. "It is sad for me to see a reputable and respected scientists tarnish his reputation and diverge from acceptable scientific protocol in this manner." Really, enough of the morality tales! Stick to the science. -
HumanityRules at 15:56 PM on 9 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
72.Albatross You seem to make the point I highlight in #71. The poorest data, as expressed in AchutaRao et al. 2007, can be found in the pre-ARGO data yet you maintain your strongest critisism for the data quality in the ARGO period. I think you are taking AchutaRao et al critism of the early poor data set and piling that all on teh ARGO data. I thought Josh Willis on Roger's website did a good job of defending the present ARGO data set and believes there are unlikely to be many large scale corrections. It's funny that you then go on to say how models and data agree over the long term and how you have confidence in the long term trend. "OHC data are sufficiently accurate to state with high confidence (and statistical significance) that the long-term change in OHC is positive" How do you have confidence in a very, very, very poor early data set when you seem to have little to no confidence in the later, global data set. That makes no sense to me. What specifically about the ARGO data don't you like? And what specifically about the early data gives you the confidence in the long term trend? -
RSVP at 15:42 PM on 9 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Roger A Pielke Sr #40 "The EOS article is introduced to document that we have identified a wide range of human climate forcings, beyond the radiative forcing of CO2. The IPCC is too conservative at presenting these other forcings. These are in addition to the human caused CO2 forcing." You might want to check the thread at this same website that goes into human waste heat, and I support your concern for possible biologically harmful effects of changes in the atmosphere's composition. That said, I read the article twice, and nowhere found an explanation as to how the additional amounts of anthropogenic CO2 could be warming the ocean to this degree, and how exactly this accomplished, (i.e., direct radiative forcing?, convection? etc.) Normally, oceans are seen to directly influence air temperatures and not the other way around. -
Albatross at 15:41 PM on 9 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
HR @68, "Rather than mince words please state clearly exactly what Dr Pielke has said about OHC that is untrue?" Please read the thread. With respect HR, if the answer to that question is not blindingly obvious to you by now you have not being paying close attention. You also say that "Pick apart that reasoning rather than repeatly calling into question his integrity?" Again, you have not being paying attention. For the record, Pielke Snr insisted that people read the EOS article, and that led to the CATO letter. Regardless, Dr. Pielke has only himself to blame for people calling his actions and statements into question. HR, you don't understand, there is no vendetta here, and I am not alone in being frustrated by his cavalier use of words concerning OHC, for example. I own his text book on mesoscale modeling and have cited his work. I respect his work on land-atmosphere interactions, he has clearly made some valuable contributions in that field. BUT, that does not mean I have to agree with him when he elects to publicly make highly misleading statements on climate science, or support him standing idly by when others distort his proclamations even further. It is sad for me to see a reputable and respected scientists tarnish his reputation and diverge from acceptable scientific protocol in this manner. You are of course free to uncritically agree with him on his misleading claims about OHC, sea level and Arctic ice...... -
gallopingcamel at 15:40 PM on 9 September 2010What do you get when you put a climate scientist and 52 skeptics in a room?
My comment mentioning John Daly was deleted so I will not be making any more comments on this blog for a while in protest. Probably most of you will think of that as something to be welcomed, so enjoy! My condolences to Stephen Schneider's family and friends.Moderator Response: Note the Comments Policy, which specifically asks you not to post off-topic comments. Discussion of the CRU emails belongs in What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?. -
Albatross at 15:20 PM on 9 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Dr. Pielke, Read what I wrote again. I never said that you signed the CATO letter/petition, I asked @51 "did you not openly support this petition from CATO?". Watts proclaimed for all to see (as I showed) that you did support the open letter in which they made misleading statements about the global SAT as I showed above. It sounds like you need to take the matter up with Watts. And of course the warming in the 20th century was not a "steady increase", that point only underscores a reality that climate scientists have known for a very long time-- yet it seems to be an attempt by CATO and others to downplay the observed warming. Anyhow to address you points: "i) whether the global annual average upper ocean heat content should be adopted as the primary metric of global warming," OHC is one metric, an important metric, but it should not be viewed in isolation or over short time windows. We need to consider metrics from the cryosphere, oceans and atmosphere when assessing the impact of the planetary energy imbalance. "ii) what is the observational accuracy of this data," There are clearly data issues--see Eli Rabett's comment above to cite just one example (also see AchutaRao et al. 2007, PNAS). I understand that scientists are hard at work addressing those issues, and I have no doubt that with time they will largely remedy them. I would not be surprised if the OHC data undergo several more adjustments in the future. That is exactly why one should not be declaring with authority that global warming has not been occurring since 2004. Especially given that some OHC data which go down to 2000 m indicate that since 2004 the oceans have been accumulating heat in through that column. Not to mention the absurdity of using a ridiculously short time window (in a noisy signal) to make sweeping generalizations. It is also striking that you seem indifferent to the fact that some people with agendas have used your proclamation to "spin" the science. and "iii) if the data are sufficiently accurate, how does the accumulation of heat in Joules compare with the models since 2004 when the data became sufficiently robust for this purpose." This sentence is confusing, you begin suggesting that the data may not be sufficiently accurate, and then say they became sufficiently robust after 2004. I would caution against making comparisons between AOGCM output and OHC over a short window (or for any metric for that matter) as you have done. Right now, it appears that the OHC data are sufficiently accurate to state with high confidence (and statistical significance) that the long-term change in OHC is positive (e.g., AchutaRao et al. 2007), but that the exact rate of increase (or net heat accumulation) over that time is less certain, and that is especially true for changes over the short term. As shown by Schmidt in December 2009, the AOGCMS have done a good jobin predicting the observed global SAT record between 1980 and late 2009. Note that they look at almost 30-years of data, not less than 5 years to arrive at that conclusion. They go even further back to 1955 for the OHC comparison. One could argue that the AOGCMs would not have been able to consistently accurately predict the observed SAT record had there had huge issues with the global OHC. A question from me to you if I may. Where do you expect global 0-2000m OHC to be 20 years form now (circa 2030)? Higher than current, the same or lower? And let us assume that there is no huge equatorial volcanic eruption at that time or in the year or two preceding it. And for what it is worth, I believe that ARGO is a valuable scientific tool, especially once they work out the data issues-- even unraveling the problems is affording the scientists valuable insight into the workings of the ocean. -
HumanityRules at 14:40 PM on 9 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
69.EliRabett I included 2000-2003 to show where teh data was coming from. All I can offer you is this period was the time of expansion of the system (at about 800 buoys/year). But real world explanations about trends on graphs always interest me so yep I'd also be interested in how that jump is explained. There is a curious thing going on with some individuals where the best data set, the full ARGO system from 2003 to 2009, comes in for greater critisism than the long term trend in OHC. The long term data is derived from measurement systems probably many orders of magnitude poorer in terms of spatial and temporal coverage. There is a nice little tale on the ARGO website which while not directly related to OHC does give you a flavour of why we should be glad we have the ARGO system. "Lack of sustained observations of the atmosphere, oceans and land have hindered the development and validation of climate models. An example comes from a recent analysis which concluded that the currents transporting heat northwards in the Atlantic and influencing western European climate had weakened by 30% in the past decade. This result had to be based on just five research measurements spread over 40 years. Was this change part of a trend that might lead to a major change in the Atlantic circulation, or due to natural variability that will reverse in the future, or is it an artifact of the limited observations?" Go to http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/index.html to check their emphasis. -
Tom Dayton at 14:26 PM on 9 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
askaquestion, a long trend is needed for being reasonably certain about atmospheric temperatures not just because of the atmosphere's interaction with oceans, but because of all manner of other sources of variation in the measurements. The measurements are only samples of the population whose "true" value is sought. Such "noise" masking the "signal" being sought (the "true" value--the population value) besets all measurement--all measurement, in every domain, not just climate. The comment by EliRabett highlights the presence of noise in the ocean temperature data. See also the comments by Albatross and me. -
EliRabett at 14:04 PM on 9 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Assume Eli accepts Roger and Humanity's (see comment 1) argument. What happened between 2000 and 2004 when the ocean temperature jumped about 5 x 10^22 J, which is an absolutely crazy amount, esp given that every other measure (surface T, MSU, etc) was pretty well behaved? Either there is something rotten with the measurements, or weird stuff is happening in Captn Neptune's locker. Cocked hat, Pielke's argument meet. -
HumanityRules at 13:57 PM on 9 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
63.Albatross You're search for truth might be admirable but is going to be thwarted by the imperfect state of climate science. That is if your willing to be as honest about other data sets as you are about this one. Rather than mince words please state clearly exactly what Dr Pielke has said about OHC that is untrue? Actually don't, that's taking us nowhere. Dr pielke has given reasons behind why he has made his statements. Pick apart that reasoning rather than repeatly calling into question his integrity? -
dana1981 at 13:51 PM on 9 September 2010How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
I just realized that my estimated range of solar forcing at 0.1 to 0.35 W m-2 is very close to the IPCC range. That's pretty cool, and a bit of a relief since I didn't think to check it after doing the calculation. -
Daved Green at 13:34 PM on 9 September 2010What do you get when you put a climate scientist and 52 skeptics in a room?
They should have a program like this every week , but just focus on one maybe two questions . That way you can go into more detail and clear up any points that are unclear . I also thought that their questions can be answered by a quick searh of the web and a little bit of reading , I thought that most where not really convinced by Mr Schneiders replys even thou they where good and clear to me . A half hour program called Climate Question of The Week would be good you might need a denier on as well for balance but . Oh would also love to see Monckton front 52 climate experts and answer random questions lol . -
Roger A Pielke Sr at 13:26 PM on 9 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Albatros - With respect to your comment #52 the statements "This means that global warming halted on this time period" and "this clearly shows the lack of substantial warming since 2004" are equivalent. We are going in circles on this discussion. There is sufficient text here for readers to make up their own minds on the main issues of i) whether the global annual average upper ocean heat content should be adopted as the primary metric of global warming, ii) what is the observational accuracy of this data, and iii) if the data are sufficiently accurate, how does the accumulation of heat in Joules compare with the models since 2004 when the data became sufficiently robust for this purpose. -
askaquestion at 13:22 PM on 9 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
I had always understanded why a long trend is needed when it comes to atmospheric temperatures by the fact that there was a ocean lag, ie because the ocean where a huge heat sink and therefore takes more time to heat than atmosphere. But can someone explain to me why we also need a long trend with regard to OHC, since oceans are the slowest to heat in the climate system? Thanks -
Roger A Pielke Sr at 13:19 PM on 9 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Albatross - I did not sign the Cato petition in 2008. I commented on aspects of the letter in my post http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/open-letter-by-the-cato-institute-on-climate-science/. With respect to the statement from the petition (which I did not write nor completely agree with as written - there is clear evidence of surface temperature increases in the 20th century, for example, although it was not a steady increase] "Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now", I wrote with respect to the last decade "This is correct using the global average surface temperature. An effective analysis of this issue has been presented at the weblog http://rankexploits.com/musings/category/climate-sensitivity/. However, using the global average upper ocean heat content changes, the warming in the 1990s and early 2000s ended in 2003, so the more rigorous metric for global warming indicated “no net global warming” for 6 years." Since March 2009 when that post was written we have entered an El Nino period. I anticipate there has been warming in the upper ocean since this event started, but await the quantification of its magnitude. It is the ocean heat content that we should be using to assess global warming, however, not the global average surface temperature trend. -
Albatross at 12:59 PM on 9 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Sigh, a really big sigh. HR, we here have all seen those NODC 0-700 m OHC data. What you show is for the last 10 yrs. I'm not sure what you point is. NODC, for some some yet unspecified reason, recently adjusted the latter part of the graph downwards (much to Tisdale and Watts et al's delight). I am curious why the data were adjusted (and for obvious reasons I would have been just as curious were it made in the opposite direction). In contrast the data by Lyman et al. (2010), Fig 1. in Trenberth's nature article (see his blue trace), and von Shuckmann's graphic all show a slight increase in the latter half of that record (which is in question). So who to believe? And which depth to use? Well, it seems like 0-2000 m might be more reasonable given the mixing depths observed in parts of the ocean. Anyhow, given those questions, and the short period of time (2004 onwards quoted by Pielke), given the uncertainties of the Argo data and the noise-- Pielke should not be making bold claims such as he has on the fate of global warming. This is not an inquisition HR, it is the pursuit of truth and about being honest. As Prof. Dennett has said "The magisterium of science is factual truth on all matters" IMHO, Pielke Snr has not lived up to this magisterium by making misleading statements on OHC, sea-level rise and Arctic sea ice, and publicly supporting misleading statements made on the global SAT record. And we scientists have every right (and responsibility) to take him to task for that. The fact that you are defending him making the misleading statement in question only goes to discredit you too. -
HumanityRules at 12:41 PM on 9 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
The graph should say 10 22 Joules not 10 18 joules. -
HumanityRules at 12:34 PM on 9 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
60.Albatross From your viewpoint this is more an inquisition than a scientific debate? Acknowledge the truth then we can move on? ............................................................................................................... Just to prove I'm not shy about totally contradicting myself I decided to graph the recent NODC OHC (data from here)
(bigger image)
As some have pointed out, but few have acknowledged, a near global measure of OHC only came into existence in 2003/2004 (as Dr Pielke's pointed out in #35). There is therefore good reason to take an analysis from that point, it's short but not cherrypicked.
The NODC data shows that from mid 2003 until the 1st 3 months of 2010 the trend has been flat (actually a slight downward trend but I'll be generous). So just to correct all those (including Dr Pielke) who are fixed on a 4 year trend it does appear to be closer to 7 years. To put that in perspective that's close to the length of the GRACE Greenland ice data. It's a short term trend but a long time for heat to go missing.
I've got a question. The NODC OHC has wobbled around 11-12 for 6+ years. Where should it be in mid 2010 assuming AGW is correct and we're measuring everything? I'm just curious about the magnitude of the missing heat.
-
scaddenp at 12:19 PM on 9 September 2010A detailed look at climate sensitivity
wuwt - well known authoritive source of data. :-) I hope they have you detail to go back to the original source. -
scaddenp at 12:17 PM on 9 September 2010A detailed look at climate sensitivity
cruzn246 - warmer in Canada does NOT mean warmer worldwide. Nonetheless, it may have been warmer say 3000BC than now from other lines of evidence. However, the important question is what forcing? Must likely it was solar but its not solar today. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:13 PM on 9 September 2010A detailed look at climate sensitivity
Re: adrian smits (19) Ask yourself this: Do I trust a graph from a blog citing a source, or do I double-check the graph on the blog versus what the source itself shows? In this case, I pointed you to the NOAA source. If what's on display at WUWT is different from what NOAA (the source) shows, why do you think that would be? You have an inquiring mind, else you would not be here. You'll figure it out. For your second question, if by general humidity you mean relative humidity:"Humidity is the amount of water vapor present in the air and the relative humidity is the measure of the amount of water vapor present in the air compared to the amount needed for saturation."
while Specific Humidity is"the mass of water vapour in a sample of moist air divided by the mass of the sample."
When the temperature of air is cooled or reduced the relative humidity (RH) increases. The moisture content of the air remains the same until the RH rises to the point of 100% saturation and condensation occurs (source here). NOAA tracks Specific Humidity Hope that's more clear than mud :) The Yooper -
adrian smits at 11:56 AM on 9 September 2010A detailed look at climate sensitivity
Thats why I asked the question.I've found graphs at wuwt from NOAA that show a downward trend and I've also seen the graph you talked about Daniel so whats up with that? Is there a difference between general humidity and specific humidity? Specific humidity is the first time i've seen that term used. -
dana1981 at 11:51 AM on 9 September 2010How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
Good responses by Matt and Alden. I'll just add that despite the 'low' level of understanding, the IPCC also assigned a possible solar radiative forcing range of 0.06 to 0.30 Watts per square meter. In other words, at most the solar radiative forcing is one-fifth as large as the forcing from CO2 alone. As the other commenters noted, although we don't have a great understanding as to every way the Sun influences the global climate, if solar activity isn't increasing, it's not causing global warming. -
cruzn246 at 11:51 AM on 9 September 2010A detailed look at climate sensitivity
Ned, there was stuff growing up in Canada that usually grows well south back then. Of course it was much warmer worldwide then. -
scaddenp at 11:37 AM on 9 September 2010A detailed look at climate sensitivity
Adrian - I think you are getting confused over data sets. All the data sets that I have seen (eg see chpt3 of IPCC WG1, AR4), should water vapour going up. Look for specific humidity or precipitable water. Perhaps you could provide a link to the data set from NOAA that you think contradicts this? -
Albatross at 11:37 AM on 9 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
HR @58, You have it backwards, Pielke is the one obsessed with short term trends; Pielke Snr: “Global warming, as diagnosed by upper ocean heat content has not been occurring since 2004” Saying that is NOT constructive. He has made similar statements concerning sea level and Arctic sea ice. As for your other observations on OHC, none of these are novel, nor are they unique to Pielke. Scientists working in this field have been asking similar questions. Trenberth certainly sees the "bigger picture". I and others will be more than happy to let this go once Pielke concedes that he made a mistake....you know just like Josh Willis recognized that the Argo data had issues... -
Daniel Bailey at 11:34 AM on 9 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Re: NETDR (57)"Did anyone post that the Atmosphere was cooling at the same time that the oceans were cooling according to both the GISS and UAH satellite temperature readings. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2005/to:2009/plot/uah/from:2005/to:2009/trend"
No, because that would be a serious CHERRY PICK, something only a rhymes-with-menialist would do. Real skeptics and those with scientific integrity know that in climate science you generally need 30 years of data for a statistically significant trend to arise from the background noise. 5 years of data doth not a trend constitute. The Yooper -
Daniel Bailey at 11:25 AM on 9 September 2010A detailed look at climate sensitivity
Re: adrian smits (14) Unsure where you're getting that downward trend in humidity claim from. This from NOAA contradicts that claim. Re: adrian smits (15) See above. And then see this for a better grounding in CO2's role in the greenhouse effect. Unless skeptics come up with a physics-based alternative to the well-understood physics of greenhouse gases, CO2 rules and water vapor, while important, is a bit player (I restrained myself with great effort from using "drools" vice the "great effort" bit I actually went with - pity). See also Richard Alley's talk: CO2 is the biggest control knob. The Yooper -
HumanityRules at 11:12 AM on 9 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
#1 Moderator Response Graham Much of your article is about data quality. The long Trenberth quote is essentially an attack on the ARGO data quality. You even state "Now call me picky if you like, but if there’s a lot of discussion about the accuracy of the data, the methods of analysing it, and what it all means, then surely it would be more prudent to make clear the uncertainty". Is this questioning the data quality? I'm not moving the debate anywhere, I'm directly responding to what you say. You want to focus on the 2004-2009 period, I see that, but that particular argument interests me less than Dr Pielke's main argument which is can an accurate OHC data set tell us more about the climate. I'm interested in whether as Dr Pielke's states this metric is more definitive than say atmospheric temperature in accessing global warming. whether OHC can, without lag or much temporal variability, give us relatively quick answers on the build up of energy in the system and radiative forcing. and also whether the measuring system is robust enough. These are constructive comments on the part of Dr Pielke's, absolutely is the spirit of discovery rather than mythbuilding. You should try taking him at face value and move on from the short term trends to look at the bigger picture. 30.J Bowers My eyes see what your eyes see. What I also know is that a near global measure of OHC only came into being with the advent of ARGO and it's expansion around 2003/2004. Other ocean metrics are pointing to the fact that the SH and NH waters and different ocean basins don't seem to act in tandem. I'm prepared to look at data quality and long term trends with these in mind. This page from the ARGO website should give you an insight into what I'm talking about http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/Novel_argo.html
Prev 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 2218 Next
