Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289 Next
Comments 114051 to 114100:
-
JMurphy at 02:31 AM on 30 July 2010Models are unreliable
Pete Ridley, perhaps you'd like to dismiss the Japanese Meteorological Agency's temperature figures too. Maybe, because they were under American occupation for so long after the last war, they have been inducted into that great big conspiracy that the rest of us (whoops, have I given the game away ?) are involved in ? -
Ned at 02:18 AM on 30 July 2010Models are unreliable
Pete Ridley writes: Ned, ref. #224, perhaps you’d like to advise the extent of the uncertainty of estimating global mean temperature anomaly “.. using as few as 61 stations.” but would you be good enough to provide it in Centigrade degrees. You're referring to the work of Nick Stokes as described here. Specific questions about his reconstructions should probably be addressed to him. That said, comparing the standard errors listed for the 61-station reconstruction to the full land/ocean reconstruction using all stations (here) suggests that there's about twice as much uncertainty in the reduced set (for which the trends are 0.0855 +- 0.00835 C/decade in 1901-2009, and 0.282 +- 0.0393 C/decade in 1979-2009). It does not seem particularly surprising that the standard error would double when using a much smaller number of stations. PR continues: If the attempts at estimation by The Hadley Centre are to be believed, we’ve only had about 1C in 100 years – nothing to get excited about really. Globally it's a bit less than that, perhaps an 0.75 C increase over the past century. It's important to understand that number in context, however -- a global temperature increase of 0.75 C is actually quite large given the very short time frame involved. (It's roughly 10% of the change in temperature since the last glacial maximum, a time when the location of my house was buried under a couple km of ice). In addition, the real concern is not the impact of the 0.75 C rise from 1900-2010, but of the probable 2-4 C rise from 2010 to 2100. Both the climate and our technological infrastructure have a great deal of inertia, so it is important to figure out what needs to be done and start working on it ASAP. Had we done so 20 years ago, we would have much more flexibility. If we wait another 20 years, we will have much less. -
muoncounter at 02:08 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
#54: "Was it maybe a Dansgaard-Oeschger event? We've had just 85 of these" I was under the impression these were events during glacial periods: Climate during the last glacial period was far from stable. Two different types of climate changes, called Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events,. What relevance does that have to the current temperature increase? After all, geologists have know for a long time that glacial periods are not monotonically cold. -
davidpalermo at 02:07 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
I agree that in order to best educate skeptics and others is to show consistent, reliable evidence pointing to how much humans are contributing to Climate Change. Most of the skeptics I come across pretty much know the Earth is warming but they think it's "Just natural so there is no sense worrying about it." If agencies like NASA, NOAA and others focus more on human caused Climate Change I think that would go a long way toward helping people realize that we should focus on possible solutions. As far as "deniers" go nothing will convince them. I really think if there is more focus on data that tells us humans are a main cause we might get closer to finding viable solutions. I will look more into NOAA's new pages to see how much they focus on human causes... I am on vacation right now! My friends are calling me to get off this computer as I write this but I felt it is important.... bye for now! David -
muoncounter at 01:53 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
#28, CC: I'm sorry you felt grumpy; I did not mean to diagnose anyone or anything (and actually I did not do anything of the sort). "I'm aware that the Greenland ice cap and Antarctic ice cap may be losing mass. I do my best not to cherrypick." By reiterating that the SH and NH show different trends, as if that somehow alters the alarming problem in the Arctic, you just did. "We frequently hear about record high Arctic temperatures in the Arctic when in fact our instrumental record for the Arctic is very slim and calls for enormous extrapolations." Check the UAH/RSS graphs of satellite temperatures for the northern latitudes. See Ned's recent temperature compendium and the graph of north polar temperature data I presented here. Not slim, little or no extrapolation needed. -
dcwarrior at 01:45 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
miekol at 5 - Query for the moderators and posters. I agree that this is a science site. But it's also a site dedicated to persuading others that climate science is valid and the deniers' arguments are not accurate. Of course a huge part of the effort is establishing that in fact the deniers' arguments are not accurate. Does it end there? Or does this site ALSO want to discuss how to argue that in the most effective manner? If so, isn't a discussion of soft science ALSO relevant? -
Pete Ridley at 01:40 AM on 30 July 2010Models are unreliable
PART 2 Ned, ref. #224, perhaps you’d like to advise the extent of the uncertainty of estimating global mean temperature anomaly “.. using as few as 61 stations.” but would you be good enough to provide it in Centigrade degrees. If the attempts at estimation by The Hadley Centre are to be believed, we’ve only had about 1C in 100 years – nothing to get excited about really. I’m not sure that you would agree with KR about four independent data sets but perhaps you do. I don’t get that impression from your article. Vincent Gray has drafted a paper which inlcudes commentary on those temperature measurements so I’ve sent him a link to the “Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions” thread. You might like to try reading “The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature” (Note 1) and “NASA GISS Inaccurate Press Release On The Surface Temperature Trend Data” (Note 2) that I mentioned in #225. As for toning down my writing style, thank you for the advice but I’ll leave it to the blog administrator to decide if my tone is unacceptable. Best regards, Pete Ridley -
Pete Ridley at 01:40 AM on 30 July 2010Models are unreliable
PART 1 KR, ref. #222, I know that it is not uncommon for politicians to distort the facts but please don’t misrepresent what I post about The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypthesis. I am not aware that I “ .. claim no warming since 1998 ..”, was “Cherry picking (a) start date, .. 1998” or claiming anything about 1998. If I did then please point me to where and I’ll retract. If you can’t find anything of the sort then try reading my posts again and you may spot where you may have misinterpreted what I actually said. Regarding those attempts to measure global temperatures, perhaps you’d like to help me out and identify those “ .. four independent data sets .. ” but please make sure that they are indeed independent of each other, starting with the raw data then progressing through the statistical manipulations. -
tobyjoyce at 01:39 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Chriscanaris, @ "Nevertheless, the NH sea ice is doing a touch better or even reasonably well (considering earlier predictions of collapse of Arctic ice) .... " This is very loose. Arctic ice extent is at its second (or maybe third) lowest ever recorded for this time of year. You have to looking at the data with rose-tinted spactacles to see a "recovery". A "recovery" apparently means "not a complete collapse". Complete collapse seemed warranted in June, when the extent was dropping at the fastest rate ever. Meanwhile ice volume is still at the lowest ever. There is nothing in the Arctic Ice data to argue "global warming is not happening". Hopefully, CryoSat-2 will put some matters beyond dispute. Antarctic ice loss is mostly a land phenomenon - sea ice extent does not mean much there. -
Pete Ridley at 01:39 AM on 30 July 2010Models are unreliable
There follow a couple of comments that I posted originally on 28th at #226 but was removed by admin, perhaps because I had inadvertently carried over some links from a previous comment. I’ll post it now in two parts in case there was something else that was not found to be acceptable. -
Ned at 01:38 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
chriscanaris and others who might be interested: There's a great paper out this month on the history of the Greenland ice sheet: Alley, R. 2010. History of the Greenland Ice Sheet: paleoclimatic insights. Quaternary Science Reviews, 29: 1728-1756. Here's a brief excerpt dealing with the shape and extent of the Greenland ice sheet during the previous interglacial: =============================== "The MIS 5e Greenland Ice Sheet covered a smaller area than now, but by how much is not known with certainty. The most compelling evidence is the absence of pre-MIS 5e ice in the ice cores from south, northwest, and east Greenland [...] In contrast [...] the ice cores from central Greenland [...] and north-central Greenland (the NGRIP core) do contain normal, cold-environment, ice-sheet ice from MIS 5e. [...] The central Greenland cores do reveal that MIS 5e was warmer than MIS 1 (oxygen-isotope ratios were 3.3‰ higher than modern ones), and the elevation in the center of the ice sheet was similar to that of the modern ice sheet, although the ice sheet was probably slightly thinner in MIS 5e (within a few hundred meters of elevation, based on the total gas content). Thus, if we consider also evidence from the other cores, the ice sheet shrank substantially under a warm climate, but it persisted in a narrower, steeper form. [...] The efforts summarized above suggest that melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet contributed as little as 1–2 m or as much as 4–5 m to sea-level rise during MIS 5e, in response to climatic temperature changes of perhaps 2°–7 °C. The higher numbers for the warming are based on estimates that include the feedbacks from melting of the ice sheet, and the associated sea-level estimates are strongly favored by the statistical/modeling analysis of Kopp et al. (2009). Therefore, central values in the 3–4 m and 3°–4 °C range may be appropriate. =============================== Based on this and other things I've read, I would guess that roughly half of the 6 meter increase in sea level at the last interglacial came from Greenland, less than half from West Antarctica, and the remainder from other sources. Here's a nifty figure from the Alley et al. paper, showing a comparison of the shape of the ice sheet today vs. during the last interglacial:
Fig. 7. Modeled configuration of the Greenland Ice Sheet today (left) and in MIS 5e (right), from Otto-Bliesner et al. (2006).
-
villabolo at 01:32 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
HumanityRules at 14:55 PM on 29 July, 2010: "Cherry-picking? Global sea ice seems to have had little trend over the past 30 years . . ." **************** If this game is going to be played then focusing on Global Sea Ice is cherry picking itself. Why are you not including TOTAL Global Ice? Besides the corn in Kansas does not care what is going to be happening in the Southern Hemisphere in the next ten years. It is the Arctic Ice Cap's disappearance that is going to alter our weather systems in the Northern Hemisphere. -
CBDunkerson at 01:15 AM on 30 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP #128: Creationists aren't twisting science around? Apparently you've never heard of 'intelligent design'. -
chris1204 at 01:02 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
muoncounter @ 9 Phew! It was pretty torrid 125,00 years ago with a lot of CO2 in the air - well within the span of human habiation and ceratinly not a young sun phenomenon. Was it maybe a Dansgaard-Oeschger event? We've had just 85 of these and the little ice age has been interpreted by some as the cold phase of such a cycle. Of course, a possible current Dansgaard-Oeschger event does not exclude anthropogenic forcings - clearly you can have both. Significantly, however, the Antarctic and Greenland icecaps reamined intact through this time - hence our ability to extract ice cores. Food for thought.Response: What happened to sea levels 125,000 years ago certainly is food for thought. Sea levels were at least 6 metres higher than current levels. That tells us much about how Greenland and Antarctica react to just a degree or two of warmer temperature. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:04 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
“So while there are many skeptics who agree that global warming is happening but question the cause ...” Are we really the minority? We only have claim to the importance of the fact that "the CO2 concentration increases humans derived from burning fossil fuels." And we have arguments. “Recent Changes in Phytoplankton Communities Associated with Rapid Regional Climate Change Along the Western Antarctic Peninsula”,Montes-Hugo, et al, 2009, “The climate of the western shelf of the Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) is undergoing a transition from a cold-dry polar-type climate to a warm-humid sub-Antarctic–type climate. Using three decades of satellite and field data, we document that ocean biological productivity, inferred from chlorophyll a concentration ( Chl a ), has significantly changed along the WAP shelf.” “Paleo-records show that analogous climate variations have occurred in the past 200 to 300 years, and over longer 2500-year cycles, with rapid (decadal) transitions between warm and cool phases in the WAP. In this study (~30 years), the Chl a trend evidenced in the southern subregion of the WAP presented similar characteristics to those trends detected during typical interneoglacial periods (~200 to 300 years) (ie, high phytoplankton biomass, and presumably productivity, due to less area covered by permanent sea ice).” That is further evidence that the current warming, then what happens to the ice, these "10 key climate indicators - to change them, is not limited to: „CO2 concentration increases derived from humans burning fossil fuels.” The 1,800-Year Oceanic Tidal Cycle: A Possible Cause of Rapid Climate Change Charles D. Keeling (!!!) and Timothy P. Whorf - “Variations in solar irradiance are widely believed to explain climatic change on 20,000- to 100,000-year time-scales in accordance with the Milankovitch theory of the ice ages, but there is no conclusive evidence that variable irradiance can be the cause of abrupt fluctuations in climate on time-scales as short as 1,000 years. We propose that such abrupt millennial changes, seen in ice and sedimentary core records, were produced in part by well characterized, almost periodic variations in the strength of the global oceanic tide-raising forces caused by resonances in the periodic motions of the earth and moon. A well defined 1,800-year tidal cycle is associated with gradually shifting lunar declination from one episode of maximum tidal forcing on the centennial time-scale to the next. An amplitude modulation of this cycle occurs with an average period of about 5,000 years, associated with gradually shifting separation-intervals between perihelion and syzygy at maxima of the 1,800-year cycle. We propose that strong tidal forcing causes cooling at the sea surface by increasing vertical mixing in the oceans. On the millennial time-scale, this tidal hypothesis is supported by findings, from sedimentary records of ice-rafting debris, that ocean waters cooled close to the times predicted for strong tidal forcing.” The origin of the 1500-year climate cycles in Holocene North-Atlantic records, Debret, 2007: “Since the first suggestion of 1500-year cycles in the advance and retreat of glaciers (Denton and Karlen, 1973), many studies have uncovered evidence of repeated climate oscillations of 2500, 1500, and 1000 years. During last glacial period, natural climate cycles of 1500 years appear to be persistent (Bond and Lotti, 1995) and remarkably regular (Mayewski et al., 1997; Rahmstorf, 2003), yet the origin of this pacing during the Holocene remains a mystery (Rahmstorf, 2003), making it one of the outstanding puzzles of climate variability.” -
CBDunkerson at 00:01 AM on 30 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Ken Lambert #123 wrote: "Now if most of your temperature measuring land based stations are in that 7% of the globe where humans release waste heat; and this figure is roughly half the 0.9W/sq.m of heating imbalance at TOA, then it is reasonable to expect that temperatures would be affected by waste heat which roughly adds 0.9 + 0.4 = 1.3W/sq.m over those areas." No, that is not reasonable... because it is not consistent with how global temperature anomalies are computed. Essentially, you are arguing that if 50% of all temperature measuring stations are located in the most heavily populated 7% of the globe then that 7% of the planet determines 50% of the global temperature anomaly. Which is simply false. Because the anomalies are computed based on geographic distribution... so those 50% of stations would only account for 7% of the total global anomaly... because they cover only 7% of the planet. Ergo, there is no global bias from localized heating. -
Ned at 23:43 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Ken Lambert writes: The 11 year Solar cycle reportedly has a peak to trough of about 0.25 W/sq.m which is about 0.1% - NOT 1% of the 240 W/sq.m of net incoming solar radiation. You're arguing against someone else, not me. I said that the total variation over the solar cycle is less than 1% not that it is 1%. I was trying to correct another commenter who was IMHO exaggerating the magnitude of solar variation. So I'm glad you agree with me. Ken continues: The point is made that human released 'Waste Heat' at 0.028W/sq.m is insignificant when applied to the global surface area; but is quite significant when applied to the 6-8% of the globe from which it emanates. It avearges 0.4W/sq.m over that roughly 7% of the globe. Yes, if you assume all 0.028 W/m2 of waste heat is coming from 7% of the globe, it averages 0.4 W/m2 at its source. Of course, the heat doesn't stay there; it moves around. In any case, sure, waste heat can be locally important, but globally it's insignificant. That is the point of this thread. Ken continues: Now if most of your temperature measuring land based stations are in that 7% of the globe where humans release waste heat [...] Please don't muddy the waters. We're doing one thing here, comparing the magnitude of two different forcings. If you want to talk about UHI in terms of its (hypothetical) impact on the temperature record, do so in one of the many threads about UHI or the temperature record. (Keep in mind that there are many, many indications that UHI does not have a significant impact on global land/ocean temperature reconstructions.) -
KR at 23:35 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - You're still missing the point! The point I (and any number of other posters) was making is that energy entering an air mass via conduction/convection heats the entire air mass. Energy entering an air mass via radiation also heats the entire air mass. There are no "separate accounts" as you described. What all of this means is that the 2.9W/m^2 GHG forcing and the 0.028W/m^2 AHF simply add to the general energy in the ground/air/water, as described here. No distinction once the energy is released into the system, RSVP. None whatsoever. The total energy ends up heating up the Earth, water, and air. Temperature changes are the result of the sum of all forcings and feedbacks. And, as you've agreed, the 1% AHF is pretty small change compared to the 99% GHG forcing. As to the ppm CO2 changes? I strongly suggest you read up on that here and here. I feel no need to repeat well-written descriptions of the effects of CO2 levels to correct physics errors on your part. -
Ken Lambert at 23:21 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Ned #100 The 11 year Solar cycle reportedly has a peak to trough of about 0.25 W/sq.m which is about 0.1% - NOT 1% of the 240 W/sq.m of net incoming solar radiation. 1% would be 2.4W/sq.m which is a very large variation compared with Dr Trenberth's 0.9W/sq.m of TOA heating imbalance. Yet Solar variation is being suggested as a flattener for the last 10-12 years of temperatures. If that is so, then half the top to btm of 0.25W/sq.m (0.125W/sq.m) must be a large chunk of the warmming imbalance - which looks very small against 0.9W/sq.m of purported imbalance. The point is made that human released 'Waste Heat' at 0.028W/sq.m is insignificant when applied to the global surface area; but is quite significant when applied to the 6-8% of the globe from which it emanates. It avearges 0.4W/sq.m over that roughly 7% of the globe. Now if most of your temperature measuring land based stations are in that 7% of the globe where humans release waste heat; and this figure is roughly half the 0.9W/sq.m of heating imbalance at TOA, then it is reasonable to expect that temperatures would be affected by waste heat which roughly adds 0.9 + 0.4 = 1.3W/sq.m over those areas. I think this is what BP is banging away at in the temperature reconstruction thread. The 'fiddles' which adjust one station to work out a temperature for a point hundreds of km away could indeed be interesting. -
chris1204 at 23:11 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
JMurfphy, CBDunkerson et al: Actually, you're right about NH ice - the graphic as displayed on the WUWT page does omit the 2 standard deviation error bar which is naughty of them - it's not immediately obvious when you glance at the display on their Sea Ice page. I stand corrected. My apologies, gentlemen. Nevertheless, the NH sea ice is doing a touch better or even reasonably well (considering earlier predictions of collapse of Arctic ice) depending on the metric - for example the DMI 30% sea ice, Jaxa, Norsex - area and extent. However, for Antarctic sea ice, see the University of Bremen site and the Cryosphere Today Antarctic Sea Ice Anomaly which are quite positive. If you look at the Cryosphere Today Global Anomaly, it's comfortably centred on normal. So is the glass half full or half empty? I don't pretend to know. As regards sea ice volume, I echo John Russell's question and additionally wonder whether the jury is still out if we have only just started looking at this metric. I recall earlier disputation about sea ice thickness. -
Tony O at 23:07 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Want a couple extra Eleven; Tropopause is higher, while stratopause and mesopause are lower. Pretty good indicator that the cause is man. Twelve; Habitats are moving Thirteen; Flowering dates are changing. Poor little flowers do not know what season it is. Fourteen; Trees are dying. Yes I know it is the bugs, but it is the lack of deep cold not killing the bugs. Is ya gonna make quote papers? -
Berényi Péter at 22:58 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
It's 61912882000 DEBRECEN, Hungary. Even more troublesome. Again, adjustments are not random, not centered on zero.
Of course it would be nice to go back and check old records, but unfortunately there is not much genuine old temperature data online. I may visit Hungarian Meteorological Service and have a talk with them (Debrecen has data since 1853, Budapest from 1780).
Moderator Response: This level of detail and sheer space consumption does not belong on this thread. Put future such comments in the Temp Record Is Unreliable thread. But if you post too many individual station records, I will insist that you instead post summary statistics. -
CBDunkerson at 22:51 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
A new study says that phytoplankton in the oceans have decreased by 40% since 1950. We'd better pray this is erroneous because if it isn't we're looking at a massive decrease in human population within this century. Click for article -
Jaydee at 22:45 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
BP you may find this link interesting. It relates to the differences between Weather Underground data collection and GHCN. To cut ot the chase, Weather Underground uses METAR data and GHCN doesn't. Anthony Watts(!) noted that there are problems with the METAR data. http://rhinohide.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/watts-dogs-barking-cant-fly-without-umbrella/ -
Ned at 22:18 PM on 29 July 2010Plant stomata show higher and more variable CO2 levels
Very nice summary, Glenton Jelbert. Thanks! -
shdwsnlite at 22:17 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
miekol at 15:41 PM on 29 July, 2010 "in particular China and India. They are not going to reduce their CO2 production anyway." I see this argument all the time. They are not going do do anything so why should we bother. Actually it appears that China is trying to do a lot more than the US at this point. Carbon trading in pipeline China keeps promise to curb carbon emission -
Ned at 22:16 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Actually, the Central Park station BP is interested in is apparently a USHCN station. I really haven't looked into the exact process by which data go from the actual station into the USHCN database and then from there into the GHCN database. Suffice it to say that this is a complicated subject (is the monthly average of daily data created at the station, at USHCN, or at GHCN?). If someone else wants to get into the weeds of this process, they're welcome to, but I will definitely not have time to spend on this right now. -
John Russell at 22:08 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
CBDunkerson & Chriscanaris An obeservation. It seems to me, from a layman's viewpoint, that sea ice EXTENT is a function/indicator of WEATHER -- thin ice forms and melts relatively quickly due to the ambient temperatures in an area over quite a short time period. On the other hand sea ice THICKNESS is a function/indicator of CLIMATE -- thick ice hangs around for a long time with its thickness changing by only a relatively small amount due to the weather it experiences. Overall though it's only variations in ice VOLUME that can evidence the trend to a colder or warmer climate. That's not to say that sea ice extent is not useful -- when averaged over years, its variations are the most easily-observed sign that the climate might be warming (or indeed, at other times, cooling) -- but to give any priority to extent data over volume data would be illogical ('cos it's only half the story). I'm also bearing in mind that (I think I'm correct in saying) it's also only recently that reliable volume data has been available, which might explain why it could appear that scientists are now shifting their position. Any views? -
drabikmr at 22:04 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Thanks for this fine graphic. But gosh how I wish I could share this with all the naysayers I know. I used to post comments on global warming at my Facebook page, but sooooo many there just refuse to admit that it's happening that I stopped posting anything on GW there altogether. But I am grateful for what I see here - at least I stay informed. I hope the naysayers will come 'round some day though I fear that won't happen until it's far too late for them to do anything but suffer through they helped to cause - or even worse to know what they did will adversely affect the lives of their kids, grandkids and great-kids, etc . . . -
CBDunkerson at 21:58 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP #121: "The world is not flat" Hooray! Finally, an aspect of basic scientific reality upon which we can agree. -
CBDunkerson at 21:53 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
BP, the GHCN temperature data are in close agreement with a separate surface data set AND the satellite temperature data AND proxy temperature data sets. In short, if you really must go on with the conspiracy theories about how the three GHCN based temperature sets have all been faked then you're going to need to explain how those other sources have ALSO been faked. -
kdkd at 21:38 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
BP #31 I'm not really interested in quibbling about the the surface temperature record. As far as I can see as an interested observer there is no significant difference between the independently derived temperature records. What I am interested in is the logical contortions that you have to use to ignore the big picture, choosing instead to focus on, and magnify out of all proportions, the perceived uncertainties. The key point I made that you have chosen not to address (I detect a pattern here) is: "The way you put it you think we'd expect to see lots of contradictory evidence that as a whole could be misinterpreted to show spurious alarming anthropogenic global warming" The way you present your position that the big picture is unimportant, this is the only logical interpretation I can think of as to why you would take this view. It is also interesting that you chose not to address this aspect of my attack on your position. -
Tony Noerpel at 21:37 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
#32 Mauri Thanks for your effort. Great report. Tony -
Ned at 21:36 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
BP writes: You should ask several questions first. I agree, one should ask questions first rather than leaping to conclusions. One should also be very precise in the formulation of one's questions and answers, to prevent needless confusion. 1. Is there a difference? (yes) 2. Is it documented? (no) We don't know that. You initially claimed that the difference in adjustments between US and non-US stations in GHCN was "undocumented" when in fact a few seconds with Google revealed that the difference is widely discussed, including in the primary paper about GHCN (Peterson & Vose 1997). 3. Does GHCN v2 have the original METAR records? (no) GHCN-Monthly is not derived from METAR records, it's derived from CLIMAT records. 4. Does Weather Underground have them? (yes) Yes, the daily data at WUnderground are derived from METAR. This suggests that you're launching into a comparison of, if not apples and oranges, perhaps granny smiths and macouns. 7. Are the magnitude of adjustments comparable to the trend? (yes) That's not really a relevant question, now is it? Assuming for the moment your claim that there is an "adjustment" (proof of which is not in evidence) ... as long as there isn't a trend in the adjustments the adjustments won't affect the trend (over long enough periods of time). 8. Are adjustments supposed to be done to raw data in GHCN? (no) Note that you haven't yet actually established the existence of an adjustment by GHCN. -
Rob Painting at 21:29 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Chriscanaris - " Meanwhile, sea ice extent has continued its increase in the SH." See argument 105. It's a logical fallacy that the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice would behave the same in a warming world, as indeed some early climate modeling predicted the asymmetry. Chriscanris - "And yes, I'm aware that the Greenland ice cap and Antarctic ice cap may be losing mass. I do my best not to cherrypick." Cherry picking is what one does in order to mislead. Notice how the contributors here put it all into context?. And the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets "are" losing mass, not "may be", that sounds is bit misleading don't you think?. -
Paul D at 21:26 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Miekol... You are quick to criticise but openly made an opening comment which statistically is poor judgement of the facts. You asked for 10 apparently separate reasons why 10 global warming indicators were happening. Taken literally and if someone wanted to waste a lot of time going over existing science, then your comment might be valid. However statistically it would be very unusual to have different reasons for all 10. That is the point of publishing them. The hypothesis is validated by all 10 occurring at the same time. What you should be doing is putting together a hypothesis to explain why all 10 are happening and submit it. It isn't the onus of scientists to come up with an alternative theory if they don't think there is one. -
Ned at 21:20 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
FWIW, I have close to zero interest in spending my time today trying to track down the cause of a difference between the reported GHCN monthly mean for a particular station and the average of the Weather Underground daily means for that station. That will be a complicated project because the WUnderground data come from daily METAR reports while the GHCN monthly data come from monthly CLIMAT reports. I do find it interesting that out of the universe of possible explanations, BP jumps immediately to the conclusion that it must be malfeasance ("undocumented fiddling") by GHCN. -
CBDunkerson at 21:18 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Chriscanaris #28 wrote: "Now that NH ice seems to be holding up (indeed firmly back within two standard deviations of the mean over the last thirty years)" That doesn't match up with the data I'm seeing;
Extent is a little above the 2007 results, which were the lowest ever recorded, but still well below two standard deviations from the average (the grey shaded region). The ice is also both thinner and less concentrated than it was in 2007... making it still entirely possible that we could see a new low extent this year depending on weather over the next month and a half.
In any case, focusing on volume isn't some 'dodge'. Volume is the amount of ice. If we want to know whether the ice is increasing or decreasing what we are looking for is the change in volume. Unfortunately, we don't have precise data on the total volume right now because IceSAT went offline and Cryosat II data is still being analyzed. Which is where proxies like extent get pulled in.
Volume = Ice Area * Ice Thickness
Extent = Ice Area / Ice concentration (0.15 to 1.00)
From these simple formulas it can be seen that Extent differs from Volume by two variables, and thus is not a particularly accurate proxy. It's just comparatively easy to measure.
BTW, even though Cryosat II data hasn't been released yet the less precise measurements of sea ice area, concentration, and thickness from other satellites show steep declines this year. Thickness and concentration are both well below where they were in 2007 and as a result ice volume is clearly at an all time low, well beyond the uncertainty range of the estimates.
-
Berényi Péter at 21:14 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
#33 Ned at 20:53 PM on 29 July, 2010 let me get this straight You should ask several questions first.- Is there a difference? (yes)
- Is it documented? (no)
- Does GHCN v2 have the original METAR records? (no)
- Does Weather Underground have them? (yes)
- Is the difference random? (no)
- Is it centered at zero? (no)
- Are the magnitude of adjustments comparable to the trend? (yes)
- Are adjustments supposed to be done to raw data in GHCN? (no)
-
JMurphy at 21:06 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
chriscanaris wrote : "Earlier this year, we were hearing about the record ice melt in the Northern Hemisphere. Now that NH ice seems to be holding up (indeed firmly back within two standard deviations of the mean over the last thirty years), we're told that it's not sea ice extent but rather sea ice volume, quality, or whatever metric comes to hand. Meanwhile, sea ice extent has continued its increase in the SH." Where are you getting all that information from ? Some of it sounds as if you are getting it from NSIDC, but anyone looking there would not see "NH ice...holding up (indeed firmly back within two standard deviations of the mean over the last thirty years)". Have a look at the blue line there. Also have a look at these comments there : Ice extent remained lower than normal in all regions of the Arctic, with open water developing along the coasts of northwest Canada, Alaska and Siberia. As of July 15, total extent was 8.37 million square kilometers (3.23 million square miles), which is 1.62 million square kilometers (625,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for the same date... None of the NH graphs at Cryosphere Today seem to back you up either. Where did you get your information from ? As for the SH, what do you mean "sea ice extent has continued its increase" ? 'Continued' from when, to what sort of 'increase' ? -
RSVP at 21:03 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
The Ville #120 The world is not flat, and I dont think I specified how high this mirror is etc. It was a bad choice on my part to focus on the idea of what would happen if absolutely all the IR was reflected back to Earth's surface. I assume you would agree that surface warming would be readily detect, yet in the next chapter, of the 10 items, I did not see this one. It is better that I admit my error. I do. Thanks. -
Ned at 20:53 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
BP, let me get this straight. You see a difference in reported temperatures for a NYC station between GHCN and Weather Underground. You then conclude that this must be "undocumented fiddling" by GHCN. Do I have that right, or am I missing something? -
Ned at 20:46 PM on 29 July 2010It's cooling
Thanks for the reminder, Theodore. Yes, "global dimming" does exist. John Cook talks about it in a related thread called Why did climate cool in the mid-20th Century?. He's got a reference to Wild et al. 2007, which discusses global dimming in some detail. -
mspelto at 20:37 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
I have been waiting for this material to be released for six months. The graph I prefer is the one on page 26-27 of the report. I can tell you having written the glaciers chapter Page 49, and provided the glacier data for the graph 26-27, that there is an immense amount of peer review of this material.Response: I presume this is the graph you're talking about:
That page showing time series of eleven different indicators is a great resource. I may do a follow-up post focusing on the content from that page. Thanks for your comment (and your work on the NOAA report). -
Theodore at 20:30 PM on 29 July 2010It's cooling
Is "Global dimming" an issue here at all? Or does it exist? -
Ned at 20:15 PM on 29 July 2010The nature of authority
Pete Ridley writes: There is a hypothesis that our use of fossil fuels may be causing significant global warming which, if assumed positive feedback effects occurred, might lead to a catastrophic tipping point at which point the globe may heat up drastically and possibly destroy life as we know it. This hypothesis is supported not by evidence but by a claimed scientific consensus. I am aware of no scientific consensus around a hypothesis that AGW would "destroy life as we know it." If you can't make your point without wildly exaggerating you're probably better off not making it at all. Furthermore, is "the destruction of life as we know it" the new bar to which a potential problem must rise before which we can address it? Do you suggest that anything that falls short of "the destruction of life as we know it" should be ignored? PR continues: There are also a hypothesis that there exists a benevolent (and vengeful according to the Jehovah's Witnesses) superpower that is keeping an eye on our earthly activities. This hypothesis is also supported not by evidence but by a claimed consensus. Discussion of religion is off-topic, and the use of religion as a mechanism for smearing your rhetorical opponents is particularly inappropriate. Your point is also completely illogical. Does the fact that some people are religious inherently invalidate all scientific consensus? Does the existence of the Vatican cause to to disbelieve in plate tectonics, and the fact that there are lots of Hindus in South Asia make you question Maxwell's equations? PR continues: In my opinion both of these hypotheses are unacceptable confidence tricks supported by those in authority for the purpose of exerting their will. As one of the greatest physicists, mathematicians, astronomers and philosophers ever, Gallileo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei), demonstrated, consensus has little part to play in science. Pete, would you please stop testing the boundaries to see how close you can skate to the edge of the Comments Policy before your comments get deleted? Accusing those who disagree with you of playing "confidence tricks" is completely inappropriate. You are free to believe that, but please keep such beliefs to yourself when commenting here. As for Galileo, it's very common to see people who disagree with any scientific consensus (vaccination, UFOs, the link between smoking and cancer, whatever) trying to claim the mantle of Galileo. Unfortunately, as Carl Sagan said, "They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Being an outlier on some scientific issue does not guarantee that you're right. In any given century, there are far more crackpots than Galileos. I would also particularly disagree with the Galileo analogy in this case, and in fact suggest that you have it exactly backwards -- it's the Moranos and Cuccinellis and Bartons and Inhofes who are busily playing the part of Galileo's persecutors. PR concludes: I brought up my children to question what they are told. That sounds nice, like most platitudes. I also believe in questioning what I'm told. I think on scientific questions it's important to examine the evidence for a proposition. Fortunately in the case of AGW the evidence (as summarized on this site) is pretty conclusive. -
Pete Ridley at 20:10 PM on 29 July 2010The nature of authority
JMurphy, sorry, I should have said 136. -
Berényi Péter at 19:48 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
#25 kdkd at 18:17 PM on 29 July, 2010 your argument elevates the contrarian practice of cherry picking as more valid. Incredible It's not cherry picking, it is called reality check. A very different kind of activity. We have 67 overlapping months between GHCN and Weather Underground for Central Park. After September, 2006 GHCN has dropped this station and before March, 2000 Weather Underground has only fractional data for the site. Anyway, adjustment statistics with 0.1°C bins looks like this for the period:
Remember. It is not proper adjustment (if it were, it would have supposed to go into v2.mean_adj), it's just some undocumented fiddling. The statistics does not look like measurement error for sure.
If things like this are allowed to be done to the raw dataset even at a single station, a full scale audit is warranted indeed. You can't deny that in good faith.
On the other hand, you can't expect me to do the full job either in my spare time when there are payed government employees for this very purpose.
Anyway, I'll do my best, but any help would be appreciated. As far as I know no one has looked into the adjustments done to raw GHCN values yet.
I have already downloaded data from Weather Underground for Canada and Alaska the other day. As time permits, I'll run the check for those sets and report back with the results.
-
chris1204 at 19:43 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
JMurphy @ 26: I know all too many people who have reported precisely these symptoms and after about ten or so visits to the emergency room resulting in normal ECG, cardiologist reviews with normal findings, and normal stress test results eventually find their way to my office. Panic attacks and generalised anxiety disorders are also very common and require a different line of treatment to ischaemic heart disease. Indeed, repeated visits to emergency rooms in such circumstances can reinforce panic symptoms. Moreover, you can have both panic disorder and ischaemic heart disease at the same time. It's important to work out whether a patient's symptoms are due to one or the other (or possibly both). I would certainly be urging someone who reported these symptoms for the first time particularly after exertion to be going to the emergency room. However, to bring this back on topic (ie, AGW), I'd be suggesting that while there's lots of evidence the world is warming and that human caused CO2 emissions contribute substantially, the questions around the robustness of the paleoclimate record and the reliability of the current instrumental record are important in determining our response. To go back to the medical analogy, do you take a Valium and practice deep breathing/ relaxation or do you give sublingual glyceryl trinitrate and put the patient on the urgent list for a stent? Indeed you might do both. And yes, you'd be encouraging your panic disorder patient to watch his/her diet, lose weight, get exercise, get their cholesterol down (cf mitigation strategies for possible comorbid ischaemic heart disease)whilst educating him/her about panic disorder (paradoxically very much a disease of positive feedbacks in which anxiety -> symptoms -> increased anxiety). -
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:25 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Geo Guy @ 6 Two questions. Firstly, what is the fascination with GeoCraft.com among Sceptics. I have had the last graph you refer to pushed at me dozens of times by sceptics. Always associated with the question, implied or not that if CO2 varies so differently with Temp well in the distant past well....? Addressing that in a moment, I would first like an answer to why Geocraft.com attracts sceptics like Pooh bear to Honey. The site is self-described as belonging to a Monte Hieb. www.takeonit.com lists Monte Hieb as: "Monte Hieb is the author of several popular web pages skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming, serving as a evangelist for the viewpoint (he does not state his qualification in climatology or a related science). He is an employee at the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Health, Safety, and Training. " So what is the fascination with Monte Hieb? Now to the graph, yet again; I am getting tired of repeating this one. This graph, and better versions of it are available elsewhere, is not the full answer because it doesn't take into account the fact that Solar output was lower in the distant past. The world needed more CO2 to compensate for the cooler Sun. If your question was honestly meant then I suggest you read some of John's posts here. A Search for 'Royer' will turn up a number of them. One is here at http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-has-been-higher-in-the-past.html. Then you might like to look at Wiki, looking for the 'Faint Young Sun Problem' and working from there. However, if your 'question' was a little more disengenuous than that (and citing Monte Hieb implies that) then ScepticalScience was probably the wrong site to 'ask' that question. So please, Why Monte Hieb's site?
Prev 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289 Next
