Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 Next
Comments 115601 to 115650:
-
Ned at 22:24 PM on 12 July 2010Temp record is unreliable
Ron Broberg and Nick Stokes have created an entirely new gridded global surface temperature analysis that is independent of GHCN. It is based on the Global Summary of the Day (GSOD) records for a very large number of stations, available here. The main advantage of this is that it provides a semi-independent confirmation of the GHCN-based analysis that has been used for most of the surface temperature reconstructions up to this point. Other advantages include a larger number of stations, more stations in the Arctic and other remote locations, and no decrease in station numbers in recent years. Ron developed tools to acquire and reformat the GSOD data, and Nick then ran it through TempLS, his global temperature analysis program. The results are very similar to those from previous reconstructions using GHCN:
Over the past three decades, both data sets (GHCN and GSOD) show similar trends (+2.5C/century) in Nick's analysis.
If you find this all a bit confusing, the bottom line is that this is a radically new way of confirming the reliability of the existing surface station temperature analyses from GISSTEMP, HADCRU, etc.
-
Mr_Obvious at 22:22 PM on 12 July 2010The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
It seems The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well on both sides of the debate. And the CO2 levels remain an example even now, and to, at least some extent, perhaps, may even be effecting the author of this article. The various posts above seem to abound with seemingly objective; but, in many cases, clearly slanted view points. In nearly every post (including the article) some, often obvious, detail was omitted that might have impacted the conclusion. Perhaps we could all take some extra time to refine our thoughts and triple check our facts before posting. By the way, something I noticed long ago, and posted on on a number of forums; but, have get to get a well validated response to: O2 and CO2 have nearly the same IR absorption spectra / levels. Why is O2 not considered a green house gas when CO2 is? (If your planning on making the narrow band argument, please have something verifiable to back it up) -
CBDunkerson at 22:09 PM on 12 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
Geo Guy #94 wrote: "...and yet we can emphatically state that AGH's [sic] are THE driver to rising global temperatures??...I think not." 'THE' only driver? No. 'THE' most significant driver? Based on both the paleoclimate record and measurements of current warming I don't see how anyone can dispute it. We can see from the paleoclimate record that major warming and cooling shifts have continuously corresponded with GHG shifts. We can measure GHG and radiation changes and compute (not guess, not model, not estimate... but compute from proven values and formulae) that they account for most of the measured warming observed thus far. In short, we know that CO2 is the primary driver of current warming because we can do math; Even most 'skeptics' now seem to accept that a doubling of CO2 by itself would cause about a 1 C (actually just under) increase in global temperature... this is computed from the measured radiation absorption spectrum of CO2 and the formula Arrhenius came up with over a century ago. If that is taken as accepted, as all but the extreme fringe of skeptics seem to agree, then we can compute expected 'GHG only' warming for other CO2 levels; In 1998 the CO2 level was 365 ppm, but with changes in other GHG levels factored in the 'CO2 equivalent' was 412 ppm. The historical level generally used is 278 ppm. Thus, IF 'x*ln(576/278) = 1 C' (i.e. 1 C increase from CO2 doubling) THEN, 'x*ln(412/278) = 0.57 C' The measured warming through 1998 was about 0.75 C above what it was back when GHGs were at 278 ppm. Thus, 76% of the observed warming can be explained by the warming we know the increase in GHGs should have caused. That makes GHGs the primary (76%) driver of the observed warming... and the remaining 24% shows that feedback effects have been positive, not negative. We only then get into models with the expectation that feedback effects will accelerate as time goes by and estimating the end result. This is why you no longer find 'skeptic' scientists claiming warming of less than 1 C for a doubling due to negative feedbacks... we KNOW net feedbacks are positive. The only remaining refuge of 'skepticism' is that these net positive feedbacks will be less than the majority of scientists believe. Disclaimer: The math above is greatly simplified in that it computes temperature anomalies directly rather than radiative forcings and then the temperature anomalies those would cause AND ignores changes in atmospheric density as composition changes (which would only be significant for MUCH greater atmospheric changes than we are looking at and would then lead to MORE warming). That said, it's precise enough for illustrative purposes... most of the observed warming is due to GHG increases. -
Berényi Péter at 20:31 PM on 12 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
#87 Philippe Chantreau at 01:44 AM on 12 July, 2010 The point was not about the data, it was about your attitude. Stop ranting about my attitude, please and let's focus on data instead. If you show my reasoning to be faulty by uncovering the specific error, I am quite ready to accept it. On the other hand if you try to find flaws in my attitude, that gets us nowhere. BTW, your attitude of surmising an error is something to be ashamed of instead of to be corrected is highly questionable. At least I refuse to take this attitude as a valid and fruitful one. What about actually doing some work by trying to understand things on your own? It would have the advantage of promoting public understanding as well. -
daniel at 20:01 PM on 12 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
To Riccardo #89 Ok Riccardo again I'l answer a bit more directly. Do we have any real evidence that the 1mm/yr trend existed without short term variations from the paleo data? How can we know if drivers existed or not when the links of SLR to temperature fluctuations are so poorly achieved using paleo data? What do other data sets say Riccardo? Post some links we can discuss it. Here's a graph of Donnelly's data with sample 11 reassigned to the younger date range which was never adequately constrained by Donnelly in the first place. (But he was happy to fit the older date range to suit his trend).
Are you sure it's not possible for the recent sea level trends, or very similar slightly less severe uptrends, to have existed in the past given the uncertainty in the paleo data? Does this make the recent uptrend look less alarming? Is all of pro AGW science done this way? You wanna discuss drivers? Post some links.
-
MP at 18:37 PM on 12 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
John Brookes @ 96 “Thanks for the comments. I don't favour delay. I would like to see a carbon tax implemented now, and steadily increased. Only if the weight of evidence starts to turn, would I want the carbon tax to be removed.” One has to question whether this is the most appropriate and robust strategy in terms of being applicable to more than one possible scenario. In this regard, it would appear that the different possible scenarios for climate change that have been advanced by various interest groups can essentially be simplified as being: 1. Continual warming with no prospect of a further glacial period; 2. Warming in the short to medium term before the onset of cooling that precedes a new glacial period; 3. Temperature equilibrium in the short to medium term before the onset of cooling that precedes a new glacial period; and 4. Cooling in the short term to medium term preceding the onset of a new glacial period. Both continual warming and the onset of a new glacial period in the future will have a significant impact on the sustainability of the human population which is already being impacted by a shortage of resources, particularly food, water and energy, to even meet basic needs let alone the lofty goals of narrowing the disparity in global living standards which is becoming an increasing source of conflict. Based on the premise that GHGs are contributing to warming, it is evident that attempts to control one of one of these gases, CO2, via the suggested further carbon tax (carbon taxes already exist, i.e in many countries petroleum products are currently heavily taxed) is only applicable to addressing scenario 1, as the impacts from another glacial period outlined in scenarios 2 to 4 could be beneficially mitigated by the warming afforded by GHGs. In addition, within the context of the dynamic natural processes affecting both the earth and the universe, as no one appears to have been able to accurately determine the appropriate level of CO2 in the atmosphere for the earth’s current and future situation, one must pose the question, what happens if we get it wrong and we create a reverse tipping point by reducing too much CO2 and accelerate the onset of the next glacial period? Within this context, the most robust strategy that is able to respond to the four possible scenarios of climate change and the inability of the earth’s resources to currently provide every human being with a globally accepted living standard, sadly remains placing limits on population growth. It is contended that this strategy could even be more effective in reducing CO2 than the proposed carbon tax due to the cumulative impact of a reduction in the demand for goods and services and governments would still have the option to review and relax controls to order to respond to changing circumstances in the future, and even increase CO2 emissions to mitigate the effects of a new glacial period should the weight of evidence suggest this to be necessary and appropriate. Finally, just as the Stone Age ended, not because the earth ran out of stone or a stone tax was introduced, the carbon age will end because humans will find more appropriate or cheaper alternative sources of energy rather than being subject to further arbitrary carbon taxes that generate revenue that is more likely to be used to try and address sovereign debt rather than facilitate the research and development of alternative sources of energy. -
JMurphy at 17:57 PM on 12 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
Geo Guy wrote : As scientists we must continually question the “status quo”. If we stop doing so, our understanding of science will cease to evolve. Hence despite what the “science” may tell us, there is a definite role for taking a contrarian position. Science is rarely definitive. The application of science is what changes over time and is the basis upon which we evolve as a species. So, Creationism (which continually questions the status quo, takes a contrarian position and likes to show that the Theory of Evolution is not definitive) is a valid position to take, is it ? Perhaps the answer lies "somewhere in the middle" - we're not talking about "irrefutable proof" after all, are we ? -
daniel at 16:33 PM on 12 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
Riccardo at 16:26 PM on 12 July, 2010 You tell me. Donnelly can't. -
Riccardo at 16:26 PM on 12 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
daniel, here the discussion becames circular and I can only repeate what i wrote in #78. Do we have any evidence of such "short" (one century and a half) term variations in the past or are they just hypothetical? What should have produced these accelarations? What do other datasets say? -
John Brookes at 14:37 PM on 12 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
owl905 @79 - Thanks for the comments. I don't favour delay. I would like to see a carbon tax implemented now, and steadily increased. Only if the weight of evidence starts to turn, would I want the carbon tax to be removed. I do favour civilized debate. As I said in a comment above, there is no point in assuming that people with opposing views to your own are arguing in bad faith. Some are, but you won't sway them. Rather than polarise people into the two camps of hotties and notties, I'd like to think that there is a third camp who are more interested in finding out exactly what is going on. There is of course a 4th camp, by far the biggest, which is people who don't know, and are smart enough to know they don't know, and who will leave it to others to work it out. These people will decide elections and policy. I think it is unwise to tell such people, "If you aren't with us you are against us". Faced with a perceived need to take sides, they might go all notty on us. For these people, the precautionary principle (you could take a chance and bet that all those scientists are wrong...), together with reassurance that the change to a low carbon economy will not be the end of the world as we know it, should be enough to see them support action. Trying to "prove" that global warming is real and dangerous could be counter productive. If they have kids, they might like to think of their future - after all, parents will happily incur the large financial penalty of private schooling in the hope that their kids will have a better life. A much smaller investment in the environment would seem like a sensible thing to do. -
scaddenp at 14:22 PM on 12 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
geoguy - the point about drivers is not that we know them but that you cannot have proof in science. Testing models against data is at the heart of science. I really dont know how else you pursue the subject. (Not that I think anything "new" about cosmic radiation or ocean currents has changed any picture of the earth heat budget). The models are very good at not only predicting temperature but also the pattern of warming - and they spring from a basic physics. A conclusion that 3.7Wm/2 of radiative forcing is NOT going to cause warming requires some as yet undiscovered negative forcing. Is this measurement of GHG forcing not direct enough for you? Oh and models in the scientific sense ARE the theory. The computersdo the numerics for the model. If comparing their prediction to data is not the way to test the model, then what is? I am not really sure what point you are trying to make with the Jun paper. But for further analysis on the use of model ensemble, see Annan et al "Consequently you have every reason to reject the model if you are wanting to come to a specific conclusion. " This statement just does not make sense. Please lets hear your alternative theory of climate that is making better predictions. Some numbers not hand-waving would be good. -
Geo Guy at 13:38 PM on 12 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
scaddenp - # 91 - knowing the drivers is one thing; knowing completely how they interact with one another to affect our climate is another. We are learning new things about our sun each day, the sun that sends the heat to earth. We are also learning new things about cosmic radiation and how it affects our climate. We know that ocean currents are a big determinant of climate yet we do not fully know to what extents. We know that episodes of el Nino and el Nina have profound effects on global temperatures yet we do not fully comprehend how those episodes occur...and yet we can emphatically state that AGH's are THE driver to rising global temperatures??...I think not. Models tend to have their own built-in bias. http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~mjun/paper/A06624R1.pdf Furthermore models are only as good as the input parameters, including the interaction of parameters that drive our climate. Models are not proof of a theory, only evidence how the theory may act under specific parameters. Consequently you have every reason to reject the model if you are wanting to come to a specific conclusion. -
johnd at 12:51 PM on 12 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
JMurphy at 08:12 AM, the correct terminology should probably have been "reappeared" as technically I understand they first "appeared" in Perth enroute to their scheduled presentation at Narrogin the previous day. It's a small point but in the spirit of the precision being demanded, perhaps a valid one. ;-) -
daniel at 12:31 PM on 12 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
Peter Hogarth at 02:15 AM on 12 July, 2010 "No, you have not said this until now." Pretty much what I've been saying the whole time Pete. Sure it's a different approach but what I'm saying should have been obvious from the very beginning. "What you have argued is that extending the approx 1mm/year long term linear trend from pre-tide gauge data beyond 1856 by including point 1 gives a 1.2mm trend and error bars which can fully accomodate the total tide gauge data record anywhere inside this trends error envelope," No not anywhere. For instance it is unlikely to have occurred between 1700-1850 but there is no evidence to suggest it couldn't have occurred between 1300-1700. "Your case for including point 1 in an overall 1.2mm trend is invalid. Clearly, the density of tide gauge data makes any influence of point 1 marginal on the measured 2.8mm/yr trend since 1856, clearly, the recent measured trend is diverging away from the long term paleo trend." Uh huh.... but the divergence is covered by the uncertainty of modern sedimentary data. Sedimentary data that lies on a 1.2mm/yr 700 year trend. Hmmmmm.....invalid? Maybe, I dunno, highly relevant? "That point 1 error bars overlap the tide data possibly validates point 1, but the fact that the tide gauge data overlaps point 1 does not validate extending the pre-1856 trend." Why? Too inconvenient a fact for you? "Point 1, statistically speaking, is on this trend." It is also.... statistically speaking...... on the 1.2mm/yr trend. Therefore so is the tide gauge data. Statistically speaking of course...... "It is not the same as a linear trend. It is likely that the envelope will follow or at least accomodate whatever the true trend was. We can only ascribe a probability to this." Amen brother, finally we agree on something. "It is barely possible to fit the tide gauge data into the 2 sigma envelopein one pre 1800 place,...." Mere opinion, show it with an overlay. "...but it is not a "good" statistical fit anywhere over any approx 150 year period except after 1800 (by comparing with at least three paleo points, though this is not a strong test)." Which is why Donnelly's paleo data is insufficient for a valid comparison to tide tide gauge. He doesn't have the resolution let alone the certainty. "It is not possible to fit inside the 1 sigma envelope anywhere,..." Mean height of paleo sample 1 has tide gauge lying over 95% (2 sigma) confidence interval extreme. Care to retract? "...and the data series deviates away in opposite directions above and below the envelope, indicating significant systematic trend error." Perhaps only if compared to an irrelevant long term trend on the short term scale. An overlay to help make your point? "I repeat that your suggestion is possible, but not "likely" from this data." Simply not shown at all. On the short term, with the data we have, it's just as likely. "Of course we need a reality check, and the temperature record and other work I referenced strengthens the case presented in the paper, and further weakens your hypothesis" I think what you'll find pete is that if you apply my kind of reality check to all that supportive evidence you will find the AGW hypothesis severely weakened. You can't support poor data and conclusions with more poor data and conclusions. If you can't see the error here you can't thoroughly critique the mass body of evidence you claim is out there. Peter Hogarth at 03:52 AM on 12 July, 2010 Please provide the graph with the relevant data then and provide me with your source so I can also provide graphs of a similar nature. -
Rob Painting at 12:15 PM on 12 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
BP @ 84, so it's just speculation on your part?. -
daniel at 11:46 AM on 12 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
Riccardo at 06:08 AM on 12 July, 2010 Yes, it tells me that short term variations are quite possible within the paleo data set. It is verified by the highly deviant tide gauge results still lying within the uncertainties of the modern sedimentary data. -
scaddenp at 11:01 AM on 12 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
BP. "Legitimate adjustments necessitated by instrumental bias simply can't look like this" Why not?? I cant really imagine how you would expect such a graph to look without a very deep looking at station procedures and changes. We had a similar argument about NZ stations - screams that "adjustments" were being made to give more warming. You cannot resolve these without looking at the individual stations that are supposedly adjusted wrong. NIWA published details on adjustment cases where it was high. eg Hokitika and also showed the trends for the record for those stations that had no moves at all. NZ Temp Record Your arguments about the temperature record are empty till you can show the adjustment is wrong - or publish a better way to adjust the record. I am disappointed that you have declined to discuss the consilience issue - what do you the chances are that there are systematic errors in the independent records for sealevel, glacial volume and temperature that will somehow make AGW go away? I am all for skepticism and close examination of the science so long as you also acknowledge the weight of evidence and recognize that we are very likely facing a serious problem. Public policy cant wait on perfect science. -
scaddenp at 10:49 AM on 12 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
Geoguy - This "since my model predicts what I see, therefore my interpretation of what I see is correct” is I think a complete mis-characterization of the argument. How do you know why havent found all the drivers for climate? Answer - you can never know. Proof is impossible in science. However, what you have to do with models all the time is make predictions from them and compare to reality. Every time you get you right, it improves the confidence. The correct characterisation is more like "since my model predicts what I see, I have no reason to reject the model”. Now tell my what alternative theory of climate that you like that can make that statement? -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:00 AM on 12 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
Albatross, my comment referred mainly to the acidification post. I would have thought that BP would not so quickly reiterate accusations in another thread, like he did here in post 74. -
Geo Guy at 09:32 AM on 12 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
My cudos to you for an entertaining article. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and tend to side with much of what you said. I do take exception to the statement that hotties are characterized as latte sipping – heck I enjoy a good latte now and then! Hmmm maybe that makes me a “coolie” instead?? As for the chain saw wielding, overweight, middle aged man who drives an old 4WD – I plead guilty as charged!. I need my chainsaw to clear the dead trees that happen from time to time on our property; I am not a hard body ….well I enjoy a cold beer now and then; and I drive a 1993 Isuzu Trooper because it is the best vehicle I have ever owned (380,000 km and still going strong!) and I need the 4WD when we get heavy snowfalls (30 to 50 cm) otherwise we would suffer from a bad case of cabin fever!! Apart from that description, the balance of your characterization does not apply to me. Now I am a “frostie,” not because I am a denier (a term I believe better fits the extreme element of the “frostie’s side just as alarmist best fits the extreme views of that “other side”). Rather I feel there is a role to play in questioning a side when the evidence supporting that side is not iron clad. Before I elaborate further, allow me to post a philosophy which I believe is embedded within the process of scientific evolution. As scientists we must continually question the “status quo”. If we stop doing so, our understanding of science will cease to evolve. Hence despite what the “science” may tell us, there is a definite role for taking a contrarian position. Science is rarely definitive. The application of science is what changes over time and is the basis upon which we evolve as a species. Perhaps we frosties have taken our position because a) we tend to be well educated and b) our education is supplemented with substantial work in our field? As a geologist who first graduated in the early 1970’s and who has spent a substantial time in the field applying what I learned at university, I have come to appreciate the vast differences that exist between scientific principles and the application of those principles in the field. From that I have learned to question and re-question my own observations and my own interpretation of those observations in order to arrive at the best interpretation possible. From those exercises I make it a point to always look at data from all sides and it is this philosophy that places me on the side questioning the validity of reports such as those published by the IPCC. I am not saying I am right and am not saying the other side is wrong. What I do believe is that the answer lies somewhere in the middle of the two positions. We are not talking about irrefutable proof as I contend we are unable to even get close to such a stance until such time as we know everything there is to know about ALL climate drivers in our system. We still have a long way to go in order to get to such a position. Now I don’t have a problem with anyone establishing a position on a subject based on specific criteria or data. However I encourage people on both sides of the argument to seriously assess the evidence from the other side instead of out right rejecting it as is what happens so often. Instead of accepting a paper that was “peer reviewed” as proof of its factual basis, read the paper with a critical eye to identify weaknesses in the argument being put forward. In many instances the conclusions of a peer reviewed paper are only applicable to the environment upon which the study was based and expanding them to a global environment can’t be supported. For instance, recently there was an article posted in this blog dealing with the disappearance of certain species of lizards in Mexico and other locales in the world. There was also a paper published recently that focused on the disappearance of certain species of snakes in geographic areas similar to those identified in the lizard study.. Two studies, the same observations but two conclusions: one pointed to global warming (the lizard study); the other concluded more information was needed to identify the cause. With regards to your sample of temperatures, I believe you have illustrated what I believe is a fault in many arguments which essentially boils down to “since my model predicts what I see, therefore my interpretation of what I see is correct”. How unscientific can one get with such an argument? Since when is it acceptable to cast out statistical theory in favour of a “gut hunch”? Given that each side of the debate can take that same data and apply scientific principles to arrive at proof supporting their respective positions simply illustrates the paradox that exists within the debate itself. As for using models to prove any theory, well that is another problem I have with the debate. Too often people are stating that because a model predicts an outcome we observe today, then the observation is proof that the model is accurate and therefore the theory embedded within the model is true. Sorry but such logic does not fall under the auspices of scientific proof. If it does then the octopus in Germany that had a 100% prediction rate in selecting the winner of certain games at the world cup would be classified as a valid model! Whether you have a model in mind or not has nothing to do with the accuracy of your interpretation of data. I would venture to say that since you do have a model in mind and that you allow that model to affect the way in which you interpret the data, your interpretation is then biased at the outset by the model you have in mind. I would like to outline where I believe my position differs with that of the “hotties” but alas my post would be way too long. Now if the moderator of this blog would welcome an article from me where I elaborate those differences, I would welcome the opportunity to do just that! -
johnd at 09:20 AM on 12 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
Peter Hogarth at 07:20 AM, Peter, concentrating for a moment on the location of the instrumentation sites in relation to the tree locations. The instrumentation sites seem well dispersed, however quite some distance from most tree locations especially those at the higher elevations where differences could be significant. I want to mention an example of a study that was related to me by a friend who actually peer reviewed some research that has some relevance I feel, at least philosophically. The research was undertaken in my region but this example could be relevant wherever the natural environment is being measured. The study was comparing the productivity of a pasture based enterprise in relation to climate factors, in particular precipitation. The study was duly completed and sent with it's very positive results for peer review. Fortunately one of the peer reviewers was considered one of the most knowledgeable scientists in that particular field of research, certainly he knew far more than the research scientist who conducted the study. However, more importantly, he also had close personal knowledge of the location of the research site and the first thing he picked up on was the location of the site in relation to the official weather station that provided the required data. The weather station was reasonably close, about 15 km, however the reviewer happened to know that that particular weather station was located in a rain shadow, and any precipitation data collected from there was not representative of the wider area, especially the location of the research site. Thus the conclusions reached by the researcher were completely wrong. I doubt than anyone called upon to peer review the paper who did not have the same personal knowledge as my friend would have understood the significance of those 15 km, certainly the researcher himself who conducted the study didn't. I keep this example in mind whenever I am trying to understand what a peer reviewed study has found. I try and see firstly if any climate data used is from the actual location of the study, and thus can be accepted as relevant, or is it from some distant point, or some general data that has been assumed to be relevant. The second point is whether it is likely or not that those unknown persons called upon to conduct a peer review would have an equal or better understanding of the subject, and the location than those conducting the research. This of course remains an unknown, but in some fields one can accept that there would be better qualified persons who are perhaps more knowledgeable than the researchers, however, when new concepts are being presented, I am often left wondering just how many peer reviewers would be capable of grasping the essence of such new concepts, especially if it goes against the established understanding. We can only but wonder, but ultimately time may answer one way or another as it has done so for those renowned scholars in the past who had trouble getting others to see what appeared so clear to them. -
JMurphy at 08:12 AM on 12 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
skepticstudent wrote : ...but I can't seriously believe anything this person writes... Care to be a bit more specific or do you not believe every word written ? How about the start : "The Watts climate tour appeared in Perth on Tuesday evening." What don't you believe about that ? -
Peter Hogarth at 07:20 AM on 12 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
johnd at 04:43 AM on 12 July, 2010 John, I agree it is a complex subject. However much of what you say appears to be conjecture and not directly referenced to the research I have seen. I suggest that if you look at the recent references supplied, particularly the ones from the last two years, there is much to learn. There has been a lot of focus on DP and some of the correlation work with temperature is highly convincing (I previously mentioned the seasonal growth and year on year growth correlating with local temperature variations) and Buntgen 2008 for example shows temperature monitoring sites on tha map above. I suspect this would be inconsistent with CO2 as main factor. -
Riccardo at 06:08 AM on 12 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
daniel, "What I am saying is that the tide gauge data points fit inside of that if it were extended over sample 1." They are inside the sedimentary data uncertainty and we expect them to stay there for a while given the difference in the slopes. Ok, but they do have a different slope. Does this tell you something? -
skepticstudent at 05:29 AM on 12 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
anything this person writes either. :-) -
skepticstudent at 05:28 AM on 12 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
John I respect you and I've learned some things on your blog, but I can't seriously believe anything this person rights, and I think you've damaged the respectability of your blog by allowing her to submit a guest post. I don't expect this post to stand but it was meant for you anyway. -
Paul D at 05:09 AM on 12 July 2010Is Willis wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility II
Berényi PéterOr it's not stored at all, just goes to space. After all that's the coldest heat reservoir around (2.7 K).
That's one of those junk throw away statements. As has been pointed out, the only way the energy can escape to space is via radiation in the upper atmosphere. To do that it has to be fed from below, but GHGs inhibit the provision of the energy 'feedstock' that the upper atmosphere needs.
-
johnd at 05:05 AM on 12 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
Peter Hogarth at 16:21 PM, Peter, the comment you make about modern tide gauges taking measurements every 6 minutes or so interests me. Given that at some locations the time it takes for the tide to rise can be considerably longer than it takes for it to fall, just a quick look at one site showed over 15 hours rising, 9 hours falling, would taking such regular measurements introduce a bias into the average when comparing against those records where the average is that of the high and low tide measurements? -
johnd at 04:43 AM on 12 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
Peter Hogarth at 02:38 AM, whilst temperature is one of the many factors that influences plant growth, and not the dominant one, it's increasingly seems to me that the selection of sites, or groups of trees, is done by finding trees that by COINCIDENCE rather than by science, seemingly track temperature sufficiently well enough for them to be considered useful indicators. I say by coincidence, because if all the other factors that are perhaps even more important in influencing tree growth were sufficiently well understood to be quantified, then all trees should be able to be used as proxy indicators. But more than that, if those factors were able to be quantified, the divergence problem would not be, well, a problem. The problem is not that the growth of trees that had been previously selected as temperature indicators began to diverge, the problem is that the reasons are not understood, and this is happening at a time when the resources and knowledge is available that should be able to identify such reasons. If those reasons are not understood well enough to be able to account for present day situations, then how can anyone be confident enough to claim that those same, still unknown factors, have not been present and an influence, either positive or negative, at other previous times. I would hope that the selection of "good" sites involved more than someone with a wooden ruler in one hand and a temperature chart in the other, but that is what it seems to come down to. The one thing that is always in the back of my mind whenever tree growth ring data is used is that what has been done to ensure that the tree growth is not tracking CO2 levels rather than temperature. With the Buntgen 2008 study, about half of the available sites were selected because of their supposed historic correlation. But those sites used in other studies where the divergence problem is now evident also were supposed to have a historic correlation, so obviously some things change over time. But that doesn't mean that they are only changing now, and haven't done so in the past. So what is there to say that perhaps the basic assumptions used to model tree growth against temperature are wrong, and that instead, the other half of the trees that were rejected are better indicators once everything has been allowed for. If we were to work backwards and select trees that today show good growth correlation with temperature, then those trees that are now showing divergence would be rejected, or else any modelling done that correlated their present day growth with temperatures would when applied to historic growth rings, present a different result. The other thought that is also always in the back of my mind is how well are the actual site conditions documented over time. Temperatures can vary widely even between close localities, so correlation should be to and with site temperatures, not regional or global. Precipitation patterns can vary widely over just a few kilometres. Given that some of the locations where the samples have been taken seem to be remote, perhaps even these most basic of all factors have not been accurately accounted for. -
Peter Hogarth at 04:30 AM on 12 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
In order to also start some fresh productive discussion, hot off the press is the following from Llovel 2010
This is a new measured result from GRACE which goes at least some way to confirm explanations of seasonal variations in mean sea level, and partially answers previous points on this post and also answers some questions on the visualizing sea level post.
The further relevance is that land storage contribution to mean sea level trend and budget is slightly negative, giving -0.22 +/-0.05 mm/year, confirming modeling results for this with direct measurements for the first time.
-
Albatross at 04:22 AM on 12 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
Philippe @87, "You went looking for what was wrong and you found it, although what you found did not exist. That is the definition of bias. Philippe, Peter recently made the same error when raging against the lowering of pH. He assures us that he is searching for the truth, but his approach seems to be inconsistent with that. -
Peter Hogarth at 03:52 AM on 12 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
daniel at 23:20 PM on 11 July, 2010 One thing slightly bugged me about my chart, the slight offset between the tide gauge data and the "centre" of the error envelopes, where we would expect the real trend to probably be. I checked the tide stations closer to the site. One (New London, CT, with a shorter record from 1938) is very local, but the other (from 1856, NY) has the longest record. I charted the NY record for this reason. I've now noticed there is a small vertical offset (not unusual between stations) between the two that (subjectively at least) neatly resolves the visible offset in the chart. -
Peter Hogarth at 02:38 AM on 12 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
johnd at 10:22 AM on 11 July, 2010 No, I think you have misunderstood the methodology. We do not have controlled experimental conditions. The site selection process involves looking at older tree ring data to see if the "site" is likely to give results which are affected by temperature, rather than other factors (such as drought), by comparing pre 1934 tree rings data with pre 1934 historical climate data. If it is a "good" site, on this basis, then the later tree ring data is examined to assess more recent effects of temperature (other factors notwithstanding). No assumptions are made to pre-select on the basis of correlations in later data. This is important. The authors admit that this cannot account for changes in other factors in the meanwhile, but if the correlation with instrumental temperature continues in later data, then confidence increases. I think you see the logic of this? -
Peter Hogarth at 02:15 AM on 12 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
daniel at 23:20 PM on 11 July, 2010 No, you have not said this until now. What you have argued is that extending the approx 1mm/year long term linear trend from pre-tide gauge data beyond 1856 by including point 1 gives a 1.2mm trend and error bars which can fully accomodate the total tide gauge data record anywhere inside this trends error envelope, therefore you argue this paper should not be used as evidence that the recent 2.8mm/year trend is unusual. Your case for including point 1 in an overall 1.2mm trend is invalid. Clearly, the density of tide gauge data makes any influence of point 1 marginal on the measured 2.8mm/yr trend since 1856, clearly, the recent measured trend is diverging away from the long term paleo trend. That point 1 error bars overlap the tide data possibly validates point 1, but the fact that the tide gauge data overlaps point 1 does not validate extending the pre-1856 trend. The post 1856 trend is already determined as measured fact by the tide gauge data. Point 1, statistically speaking, is on this trend. The question you are asking really, is: Can the 150 year tide gauge data trend be accomodated inside the pre 1856 error envelope, and show that the longer term trend could most likely have missed similar episodes of acceleration in the past? This is the question I address in my chart. The chart I have given shows the error envelopes based on the statistics given for each point, up to the start of the tide gauge data, which has much lower standard deviation and represents the measured data. It is not the same as a linear trend. It is likely that the envelope will follow or at least accomodate whatever the true trend was. We can only ascribe a probability to this. It is barely possible to fit the tide gauge data into the 2 sigma envelope in one pre 1800 place, but it is not a "good" statistical fit anywhere over any approx 150 year period except after 1800 (by comparing with at least three paleo points, though this is not a strong test). It is not possible to fit inside the 1 sigma envelope anywhere, and the data series deviates away in opposite directions above and below the envelope, indicating significant systematic trend error. I repeat that your suggestion is possible, but not "likely" from this data. Of course we need a reality check, and the temperature record and other work I referenced strengthens the case presented in the paper, and further weakens your hypothesis. -
Philippe Chantreau at 01:44 AM on 12 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
BP, you missed the point. The point was not about the data, it was about your attitude. You started with the assumption that the papers came to conclusions that were wrong. You went looking for what was wrong and you found it, although what you found did not exist. That is the definition of bias. What you found did not exist but you found it anyway because you were so eager to find it that you were going to no matter what. Then you assumed, again without anything to back it up, that the (non-existing) flaws that you found were due to an intent to deceive from the authors. Don't try to deny that, your anger and accusations are patent in many of your posts, and explicit in the acidification one. But you are yet to present ANY kind of evidence of an intent to deceive or even that a paper is wrong. You raise some valid points, but their significance is far below what you suggest (especially the fraud suggestions) and, frankly, you should drop the attitude. It is quite obvious that you need to watch your own bias way more than that which you see in others. -
DarkSkywise at 23:54 PM on 11 July 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
Baa Humbug at 20:04 PM on 11 July, 2010: "Human nature JM. When one starts reading the thread and comes across a "hidden" comment, curiosity kicks in," In the beginning: definitely. After a while: no. I've been a mod/admin on several large forums where no post rating systems were allowed, because too many people go around "plussing and minusing" not because they think posts are good or bad, but because they want their own views in sight and others' views hidden. And most of it is being done by one side only, just like with online polls where 60% says ther earth is cooling, it's a natural cycle and AGW is a conspiracy to raise taxes. The result is not only that only one side of the argument is really shown, but it also keeps many people from the other side from posting. Some people just don't like posting anything anymore (especially when they work long and hard on their posts), if the posts will be hidden anyway. Anymoo, my experience with most forums with post rating systems is that they turn political in no time - and it's nearly always the same political side. "All sceintsist are fruads!!!!11~" +283 -12 "Research has shown that (insert lots of text here) which shows a clear trend towards warming." +7 -453 -
daniel at 23:47 PM on 11 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
read above pete -
Peter Hogarth at 23:34 PM on 11 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
daniel at 13:42 PM on 11 July, 2010 "Understatement of the year" "overstatement of the year" etc. Histrionics does not make up for lack of knowledge, nor does it engender respect. To put these sea level numbers into context, the sea level varies by around 1m every day close to this site, and through year seasonal and tidal variations add to this. I believe I have shown from the data that your argument (that large intersample variations containing trends similar to those of the past 150 years are "likely") is weak. -
werecow at 23:34 PM on 11 July 2010Irregular Climate podcast: episode 7
It's too bad Graham can't do the podcast anymore. I like the more natural flow of conversation that results from having a co-host. Still, this was an interesting episode. I'm reading the IPCC Assessment Assessment report now. As a Dutchie, I felt a bit queezy when one of our government officials played right into the hype. But I guess it was the appropriate political move to make, and some good has come out of it; It's good to see that, even though they provide some constructive criticisms, the conclusions are soundly reaffirmed. -
daniel at 23:20 PM on 11 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
Riccardo at 18:04 PM on 11 July, 2010 No you see the error envelope on Peter's graph. They are continuous lines that extend along either side of the paleo trend. What I am saying is that the tide gauge data points fit inside of that if it were extended over sample 1. The MSL does anyway. You can see this more clearly in Donnely which uses averaged tide gauge data which lie over the sample 1 uncertainty box. Donnelly and Peter seem to think that this overlap supports their case but actually it supports mine. You can see that paleo samples do not adequately show us where the true sea level is because they have such high uncertainties. A big deal is made about the centres of the boxes but clearly the tide gauge data shows the centres aren't that important because the centre of sample box 1 does not lie directly on the averaged data point trend of the tide gauge data. The mean height of sample 1 fits the tide gauge data at 1950 rather than the center of the assigned date range which is 1975. That's directly measured data lying on the very extreme of the 95% confidence interval for the mean height estimate of sample 1 and then I'm told tbat short term deviations in the older data are unlikely to be far from the centres of the boxes or the linear model. For at least three samples 8, 10 & 11 the linear model is far from the box centres. You guys can't have it both ways. -
Baa Humbug at 20:44 PM on 11 July 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
Thankyou for the clarification. My use of the term was taken from the article itself, hence why I put it in parantheses. From Brookes article... "I don't think there is any hope for the lunatic fringe on either side. If your starting point is that the people on the other side are evil incarnate, then you won't move from that." For what it's worth, whoever owns and operates this blog has the right to set the rules. Those who don't like or agree with the rules can please themselves.Response:"My use of the term was taken from the article itself..."
Hence the reinstatement. The comments policy here is based on behaviour, not whether the majority of readers agree with the comment, and generally works pretty well - I rarely have to overrule any action by the moderators and the discussion is IMHO of a high quality. -
Baa Humbug at 20:08 PM on 11 July 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
John Russell at 20:01 PM on 11 July, 2010 "Unfortunately I think your last post might be removed as arguably it's a little -- how shall I say -- aggressive? I hope my response is not". John I don't keep copies of my comments but I assure you it was not aggressive nor did it contain ad homs or such. If you follow the thread, there are replies to my deleted comment. You can glean from those replies if my comment was aggressive or out of line.Response: One of the moderators removed the comment because of a line about lunatic fringes which was deemed ad hominem. I reinstated the comment as there's a recent blog post that discusses this very subject. -
Baa Humbug at 20:04 PM on 11 July 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
JMurphy at 19:36 PM on 11 July, 2010 said... "What is not immediately on show (and needs active input from the viewer, if they can be bothered, to actually show), is not on show. Simple as that". Human nature JM. When one starts reading the thread and comes across a "hidden" comment, curiosity kicks in, A SINGLE CLICK OF THE MOUSE relieves that curiosity as to why the comment was hidden. hardly a task one can't be bothered with. As to why this function is used, I don't know. Hop over there and ask, you'll get a response. Also check out one of the lates popular threads, there are dozens and dozens of posts by people not in agreement with the host. None are deleted, none are hidden. The hide function is in the hands of the bloggers, not the host or mods. Once you are informed, then your comments about it become valid. It beats having ones comment removed without explanation like mine was here. -
John Russell at 20:01 PM on 11 July 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
OK , Baa Humbug, I agree; they're not removed, they're hidden. So why? When I've looked at them, the majority of these hidden comments seem quite reasonable counter arguments. Three, I hope, reasonable questions: why are they hidden? Why choose to hide (your word) dissent? To any casual observer finding the site what's the result of hiding dissent? Regarding your comment that was removed on this site; are you sure it was reasonable? There's lots of dissent here; it's treated robustly but courteously (if not it's removed). Several of my own comments have previously been removed because (I assume) they strayed slightly into the political arena. So, you see, we have both been 'victimised' evenly and fairly on this site! I hope you can agree. Unfortunately I think your last post might be removed as arguably it's a little -- how shall I say -- aggressive? I hope my response is not. -
kdkd at 19:51 PM on 11 July 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
I quite like the SS deletions policy, although I'd quite like to see a section called "the swamp" or something that contained all the deleted posts (anonymised if felt necessary). -
JMurphy at 19:36 PM on 11 July 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
Baa Humbug wrote : Any comment that accumulates more than 30 thumbs down votes gets "hidden" not removed. However, anybody wishing to read what the fuss was about, just needs to click the words "hidden due to rating" and the comment reappears. But why are they hidden ? To all intents and purposes they do not exist because they do not appear on the screen when you are viewing comments, so John Russell is correct when he states : It's a great system -- for Jo -- it means virtually every comment in the thread is in support of her viewpoint. What is not immediately on show (and needs active input from the viewer, if they can be bothered, to actually show), is not on show. Simple as that. I ask again : Why hide them ? -
Baa Humbug at 18:45 PM on 11 July 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
John Russell at 06:44 AM on 11 July, 2010 said... "I note that they have a voting system. If enough people give a comment the thumbs down, it's automatically removed. It's a great system -- for Jo -- it means virtually every comment in the thread is in support of her viewpoint. And it completely overwhelms any criticism." I'll assume you made this assumption out of ignorance. Any comment that accumulates more than 30 thumbs down votes gets "hidden" not removed. However, anybody wishing to read what the fuss was about, just needs to click the words "hidden due to rating" and the comment reappears. You noted in error. I note your pre concieved view and bias. p.s. I posted a comment here at the "hottie nottie" thread, comment number 16. IT WAS REMOVED with no explanation given. People in glass houses John. -
MarkR at 18:37 PM on 11 July 2010Is Willis wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility II
#14 Arkadiusz: Shwartz et al don't say that RF calculations are likely incorrect. They say that their results are most likely explained by a combination of overestimated climate sensitivity OR a negative RF from atmospheric aerosols. And I quote: "the discrepancy cannot be apportioned between these two causes primarily because of present uncertainty in aerosol forcing." plus: "the forcing by doubled CO2, is approximately 3.7 W m-2." They're not saying CO2 RF has been overestimated, but that climate sensitivity may have been (or aerosols are cooling us) -
Riccardo at 18:04 PM on 11 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
daniel, could you please explain this sentence: "It clearly shows that modern swings in SLR fit inside the error envelope of a shallow, linear long term trend in paleo data". As I understand it, you're saying that the tide gauge seas level data (not trend) are within the trend error of paleo data. Comparing trends is to compare 1.0 mm/yr (+/- 0.2 mm/yr) with 2.4 mm/yr. Comparing sea level, instead, is to see if tide gauge data are within the limit of variability of sedimentary data. You're doing the latter, so you're not comparing trends. Is it possible, at least in principle, that there has been similar up swings at 2.4 mm/yr in the past? Yes, but putting physics aside. If you take the lower error bar of a point and the higher of another you might get such trends. But it's unlikely, there's nothing that make us think it's actually happened and it's hard to immagine a mechanism producing such up swings. Are you aware of a sudden increase in temperature or large land ice melt between 1300 and 1800 A.D.? Are you aware of other, higher resolution, datasets showing this swings? -
John Russell at 17:42 PM on 11 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
philipm at 10:35 AM on 11 July, 2010 says: "There are actually three categories, not two: 1. hotties – people who believe firmly that AGW is happening 2. frosties – people who believe firmly that AGW is not happening 3. scientists – people who believe the theory should stand up to testing against the evidence" I don't agree. What you write is elitist. I'm not a scientist, but neither am I in your group 1 or 2. About 20 years ago I was sceptical whether AGW was possible. I gradually changed my view as a result of exposure to the available information. I now trust that the majority of scientists, 'the consensus', have got it right. As far as I can understand the subject -- and I don't have to tell anyone here; it's highly complex -- the evidence stacks up to the point where I'd be a fool not to believe it. But am I certain? Definitely not; I'm old enough to have seen the scientific consensus shift on several topics before. However, do I think we should act on GHGs? You bet. Surely, any sensible person would weigh up the odds and be frightened about what the future might hold? To me anyone who is fighting (careful choice of word) AGW is either too frightened to confront the evidence or, perhaps, lacks a certain amount of imagination. Whatever the actual reason, the answer must lie in their psyche.
Prev 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 Next
