Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 Next
Comments 25651 to 25700:
-
BBD at 05:28 AM on 12 February 2016Onset of Eocene Warming Event took 3-4 millennia (so what we’re doing is unprecedented in 66 million years)
#1 SteveFunk
I think it's true that CO2 (and CH4) are considered to be feedbacks to orbitally-forced warming (Milankovitch forcing) that is widely regarded as the trigger for Pleistocene deglaciations. In the case of the PETM and other Cenozoic hyperthermals, the CO2 may be the initial cause, so it would be treated as a forcing rather than a feedback. If there was a subsequent large release of CH4 from clathrates, it would be reasonable to treat that as a feedback to the original increase in CO2 forcing.
-
SteveFunk at 04:11 AM on 12 February 2016Onset of Eocene Warming Event took 3-4 millennia (so what we’re doing is unprecedented in 66 million years)
What I have always read is that previous warmings were originally caused by other factors but were amplified over time by CO2 as a feedback mechanism. So Zeebe's study does not appear to answer the question of how long it took to establish the original warming or what the magnitude of the original warming was relative to the CO2 feedback.
-
John Hartz at 01:05 AM on 12 February 2016The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
Supplemental reading:
Funding and job cuts at Australia's climate change research body could undermine the country's goal of dominating the Asian premium food market by placing farmers at a disadvantage to U.S. and European competitors.
Australia's extreme weather means farmers rely heavily on climate change forecasts from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) to mitigate the impact of bushfires, cyclones and droughts.
"In the next 30 years we will need to alter our farming habits due to rainfall, heat, drought, soil moisture. Australian farmers need the best data and predictions," said former chief of CSIRO marine research Tony Haymet.
Without such data, Haymet said Australia and its farmers will be "at a disadvantage in the long run".
Thousands of international climate scientists signed a protest letter over the job losses, saying: "If these climate science research cuts at CSIRO proceed without being filled elsewhere, then Australia will not develop its capability to assess the accelerating risks associated with climate change".
Australian cuts to climate change research may hit drive into Asia by Jarni Blakkarly, Reuters, Feb 10, 2016
-
funglestrumpet at 00:57 AM on 12 February 2016The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
I would not be in the least surprised if a certain Nigel Lawson were not to be found at, or very nearby, the root of all this. He is, after all, the nost experienced Conservative ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer whom inexperienced Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osbourne, has access to.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:55 AM on 12 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
@23,
What is despicable is all the smart fortunate people willing to develop and pitch the deliberately misleading marketing.
The misuse of the powerful science of marketing has been far more damaging than the misuse of nuclear science to make weapons (misleading marketing can even be seen to have contribted to the efforts to justify the 'live testing' of the two different types of nuclear bombs the US had developed).
Misleading marketing creating and appealing to personal desires, winning over thoughtful conscientious responsible thinking, is the reason for the growth and prolonging of every pursuit of profit that was able to be made popular in spite of it not having been proven to be providing a lasting benefit for all of humanity. It is also the (lack of ) reason behind almost every violent conflict (most of which can clearly be seen to be illigitimate grabs at wealth and power for the benefit of only a portion of humanity, sold as things like "Defense of Freedom, or Defense of Religion" ... when in reality the promoters of the conflicts are fully aware that they are Offensive).
The greatest threat to humanity is "Misleading Marketing".
-
NecktopPC at 00:48 AM on 12 February 2016Daffodils in bloom, the warmest ever December: how worrying is the world’s strange weather?
"Daffodils in Bloom"
This has happened before, and especially before all the noteriety regarding global warming. Quite often there may be a warm spell and trees start to bud early, and it gets cold again and the buds die and the tree will bud again, when the buds will sustain.
One needs to realize, that there are several regions of the United Kingdom, which exist, and have done so for many, many, years, in a Sub Tropical Cimate. There are Palm Trees, and other such 'flora', which is endemic to the United Kingdom - thanks in part to the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Drift.
There will be more daddodils to come; in March or April, they will bloom again, just as they have before.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:48 PM on 11 February 2016The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
ryland @13, John Church and Neil White (both with the CSIRO) are among the foremost experts on sea level rise, which is a very closely related field to that of ocean heat content. The CSIRO's observatory at Cape Grim is probably the leading southern hemisphere observatory of CO2 and other trace gas concentrations. It is certainly used by NOAA in developing its global average from measurements in a range of latitudes.
Both groups are in the area lined up for the most cuts, and have work very closely identified with the criteria of what the CSIRO will apparently no longer do. Further, given cuts to US research, that (for example) has meant even Mauna Loa has had to resort to crowd funding to maintain its CO2 observations, the assumption that we can casually dispose of Cape Grim is absurd.
That raises the additional point that the willingness of conservative governments in the US and Canada to shoot the messenger on global warming be defunding science (and in Canada's case, defunding the keeping of scientific data), the assumption that Australian's contribution is now redundant is absurd.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:24 PM on 11 February 2016The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
bozza @various, I will not go into details because it is off topic, and politics to boot; but I agree with Ryland that Abbots 'captain's pick' of a new Lomborg center in Australia had no bearing on his dismissal.
ryland @12, as it happens, research into the link between smoking and cancer continues apace. That is because, the link between smoking and lung cancer is statistically well established, but there are less obvious links with other forms of cancer, but also, because the link between smoking and cancer was established statistically, the exact causal relationship between smoking and cancer has not been established. Therefore crucial research remains to be done which will help in the treating of smoking caused cancers.
In climate science, although the causal link between anthropogenic emissions and global warming is settled science, the exact value of climate sensitivity, the specific effect of clouds as a feedback, and in interaction with aerosols, are only roughly constrained. Further, the process of downscaling model predictions so that predictions at a resolution useful to planners is still in its infancy. Finally, until we have super computers several thousand times faster than the current crop, single model large ensemble experiments are not realistic. Until we can do those, however, we cannot make significant progress in determining which are the more accurate models, and rely on an ensemble of model predictions to determine error ranges on predictions. The CSIRO runs a key model in that ensemble, and its loss would significantly impact the quality of model predictions.
These are issues quite apart from the obvious point that you cannot assess effectiveness of mitigation without the observational measures that were used to discover that mitigation is necessary. I am sure experts in the various fields could think of more relevant factors.
Please note that I do not object to the CSIRO changing its focus. Had an announcement been made that 30 positions would be lost from current climate research to start increasing CSIRO research on mitigation (which already exists), nobody would have batted an eyelid. What has me outraged is the blind managerialism that first determines on vague mantras "we need renewal" how many cuts will be made without, in the first instance, determining which particular research activities are currently productive, and will be into the future; and which are not.
-
ryland at 23:23 PM on 11 February 2016The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
BeerbelW@11. Sorry but I didn't see your post before I posted at 12. With regards to measurements of CO2 concentration and ocean heat, I don't think CSIRO climate scientists were to the fore in either.
-
ryland at 22:47 PM on 11 February 2016The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
After a scan of the internet I can't find much coverage of the CSIRO decision to dismiss/redeploy/give teduncancy to 350 climate scientists. apart from a piece in The Guardian reporting that 600+ scientists from around the worldd have signed a circulatiing letter of protest. Is the fuss in Australia just a storm in a parochial teacup? Just what is it that climate scientists at CSIRO do that isn't or can't be peplicated elsewhere in the world? The link between smoking and cancer is unequivocally proven and there is little if any research focussed on proving that link so is there need to focus on the association between CO2 and climate change as that link icnsidered settled? It seems sensible to say well climate change is here its not going to go away let's see what we can do to mitigate/ameliorate/adapt our lifestyles to its effects. The focus now isn't on the link between smoking and cancer but on how to better diagnose and traet cancer caused by smoking or due to other causes. Why not for climate change ?
-
BaerbelW at 22:18 PM on 11 February 2016The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
Doing work on mitigation & adaptation is neccessary but it needs to be done in addition to and not instead of basic climate research. If you no longer collect the basic data like CO2 concentrations or ocean heat how will you ever be able to know that what you do for mitigation actually has the desired effect or that any adaptation will really help?
-
ryland at 21:30 PM on 11 February 2016The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
Put the the Bjorn Lomberg episode into context. Nowshere near the level of knghting Prince Philip and it doesn't figure in any of the lists sof his gaffes and blunders.
-
bozzza at 20:57 PM on 11 February 2016The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
(@ ryland, I claim poetic liscence: sorry! No, but seriously...)
I find the truth to be: he had no moral authority as perceived from multiple angles. He was told to change, yes, but I do declare that the seemingly overly-authoritative promotion of propaganda to the detriment UWA's, ...let alone that of the proud anzac legacy and Australia itself, ...name is more than a footnote in that exact story.
-
ryland at 20:49 PM on 11 February 2016The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
bozzza@7 "Abbott just got booted for trying to dedicate hard-fought-for global-university-status to a climate change denier with tax dollars..."
That is just nonsense he got booted because his colleagues told him in February 2015 he had 6 months to change or he'sd berolled. He didn't change and he was rolled
-
bozzza at 20:29 PM on 11 February 2016The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
Ok, yes, I do see that you are saying measurement of applied solutions are important.
I suppose I'm simply keenly waiting for more details on this change: we are supposedly the clever country afterall and Abbott just got booted for trying to dedicate hard-fought-for global-university-status to a climate change denier with tax dollars... there are many biting at the bit on this!!
-
bozzza at 20:21 PM on 11 February 2016The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
Tom, isn't it time to move to applied science on the matter at hand: that being the problem that is global warming?
(Most things are a communication problem...)
-
bozzza at 19:28 PM on 11 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
@27, I have found the most fun to be making deniers refuse to acknowledge the term 'multi-year sea-ice'.... they keep trying to dismiss you with a time series of sea ice!
I love spilling coffee....what can I say!
-
bozzza at 19:25 PM on 11 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
Adjustment is not allowed, ever. Nothing vibrates and stagnation is not close to death.... the industrial revolution just happened mannnnnnnnnnnnnnn!! Yay, i can do i-phone graphic design and am not standing on the shoulders of any giants: no mum, promise etc.....
~;^>',,,,<
-
Kevin C at 19:18 PM on 11 February 2016Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
planet8788: Accoding to Meinhausen et al, the Montreal gas forcing (CFCs etc) peaked at about 0.32 W/m2 and is projected to drop to about 0.2 W/m2 by 2050. Do you disagree with those figures?
-
Tom Curtis at 15:36 PM on 11 February 2016Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
planet8788 @41, based on Gavin Schmidt's calculation, the Hansen 88 GHG concentration trajectories would have resulted in a net forcing increase relative to 1983 of 3.35 W/m^2 for Scenario A, 2.33 W/m^2 for Scenario B, and 1.41 W/m^2 for Scenario C. The actual increase was 2.2 W/m^2, or just below Scenario B and 56% greater than scenario C. More importantly, Scenario C has a slightly declining forcing from 2000, while anthropogenic forcings have continued to rise at an approximately linear rate:
Therefore it is seriously misleading to say "we're still at Scenario C".
Further, and importantly, we are in our present position of a forcing increase slightly below Scenario C in part because of a significant, and ongoing effort to reduce GHG emissions. The correct conclusion, therefore, is not that everything will be fine, but that we need to continue, and indeed strengthen substantially those efforts. In the medium term (30 to 50 odd years), we need to bring net emissions to effectively zero. BAU will not do that. Even a continuation of current mitigation efforts will not do that.
Finally, even if we do that we will reach a mean global temperature close to 2 C above the preindustrial average. Likely even that increase will be significantly harmful, and certainly it will be catastrophic for some. It is just a much better scenario than genuine BAU which, if pursued in the long term would see the tropics become seasonally uninhabitable for large mammals (ie, humans, sheep, cattle, and dogs would die of heat prostation within a few days of unairconditioned exposure to 'normal' heatwaves under that scenario for more than a day or so).
That we are doing very slightly better than what Hansen considered the most likely scenario in 1988 is hardly a great comfort.
-
planet8788 at 15:06 PM on 11 February 2016Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
In fact, CFC concentrations are still going down and it looks like they have a long way to go. So that is still going to continue offsetting warming by CO2.
The ocean is absorbing more CO2 than expected. We probably don't have much to worry about. The main wildcard is methane.
-
planet8788 at 14:54 PM on 11 February 2016Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
Okay, So, we've increased CO2 emissions and we're still at Scenario C. So we have little to worry about. Becauses CFC emissions aren't going to go back up. CO2 emissions will probably peak by 2030...
The only wildcard is methane. And that is evolving much much slower than expected.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:57 PM on 11 February 2016The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
A response by the head of the CSIRO.
I think his view is wrong headed. I agree we should ramp up studies on mitigation, but:
1) The key policy on mitigation, introducing a carbon price, is already well known, and is more a matter of economics than science; and
2) The impact of more technical fixes (geoengineering) cannot be assessed without the sort of knowledge generated by the division of the CSIRO he is in the process of gutting.
Perhaps he has in mind more specific studies such as research into how to reduce methane emissions from cattle, or rice agriculture; or research into improving renewable energy sources. However, while such research is welcome, with a carbon price it will be driven rapidly by the private sector wheras the basic climate research currently being conducted by the CSIRO will not be.
This is like the reasons he gave in his original statement. Then the cuts were justified, apparently, because staff turnover at the CSIRO was less than in commercial organizations (which is not a reason at all), and because it would create a career path (but apparently in an organization in which careers will be terminated early with little prospect of alternative funding). His belief appears to be that the 9 odd years spent becoming a scientist should be rewarded with careers of a little less than that in order to encourage new students to dedicate that time for a truncated career.
It appears to me that he considers 'renewal' a good thing, without understanding that renewal must be for a reason, and too a purpose. Instead he has put renewal first as a management mantra, made massive changes on that basis with only post hoc justification at best.
-
villabolo at 12:37 PM on 11 February 2016The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
"Posted on 10 February 2016 by [blank]"
The author's name, underneath the title of this article was omitted.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:21 PM on 11 February 2016The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
The most important part of this article are the links to the petitions in the final paragraph of the Guardian version. They are with Youth Climate Coallition, and Proud to be public. Please sign one.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:13 PM on 11 February 2016Other planets are warming
sjw40364 @41, the last NASA article to which you link states:
"Even more impressive was the substorm's power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 1014) Joules. That's approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake."
Averaged over the Earth's surface, that represents 0.00014 W/m^2. For comparison, the reduction in release of energy from the Earth's surface due to the increase in CO2 since the preindustrial is 1.9 +/-0.19 W/m^2. Even the error term of that calculation is 1400 times greater than the "new" energy to which you point.
Worse, this is not newly discovered energy. According to NASA, the Themis spacecraft have "... made three important discoveries about spectacular eruptions of Northern Lights called "substorms" and the source of their power" (emphasis added). They have not made the discovery of substorms themselves, which are well known, and the energy of which are already accounted for in the 889,000 x 10^14 Joules from 1997-2010 (0.00035 W/m^2) discusses by Tenfjord and Ostgaard (and @34 above).
Further, it is not new energy. The Sun has had a solar wind since its inception, and the Earth a magnetic field as far back as paleomagnatism can be discerned (at least 500 million years, and probably at least 4 billion years). This energy, therefore, cannot account for the sudden, rapid rise in global temperatures over the 20th century.
Frankly, you most recent post adds nothing new to the discussion, illustrating only your determination to shut your eyes to counter evidence with regard to your pet theory. (The post before that is even worse, as it grossly misrepresents the facts with regard to warming episodes in the glacial/interglacial cycle and the temperature history of the last 25,000 years.)
-
Tadaaa at 09:10 AM on 11 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
@ 23
yes often in the same post, quickly followed by the old "trace" gas and still responible for all biotic life
Heads they win tails you loose - it's denier logic 101
-
billr at 08:26 AM on 11 February 2016The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
Villaboo
here you go: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-will-be-all-gone-as-csiro-swings-jobs-axe-scientists-say-20160203-gml7jy.html
-
villabolo at 06:12 AM on 11 February 2016The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
There's no attribution for this article. It's authored by John Abraham.
Moderator Response:[BW] Thanks for the heads-up. I added John Abraham as the author.
-
Hank11198 at 02:00 AM on 11 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
Thank you Tom. I assumed there was a good reason I didn't know about.
-
No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
HK - A lovely example. As I stated on WUWT sime time back [archived link]:
It could be argued that it’s better to look at raw temperature data than data with these various adjustments for known biases. It could also be argued that it’s worth not cleaning the dust and oil off the lenses of your telescope when looking at the stars. I consider these statements roughly equivalent, and (IMO) would have to disagree.
Needless to say, this was not received well in deniersville.
-
sailingfree at 00:58 AM on 11 February 2016A Response to the “Data or Dogma?” hearing
Great post!
A broader perspective: Why the troposphere?
To see if the Globe is warming, see the ocean heat content.
To see if the climate is changing, see the global surface temperatures.
-
No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
According to the denier's logic, the left of these two images of Uranus is the correct one because it's based on raw data while the right is a fraud because the Keck telescope on Hawaii used adaptive optics to counter the turbulence in the Earth's atmosphere!
-
CBDunkerson at 22:44 PM on 10 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
Denier 1: 'You are not accounting for urban heat island effects on the temperature data! It is all a fraud!'
Denier 2: 'You are adjusting the temperature data! It is all a fraud!'
What's really sad... all too often the 'Denier 1' and 'Denier 2' comments are coming from a single person.
-
SirCharles at 15:16 PM on 10 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
For the lay people => Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data | Berkeley Earth
Histogram of all PHA changepoint adjustments for versions 3.1 and 3.2 of the PHA for minimum (left) and maximum (right) temperatures.
-
sjw40364 at 10:40 AM on 10 February 2016Other planets are warming
Response to anyone ignoring those newly discovered sources pumping energy into the atmosphere:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/scientists-discover-surprise-in-101025
Of course no studies have been made - it's newly discovered and despite claims of knowing of its existence for years - falsified every text book they had on the subject.
"UCLA atmospheric scientists have discovered a previously unknown basic mode of energy transfer from the solar wind to the Earth's magnetosphere. The research, federally funded by the National Science Foundation, could improve the safety and reliability of spacecraft that operate in the upper atmosphere.
"It's like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun."
You all talk of irradiance as if it is the sole factor. You try to justify outer panets wind speeds because there is no heat from the sun - then try to justify Venus's and earth's wind speeds because of heat from the sun. Make up your minds please. You talk about internal heat sources of planets while at the same time ignoring that the Heat from Saturn's north pole was 10 times more than predicted.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20080103_prt.htm
The source of the heat is not a mystery - it's just ignored in conversations is all.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/whycassini/cassini20110420.html
Just as those connections exist between the planet and moon - they exist between the sun and the planets. Right now we can only detect earth's solar connection.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/
"NASA's fleet of THEMIS spacecraft, launched less than 8 months ago, has made three important discoveries about spectacular eruptions of Northern Lights called "substorms" and the source of their power. The discoveries include giant magnetic ropes that connect Earth's upper atmosphere to the Sun and explosions in the outskirts of Earth's magnetic field....
..."The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras....
..."THEMIS encountered its first magnetic rope on May 20, 2007," says Sibeck. "It was very large, about as wide as Earth, and located approximately 40,000 miles above Earth's surface in a region called the magnetopause." The magnetopause is where the solar wind and Earth's magnetic field meet and push against one another like sumo wrestlers locked in combat. There, the rope formed and unraveled in just a few minutes, providing a brief but significant conduit for solar wind energy. Other ropes quickly followed: "They seem to occur all the time," says Sibeck."
Just as they will be ignored in this conversation.
Moderator Response:[PS] This is getting repetitive and you have failed to answer points made about your previous post. If you expect anyone to take this seriously then please present evidence of other heating sources that represent even a 1/10th of extra heating provided by increased GHG (ie 4W/m2). Extra milliWatts can be safely ignored.
-
sjw40364 at 10:23 AM on 10 February 2016Other planets are warming
And yet the earth has been undergoing heating for the last 25,000 years with no help from man at all. And every approximately 100,000 years it does the same thing its doing now. As a matter of fact a better case could be made that the CO2 has kept this planet from reaching the highs of past warming events. Because despite the effects of CO2 this temperature cycle is less than any of the past events.
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Global-temps.png
It's nothing new - has been going on for as long as this earth has existed - and will continue to go up and down regardless of what we choose to do. As a matter of fact you all better hope man can affect the temperature on the planet - because ignoring what happens after every 100,000 year heating cycle is over won't change what happens.But talk to me in 10 years about how man is heating up the earth, bet you'll be wearing long johns and claiming global warming did it.
Moderator Response:[TD] Your comment is way off topic. Please comment on an appropriate thread, such as the rebuttal to "It's a Natural Cycle." Anyone who wants to respond, please do so on that thread, not this one.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:08 AM on 10 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
Hank @20, the difference you note is an artifact of the fact that the raw data only extends to 2014, while the adjusted data is shown to 2015. On the last year on which both can be directly compared, the difference between raw and adjusted is not noticably different from other recent years.
-
Hank11198 at 08:51 AM on 10 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
I am not a sceptic and I accept what the climate scientists are saying. But it appears the last year of the first graph shows a pretty substantial difference between the adjusted and raw data whereas everything else past around 1950 looks pretty close. In fact it looks like around 0.4 degrees. Also the dashed line showing the adjustments doesn’t seem to reflect this. Can someone explain what I am missing?
-
Tom Curtis at 08:49 AM on 10 February 2016Surface Temperature or Satellite Brightness?
Tom Dayton @34, the plot in the comment to which you link is of one set of radiosonde data (RATPAC A), two versions of reanalysis (ERAi, and NCEP/NCAR) , and two satellite records.
-
John Hartz at 06:26 AM on 10 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
Supplemental reading:
New Study: Yup, Thermometers Do Show Global Warming Is Real by Phil Plait, Bad Astronomy, Slate, Feb 9, 2016
-
Kevin C at 05:53 AM on 10 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
Rob, knaugle:
I'm afraid the 'HadCRUT3 unadjusted' dataset at WfT is not an unadjusted dataset, despite the name. 'Unadjusted' in this context is in contrast with 'variance adjusted', and describes the method used for blending land and sea temperatures in coastal cells weighting together different observations.
CRU collect homogenized temperatures from the national weather services so they don't have an unadjusted dataset, unlike NOAA, Berkeley or ISTI. In contrast to NOAA and Berkeley however, that means that the stations are generally manually remediated using local metadata, giving an independent check against the automated methods of NOAA and Berkeley.
-
Paul Pukite at 04:37 AM on 10 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
So the years 1940 to 1945 are very difficult to reconcile with any kind of model. An El Nino ENSO doesn't come close to being able to compensate for it. The ocean accounts for 70% of the contribution to the signal, and land 30%. Obviously a correction factor was put into place, but the error bars on this correction have to be significant.
-
Tom Dayton at 04:10 AM on 10 February 2016Surface Temperature or Satellite Brightness?
Olof has found details on radiosonde datasets other than RATPAC. None of them continues past 2013. Usefully, he has plotted them. See his comment at Moyhu.
-
Tom Dayton at 03:18 AM on 10 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
jmath, the RATPAC-A balloon radiosonde dataset (that Kevin C told you is the hottest year on record) is the only one I've been able to find that is global (i.e., gridded globally) and is up to date through 2015. If you can tell us all what other radiosonde dataset has those necessary characteristics, we'd all be grateful. I've asked in multiple forums, including ones that Christy and Spencer watch and comment on, but so far nobody--nobody--has suggested any other datasets.
-
John Mason at 02:54 AM on 10 February 2016Daffodils in bloom, the warmest ever December: how worrying is the world’s strange weather?
Here, in Mid-Wales, the first Lesser Celandines come into flower in February most years. This time round, I photographed their flowers - and those of Red Campion - on December 29th!
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:51 AM on 10 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
knaugle... You're right. I missed the unadjusted HadCRU3. It's interesting to look at the adjusted, unadjusted and HadCRU4 all together.
jmath should also note that there are specific differences in the coverage of each of the data sets as well. RSS goes from 70S to 82.5N. UAH is I think about the same, but may go down to 82.5S. The surface station data sets also have specific challenges to capturing the poles due to the lack of actual weather stations. So, the regions where we get the most warming are also the places that are hardest to capture the data.
-
knaugle at 02:12 AM on 10 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
I took jmath's challenge and went to woodfortrees. The only unadjusted data available is HadCrut3.
Wood For Trees, HadCrut3 Unadjusted Global
From this we can see that, yes the period from about 1937 to 1945 were very warm years, however they do not challenge the years from 1998 to present.
Also, while 14 satellites worth of data sounds great, these are not separate independent sources, but for the rather a series of satellites that measured atmospheric properties since 1979 to produce a single set of data.
None of this, certainly not the satellite data, and likely not ocean bouys, supports the claim that 1940 challenges anything so far as record warm temperatures is concerned.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:10 AM on 10 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
jmath @8... Sorry, but you're incorrect about woodfortrees data. All the data sets are adjusted data. All the satellite data is very definitely adjusted, more so that the surface data sets.
Satellites are also not measuring the same thing as surface stations. They measure the troposphere from the surface up to around 10,000 km, as can be seen here. Surface stations are measuring the air at about 2m on land, and the sea surface of the oceans.
As far as the satellites not showing the hottest year on record: Well, that's not unexpected since satellite temps lag El Nino by about 6 months. I would wait until around April before making major proclamations on this one.
-
Kevin C at 02:06 AM on 10 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
jmath: I wonder if you could help me by providing some evidence for a couple of your claims, in particular:
The unadjusted data like the ... ocean buoy data show for instance the 2015 was not the hottest year on record.
This claim is puzzling. I'm not aware of Woodfortrees providing a buoy-only dataset. So I went to the raw ICOADS data here and calculated my own, using just the WMO buoys and no adjustments.
Of course I may have made a mistake, so then I went to the University of Hawaii here, and downloaded their data. This is based on a different and independent set of buoys - the ARGO profiling buoys.
The results are plotted below:
As you can see, the results from two different sets of buoys calculated by different methods show remarkable agreement. Given that I used the raw WMO buoy data and my own code you can check for yourself that no adjustments were involved.
Secondly, from the same sentence:
The unadjusted data like the 14 satellites, the radiosondes ... show for instance the 2015 was not the hottest year on record.
You seem to be claiming that Woodfortrees includes unadjusted satellite records. However the series up on Woodfortrees are heavily adjusted. The adjustments are documented in the publications of both the UAH and RSS groups, for example here.
I cannot find any radiosonde data at all on Woodfortrees, however RATPAC-A shows 2015 as the hottest year on record at the surface by a wide margin.
Prev 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 Next
