Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 Next
Comments 29251 to 29300:
-
scaddenp at 12:22 PM on 9 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
Well Glenn, at least he didnt use the upper atmosphere satellite record (which of course shows substantial cooling because of GHGs). What was his rationale for using TMT instead of TLT?
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 11:38 AM on 9 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
Just to add some extra information regrding whether John Christy has been selective:
"The six bulk-atmospheric temperature datasets agree that essentially nothing [no warming] has happened since the big El Niño of 97-98"
Firstly, there are seven datasets. Christy is using the mid-troposphere satellite data usually referred to as TMT. But he only uses UAH and RSS, ignoring the third series calculated by Zou et al at STAR/NESDIS. This shows a significantly higher temperature trend than UAH or RSS.
Next he doesn't mention the signficant differences between the radiosonde datasets with some known to have a cool bias due to.
And by simply averaging datasets together he hides the range of results they produce.
-
BBHY at 10:38 AM on 9 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
I find it interesting that the coolest year of the 21st century, 2008, was still warmer than all of the years of the 20th century except for everyone's favorite outlier year, 1998.
Consider the implications; in the 21st century, when supposedly we didn't have any warming, what counts for a "cold year" is actually in the 99th percentile when measured against the warmest years of the 20th century.
Does that sound to anybody like there hasn't been warming in the 21st century?
-
scaddenp at 08:12 AM on 9 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Langham, given the numbers presented in MacKay's "Sustainable Energy - without the Hot Air" (full text on web here, here for renewable discussion), I do not think your proposition is true. Do you have numbers to support your contention (and can show where MacKay got it wrong)?
Travelling in Germany, I noticed that there was nearly always a wind turbine to be seen and I guess that would indeed upset people used to a more open landscape. However, what it seems is that many people wish things to stay the same as they are used to (or that changes happen somewhere else). The ugly issue is that things cannot stay the same. Either we get used to adapting to a warming world (which would include taking responsibility for those in say Bangladesh, who will pay the price for our fossil fuel use) or we get off fossil fuels. MacKay's analysis for UK is not rosy if you choose not to use nuclear. And face it, you will sooner or later have to get off fossil fuel as reserves are exhausted.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 08:02 AM on 9 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
Ryland, you asked a rather popinted question to KR about Dr Christy making unsupported claims. Fair enough, it is a rather serious matter.
So I am asking you a couple of questions in turn: KR provided documentation that Christy indeed has repeatedly made unsuported statements, most notably to the representatives of the people of the U.S.. Your last post seems to be changing the subject of your previous one so let's get back on track. Do you acknowledge that Christy has repeatedly made unsupported statements?
You said something about cherry-picking. Do you acknowledge that the non-existent pause depended exclusively on cherry-picking the year 1998 has a starting point, despite that year being as far off an outlier as can possibly be? If you disagree with that point, could you calculate trends from the years 1997 and/or 1999 to support your argument?
-
ryland at 07:31 AM on 9 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
In similar vein there have been a number of explanations from climate scientists for the so called hiatus as I am sufre you recall. Use of the term denier invariably taints what one would hope would be a civilised discussion of the science. As I expect you know there have been comments from other climate scientists noting that there are flaws in the data and some cherry picking has occurred (http://mashable.com/2015/06/04/global-warming-hiatus-study/)
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. This discussion would be greatly improved if members would acknowledge which points raised they agree with and concede, and which they still dispute and why. Avoiding an issue and sliding to another topic smacks of rhetoric and high-school debating tactics rather an investigation of the truth. Ryland, you will notice that KR's original points were about dubious presentation techniques by Christie, not about the development of the UAH dataset.
-
KR at 06:34 AM on 9 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
ryland - Dr. Christy has made any number of unsupportable claims, see here and here for documentation of his Congressional testimonies alone. I won't claim knowledge of what he's thinking, but rather go by his _quite_ public record in this regard.
Yes, corrections and improvements in calibration and consistency continue to be made in all the temperature records. But UAH (Christy and Spencers work) is the only one where the corrections were so large as to reverse recent trends from negative to positive. Quite a distinction. I suggest you look at the comparative scale of those corrections.
The corrections discussed in Karl et al are really quite small in their effects on recent trends. And yet the so-called 'hiatus' vanishes, demonstrating that it wasn't a statistically robust element of the data - rather it appears to be part of natural climate variation. And, I'll point out, entirely consistent with the rest of the evidence, such as ocean heat content and changes in the cryosphere.
---
When you look at the entirety of the evidence, warming and AGW is quite clear. But one of the hallmarks of climate denial is selective evidence, in this context of which temperature record (or which poorly measured portion of the atmosphere) to highlight. It was UAH, then (after they corrected it) HadCRUT3, then UAH again, now RSS, cycling back and forth between tropospheric and surface - whichever temperature record shows the least trend at that moment. That's not skepticism, not a proper consideration of evidence - that's denial.
-
ryland at 06:01 AM on 9 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
KR Are you suggesting that Dr Christy is deliberately makig unsupportable claims regarding the RSS data? As for your final point "That ongoing work on the satellite records will turn up additional corrections to the many that have already been made." That is equally applicable to the many corrections made to temperature measurements. Such corrections are central to this current discussion a point, of course, that will not have escaped your attention. Should these corrections also be taken "with a wee grain of salt"? If not, why not?
-
Langham at 05:48 AM on 9 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
With regard to landscape-blighting wind turbines, I think the author has reached the wrong conclusions. There is no need at all for our countryside to be disfigured in this way when there exist more efficient ways of generating electricity by harnessing tidal and wave power, or wind power offshore.
The author is too swift to dismiss the misgivings of rural dwellers in this matter, rather in the dogmatic manner of a dinner table bore.
-
KR at 05:32 AM on 9 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
ryland - Christy has a history of, shall we say, interesting graphic decisions, including non-standard and short term baselining that just happens to maximize divergence, averaging UAH and RSS data with 3-sigma differences in trend, not showing state of the art in the difficult to calibrate radiosonde data, testifying in Congress with un-normalized or completely irrelevant data implying conclusions that aren't in the data, ignoring the fact that satellite based mid-tropospheric data has much higher variance (and therefore uncertainty) than surface temperatures, on and on and on. Some of his Congressional testimonies read like the SkS denier myth list - I've highlighted a few of them here.
Having investigated a few of his graphs and opinions (here and here, for example), I take his comments with a wee grain of salt. Your mileage, of course, may vary.
On the other hand, current work such as Sherwood and Nishant 2015 indicates that tropospheric warming is indeed occurring much as predicted. If that work holds up I would expect two primary results:
- Denial memes such as the mid-troposphere hot spot divergence will fade considerably. They never completely vanish, but actual dta tends to take the wind out of them.
- That ongoing work on the satellite records will turn up additional corrections to the many that have already been made.
-
ryland at 04:22 AM on 9 June 2015What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
John Christy states "“The six bulk-atmospheric temperature datasets agree that essentially nothing [no warming] has happened since the big El Niño of 97-98,” Christy said in an email. “If Karl’s work holds up…, this will only add to the puzzle of diverging surface and atmospheric temperatures which stands in contrast to model expectations". (http://tinyurl.com/qa747cs).
Why the divergence? Which data set is the more correct?
-
BBHY at 21:57 PM on 8 June 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #23
The so-called "hiatus" only appeared if you used 1998 as the starting point. Starting with 1997 or 1999 gave completely different pictures of the warming trend. That's why I never bought into it.
To me the 1998 starting point was always a big sign in glowing neon letters reading "Phony Hiatus".
-
bozzza at 14:55 PM on 8 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #23B
The application of science is engineering. Infact to conduct science we must apply science and such is the complexity of measurement and the uncertainty and therefore politics that surrounds its results.
Science is simply method and cannot be at fault.
Words are fanstastic things but they don't contain the truth- fascists wield guns and make decisions that hold tribal politics together and we all stand behind it without batting too many eyelids.
Saying money-makers want a low cost solution to everything really betrays the subtle fact that the system of capitalism sets up a value-for-money solution. All systems are corruptible... some have even said that "system corrupts man" as opposed to the more well worn version that alleges "man corrupts system".
Go complexity...
We all know what limits are and diminishing returns are coming home to roost if we don't start realising Hollywood is aka the illusion of Mara!
-
scaddenp at 14:46 PM on 8 June 2015New research suggests global warming is accelerating
Your link is "interesting". Looks to be self-published ebook-only by someone using "Polar Vortex" as a pseudonym. Now why would that be? Someone shy of showing their credentials in climate science?
-
scaddenp at 13:54 PM on 8 June 2015New research suggests global warming is accelerating
Victorag. This seems to be a piece of pure sloganeering without the slightest supporting evidence. Indeed, rather than look at what is interesting about surface temperatures and climate, it appears to be just political pandering.
Perhaps you could explain why you apparently find the statement convincing? What I would like to see is what definition of "pause" is being used, (it is very ill-defined) and what "contradictory" papers are being published in line with this definition. Without examples of this contradictory science, it is hard to evaluate your comment. I struggle to see anything going one which make a "mockery" of science as I understand and practice it. And by the way, it would be probably best if you post links to papers that you have actually read and found contradictory rather than what some political hack has told you about them.
-
victorag@verizon.net at 13:07 PM on 8 June 2015New research suggests global warming is accelerating
The latest in a long string of similar attempts. Each contradicts all that came before, making a mockery of "the science." The only difference: this one was accompanied by a huge media blitz.
"But this situation is nothing new, as so much of the considerable effort devoted to “explaining” the hiatus has been enacted independently, with little or no attempt to reconcile methods or results with anything that’s come before. If all the various explanations offered over the last 5 years or so were to be combined into one grand scheme, the upward trend would be so extreme as to break the thermometer. Any hope of establishing a correlation would be lost in the opposite direction: too much, rather than too little warming."
From "The Unsettled Science of Climate Change":
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00YOARTPQ
-
rkrolph at 12:50 PM on 8 June 2015Real-world measurements contradict paper claiming little global warming
to all responses at #5 thru #11:
Thanks for answering and clarifying for me.
It sure makes me realize how data can be misrepresented to easily mislead people to the wrong conclusions, especially if you are not an expert in the field.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:54 AM on 8 June 2015Real-world measurements contradict paper claiming little global warming
Tristan @9, Monckton et al say of their Fig 6:
"If, for instance, the observed temperature trend of recent decades were extrapolated several decades into the future, the model’s output would coincident with the observations thus extrapolated (Fig. 6)."
Thus they claim that the model output in Fig 6 are extrapolated in the same way as observations in Fig 6. Ergo, it is not correct to simply take the 2050 projections. Rather, the model projections to 2012 should be extrapolated to 2050 in the same way as are the temperature projections. So, Monckton et all's technique of extrapolating the 1996-2025 mean temperature increase exagerates the model trends relative to the observed trends. Using temperature increases to 2050 exagerates it even more, something I suspect they have done for all stated trends prior to AR5. (Their final version AR5 trend is not the model trend, contrary to their claimed technique, as previously noted.)
On this point, I digitized the Hansen 88 Scenario A temperatures from 1988-2012 from this graph:
The trend over that period was 0.293 C per decade. That is substantially less than the trend to 2050 as used by Monckton et al (and calculated by you), yet following their stated method it is the value they should have used. (That leaves aside the point that forcings have in fact been less than those of scenario B, so that using scenario A rather than scenario B or even C is itself a gross misrepresentation.)
For what it is worth, digitizing the first decade of temperature increase from HK's graph @10 yields a temperature increase of 0.23 C/decade.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:09 AM on 8 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #23B
The Ideas program includes clarification tat science has no political ideology. Therefore, any disconnect between power and science that leads to the downfall of a society is due purely to the politiocal ideaology of the powerful.
From my perspective that clearly identifies the current socio-economic-political system as destined for failure because of two powerful motivations:
- Lower cost appeals to buyers and investors. And the lowest cost or maximum benefit is obtained by those who get away with the least acceptable actions. The ones among the population who are willing to try to do something tyhat can be understood to be unacceptable will have a competetive advantage as long as they can get away with it.
- Marketing science enables such people to drum up popular support for their desired unacceptable pursuits. And that popularity can be business or political.
Those two points indicate that the free-market and libertarianism will be destined to develop an endless stream of damaging unsustainable development that only benefits a few for a short time. Any attempt to develop a lasting better future for all would be at a significant competetive disadvantage.
That means that the future for humanity on this amazing planet requires science to continue to advance the best understanding of what is going on, and for leaders who will apply that science in policy-making contrary to potential short-term popularity and profitability.
A better future can be developed. But it has to be at the expense of the hoped for unacceptable opportunities of those who do not care about that type of development.
-
HK at 04:25 AM on 8 June 2015Real-world measurements contradict paper claiming little global warming
This is the figure I was talking about in my post #7 (top):
-
Tristan at 04:02 AM on 8 June 2015Real-world measurements contradict paper claiming little global warming
Hansen88 has Emission scenario A going from ~+0.44c at 1990 to +3.4c at 2050, for a ~.49c/dec trend, so the number itself is 'accurate' in some sense.
Of course, it's still an egregious misrepresentation to include it on that graph. -
Tom Curtis at 00:40 AM on 8 June 2015Real-world measurements contradict paper claiming little global warming
Tristran @5&6, HK @7, Monckton determines the trends from Fig 11.25 of AR5 in the published edition, and the corresponding Fig 11.33 in the 2nd Order Draft.
In Fig 11.25, the mean temperature for 2016-2035 is given as 0.3 - 0.7 C above the 1986-2005 mean. That represents a 0.5 C median increase over three decades, giving a trend of 0.167 C per decade. In Fig 11.33 of the 2nd order draft, the mean temperature for 2016-2035 is given as 0.4 - 1 C, giving a trend increase of 0.233 C per decade. Monckton states that these graphs are the source of his estimates in a blog post that preceded his paper on WUWT (dated Jan 1, 2014). On the blog post he produces the following graph, which is an obvious precursor of Fig 6 in his paper (the third figure in the OP).
I do not know why he switched from the marginally justifiable 0.17 to the totally unjustifiable 0.13 C shown in the paper.
As a side note, the final version of AR5 shows a lower trend solely because they start the predicted trend from 2012 rather than from the mean of 1986-2005. As such, the difference does not represent a disagreement about the trend which is the same in both cases. Rather it represents a preference for using the most recent historical value (at time of publication) as the start point of the trend prediction rather than the mean over a 20 year period. Monckton is wrong, therefore, to represent it as a different predicted trend. In fact, of the two factors that determine the mean predicted temperature for 2016-2015 (ie, stard point and trend) he ascribes it to exactly the wrong cause.
That point speaks to rkrolph's question (@4). Specifically, there is no difference between the predicted trend between the 2nd order draft and the final version of AR5. Rather, there is a difference in start point in predicting a mean value that Monckton misrepresents as a difference in trend. From past performance, it is likely that Monckton also misrepresents the trends on earlier IPCC reports (and Hansen scenario A), but he does not detail how he determined the values, and he is not worth the leg work to try and work out how he did it.
-
HK at 23:40 PM on 7 June 2015Real-world measurements contradict paper claiming little global warming
#4 rkrolph:
If figure 3 is from the Monckton paper, it seems that they have misrepresented IPCC, because figure (a) on page 11 in IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers tells another story.In the most extreme emission scenario (RCP8.5) the estimated warming in 2050 (average for all model runs) is about 1.75°C relative to the period 1986-2005. If we use 1995 as a midpoint, this gives a warming rate of 0.32°C per decade, or 2.5 times more than 0.13°C. Even the most moderate emission scenario (RCP2.6) gives a warming of about 1°C in total or 0.18°C per decade until 2050 – nearly 40% more than Monckton’s number.
In the RCP2.6 scenario the temperature is estimated to level off and stay nearly constant after 2050, so we will get 0.13°C of warming per decade if we extend the period to about 2070. It’s worth noting that the RCP2.6 scenario requires the CO2 emissions to peak within 5 years and gradually drop to zero within the next 50-60 years. (see figure a on page 9) -
Tristan at 23:27 PM on 7 June 2015Real-world measurements contradict paper claiming little global warming
Furthermore, IPCCs 2007 WG1 doesn't seem to support a claim of a 0.38c/dec increase.
-
Tristan at 23:22 PM on 7 June 2015Real-world measurements contradict paper claiming little global warming
Figure 3 appears to be comparing projections, which only makes sense if those projections assume the same forcings.
I also can't find the IPCC projection for a 0.13c/dec increase till 2050 in WG1 closest I get is:
The global mean surface temperature change for the period 2016–2035 relative to 1986–2005 will likely be in the range
of 0.3°C to 0.7°C -
rkrolph at 17:12 PM on 7 June 2015Real-world measurements contradict paper claiming little global warming
I noticed in figure 3 that IPCC projections have dropped from .38 deg/dec in 2007 to .13 deg/dec in 2013, which seems like a very big change. And the Monckton "simple model" shows 0.09 deg/dec. Despite all the mentioned flaws in the Monctkton paper, their model is still predicting warming, although less than current IPCC values. But the difference between the two doesn't seem that large, especially compared to how much the IPCC projections have dropped since 2007.
At least from the figure, it looks to me like the IPCC values are converging toward the simple model value of 0.09 deg/dec. Is that an incorrect assessment?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:45 PM on 7 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #23B
At about 17 minutes into Episode one of "Science under Siege" the assertion is made that science has always had a close relationship with power, either driving towards a common objective or in conflict with power. Hence science is always political. And the times when science was deemed to be contrary to the interests of those in power resulted in failed societies.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:15 PM on 7 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #23B
Here in Canada the CBC Radio program "Ideas" has just finished presenting a 3-Part series called "Science Under Siege".
I have not yet listened to this series. However, the episodes of Ideas that I have listened to have always been quite informative, thorough and thought provoking.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:08 AM on 7 June 2015New research suggests global warming is accelerating
ryland @7, the last 15 years (2000-2014) includes near its tail one of the largest La Nina events on record (2011/2012) and corresponds with reduction of solar insolation from near record high levels to levels that have been compared with the maunder minimum. The 15 years prior to that (1985-1999) start with reduced temperatures due to the tail end effect of the El Chichon volcanic eruption, and finish with the strongest or second strongest El Nino on record. It is, therefore, hardly a mystery that the trend in the former is lower than the trend in the later.
Further, the primary source of temperature variability between the two periods is well known, with nearly all of the variability to be found in ENSO and volcanic eruptions. ENSO variations alone can account fully for the apparent slowdown in global temperature increase in the early twentieth century. This can be seen by plotting seperately the temperature trends for El Nino, neutral and La Nina years. Further study of natural variability is required to show whether or not the underlying warming due to anthropogenic factors has accelerated over that period, or remained steady. Also of interest is the influence of the PDO, which may result in a more sustained period before reversion to prior projected temperatures (ie, a strong PDO influence may result in temperatures increasing at the prior trend, but offset low due to the PDO for a period).
Given this, Stott's statement is not a particularly perspicacious response to the Karl et al paper. Indeed, it struck me on reading as rather platitudinous.
-
MA Rodger at 08:42 AM on 7 June 2015New research suggests global warming is accelerating
ryland @11.
To be fair, I did mis-read your comment @7, reading it as "the comment reported" (as you managed to do yourself @11) which to me means 'all the comment reported'. But that is not what you wrote - you actually wrote "This comment reported", which can only mean this one comment.
There is a more substantial quote from Peter Stott on Karl et al (2015) here along with those from a number of other climatologists.
-
John Hartz at 07:54 AM on 7 June 2015New research suggests global warming is accelerating
@Ryland #13:
Here's a summary of where the world is at with respect to mitigating manmade climate change:
-
ryland at 06:44 AM on 7 June 2015New research suggests global warming is accelerating
Phil @1. As you say it is only a guess. I too can only guess at what Dr Stott meant by his reported comment, which I took at face value. I had no thought of "before" anything and have no idea why you thought I might have done. And surely serious efforts to mitigate climate change are already happening. Aren't they?
-
Phil at 04:57 AM on 7 June 2015New research suggests global warming is accelerating
My guess (and it is only a guess) is that ryland is imagining a further phrase after Stotts 11 words, something along the lines of
... before we engage in serious efforts to mitigate climate change
I says this because this seems to be a common response to this paper; the idea that we should "do nothing until we know everything"
However, I'm certain that Dr Stott would not agree. He knows that natural variability is the length of the dogs leash
-
ryland at 04:23 AM on 7 June 2015New research suggests global warming is accelerating
My sentence construction is less precise than I had thought. I didn't say "the Weekend Australian piece gives a more measured assessment of the paper" I said "the comment reported in The Weekend Australian perhps gives a more measured assessment " which is not at all the same thing. As for the use of the past rather than the present tense by Dr Stott I did not think I should alter what appears to be a direct quote but to respond to you I think the present tense might be more apposite
-
MA Rodger at 03:48 AM on 7 June 2015New research suggests global warming is accelerating
ryland @7.
I can't agree that the Weekend Australian piece gives "a more measured assessment of the paper than do some others." Stott's comment is a useful addition and the first comment from UCL's Mark Maslin is helpful in putting the denialist blather in context. But the item then jumps face-first into the gutter with input from numpty denialist David Whitehouse, one of the Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy. Giving that bunch column space without full warning-warning for the reader is grossly irresponsible.
As for the pace of scientific advance, note the tense of 11-word statement you concur with:-)
-
ryland at 02:28 AM on 7 June 2015New research suggests global warming is accelerating
Both his statements seem eminently sensible as both imply that, as yet. all is not fully understood. I'm a scientist too although my PhD is in the field of molecular biology not climate science. In my own field advances are so rapid that what seems certain today is often shown not to be quite so certain tomorrow. I don't know whether climate science has the same pace of advancement but statements such as those by Dr Stott fit well with my own perceptions of how science should be conducted
-
John Hartz at 01:49 AM on 7 June 2015New research suggests global warming is accelerating
@ ryland #7: Speaking of statements made by Peter Stott...
-
ryland at 01:16 AM on 7 June 2015New research suggests global warming is accelerating
This comment reported in a piece in The Weekend Australian (June 6 2015) perhaps gives a more measured assessment of the paper than do some others.
"Head of climate monitoring at Britain’s Met Office, Peter Stott, said the results of the NOAA study still showed the warming trend across the past 15 years had been slower than in the previous 15 years and more study was needed to understand the role of natural variability".
I certainly concur with the last eleven words of the quote
-
Joel_Huberman at 23:49 PM on 6 June 2015New research suggests global warming is accelerating
I didn't see a link to the Science paper by Karl et al. in the original post. Here's a link to the PDF version of the paper: Karl et al. 2015.
-
michael sweet at 22:02 PM on 6 June 2015New research suggests global warming is accelerating
I sent an email to the reporter suggesting he use Gavin Schmidt, Ken Trenberth or Michael Mann as the "mainstream" scientist. Reporters never ask James Hansen for quotes for articles like this, he is considered too extreme. They only use extreme views from the "lukewarmers".
Realclimate (Dr. Schmidt) has a post on this topic. It says the new research is nothing special and just adds to past knowledge. The "hiatus" falls off because it was never a robust result in the first place.
-
MA Rodger at 18:46 PM on 6 June 2015New research suggests global warming is accelerating
michael sweet @3.
The Los Angeles Times article is a bit messy but says "The new findings ... drew criticism from people on both sides of the rancorous debate over man-made climate change." Curry is followed by the "mainstream" comment of NASA's William Patzert whose quote ends “But the hiatus is history and it was real.” Presumably this is the criticism from the "mainstream" side of the alleged climate debate.
Of course, the thing with Curry is that she requires decades of hiatus or the Stadium Wave she is so fond of becomes a very silly call (as if it wasn't all ready).
-
michael sweet at 10:16 AM on 6 June 2015New research suggests global warming is accelerating
The Los Angeles Times gave Judith Curry its main quote for "mainstream scientists" about this paper. She said:
"“I don't find this analysis at all convincing,” said Judith Curry, a climatologist at Georgia Tech who argues that natural variability in climate cycles dominates the impact of industrial emissions and other human actions. “While I'm sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don't regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on."
Being a denier has gotten her the lead in the press. (The Los Angeles Times is a left leaning paper). Only the author is quoted in support of the paper. I do not see her finding fault with the data, she only criticizes the conclusion.
Jenna,
There really isn't much that SkS can do to support a new paper. Their results will have to be reviewed by their peers. If the results stand up in a year or two then we will know they are on the right track.
-
KR at 08:06 AM on 6 June 2015New research suggests global warming is accelerating
Well, as I understand it the Karl et al paper incorporates some very small adjustments to past and current temperature, which are primarily based upon recent work identifying errors in cross-calibrating sea temperatures from different sampling techniques.
And when those minor corrections are made, the so-called 'hiatus' vanishes. Which demonstrates that it was never a robust feature of the data. In fact the recent low trend was on the same order of magnitude as previous short term high trend variations (see Rahmstorf et al 2007). Those variations quite rightly weren't regarded as invalidating our basic understanding of climate, but rather as short term variations around longer term climate trends. Interesting, and such variations have inspired some very interesting work on solar variations and volcanic loading, but they didn't overturn the science.
---
It's fascinating how the pseudo-skeptics ignore such short term high trend variations while harping on short term low trend variations - IMO quite a bit of wishful thinking and confirmation bias there.
I fully expect a lot of denialist shouting in this regard, as losing the shade of a (ill-considered and statistically unjustifiable) claim to recent low trends means the weakness of their claims will once again be dragged into the sunlight. That's been the pattern with any number of recent works that clearly convey just how much we're changing the climate. Climate denialists make the most noise when their nonsense is threatened.
-
jenna at 07:42 AM on 6 June 2015New research suggests global warming is accelerating
I sincerely hope that SKS will dig deeper into this new paper because it has been getting hammered in the (denial) blogosphere for the last couple of days. We need some serious pushback against that onslaught!
Jen.
-
dana1981 at 00:24 AM on 6 June 2015Research downplaying impending global warming is overturned
Tom, thanks. Personally I don't have a big problem with averaging the surface temp data sets for illustrative purposes, although in a scientific paper it's probably better just to show the individual data sets separately.
Note that we've received a draft copy of the Monckton et al. response to our paper, and it's quite poor, even juvenile in places. It will be interesting to see if it goes through a more rigorous peer-review process than their initial submission, and if it survives in a state similar to the draft copy.
-
michael sweet at 20:11 PM on 5 June 2015There is no consensus
Truthdetector,
I notice that the American Academy of Science and the Royal Society (and other national academies) refer to the 97% consensus. Why would these prestigious organizations of scientists refer to the consensus if it did not exist? By refering to the consensus, they validate it.
-
chriskoz at 13:53 PM on 5 June 2015Real-world measurements contradict paper claiming little global warming
It's worth to recall M15 is not the first piece where Monckton's "fantasy".
Fig 3 in M15 show "Observations" until 2050, whereas Fig 2 in this RC post by Barry Bickmore (dated & Aug 2010) show Monckton's Fantasy IPCC "Prediction" of CO2. Two pieces complement each other nicely.
I don't realy need to remind it, but those who may not seen it before, look how M compares scientists and his opponents to Nazis here and here. The guy is simply a lunatic nutter and the best way to deal with such nutter is to simply ignore him. Everyone, even AGW deniers, can agree that tying to bring him from his "fantasy world" back to earth is simply a waste of time.
Unforfunately, Science Bulletin opened their forum for his spin to reach peer reviewd literature. That's is simply fuel for his fire: he won't stop proudly arguing his case, no matter how unreasonable his arguments are shown to be.
Moderator Response:[PS] right over the line. Please respect the comments policy and particularly note "Personally attacking other users gets us no closer to understanding the science. For example, comments containing the words 'religion' and 'conspiracy' tend to get moderated. Comments using labels like 'alarmist' and 'denier' as derogatory terms are usually skating on thin ice."
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:39 PM on 5 June 2015There is no consensus
TruthDetector... If there genuinely is no concensus on AGW then it should be quite easy for someone to read a sampling of research and show that there is a high degree of disagreement in the research.
Why has no one produced such a piece of research yet?
-
onlinefun at 13:26 PM on 5 June 2015The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
Is there a tendancy to search for data to fit the hypothesis, esp when becoming accepted in the scientific community is political/social in nature? I am not sure why confirmation bias does not occur in groups.
If the instruments reported increasingly warm oceans, would anyone have looked into it to see if "they were wrong"? Probably not, so chances of finding errors that support cooling dont exist.
Similarly, I also wonder about pulication bias effects on all the studies being done. Who wants to publish a paper that suggests cooling is happening? Few I suppose. Its not cool to publish minority views. Of course, the peer reviews of those papers might be equally influenced.
I read somewhere that about 90% of studies confirm global warming. 90% is good, but not a guarantee, esp. when you are talking about implementing global policies. Do those 10% get much attention? Are they strong in their evidence? Do they just result inclosive or show cooling?
I also am interested in knowing how valid studies are when there is not a double blind experiement with a control. Lab experiements can be valuable, but perhaps unreliable to extrapolate results to a highly complex ecosystem. It's like economics in that you really cant isolate cause and effects.
The hard part of global warming is not environmental science, but rather social science.
Moderator Response:[PS] Completely offtopic. Use the search button to find appropriate place to comment. You can use SKS weekly digest for things that dont fit.
-
onlinefun at 13:17 PM on 5 June 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
Will the current declining in CO2 and pollution help at some point?
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html
Obviously, this is the US only, but we also use more energy than anyone, esp 3rd world countries, so not sure the weight of this trend.
It seems we are doing the right things here according to this chart, and I dont suppose we'd want to encourage the 3rd world to give up their growing economies just because ours is mature and we are rich. Other modern countries are likely to have the same or better trends. So with warming ocurring, population growth slowing, not sure what valuable actions could be implemented (besides more people buying into the "be more responsible" lifestyle).
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link, but this has nothing to do with the topic. Perhaps copy it to here because it will be deleted shortly.
Prev 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 Next
