Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 Next
Comments 31501 to 31550:
-
scaddenp at 09:38 AM on 11 February 2015Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rob, conversation is here.
Quick. He has the equation wrong (note not explaining it). The correct answer is around 1.1C. However this is temp change from radiative forcing alone. Feedbacks (water vapour, albedo primarily) lift this higher to something in range 2-4.5C.
Jim needs to realise that just because he doesnt understand something doesnt make it wrong, especially on basis of a cock-eyed semantic argument. Secondly, if your understanding of something doesnt agree with actual measurements (eg the increase in DLR) and textbook calculations do, then guess who is wrong.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:29 AM on 11 February 2015Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Ah! Just figured out where "Jim in CA" is getting his information.
Nasif Nahle Sabag.
The equation is a direct cut and paste.
-
Richard Treadgold at 09:20 AM on 11 February 2015Arctic sea ice extent was lower in the past
Thank you, gentlemen. Let me absorb this.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:14 AM on 11 February 2015Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Where is this conversation going on, Quick?
-
Quick at 08:56 AM on 11 February 2015Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Then same guy, (Jim in CA) added this:
"And yes, GHG theory is wrong. Here's an equation that shows the temperature increase moving from 280ppm to 560ppm:
ΔT = (0.443 W/m^2) ln[(560 ppmv/280 ppmv)] / 4 (5.6697x 10^-8 W/m^2*K^4) (300.15 K)^3 = 0.307 W/m^2 / 6.13 W/m^2*K = 0.05 K = 0.05 C = 0.09 F
That's it, just 0.09 F. Wow and double wow!! We're all going to die from heat exposure. LMAO Additionally, that value is most likely high as it's based merely on atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 and emissivity. It isn't taking into account the likelihood of energy transfer to other molecules with higher specific heats that can absorb the energy without changing temperature....molecules like water vapor.
And that brings me to another point. You morons are constantly saying that CO2 "traps" heat. Don't know about you, but to me if something is "trapped", then it's removed from the environment. "Trapping" heat would COOL things down, not warm them up. Additionally, the CO2 molecule at our atmospheric pressures and temps simply has TOO low of a specific heat to carry much thermal energy anyway. It doesn't have the thermal headroom. Sorry about your bad luck on that one.
CO2 is quite simply an energy conduit. Nothing more. It quickly transfers energy from one source to another without storing it."
-
villabolo at 08:18 AM on 11 February 2015Global warming is causing more extreme storms
@ the Griss:
Steven Goddard should be made aware of skeptic Roy Spencer's UAH temperature chart which is on model 5.6. Talk about changes.
-
Quick at 08:18 AM on 11 February 2015Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Oh, and I have asked repeatedly for ANY any reference, but he deflects. My BS meter redlined when I first saw his original post, but I lack the bandwidth and advanced acumen to effectively debunk this. I also laid down the gauntlet for him to join here and engage. So far it's been met with more deflection.
Moderator Response:[JH] The use of "all caps" is akin to shouting and is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
-
Quick at 08:13 AM on 11 February 2015Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Glenn, I posted #182 and 183 almost verbatim. Here was his response:
When viewed under high resolution, EVERY gas has numerous small transitions along the entire EM spectrum. That has never been under dispute. I guess you can't distinguish between that and an absorption peak. And by the way, that also shows that EVERY gas is a "greenhouse gas."
Additionally, I'm well aware of the various factors that will influence absorption. Factors such as natural, temperature (also called Doppler) and pressure broadening. These same factors will also affect emissions to varying degrees.
But now you've shifted gears and are talking about ABSORPTION. As I recall, your beloved Greenhouse Gas Theory claims that CO2 absorbs and then "re-emits" a photon of IR. But that's not absorption since absorbed energy isn't re-emitted...at least below 85km in altitude. Below that altitude, absorbed energy is passed on to other molecules as KE during a collision. So I guess it looks like you've disproven your own beloved theory. Nice going.
As for my reference to Wien's displacement law, you have things backwards...which is normal for an AGW cultist. I reference it to show surface temperatures that will produce specific [peak] wavelengths that are emitted by a surface at that specific temperature, NOT to show what is being absorbed. Were you a breech baby as well?
But since you've deflected to absorption instead of scattering, I notice you left out the absorption coefficients of the TWO and ONLY two absorption peaks that are within the atmospheric window. Just so you don't have to waste time scrambling to try and find out what they are, they're 9.4 microns and 10.4 microns. Maybe you should post the absorption coefficients for all to see. You think?
-
Jim Eager at 06:47 AM on 11 February 2015Global warming is causing more extreme storms
JoeT, the northern shore of the Mediterranean basin is supposedly warming and drying in similar fashion as well. See this 2007 guest post at RealClimate by Figen Mekik: Sweatin’ the Mediterranean Heat.
-
Tom Curtis at 06:46 AM on 11 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
Further to @54, here are the relevant figures for the test of the algorithm for GHCN v3 from Menne and Williams (2009):
As you can see, the algorithm reproduces the correct, zero trend regardless of whether the original data was distorted by upwards or downwards shifts. In otherwords, it shows no bias with regard to trends. The shift in the mean is because the algorithm always makes adjustments with reference to the final year (ie, effectively assumes the most recent measurement is accurate). It is inconsequential.
-
Tom Curtis at 06:28 AM on 11 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
JH inline @49, and algorithm is just a proceedure that can (in principle) be automated. The algorithms used for quality control and homogeneity adjustment for GHCN v3 are described in Lawrimore et al (2011). (Off course, sometimes the description consists of a reference to an earlier paper.) Essentially, for homogeneity adjustments, they come down to comparing the temperature series to a set of nearby stations with a high correlation with that station. If there is a sudden, large shift in temperature in a particular station that is not found in its neighbours, it is assumed that there has been some change in circumstances at that station and an adjustment is made. The essential point is that there is a hard rule as to when, and by how much the adjustment is made based on the number of nearby stations, and the level of divergence. The algorithm does not look up the date, and nor does it look up the geographical region in making the adjustment. The detailed description of the method can be found in Menne and Williams (2009), along with a description of a test of the method using artificial data with random change points.
-
FrancisMcN at 05:37 AM on 11 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
MA Rodger and Tom Curtis many thanks for your recent posts which have given me the real meat I was after to be able to just maybe change a potential UKIP voter's mind or at the very least make him change the subject! However much it is true that Brooker is unworthy of his prominence, the trouble is that a lot of local decision makers in my neck of the woods take his output as the truth until something more convincing is offered instead.
-
JoeT at 04:26 AM on 11 February 2015Global warming is causing more extreme storms
Figure 2 in the Abraham et al paper shows localized regions of increased drying in the Southwest, as one might expect due to the poleward expansion of the Hadley circulation. Is it possible to say with some degree of confidence that the Hadley circulation is the responsible culprit for this drying? If so, are there other places in the world where the drying can clearly be attributed to the expansion of the circulation, or places where this explanation doesn't hold. I'm asking this in part because of Richard Seager's 2007 paper which models and predicts this increased drying and the recent NOAA report on drought in California (Seager was the lead author) which claimed that the drought was not due to long-term climate change.
-
wili at 03:57 AM on 11 February 2015A 23-year experiment finds surprising global warming impacts already underway
Good points. I in no way meant to imply that the oceans would
"provide CO2 salvation." Only that they are important in understanding the short term dynamics of CO2 exchange going forward.Once equilibrium is reached, offgassing from the oceans will keep atmopsheric CO2 levels high for thousands of years, at least.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please provide a citation for your concluding statement. Thank you.
-
Tom Curtis at 03:43 AM on 11 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
MA Rodger @50, I'm waiting for them to turn their attention to all the adjustments nature has been making to sea ice extent in the Arctic. All those natural thermometers must be in on the conspiracy along with NASA and NOAA and the former temperature record skeptics at BEST.
-
MA Rodger at 03:38 AM on 11 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
Link to NOAA directory @50 goes elsewhere. Here is where it should go.
-
MA Rodger at 03:34 AM on 11 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
The case presented by the Homewood blog really rests on 19 station data plots from NOAA. The whole set of such plots are available from this directory although to be useful the station ID numbers are needed. NASA have a good tool for finding those.
I'm sure FrancisMcM @47 will find some stations with the trend in warming reduced rather than increased by adjustment. The first Arctic station I picked Barrow in Northern Alaska showed reduced warming following adjustment.
Of course, it is difficult to imagine that this Homewood character is doing anything more than cherry-picking stations. After all UAH show a similar warming to NASA GISS in the Arctic (graphic here (usually two clicks to 'download your attachment' shows Arctic GISS annual & UAH TLT winter & summer temperature record) and that is obtained without surface station adjustments. Then perhaps Homewood & Booker will be next turn their attentions to the satellite adjustements of Roy Spencer.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:52 AM on 11 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
FrancisMcM @47, I am not charging you of crying wolf. Rather, that is a charge that I am directing at Booker and Homewood. With regard to stations that show cooling adjustment, the three found by Nick Stokes and the three I found among Homewood's lists of (purportedly from context, warming) adjustments gives you a start. If you want to look further, Steve Mosher from the BEST team cites the entire continent of Africa, which has a warmer trend in the undadjusted than in the adjusted data (although various stations within Africa will differ). Then there are the SST which show a very strong cooling adjustment, sufficient that overall the global surface temperature record trend is reduced by adjustments, not increased.
None of that, however, will persuad those who are not persuaded by the simple fact that the adjustment algorithms, which are applied automatically, are blind to the direction of adjustment or time in the century. That is, they have no inherent bias so that any bias in the adjusted data is entirely a product of the data itself.
Moderator Response:[JH] It would be helpful to our readers if you were to provide a definition of "algorthim" and reference some background materials about it. Thanks.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:37 AM on 11 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
I just had a brief look at Homewood's blogpost on which the Booker article is based. Homewood claims to find 19 out of 23 Arctic records adjusted. It turns out, however, that he only looked at north Atlantic and northern European stations (51o W to 87o E, or from the West Coast of Greenland to north of the Urals). We learn this from a revision to his post brought about by Nick Stokes noting three stations that showed cooling. What concerns me is that in the area that Homewood definitely claims to have analyzed, only two (Vestmannayja and Reykjavik) show a strong warming adjustment. The remaining 17 of the 19 adjusted stations show weak warming adjustments at best, and in Trommaskato, Marlye Karmaku, and Turuhansk show cooling adjustments. Others may also show cooling adjustments as I have not gone over them in detail. The two stations showing a strong warming adjustment are both in Iceland. However, Akuyeri and Stykkisholmur, the other to Icelandic stations, show virtually zero, and only a slight change in trend from adjustments respectively. It follows that the two Icelandic stations with large adjustments, whose temperature histories do not agree with each other, nor with the two Icelandic stations in close agreement, did require adjustment.
In all, Homewood has concealed in his discussion the fact that several of the adjustments to stations of which he talks resulted in a reduced warming trend; that the only two requiring large adjustments were discordant with each other and the other two stations on the same small island, and that overall the adjustments in less than half of the Arctic has only a small effect on the overall trend in that region.
I ask again, why are we paying attention to the boys who cry wolf?
Moderator Response:[JH] Like it or not, the buzz created by Brooker's Feb 7 Telegraph propaganda piece, The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever, is starting to gain attention in the MSM. Personally, I believe this particular propaganda piece is designed to divert attention from, and cast aspersions on, the ongoing UN climate talks in Geneva.
-
FrancisMcN at 01:12 AM on 11 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
Tom Curtis at 46 - no wolf seen here just a desire to have the most authoritative and directly applicable rebuttal to the outpourings of a tiresome character who unfortunately seems to get a lot of attention in my part of rural Devon (the 21K+ comments to the on-line article also suggest a fair following!).
Kevin's speedy response was very welcome as was his original item and I will do my best to delve into the data as he advises but I fear that is not going to be a easily deliverable way of convincing the sort of Telegraph reader that takes Booker's items at face value. I was wondering if there are some good examples of data adjustment where the same principles have resulted in reduced temperature in recent years that could be quoted to show that the adjustment cuts both ways? Perhaps I'll just have to start looking but I would be grateful for any suggestions!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:45 AM on 11 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #6B
Here is a potential article on the CBC website for next week's News Round-up:
"Climate scientist Andrew Weaver wins defamation suit against National Post"
-
Tom Curtis at 23:27 PM on 10 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
FrancisMcN @44, have you heard the old fable about the boy who cried wolf?
I ask because the people who have been crying wolf about the temperture record have been at it for a long time. They have been repeatedly proven wrong. They have been proven wrong in detailed cases where time after time the adjustments they claim are unwarrented have been shown to be in fact completely warrented. They have certainly been proven wrong in the overall picture, where it has been shown repeatedly that they cherry pick instances of adjustments which warm the local record (when there are almost as many on land that cool the local record); and where it has just been shown that the overall effect of all adjustments of land and SST records combined reduces the warming trend in the twentieth century:
Given this, you have to wonder why anybody still pays attention to the Bookers of this world. The reason, of course, is that "The boy who cried wolf" is an old fable. In these modern time, proving that you have repeatedly misinformed the public just gets you repeat columns in the Murdoch press. Some people, and some media are more intent on the political effect of what they say than the truthfulness (and in this case it is very clear cut who they are).
-
Tom Curtis at 23:07 PM on 10 February 2015Arctic sea ice extent was lower in the past
Richard Treadgold @2, Cryosphere Today is reporting an area 12.8 million km^2 as we approach the spring maximum in sea ice area (and extent). Kinnard et al reports on the sea ice extent at the "late summer" (September). As can be seen from the Cyryosphere today graph (below), the September Minimum is has recently been around 4 million km^2, ie, significantly less than approximately 8 million km^2 shown at the end of the Kinnard et al reconstruction.
The reasons the final reconstructed values are near double the comparable values in the Cryosphere today chart are because it is a reconstruction of extent, whereas the graph shows area; because the reconstruction is unlikely to have achieved resolution of a single month, and therefore shows a two or three month average; and because late summer sea ice extents have reduced significantly since the end of the reconstruction (1995).
-
CBDunkerson at 22:56 PM on 10 February 2015Arctic sea ice extent was lower in the past
Richard, the first problem is that you are treating two different things as if they were the same. Cryosphere Today reports sea ice area. The second graph above shows sea ice extent.
The precise meaning of 'extent' varies from source to source, but the majority use something like 'the area of ocean surface with at least 15% ice coverage'. So, if you had a 100 meter x 100 meter section of ocean with 15% of it covered by ice that'd be a sea ice extent of 10,000 square meters, but a sea ice area of only 1,500 square meters.
Second problem - You are comparing daily values to decadal values. Look at the Cryosphere Today charts again and instead of looking at the current (near winter maximum) values look at the annual minimums instead... 1979-2008 mean below 5 million sq km... OMG, that's far lower than anything in the chart above! There must have been a huge sea ice collapse! Or not. Obviously the ice extent and area vary wildly throughout the year. Since the chart above is showing the extent averaged over decades these inter-annual fluctuations are averaged out.
Third problem - What constitutes 'the Arctic'? Just the 'Arctic circle'? The 'Arctic basin'? Any region north of the equator which has ever had sea ice coverage? Different data sets are looking at different regions.
-
Richard Treadgold at 21:37 PM on 10 February 2015Arctic sea ice extent was lower in the past
Hi. I came looking for historical Arctic sea ice coverage and saw this article for the first time. The figures looked wrong. You say the Arctic sea ice extent has rumbled along at about 10 to 10.5 million sq. km for 1450 years before suddenly plunging to 8.5 m sq. km about 1950 (maybe later - hard to tell with that resolution). But Cryosphere Today reports 12.8 m sq. km today, and the 1979-2008 mean they use is about 13.7 m sq. km. This means no modern decrease as shown on your graph. What's going on?
-
ranyl at 21:34 PM on 10 February 2015A 23-year experiment finds surprising global warming impacts already underway
HI Wili,
See article at HTML.
There is no doubt that the oceans have been a major sink, however as temperature rises water can absorb less and less CO2,
http://www.rtcc.org/2012/01/24/warming-oceans-face-co2-tipping-point/
also as they acidify oceanic sinks can turn to sources.
http://www.climate.org/topics/climate-change/ocean-uptake-climate-change.html
Further the oceanic desserts are growing, and dead zones increasing and biodiversity is dropping all of which will not help the future prospects of CO2 absorption.
Further again, as the southern hemisphere warms and the winds move south they draw up more water from the depths and this water is CO2 rich and releases CO2 from the ocean's depths and warms the base of the below sea level based ice sheets.
Therefore not sure the oceans will provide CO2 salvation.
Not unless through our actions (or none actions (i.e. not putting toxic waste in the water)), an oceanic ecosystem and biodiversity boom can be utilized, still going to lose many coral reefs, not sure what happens to CO2 releases associated with coral die offs?
Moderator Response:[JH] Links activated. Please take the time to learn how to use the Editor's link insertion tool. Thank you.
-
Kevin C at 19:10 PM on 10 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
Again, you can do it with the SkS tool. Use just the land data, and deselect all but two rightmost latitude band buttons (60-75 and 75-90N).
If you just use the 75-90N zone, it indeed looks as though the Arctic hasn't warmed. But if you look at the coverage graphs you'll see why: Coverage is down to a single station before 1940, and no more than 7 in recent decades. This sort of meaningless plot has been going round for a long time, see for example this graph.
With a larger set of stations you get a meaningful record.
Ideally we'd like to calculate a record for just the Arctic, but allowing stations from just outside the Arctic to contribute for locations where they are closer than any Arctic station. You can do that using the KNMI climate explorer, but that doesn't give access to the unadjusted data. Select GISS or Cowtan & Way, and then give a latitude range on the next screen. You can also compare to the ERA-interim reanalysis on the monthly indices page.
-
the Griss at 19:05 PM on 10 February 2015Global warming is causing more extreme storms
Hi,
Steven Goddard is always going on about adjustments etc, yet will not answer a question as to why USCRN and USHCN match so well since 2005 when USCRN was created..
Why won't he answer?
-
FrancisMcN at 18:54 PM on 10 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
Getting back to original aim of this blog entry, Christopher Booker has come back to the issue of data management (Adjusting climate data is the biggest science scandal ever http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html ) and further suggestions by Homewood of incorrect adjustment, this time in the Arctic. Is there a clear rebuttal of Booker's latest claims available?
-
Kevin C at 18:02 PM on 10 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
Tom: In the green box under the temperature tool there is a link to the blog post, which technically answers your question but only if you make a number of correct inferences about what is going on. So I'll try and provide a direct answer.
Land and ocean map series are reconstructed separately, and then combined. That's what all the major record providers do, because it's the right thing to do. While this is clear from even rudimentary analysis, I'm not aware of a careful treatment of the question in the literature however. It's on my to do list, but I've been a bit sidetracked recently.
As a result, if you provide only land or only ocean data, you get a pure land or ocean temperature series.
There is one subtlety however - the fill butttons. In grid box (i.e. CRU) mode, turning these off means that coastal cells get downweighted accoding to the amount or land (or ocean for an SST reconstruction) in that cell, which is the right thing to do. If you turn them on, then coastal cells count at full weight when using just land or just ocean, which overweights the coastal cells.
Off the top of my head I can't tell you for sure which the Hadley SST series do, but I think it is the latter. So the safest course is to calculate both adjusted and unadjusted series with your preferred option.
When doing a land-ocean reconstruction, the fill buttons play less of a role, because a cell with both land and ocea data is always constructed from a weighted combination according to the land fraction in the cell.
The data you need are the GHCN tavg .inv and .dat files for land, and the HadSST gridded data for the oceans. Look for HadSST.3.1.1.0.median.zip and HadSST.3.1.1.0.unadjusted.zip. In each case don't forget to unzip them.
The fix to work with recent SST files doesn't seem to have made it into SkS yet, so for the short term I've made a working copy available here. This will be removed once the SkS version is fixed.
If you continue to have problems, say so and I'll do a screencast on it. As a software author it is never possible to know if your software is useable except through feedback from people trying to use it.
-
Quick at 16:00 PM on 10 February 2015CO2 lags temperature
Sorry..;link didn't work. It was in the comments of a yahoo repost of this Reuters peice: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/05/us-climatechange-science-politics-idUSKBN0L92IN20150205
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
Quick at 15:53 PM on 10 February 2015CO2 lags temperature
JH, He posted as "Jim in CA" here: http://news.yahoo.com/emotions-not-science-rule-u-climate-change-debate-184843028.html?bcmt=1423418737492-0c1201c8-469f-4767-b168-0d3f364b5729_00023b000000000000000000000000-e9d055cf-f4cc-497d-9308-4e539fc56968&bcmt_s=u#mediacommentsugc_container
Moderator Response:[JH] Thanks.
-
Quick at 15:47 PM on 10 February 2015Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Thanks Glenn and scaddenp! It would've taken me quite awhile to dig this up on my own. I called him out on it being pseudoscience and asked for references...to no avail....shockng as that may be.
-
wili at 14:57 PM on 10 February 2015A 23-year experiment finds surprising global warming impacts already underway
Good points, ranyl. And it's always good to keep that MacDougall study in mind.
But when you say: "a fall in CO2 just by stopping emissions due to CO2 fertilizations effects seems unrealistic. "
...while I agree, it is my (mis-?)understanding that the primary draw down of atmospheric CO2 after any hypothetical total stoppage of human emissions will be continuing absorption of the gas into the oceans, as they reach equilibrium with the atmosphere.
Even this, as MacDougall et alia show in the article you cited, though, is not enough to expect immediate reductions in atm CO2 levels even under the essentially impossible scenario of total, immediate sessation of all further human emissions.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:52 PM on 10 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
Zeke Hausfather has followed through:
It looks like he has used GHCNv3 and HadSST3 as I was going to, which has the convenience of access to data, but does not correspond directly to any of the major temperature series.
He also shows the data seperately:
But that does not show anything not shown already above (other than the extension to 1880).
Repeating Mosher again:
"So here is what you have to believe. Scientists took 70% of the world and conspired to cool it. Then they looked at the other 30% and conspired to warm it. Diabolical."
-
Tom Curtis at 13:41 PM on 10 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
Kevin C @38, thankyou for responding. I have a few questions.
1) In the SST graph, I assume the All adjustments line represents a SST series including some land data from coastal or island stations. Is that correct? If not, what is meant by the "No land adustments" line?
2) With regard to the SkS tool, do I need to download a file of the gridded data to use it? Further, can you point me to instructions on how to use it, as it is not intuitive to me?
3) My intention, with the data, is to produce a jurry rigged global temperature series by taking 0.4 x land plus 0.6 times SST data as the time series, and plotting on a single graph the effects of land, SST and combined adjustments. I am aware that method is very crude, and my intent is to show the approximate impact only. I would greatly prefer if somebody who could to a more sophisticated job would prepare the graph using a method and dataset actually matching one of the three traditional temperature series (GISS, HadCRUT4 or NCDC). I understand Zeke Hausfather is thinking of doing something similar for BEST. Any chance you would be that "somebody"?
I think such a graph would be very usefull in persuading the persuadable about the bona fides of the people constructing the temperature records (at which point further rubbish such as Booker's latest will help isolate the unpersuadable). With that graph, Steve Mosher's recent comment will have real rhetorical teeth:
"So here is what you have to believe. Scientists took 70% of the world and conspired to cool it. Then they looked at the other 30% and conspired to warm it. Diabolical."
-
Tom Curtis at 13:27 PM on 10 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
davidsanger @36, thankyou for the very useful, if temporary help. Using the data from Kevin's program to which you linked, I can update my results from my post @34. So, the trend for the first 21 years are (to the first three decimal places) 0.001 C/decade for the adjusted, and zero for the unadjusted data. The mean percentage increase in the adjusted data as a percentage of the unadjusted increase is 24.3%, with a Standard Deviation of 4.79%. 1900 shows a percentage change in from adjustment of 33.99%, or 2.03 standard deviations (and 39.9%) above the mean. Using 1900 as the start point, therefore does make a significant difference to the analysis, biasing the outcome towards overstating the difference adjustments make. That slight difference is one of only two changes needed in my stated analysis. The other is that with the correct* data, the 1900 start year gives the largers adjustment difference (33.99%), now coming out ahead of 1915 at 33.75%.
More interestingly, having now the full dataset I checked the percentage change in trend for various trend lengths. Like you I got 0.23 C/decade adjusted (0.214 C/decade unadjusted) for the 50 year period mentioned by Kevin in the video. That amounts to an adjusted trend that is 107.57% of unadjusted trend (a 7.57% increase). Ergo Kevin overstated rather than understated the increase for that period. I also calculated the trends from 1900 and 1950 as:
1900-2014: 0.105 C/decade adjusted, 0.077 C/decade unadjusted (36.72% increase)
1950-2014: 0.177 C/decade adjusted, 0.153 C/decade unadjusted (15.52% increase)Those trends break down to a approximately a 12.25% increase in the 1900-2014 global trend assuming (incorrectly) no adjustments in the SST data, and approximately a 5.2% increase in the global 1950-2014 trend on the same assumption.
* Subject to the assumption that the software was not broken in a way that introduced errors when I used it.
-
ranyl at 13:04 PM on 10 February 2015A 23-year experiment finds surprising global warming impacts already underway
Interesting, thanks for posting.
Makes those climate models with atmospheric carbon declines as CO2 emissions cease despite continued warming of at least 1C further, seem optimistic.
With permafrost melting, forest fires raging, record droughts drying and climate zones shifting (replacing tundra with shrubs then pins releases soil carbon as well), a fall in CO2 just by stopping emissions due to CO2 fertilizations effects seems unrealistic. Macdougall et al found CO2 increases even if all emissions stopped in 2012 unless the CS was below 3C which seems more and more unlikely as time goes by.
"Significant contribution to climate warming from the permafrost carbon feedback"
Andrew H. MacDougall*, Christopher A. Avis and Andrew J.Weaver Natture GeoScience 2012
350-400ppm = Early Pliocene we are at 460ppm CO2e.
How much is the carbon budget?
-
jja at 12:48 PM on 10 February 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #6
Worrying about the hurt feelings of liars, charlatains and sociopaths is the least of my concerns. What concerns me is the reality that global warming induced collapse has already begun and by the time we reach even a close equilibrium to our current radiative forcing we will have completely lost the arctic sea ice and weather pattern shifts will have forced hundreds of millions of humans to migrate, and likely doomed hundreds of millions more to death by violence, hunger, thirst and plague.
Worrying about the hurt feelings of blind ideologues who care not for their own children's future is the absolute least of my worries.Moderator Response:[JH] Inflamatory verbiage is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 11:39 AM on 10 February 2015Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Next his reference to Wien's Displacement Law???
Wiens Law is used to calculate the location of the peak of a Planck curve. But CO2 (and any other gh gas) doesn't necessarily absorb at the peak. The each absorb at different parts of the Planck curve, and perhaps not at the peak. This just pseudo-scientific waffle to try and sound smart.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 11:31 AM on 10 February 2015Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Quick, following on from the previous thread
Your commenter is full of it. It is not Raman Scattering. It is molecular absorption spectroscopy. And CO2 absorbs over an absorption range not just a single frequency. Across that range there are 10's of thousands of individual absorption lines.
Point your 'expert' here http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
SpectralCalc plots line strength data for any of the gases in the HiTran spectroscopic database. Have him select CO2, Microns rather than wavenumber and a range from say 5 to 20 microns then plot.
He can then look at the detailed tabulated data for the plot extracted from HiTran at this link: http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_data.php
If he still has an issue then he needs to take it up with the Cambridge Research Laboratory at Harvard and the US Defense Dept who have been behind the acumlation of data in Hitran for many years - currently data on 43 different gases, 120 isotopologues and over 7 million individual absorption lines
And if he does question the lab they will politely hand him his ignorant head on a platter!
-
denisaf at 09:08 AM on 10 February 2015Meeting two degree climate target means 80 per cent of world's coal is unburnable, study says
Even if widespread decisions are made to reduce the use of fossil fuels as rapidly as possible by shutting down much of the existing infrastructure, the concentration level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and absorption in the oceans will continue to rise. Irreversible global (atmoshere and ocean) warming will continue. There is no limit in a applicable time scale.The 2 degree Celsius is only an indicative figure for discussion purposes. It would be more useful if discussions centred on what can reasonably be done to adapt to the inevitable climate change and ocean acidification.
-
scaddenp at 07:58 AM on 10 February 2015CO2 lags temperature
I have responded in a more appropriate thread here. Please do not have any further responses to Quick on this thread. Quick's issue is not about CO2 lagging temperature.
-
scaddenp at 07:55 AM on 10 February 2015Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Replying to comment from here.
The very basics of science is comparing what your hypothesis predicts to observation.
"What they say" - is the calculated spectrum of IR with increased CO2.
The observation is what is actually measured of the CO2. See article above and graphs in comments for these comparison. I think it is simply that you person misunderstands the physics. See also "The CO2 effect is saturated" which might illuminate the basis of misunderstanding.
But in short, the observations of IR spectra, whether DLR observed at the surface or OLR observed from space, fit what is expected from theory for increased CO2.
-
DSL at 07:32 AM on 10 February 2015CO2 lags temperature
Did the guy cite any sources for his claims about absorption/emission spectra?
-
Quick at 07:26 AM on 10 February 2015CO2 lags temperature
What do you guys make of this? The guy who posted it is trying to promote himself as a rogue genius or something.
"First off they claim that CO2 is causing warming by absorbing infrared. They say it's preventing infrared that's in the infrared window range from being radiated away. But CO2 only absorbs 2 wavelengths of IR in that range. One peak at 9.4 microns and the other at 10.4 microns. Both peaks have absorption coefficients just less than 1%. Wien's displacement law shows temperatures radiating those wavelengths to be 95.25 deg F and 41.9 deg F. So it doesn't exactly involve much energy. Not only that, but one of those is BELOW mean global temperatures. Basically, they're trying to claim that a heater that only gets up to 95 deg F and radiates at 1% efficiency is warming the planet. LOL Hardly.
The next thing they claim is that CO2 "absorbs" and then "re-emits" photons of IR coming from the surface, and THAT action "traps" heat by sending some of those IR photons heading back towards the surface. What they're desperately trying to describe is something called Stokes-Raman scattering, which is a type of inelastic scattering. Unfortunately for the AGW cult, there are only 2 wavelengths that get scattered by CO2, one at 7.20 microns and another at 7.78 microns. NEITHER of which are in the infrared window range. So that process doesn't stop ANY infrared from being radiated away.
It gets even more interesting when you know how the process works. It works like this: A photon of 7.49 microns interacts with a photon that's ALREADY vibrating at the correct temperature (kinetic energy) as the photon. The photon gives up a bit of energy to the molecule which causes the molecule to now have a rovibrational component rather that just a vibrational component and the photon is scattered away at a lower energy level; now at 7.78 microns. This is called the Stokes shift.
The next photon that's at 7.49 microns that interacts with that molecule will now absorb just a bit of energy (from the new rotational component) and will be scattered away at a slightly higher energy level; now at 7.20 microns. This is called the anti-Stokes shift. The molecule will then lose some energy, will stop rotating, and will drop back down to its original vibrational mode.
The really emotional...err...I mean bizarre thing is, 7.49 microns isn't coming from the ground. The ground radiates between 8 and 14 microns. So 7.49 microns is INCOMING infrared. So the process is actually scattering some INCOMING infrared back out. The claim that it's scattering IR coming from the ground is a BIG LIE.
I also said that the molecule must ALREADY be at the temperature (kinetic energy) of the photon. The temperature needed to scatter a photon that's at 7.49 microns is 236.76 deg F. On a hot day, only about 1 in 10 million CO2 molecules would be at that precise temp. On a cold day, even less. Perhaps 1 in every 30 million CO2 molecules."
Moderator Response:[JH] Exactly where was this posted?
We want to check this out because recently we've had a spate of commenters who are attempting to disguise why they are posting denier memes on our comment threads.
-
michael sweet at 07:20 AM on 10 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
Kevin,
For your next video you might consider showing the sea temperature adjustments as a contrast to the land ones. If you say "Does it make sense to adjust the land temperature to increase the slope when you adjust the sea temeprature to lower the slope more at the same time?" I am sure you will phrase it better than me.
Sugggesting the scientists are fudging the land data does not stand up to evaluation when the sea temperature is brought into the argument.
-
scaddenp at 06:37 AM on 10 February 2015Meeting two degree climate target means 80 per cent of world's coal is unburnable, study says
I think it remarkably unlikely that you are going to persuade people to change their lifestyle etc to reduce climate change. Shifting people's political values is very hard. What most strategies are about is pricing the externalities associated with burning fossil fuel, so that non-carbon fuels are cheaper. This takes political will and yes it probably means you will pay more for your energy (which then encourages efficiency). The number one thing to do is stop burning coal. You will have to find a way to live without petroleum at some point anyway.
-
PluviAL at 03:00 AM on 10 February 2015Meeting two degree climate target means 80 per cent of world's coal is unburnable, study says
Burning European fossil fuel reserves and resources because it reduces transportation costs and because it is a large market, however, it looks suspicious and self serving. I don't think it is at all, they are the most proactive and aware, it just looks that way. Similarly, feedback loops could be greater factors at a lower temperature than expected. Look at deglaciation, IPCC forecasts went from 30 cm of SLR to 95 in a matter of a decade. The earth could be more forgiving, but it could be more angry making our efforts insignificant. We should redouble our efforts and try most avenues, not just conventional efforts. We must stay away from crazy plans, sorry I am not being pejorative, aerosols are a bit crazy for me. I realize Pluvinergy is too complex for me to communicate, but we now have a patent on the works to produce sufficient water to adjust sea level. I know that sounds crazier, but no body has a better plan, and this is amazingly simple, the one big question is if the dry land has suffecient storage, and absorption capacity. Producing the water is easy, the energy is there, is the simplest atmospheric architecture to casue mini-atmospheric rivers in tropical areas to export to subtropical zones. Initial estimates are that the land can accomodate 7.2 million km3, for 20m slr, but that has yet to be peer-considered.
Moderator Response:[PS] Please refrain from repeated pushing of pluvialenergy. This adds up to excessive repetition in violation of comments policy and is perilously close to spam.
-
Kevin C at 02:58 AM on 10 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
David: The GHCN tool is unfinished, frequently broken, and not ready for release, I'm not sure how you got the link. I've removed it now.
It's mainly meant as a teaching tool. The rather more sophisticated SkS tool can do a better job, and can do land-ocean series.
Tom: The HadSST3 raw data are available as grids from Hadley. I can give you a temperature series if you want, or you will shortly be able calculate it in the SkS tool in CRU mode (note it at this moment it doesn't read the latest Hadley SST files, I've sent a fix which will hopefully be online later today).
Here is a comparison of the series with and without the SST adjustment. It is indeed in the opposite direction and much larger than the land adjustment:
Here are the land-only results from Lawrimore Figure 16:
I may be able to get the original data for this figure if you want it.
Table 4 is this data (via Nick, adjusted to make the units match):
Trend (°C/decade) Unadjusted Adjusted 1880–2010 0.061 0.079 1901–2010 0.070 0.091 1951–2010 0.16 0.18 1981–2010 0.27 0.27
Prev 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 Next
