Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 Next
Comments 32001 to 32050:
-
CBDunkerson at 22:52 PM on 29 December 2014Hockey stick is broken
dvaytw, AR5 WGI Chapter 5 pages 409, 413, and 419 all show different versions of holocene temperature reconstructions... aka, 'the hockey stick'.
They may be looking specifically for the work of Michael Mann... which is referenced extensively throughout Chapter 5. Just search on ' Mann' in the text of the chapter. In figure 5.7, the hockey sticks on page 409, the four reconstructions with labels starting with 'Ma' (e.g. 'Ma09rem') are from Mann's work.
The only way of interpreting the claim to be 'correct' might be that Mann's original 1998 'hockey stick' is not included... having since been superceded by subsequent work by Mann and others. So, to rephrase, 'The original hockey stick isn't in IPCC AR5! Instead, they used several of the newer ones which reach the same conclusions with even more conclusive data.'
-
dvaytw at 21:40 PM on 29 December 2014Hockey stick is broken
Hey guys - would anyone be so kind as tell me or point me to the appropriate response to the denialist talking point, "The hockey stick isn't in IPCC AR5!"
-
From Peru at 10:36 AM on 29 December 2014Record-Breaking Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014: Has the Climate Shifted?
Where can I found the data timeseries (updated up to now) showing the IPO and Trade Wind timeseries used in the England et al. (2014) paper?
Can they be found at NOAA, NASA, UK Met Office, etc.?
I will find interesting to see the finer details of those indices. If there are monthly data, the possible shift in climate may be visible in them.
-
Alexandre at 05:02 AM on 29 December 2014It's not bad
Link to Nyegaard 2007 is broken. I even tried to google it, but there's too little information to begin with. If someone could provide a new link, or at least more info (like the name of the paper), it would be greatly appreciated.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:46 AM on 29 December 20142014 SkS News Bulletin #7: LIMA COP20 / CMP10
Wili,
As reluctant as I am to consider MSM reports on this issue to be relatively unbiased I was pleasantly surprised by some of the BBC reporting. The following pair of reports seem to be reasoanbly balanced presentations of what happened. They do not necessarily add new information to the set of articles already identified in this post, but they seem to be fairly comprehensive summaries that indicate the Lima talks were a clear step in the right direction.
UN members agree deal at Lima climate talks
UN climate deal in Peru ends historic North-South split
Nothing I saw reported in Canadian MSM came close to being a full reasonably balanced presnetation. They all seemed to want to claim it 'failed' to result in any meaningful action toward 2015 commitments in Paris to effectively reduce CO2 emissions.
-
wili at 01:36 AM on 29 December 20142014 SkS News Bulletin #7: LIMA COP20 / CMP10
Thanks for these again.
And again, I know you're all overworked volunteers, but I would still love it if one or more of you could, however briefly, give us your general take on these negotiations--were they a huge step backward as some seem to be saying, or a modest step forward, or some kind of side-ways Texas Two Step??
-
wili at 07:04 AM on 28 December 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #52B
You might add this one to the queue:
-
Tom Curtis at 09:25 AM on 27 December 2014Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
Roger Knights drew attention to this video in which Hansen says (among other things) that "If we allow emissions to continue at a high rate ...":
"On the long run, if that really happened, ... over centuries we could actually get a runaway greenhouse effect"(1:16)
He later says:
"But with continued rapid increase in greenhouse gases, you could melt the ice sheets in less than a century"(3:40)
With regard to the later claim, it is implicit in his view that the rate of sea level rise due to melting ice sheets could double every decade (from which comes his claim of a potential 5 meter sea level rise this century (see my comment @81). If that doubling of sea level rise due to melting ice continued to 2135, you would have a melting of over 70 meters of sea level - something requiring the melting of all major ice sheets. Even switching to a linear melt in 2110 results in a complete melting of the (then remaining) ice sheets within 100 years, ie, by 2210. So, the claim is not new, and is not a claim about what could happen in this century. It is, however, a claim about what could happen in some not to distantly future century.
Nor is his claim about the potential (not certainty) of a runaway greenhouse effect new to him. Furthermore, unlike the claims about ice melt, it is a claim he is entitled to make in one respect in that he certainly has the relevent expertise to have an opinion on the subject. Nearly half of his pre-1981 publications are on aspects of the greenhouse effect on Venus.
Like Roger Knights, however, I do consider these claims to be alarmist.
Before progressing, I should define my terms. By "alarmist" I mean a view on the pessimistic side of the scientific concensus. The scientific concensus, in turn, is that view held by 90% plus of scientists with the relevant expertise. Note that the consensus need not be a singular view. Thus on climate sensitivity, the consensus is not that the (central estimate of the) ECS is 3, but that it lies between approximately 1.5 and 4.5. The range is given by the likely range of the IPCC (ie, the 66% confidence interval) because the conjoint uncertainty estimate must extend beyond range of the central estimates. Therefore the concensus range is less than the 90% uncertainty interval given by the IPCC (or in the case of ECS, not actually given).
The range of the concensus position need not be reducible to a simple numerical range, as is the case with ECS. The consensus view on clathrates (as I understand it) centers around two views - one that clathrates are, and one that they are not a serious threat. The former is associated with certain experts on methane in the Arctic, and the latter in particular with modellers of the carbon cycle. It follows that the concensus position on clathrates is a diffuse position consisting in what is agreed by both sides of the dispute rather than a more precise statement such as could be obtained from one side or the other.
So, having thus defined alarmism (and the concensus), what of Hansen's views.
On runaway greenhouse, there is no doubt. The concensus position is that it is not possible given the current amount of radiation recieved from the Sun. Note that that is not absolutely certain. If the Earth's albedo was 0.05, for instance, the Sun would provide enough energy for a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth. Consistent with this, Hansen considers the presumed large reduction in albedo from a melting of the ice sheets a necessary precondition for runaway greenhouse. Further, there is uncertainty about the strength of the combined water vapour feedback (water vapour plus lapse rate feedbacks). If it is in the upper end of the consensus range, a higher albedo is consistent with a runaway greenhouse effect - though not an albedo equivalent to the current value. Therefore it is not self evident that Hansen's view is unreasonable, and certainly not that it is pseudo-scientific. It is, however, on the extreme margin of scientific thinking and "alarmist".
Likewise his opinion about the doubling every decade of the sea level rise due to ice sheet melt is clearly in disagreement with the scientific concensus. That consensus is that even with ongoing emissions sufficient to melt the entire Antarctic ice sheet (which itself would take centuries), the actual melting of the ice sheet would take many centuries and likely several thousand years. A time to melt all the ice sheets of 500 years would not be clearly outside the consensus, nor yet a time of 10 thousand years. But 100 years is clearly so.
So, Hansen on at least two points, is alarmist. As it happens, SFAIK, he is only alarmist on those two points and the potential effect of the Alberta tar sands. On other points he tends to be very close to the scientific concensus.
What is interesting, however, is what is implicit in the criticism of his views as "alarmist". Absent a clear comparison with consensus positions it is mere name calling. With that comparison, it suggests that scientist should restrict themselve in public communication to the consensus position - or at least indicate where they disagree with the consensus position, and why. The later should include a clear indication as to why the consensus position is reasonable, followed by discussion of why it is disagreed with. Further, there is not scientific difference between disagreeing with the concensus on the plus or minus side. So, criticism of Hansen as "alarmist" is mere name calling if it is not paired with criticism of Lindzen, and of Spencer and Christy for being (even further) outside the scientific consensus. (Indeed, I would go further in their cases in that they have ventured into the realm of pseudo-science on several occasions, with the possible exception of Spencer.)
I do not expect Roger Knights to criticize the leading "skeptical" scientists as pseudo-scientists. As he pushes the "alarmist" line, however, I do expect him to criticize them (and Watts) for not being within the consensus.
Or are we to understand by his criticisms that they are mere name calling.
-
Synapsid at 08:47 AM on 27 December 2014Scientists in focus – Susan Wijffels and Rebecca Cowley
"Global warming" is, in truth, "Ocean warming."
Excellent! This needs to be put out widely indeed.
I'm going to steal it.
-
wili at 07:41 AM on 27 December 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #51
Thanks again, OPOF. "This most recent spurt of strong negative SOI has already subsided to near zero daily values" I just saw that, too. Pretty amazing to me that it can change that rapidly day to day. I hadn't paid that much attention to this index before. Good reason to keep most of the focus on those longer-term averages.
Looking at the graph for 3.4 values, I'm struck by the apparent pattern of ever rising waves--from barely touching +.5 a few months ago, to now staying above it for almost three months (or as you say 2 three-month periods), to projections for next summer of values well above .5. It makes me wonder if we are due for a series of ever worsening El Ninos in immediate upcoming months and years. -
John Hartz at 04:21 AM on 27 December 2014Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
[JH] Moderator's Comment
Roger Knights:
Your most recent posts constituted sloganeering and were deleted. In addition, I have recommended that your posting privilege be rescinded.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:44 AM on 27 December 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #51
wili,
The recent monthly SOI values (here) that the SOI bar-graph is based on show the 30 day average being below -8 for October and November. However, the 90 day average in the table of preliminary SOI daily values has not yet reached -8.
This most recent spurt of strong negative SOI has already subsided to near zero daily values but it was a very strong negative SOI and was sustained for 2 days.
The related surface temperature of the Nino 3.4 region of the Pacific Ocean is also definitely into the El Nino range (more than 0.5 C above the baseline 30 year average). The NOAA presentation of monthy values here shows that the most recent 3 month average (SON) of the Nino 3.4 region was 0.5 C. And the value for the month of November and the current weekly value for the Nino 3.4 here are 0.9 C, so the OND value will be warmer than 0.5. That is still only the second 3 month average at 0.5 C or warmer. Five consecutive 3-month averages at or above 0.5 C would be highlighted in the NOAA ONI as a noteable El Nino (indicated by the set of values being Red).
It will be interesting to see how the pairing of the stronger El Nino supporting SOI and Nino 3.4 values affect the global averages surface temperatures in the early part of 2015 compared to the start of 2014.
-
R. Gates at 02:39 AM on 27 December 2014Record-Breaking Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014: Has the Climate Shifted?
I am wondering about the relationship between ocean heat content and the IPO? As ocean heat content has been increasing (down to 2000m) quite steadily for many decades, it seems the relationship to the IPO is one that the ocean heat content increases even faster when the IPO is negative, but is always increasing even in positive IPO periods. Only the Pinatubo eruption seemed to have an impact on halting the ocean heat content rise for a brief period.
-
MA Rodger at 00:11 AM on 27 December 2014My AGU talk on tackling climate myths in a free online course
I agree with Wol. His time here is probably best ended. I had a little difficulty not 'flaming' a reply to his input @10, a view he tries to justify @21 with the long-defunct theorising of Thomas Malthus and the naive observation that "it is just not conceivable that the third world will not aspire to a higher standard of living, with all the additional consumption / emissions this entails."
It's rather difficult to presently see a return to the imperial days of old as a template for AGW mitigation. Is there any logic whatever in sending off the 'gunboats' to confiscate all the mobile phones etc from the citizens of nations with below average wealth, given a fair proportion of those nations are in places over-run by pleasure-seeking tourists from the wealthier parts of the world. And to suggest advancement of such poorer societies should be stopped because the wealther part of the world is wrecking the global environment becomes eye-poppingly bad when it is remembered that the wealthier parts would not themselves be similarly constrained and further when the main damage of that environmental wrecking is being meted out on the areas of the world where predominantly society is poor.
So I agree with Wol. The debate he wants is not appropriate here, although I note that Wol @21 appears not to appreciate why.
-
michael sweet at 23:55 PM on 26 December 2014My AGU talk on tackling climate myths in a free online course
Wol,
There are many people in the world who do not aspire to the Western consumption model. Have you ever spent time in the third world talking to people in their houses? I have spent hundreds of hours talking to people across the South Pacific. While they would like to have the goods westerners have, often they prefer to have less goods so that they can spend more time with their friends. Look at how much time off people have in Europe and Australia compared to the USA. The Europeans sacrifice a certain amount of consumption to obtain more time off. The real world situation is much more complicated than your description of everyone wants to consume more.
My wife and I are planning on downsizing our consumption by moving into a small boat to live. We will have less goods but much more time to visit friends. We prefer this lifestyle (given up while our children attended school) and would have downsized last year except for health issues with our daughter. There are advantages to having less. Don't believe all the advertisements you see on television.
-
My AGU talk on tackling climate myths in a free online course
Wol - The UN figures we'll peak at about 10B near 2100, although I've seen estimates all low as 8.5B peaking in 2025 (based on dropping birth rates in China and elsewhere). There are multiple influences, from women's literacy to birth control to increasing city living rather than agricultural, but I suspect that population growth won't be our most limiting factor for the future.
Rather, limited energy availability and pollution (unless there are substantial increases in the rate of renewable energy adoption), water, and the effects of climate change on primary agricultural capacity - possibly declining below sustainable levels for even those projected populations. Those are, IMO, more pressing concerns.
-
Wol at 12:13 PM on 26 December 2014My AGU talk on tackling climate myths in a free online course
(Reply to moderator: unable to cut and paste his comment.)
Reference my post about population numbers and the moderator's reply, it is probably time that I unsubscribed from this site.
It seems an entirely valid and logical point to make, that for example doubling a population and halving its consumption leaves, all else being equal, no difference in consumption or indeed emissions.
Added to that, it is just not conceivable that the third world will not aspire to a higher standard of living, with all the additional consumption / emissions this entails.
Several subsequent posts entirely miss my point. Of *course* I was not implying that we in the West have anything like a hair shirt existence. What I was, and am, saying is that a sustainable population on a planet is inextricably linked to its consumption pattern. If a population of say 2Bn on planet earth is sustainable at the West's current standard of living (remember, I am plucking figures out of the air here: it's the principle that concerns me) it follows that 4Bn should have half that standard, and so on.
At some point the numbers would then show that a certain population level would only be long term sustainable if we all went into subsistence mode. Hair shirt, if you like.
Ignoring this fundamental, Malthusian, fact makes the whole climate change issue a bit pointless in some respects - and even a bit like the deniers' argument that technology will somehow come up with a magical solution.
As a layman with an intense interest in the scientific method, an abhorrence of pseudo science and having followed the climate question for some forty years, I can only say that I find the moderator's put-down unhelpful to those who accept the case for AGW. If one is not to be allowed to question the basic parameters of the climate "debate" unless one is involved in one of the relevant sciences then please remove my name from those who can post.
Moderator Response:[JH] Now you are skating on the thin ice of excessive repetition - which is also prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. You have made your points. It is time for you to move on.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:00 PM on 25 December 2014Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
michael sweet @94, a couple of points.
First, on see level rise it is well worth looking at the blog posts by Aslak Grinsted, particularly
his view in 2009, his update of that view in 2013 in light of three recent papers; and his view on the rate of sea level rise. From those pages, his 2009 graph is very interesting and does not require major modification in light of the later papers:
This plots expected sea level rise relative to projected long term global temperature anomalies. As we are already committed to somewhere between 6 and 25 meters of sea level rise, with a mean estimate of about 12 meters (values judged by eye from the graph).
All three recent papers suggest the increase in sea level with temperature will be fairly flat for a given temperature range, and then ramp up suddenly. The disagree, however, about the temperature range. The empirical data suggests greater than 20 meters of sea level rise even for a 2 C rise in temperature. The model based data suggests we will not reach 20 meters even at about 5 C. Grinsted's take is that:
"At 2°C (383 ppm) we will lose the Greenland ice sheet. We do not really know how strongly the West Antarctic will respond. There is evidence of a large response during the last interglacial though (e.g. this).
At 4°C (525 ppm) then we are pretty much committed to an eventual complete deglaciation of both the West Antarctic ice sheet and the Greenland ice sheet.
At 6°C (720 ppm) we may be committed to an ice free planet."On short term sea level rise, these are his semi-empirical predictions, with uncertainties:
The second point is that projecting Earth System Sensitivity, or even Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity on current CO2 levels is ill advised as the CO2 levels will reduce if we eliminate all net greenhouse emissions. That is big if, as even 5% of emissions is likely to maintain levels at a constant value, and any higher than that (and certainly if higher than 10%) will result in an ongoing increase. I suspect, however, that if we can transition to a renewable energy economy, zero net emissions is feasible provided we keep in mind that it is necessary to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
-
michael sweet at 09:19 AM on 25 December 2014Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
Tom,
I noticed on review that I left out some adjustments in my data on temperature.
1) The temperature data is from Antarctia and the IPCC estimate is global. Antarctic temperatures are expected to raise at least double the global average so 10C instead of 5C.
2) The IPCC data is calculated using the Climate Sensitivity not the Earth system sensitivity. This adds another 50-100% to the rise. This makes the expected final rise 15-20C. It would be several hundred years (or thousand) to equilibrum of the Earth System Sensivity. Current temperatures are probably slightly below the highest spike in the record (the temperature scale is 0-4C to compare to 15C increase expected). Hansen's estimate was certainly reasonable. Jason Box's estimates of sea level rise are comparable to this fingernail calculation (sea level rise is proportional to temperature). Perhaps Roger can find a 2,000% error in my calculations or Dr. Box's (and supply a citation). RPC 2.6 is only a little higher than the past 3 million year estimate.
When you do this calculation the change is unbelievable! How can we even be discussing such a change? Ditto with Box's sea level rise of 23 meters from CO2 already in the atmosphere!!
It might be interesting to have a dedicated thread for poetry. I am sure others could write interesting odes. I don't think we need an OP.
-
sgbotsford at 08:45 AM on 25 December 2014Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
One of the problems with the Climate crisis is that slow motion that it occurs. Watching glaciers move is positively speedy.
In watching my own attitudes to things, for many things if it's more than 3 years to a consequence it doesn't exist.
This changes for individuals at certain times. E.g. when you have kids, then 20 years for certain topics of interest is normal.
One of the questions to ask people: "How far in the future should we plan? And then guide them through a few scenarios:
- Should cities buy up right of way for mass transit and freeways that won't be needed for 50 years. How about 10 years?
- Your town is a mining town. At the present technology the mine will run out of ore in 15 years. As city counselor and as a business man with various inventments what do you think your city should be doing regarding things that are beyond the end of your 3 year term?
- A new medical treatment for obesity comes out. It works *really* well for about half the population. The other half it kills over the span of 5 years. There is no certain way to tell the people apart until symptoms show. What are the implications for your town?
This is training in taking the long view. Most people feel far more connected, more able to affect decisions, to the local comunity than to the nation.
Initially all the scenarios should NOT work in the field of climate. Much of the scenario development stresses what the research has found out. Get them to make decisions based on 'best guess' of what's going on now.
After a time of this summarize the methods used. Talk to the people who should know. Talk about how to trust what they say. If there are numbers, crank the numbers. Make the best decision you can, based on the current knowledge. Start to act on that decision.
Now bring in one that has definite pre-set attititudes. Point out where they depart from the decision model they just used.
At this point don't try to convince them they are wrong. Try to convince them to use the model that seems to work so well.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:13 AM on 25 December 2014Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
Roger Knights @90, michael sweet has more than adequetly addressed the point about temperatures over the last few million years.
What I wish to note is the shere unreasonableness of your suggestion that Hansen was alarmist because, in 2007, he failed to take into account climate sensitivity determinations that would not be made for another five years at the time of his speaking. In 2007, a climate sensitivity of 3 was not just within the IPCC range. It was the IPCC central estimate of climate sensitivity, of the then just released (or just to be released) AR4. Further, the fifteen year temperature trend to 2007 (ie, 1993-2007) using Gistemp was 0.263 C per decade. Therefore there was no "pause" in evidence, so again you are condemning Hansen as "alarmist" because he did not predict, and was not aware of the effect on the short term global temperature record of two very large La Nina events (2008, and 2011/12) that postdate his comments.
So, quite apart from the fact that there have been a number of climate sensitivity estimates in recent years, spanning a range of values (not just the low value estimates exclusively reported at WUWT); and that the "pause" is an artifact of one of the two strongest El Ninos in the twentieth century at the start of the "pause" and two very strong (including possibly the strongest on record, and certainly the strongest since 1974/5 La Ninas at the end of the period, your criticism is anachronistic. It amounts to criticizing a scientist as "alarmist" for publicly reporting the best science at the time; which clearly shows it comes from a desire to criticise rather than a desire to fairly assess what Hansen has said.
-
mancan18 at 08:08 AM on 25 December 2014Scientists connect the dots from identifying to preventing dangerous climate risks
Changing the view of the public is not only a job for the scientists, it is also a job for the media and for popular writers to create the right fictional (and non-fictional) literature that will be widely read. While SkS is predominately a forum for scientific discussion. Perhaps, while I don't pretend to be any great writer, I have a more scientific and mathematical bent, I have penned something, while it's not great liteature and it may be an inappropriate forum, it might get the ball rolling.
AGW and CC
Doggerel for the AnthropoceneMore extremes,
Less in betweens;
Records broken,
That are not a token;
Longer lasting,
Wider happening,
All a sign
Of what's to come.Warmer hot days,
Warmer cold days,
Warmer OK days,
Just changing to a warmer way.
More summer times,
Later autumn times,
Earlier spring times,
Shorter winter times,
Sometimes sharper,
Most times milder,
Years not quite,
What they've always been;
Where only some days,
Seem the same.More sunny days,
More droughts;
More cloudy days,
More rain;
More floods;
More storms,
More wind;
More homes destroyed,
More houses wrecked,
Oh well what the heck.Warmer land,
Warmer seas,
With
Glaciers smaller,
Poles retreating,
Overall,
Ice just disappearing;
High tides higher,
Low tides higher,
The coast we know,
Just eroding;
Coral reefs fewer,
Sea shells thinning,
All the while
Cities slowly sinking.Less land to farm,
To keep us fed,
More sandy deserts,
And a few more dead;
Fewer species,
Animals disappearing,
While others just seem to thrive,
Over a range,
A little more wide;
More pests,
To cause us harm,
More sickness and disease,
To threaten us all.While climates tropical
Become more topical
And milder climes
Are in decline
As poles shrink
You have to think
For polar bears
It's now quite clear,
It's simple,
Really,
They just won't be here.Early signs now,
Give a clue,
And climate scientists,
Seem to know;
That clearing forests,
Burning more oil, gas and coal,
Will only achieve that final goal;
Of seeing what happens,
From feeding the Anthropocene;
Sending CO2 to levels not seen,
Since sometime before the Pleistocene,
Increasing at rates that have never been;
So finally we will know,
What business as usual,
Truly means,
Unfortunately it'll be all too late,
We'll have sealed our fate,
Where, in a few centuries,
There will be a climate that took eons,
For the natural world to make.97% of scientists,
Do agree,
And have spoken through
Their journals, Academies and the IPCC;
3% think something different,
And have sown seeds of uncertainty,
While doubters lay doubt,
With skepticism and deniability,
With their talk of conspiracy
From their political ideology,
Or simply for reasons monetary;
With arguments, politic,
And few, scientific;
All to get in the way,
So action is stopped again and again;
For a little more money,
From a 19th century technology;But it's not so funny,
Because it keeps on happening,
And it will be our children,
Who will surely pay.Some will win,
Most will lose,
But for everyone,
It won't be the same;
One thing though,
As certain as day,
It will be the poorest
Who will have to pay;
While the air conditioned move to higher ground,
Where a more pleasant clime can be found,
To continue their lives day to day,
As if nothing ever happened.It's not a good idea,
To change the climate,
To one not seen,
Long before the thylacine,
It might be a little more green,
In some places,
While in others,
Nothing,
Only desert;
Where in the future
All we'll see,
Is a world where we didn't exist,
A world where we would never be.Should we worry,
And chance our luck,
Just ignore the science,
And hope for the best;
Well, our children will certainly know,
In a hundred years or so;
We will leave them a legacy,
For them to live by,
To wonder why,
People, so supposedly enlightened,
Like us,
Could just let it happen.Despite all the controversy,
Debate and prophecy,
There's one thing certain,There is no doubt,
With CO2 increasing,
There will be heating,
Unlike anything we've ever seen.So for Paris,
In two fifteen
Scientists have spoken;
Will the politics remain same,
Just still broken;
Or will we stop the rot,
So the world doesn't become,
A lot more hot?mancan18 Dec 2014
-
michael sweet at 06:06 AM on 25 December 2014Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
Rodger,
This reference provides temperature data going back 800,000 years. The temperatures over the previous two million years were similar. We are currently within a couple of degrees of the hottest in the past three million years. IPCC RPC 8.5 shows 5C by 2100 and more after that. If CO2 continues to rise we will exceed the temperature of the past three million years as Hansen states. Your claim that Hansen was alarmist is baseless and uninformed. Please provide a citation to support your wild claim that Hansen is incorrect. In the absence of a scientific citation your claim must be presumed false.
Hansen's estimate of 3C per doubling is the middle of the IPCC range. The latest IPCC report has a best estimate of 3C per doubling. Your claim that the Hansen's value is too high is incorrect. Please read the literature and try to become up to date. You are uncritically accepting false information from WUWT. This article addresses some of your misconceptions. You should keep in mind that you are talking about the climate sensitivity. The earth system sensitivity is much higher (like double the climate sensitivity). It includes slow feedbacks like ice sheets melting. You must determine if Hansen was referring to the climate sensitivity or the earth system sensitivity (he is likely to be refering to the earth system sensivity). If you do not know what the earth system sensivity is you can ask here and people will try to educate you.
Watts is completely blameworthy for publishing false information like the post you have cited. It has been documented in this thread that the WUWT post is filled with false and misleading information. You yourself were uninformed about the basis of your argument untill the facts were presented to you on this thread.
-
Roger Knights at 04:49 AM on 25 December 2014Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
Michael Sweet wrote, in #89: “Please cite specific statements from the video that you consider alarmist. Keep in mind that the video is from 2007 . . . .”
Adjusting for my mistake about the year of the video and my resulting wrong implied end-of-century date, Hansen, in #82, implied that by 2017 under continuing rising CO2 we’ll likely be locked-in to a global temperature that will be the hottest in 3 million years by 2100. That was alarmism—it was an attempt to stampede people into ACTION NOW action now with an UNlikely unlikely scenario.
(It’s unlikely mainly because Hansen (per a quote I read somewhere) estimates the climate sensitivity to be 3.0. That’s within IGPOCC’s IPCC's range, but it’s much higher than the latest estimates in the literature—and because the temperature has barely risen in the past seven years.)
Michael Sweet wrote: “You are claiming that Hansen has to provide documentation to prove the statements at WUWT are false.”
Strawman. I said that, lacking confirmation from the other party to Hansen’s interview, Watts is not “very blameworthy” (see item “2” of #86) for not accepting Hansen’s “assuming a doubling of CO2” to be an unquestionable fact.
Moderator Response:[JH] The use of "all caps" constitutes shouting and is therefore prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. In addition, you are now skating on the thin ice of sloganeering - which is also prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
wili at 04:06 AM on 25 December 2014Scientists connect the dots from identifying to preventing dangerous climate risks
The determination of consensus can be a bit iffy (though not, of course, on the general issue of GW). A number of scientists who have been most closely involved in research on the Arctic do think that a 'huge methane burp' cannot be ruled out. Few have spent more time researching the area directly than Wadhams, Shakhova and Semiletov, and they are among the most concerned. IIRC, Mann has also stated that he did not think that a relatively large, sudden release could be ruled out. And of course the large number of people associated with the Arctic Methane Emergency Group are quite concerned. (Whatever one may think of certain of their members, certain of their studies, or certain of their objectives, the fact of the matter is that they have a number of scientists among them who have studied the area.)
Given the importance of establishing the very real concensus on AGW, I think it unwise to use the term where real debate still exists among major figures in the field (wherever one may personally come down on the controversy).
Also, dismissing what would be a civilization threatening event as a 'burp' does not help to show that a careful and sober judgment has been made of the issue, imho.
-
wili at 03:53 AM on 25 December 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #51
Thanks for that discussion and the link, OPOF. Even more significant than the daily numbers is the fact that the 30-day average is now below -8.
-
Roger Knights at 03:44 AM on 25 December 2014Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
PS to #86: Here’s a third reason WUWT isn’t upbraid-worthy for not crying “mea culpa” on this issue. Its reason for being leery is expressed in this quote by TimG on the mapleleafweb.com site:
“Frankly, I don’t believe his [Hansen’s] recollection because it makes no sense that a reporter would ask a question on what would happen 40 years after CO2 doubles. It would either be what would happen in 40 years or what would happen when CO2 doubles.”
I now believe Hansen’s recollection, because he wouldn’t have made a 10-feet-in-40-years prediction. He had to be speaking of when-CO2-doubles. Given that, here’s my guess as to what happened:
Reiss posed two the questions TimG described above. Hansen gave an answer to the doubling of CO2 question. Reiss misremembered that answer as being to his 40-years question. When the Slate interview became a subject of controversy, Hansen chose to avoid embartrassing Reiss by saying that he’d garbled things. Instead, he tried to soften the blow by saying Reiss had asked a complex (double-barreled) question, hoping this would put the matter to rest with no hard feelings. Instead, it aroused suspicions in contrarians like TimG—and perhaps in Watts, at least unconsciously.
Moderator Response:[JH] Case closed. Time to move on.
-
Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
Roger Knights - WUWT is still misinterpreting a Gedankenexperiment for a prediction, a complete misinterpretation that they are using to attack Dr. Hansen. Blaming the victim is never appropriate - the responsibility lies with those making the misinterpretations, in this case with WUWT.
Your personal opinion that Hansen 'might have gone even further off the rails' and made such foolish predictions anyway is wholly unsupported by any evidence (or IMO any sense), and is in my view just another case of attacking the man rather than considering the evidence.
-
michael sweet at 02:27 AM on 25 December 2014Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
Roger Knights,
Tom has provided documentation that your claims about Dr. Hansen are false. You maintain above that Dr. Hansen has made "alarmist" statements. I see only falsehoods like claiming estimates of sea level rise for 2100 are claims for 2000 and false claims of temperature projections by Dr. Hansen. Please cite specific statements form the video that you consider alarmist. Keep in mind that the video is from 2007 and not 1988 as you falsely claimed. The only "alarmist" statements I see are your false claims from WUWT.
You are claiming that Hansen has to provide documentation to prove the statements at WUWT are false. You have the situation backwards. WUWT is required to show that the wild claims they make are true, especially since you have provided evidence that their claims are false with two sterling examples.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:39 AM on 25 December 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #51
New monthly record highs for global average surface temperatures may be set in early 2015. The preliminary daily values for December 23 and 24 of the SOI (here) are at very strong El Nino supporting levels (-38).
We will still need to wait and see what will actually develop but there is evidence that the ENSO will be clearly on the El Nino side rather than the neutral condition that existed at the start of 2014.
So the ones hoping to deny the validity of the climate science, because they dislike the socioeconomic changes it clearly indicates are required, are likely to be in for another year of irrefutable facts accumulating contrary to their interests, especially with the global movement towards curtailing the benefiting from burning of buried hydrocarbons that will be formally strengthened near the end of 2015.
-
Roger Knights at 01:00 AM on 25 December 2014Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
Here, below the line, is a comment I composed before reading the comments above. After reading them, I'm kicking myself for not noticing the clue in Hansen's hair. And for not realizing that the "1986" reference didn't necessarily apply to the date of the video.
Anyway, this exchange has been valuable in clearing things up--and the answers I hope to get from my e-mails ought to make things even clearer. (Unless they make them muddier.)
--------------------
I’ve done some more Googling on this topic. It now seems unlikely to me that Hansen would have predicted a ten-foot rise in sea level within 40 years, regardless of how hot it got by the end of that period. There’s obviously, to any climatologist, way too much lag involved for that to happen.
OTOH, I don’t see WUWT’s current skepticism as very blameworthy, for these two reasons:
1) The video I cited is over-the-top—it’s a classic of alarmism. Watts and other contrarians could be forgiven for thinking, from seeing it (and probably from other alarmist statements of Hansen), that he might have gone even further off the rails and made a 10-feet-in-40-years prediction.
2) Hansen’s qualification, “assuming CO2 doubled in amount,” was apparently not included in Reiss’s book. It certainly wasn’t in the e-mail he sent to Hansen that Hansen quoted. (Probably Hansen did make it though, IMO.) But Hansen’s say-so alone is insufficient to establish that as a fact. Reiss’s confirmation is needed. Without that confirmation—at a minimum—there’s nothing scandalous in Watts not yet conceding that he was wrong.
I suspect, if it’s not in his book, that Reiss doesn’t recall it—although that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. That is what I intend to ask him about. (If Reiss does recall it, and/or if it’s in his earlier book, I’ll mention it in WUWT’s Tips and Notes section.)
Moderator Response:[JH]
You are skating on the thin ice of sloganeering excessive repetition which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
michael sweet at 00:19 AM on 25 December 2014Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
Tristan,
Hansen obviously meant several degrees by 2100. That is the time frame for projections by the IPCC. Comparing to the most recent IPCC report, that statement is still reasonable. It is easy to make a projection look bad by changing the time frame from 110 years to 12 years. The 2000 time frame added is incorrect. A simple comparison to Hansen's testimony in 1988 to Congress shows Hansen estimated temperature increases close to a tenth of a degree by 2000. Should we believe Hansen's testimony to Congress or an edited You-Tube video? Roger is taking statements he reads at WUWT too seriously.
Hansen and many other scientists have estimated equilibrium sea level rise of 20+ meters from 2-3 C increases in temperature. This will take centuries to realize (the time estimated varies widely). The IPCC projections only go out to 2100. The sea will continue to rise after that for centuries and many meters. The high end projections would result in complete loss of ice and 65 meters of sea level rise. This rise would not be complete for perhaps 1-4 thousand years. Imagine if we were still dealing with the consequences of pollution released by the Ancient Egyptians!
-
Tom Curtis at 23:54 PM on 24 December 2014Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
Tristan @88, the video, SFAICT, was made as part of a 2007 documentary by inside out (click on Greenland). Thus, when Hansen says, "... we are likely to get warming this century of several degrees fahrenheit" he is reffering to the 21st century. Further, and ironically, the video is concurent with his scientific statements about the possible rate of sea level rise I quoted above, and which Roger Knights rejected as "a recent view".
On the dating of the video, the only thing tying it to 1988 is the mention the introduction to the video which says:
"In 1988, he was one of the first prominent scientists to raise the alarm about the threat of global warming..."
That, of course, is merely a historical reference, and is shown to be so by the continuation of the quote:
"... and he continues to be one of the country's most outspoken scientists on this issue."
Further, this is what Hansen looked like in 1988:
You will probably notice distinctly less hair in the video.
The crucial fact as the video and the article to which I linked are approximately concurrent, they do not represent different views, but different aspects of the same view. Specifically, Hansen thought (and still thinks) that sea level rise will be rapid, measured in meters over the coming century, and plausibly as much as 5 meters over that century. He also thinks that once the sea level stops rising, the total rise will be measured in tens of meters, and plausibly upward of 50 meters. All of this assuming we keep on burning fossil fuels, and in particular, coal.
As this response to you is an effective response to the later part of Roger Knights' comment @82, I will not repeat myself in responding to him. I will note here, for his benefit, however, that lack of care in interpreting Hansen's comments, and in particular, failure to consult his more exact statements will lead to interpreting out of context such as interpreting a claim about ultimate sea level rise as (and frankly absurd) claim about sea level rise over this century. That is why it is only done by those seeking rhetorical rather than scientific rebutal of Hansen's views.
I will also note that his recent views are entirely germain to his 1988 views in that in 2001, Reiss confirmed with Hansen that he still stood by his views as expressed in 1988 (he did).
-
Tristan at 22:23 PM on 24 December 2014Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
I'm not sure that Hansen was advocating a several degree fahrenheit rise over the course of 12 years :p I imagine he meant the period of time from 1988-2088.
He is not making a 'prediction' in any scientific sense, but suggesting the listener imagine a vastly different world from the one of 1988.
I would probably have avoided the potential takeaway that 100 years of warming could result in a possible 25m sea-level rise. -
Roger Knights at 20:08 PM on 24 December 2014Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
Tom Curtis wrote, in #81: “. . . it is appropriate for SkS to acknowledge (in a footnote) at least that Watts has slightly ammended his post to eliminate one error, while retaining many others. That is so regardless of the standards of error correction at WUWT that, or other "skeptic" sites.”
Good. That agrees with what I said in #74, especially the last two paragraphs. I hope your opinion carries weight with the moderators here.
Tom Curtis continued: “It is unreasonable, however, to expect continuous inspection of posts on which SkS comments in the off chance of a rare correction. SkS authors are volunteers with many other demands on their time.”
(I presume the above refers to the comments I made on WUWT on Dec. 20, not here, where I haven’t suggested such a thing.) I didn’t think my expectation of SkS-awareness was unreasonable in this instance: 1) I had got the impression, from WUWT commenters who noticed rapid rebuttals here on SkS to recent WUWT material, and from SkS’s ongoing (I thought) long list of counterpoints to climate contrarians, that SkS-ers collectively, if informally, were on top of what happens on WUWT. 2) I also thought that Watt’s concession that he had been wrong about its “20”-year claim would be so juicy that it would have been reported here.
As it happens, Watts’s concession was only a two-year-old “update” to his head post. So, within 2.5 hours, I realized, unprompted, that I had been wrong in assuming SkS should have been aware of Watt’s retraction. I then posted the following on WUWT: “I now realize that AW’s update to his thread would not have appeared as a new item in WUWT’s sidebar, so SkS probably was unaware of it. I’ve posted a comment on the SkS thread informing it of AW’s update and urging it to update its own thread too.”
Tom Curtis continued: “Therefore concluding that SkS is unreliable because they got the fact correct at the time of publication but failed to take note of a correction by Watts of which they had not been notified is unreasonable.”
Right. But I immediately corrected myself. You must have lost sight of my correction. (It’s easy to lose sight of such things. I acknowledged doing so myself in #79.)
Tom Curtis continued: “It suggests you are merely seeking a pretext to arrive at that conclusion [of SkS’s unreliability]. . .”
In light of my explanation above, I trust you will take that back. (For context, I do claim that if SkS fails to “add a footnote” to its link to Watts’s thread, it will be perceived, correctly, as implicitly misleading its readers.)
Tom Curtis continued: “- particularly given multiple egregious errors you seem prepared to over look at WUWT.”
We won’t know how deep WUWT is sunk in its Egyptian night until we have clarified Reiss’s ambiguous question. I’ve ordered Reisss’s book and, to establish a relationship with them, sent e-mails to Reiss and Hansen—and I have follow-ups in mind. I suggest that you contact Hansen and ask him to clarify which interpretation of Reiss’s ambiguous question he responded to. (I didn’t ask him that—I just posed three softball questions to get things started. Similarly, the only question I asked Reiss was the name of “the earlier book” in which he included his Q-and-A with Hansen.) Hansen’s e-mail is jeh1@columbia.edu. Reiss’s is bobreiss@hotmail.com. When you and I (hopefully) get answers, we’ll have something we can get our teeth into.
Tom Curtis wrote, earlier in his post: “Because of that ambiguity, if you want to check Hansen's opinions on sea level rise, it is a ridiculous quote to do so on. That is particularly the case as he has stated his position on sea level rise far more clearly elsewhere. Thus, in the New Scientist, he writes: . . . .”
But that’s from 2007, and our argument is about his thinking about sea level rise in 1988. Here’s a quote from a 44-second 1988 Hansen video that seems consistent with Watt’s view that Hansen was foreseeing a huge SLR soon (e.g., within 40 years).
(To view it, go to YouTube and search for “James Hansen speaks about Global Warming.” I’m afraid to post a link to it here, because SkS hasn’t properly processed the link I posted in #75. (Can someone please point to what’s wrong with it?) If you or anyone here knows how to post a link to it, please do so.)
Hansen: “If we stay on with business as usual, I think for even a decade or so, then we are likely to get a temperature rise of several degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century [2000], and that would be really a different planet. That would be the warmest it has been since the middle Pliocene—that’s about three million years ago—and at that time there was no ice in the arctic during the summer and fall and sea level was about 25 meters—that’s about 80 feet—higher than it is now. So that is a very different planet. About a half billion people live near the coastlines, which would be underwater if we got a sea level rise of 80 feet.”
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:05 AM on 24 December 2014CO2 effect is saturated
I'd venture to guess that Digby is M. Wright -> Satoh -> Anne Hyster -> Anne HysterII. Each of these folks has been banned for excessive repetition, sock puppetry and sloganeering.
I would propose to allow continued commenting if Mr Wright can abide by the rules. But that will require the capacity to actually move the discussion forward when shown where he is in error.
Note that Mr Wright has an extensive blog post where he contradicts nearly every aspect of established scientific research related to climate change (which, if any of it were actually correct, would earn him a Nobel Prize).
Moderator Response:[DB] Yes, sock puppetry is indeed confirmed. Reprehensible activities such as this are subject to automatic forfeiture of posting rights, permanently.
-
jja at 03:19 AM on 24 December 2014Record-Breaking Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014: Has the Climate Shifted?
it is not a coincidence that the mid-century negative IPO correlates to the rapid post WWII industrialization and subsequently ends at the implementation of aggressive sulphate emissions reductions by U.S. and Europe in the mid 1970's.
Obviously the IPO is influenced by anthropogenic aerosols.Moderator Response:[Rob P] - See the Maher et al (2014) paper linked to in this post. You will find it interesting.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:29 AM on 24 December 20142014 will be the hottest year on record
jgnflnd,
I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. Please clarify where you see a 'focus' on one year being warmer than the previous year in this post and comment set.
There is mention about this year being the warmest in many data sets of global average surface temperature that start in the 1800s. And there is mention that if El Nino strengthens then 2015 will be even warmer. However, those have been presented as evidemce that the trend of global warming has not slowed.
-
Kevin C at 19:15 PM on 23 December 2014Record-Breaking Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014: Has the Climate Shifted?
Note that ERSSTv4, which includes a correction for engine room intake bias, shows considerably more warning over the last decade than ERSSTv3b. Having said that, I am not very convinced by the behaviour of ERSSTv4 in the 19th and early 20th centuries, so I wouldn't necessarily assume that the new version is right.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:44 PM on 23 December 2014CO2 effect is saturated
Digby, I think you are furiously agreeing with KR. The only thing you are not noting is that KR's post was a response to "Anne Hyzer" who claimed the majority of CO2 radiation came from the upper stratosphere (see 378).
-
CO2 effect is saturated
Digby - And as Tom Curtis and I have noted, this means that the upper stratosphere is not the location of the effective radiating altitude, nor where the majority of the CO2 radiated energy comes from.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:00 PM on 23 December 2014CO2 effect is saturated
Digby @383, if you look at the right hand panel of the second figure in KR's post you will see three "typical" temperature profiles. The temperature profile in my post @376 corresponds to the green profile in KR's post, ie, middle latitude. As you can see, the profile varies based on latitude, but also on season and local conditions (including local humidity). The profile over desert, for example, would be different to that over ocean.
KR's refference to a temperature range, therefore, does not represent a range of temperatures in the tropopause. It represents a range of temperatures of the tropopause at different latitudes (as shown in the right hand panel of his second figure). While it would be possible with a sufficiently distant instrument to get a whole hemisphere IR spectrum for the Earth, the actual instruments used are in low Earth orbit and so can only profile a limited area at a time so the brightness temperature of the base of the CO2 trough will vary depending on where and when the profile was taken.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:46 PM on 23 December 2014Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
Roger Knights @various, I quote the most accurate account of the interview:
"Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount."
The problem with that statement is that it is multiply amibuous. It could mean Mann was asked to speculate on any of the following scenarios:
- Assume CO2 is 560 ppmv now (ie, in 1988), then what would the changes be in New York City in 2028;
- Assume CO2 levels rise to 560 ppmv by 2028, then what would the changes be in New York City in 2028; or
- Assume that at some time t, CO2 levels rise to 560 ppmv, then then what would the changes be in New York City in t + 40 years.
Because of that ambiguity, if you want to check Hansen's opinions on sea level rise, it is a ridiculous quote to do so on. That is particularly the case as he has stated his position on sea level rise far more clearly elsewhere. Thus, in the New Scientist, he writes:
"As an example, let us say that ice sheet melting adds 1 centimetre to sea level for the decade 2005 to 2015, and that this doubles each decade until the West Antarctic ice sheet is largely depleted. This would yield a rise in sea level of more than 5 metres by 2095."
Based on that scenario sea level rise in 2028 would be approximately 0.043 meters, not the three meters required for covering the WSH.
It should be noted that Hansen does not consider the 5 meter sea level rise by 2100 the most likely scenario. He does think sea level rise will be measured in meters, ie, that it will be significantly greater than that projected by the IPCC and considers 5 meters a plausible estimate in the upper range of possibility. Even assuming that it is his actual estimate, however, clearly his more accurately stated views are inconsistent with the common interpretation of the WSH quote.
Now, it is possible that Hansen is merely being inconsistent. It is far more probable, however, that his critics (notably at WUWT) have merely misinterpreted his comments - and that ergo their criticism is still fraught with error. Absent an explicit attempt by those critics to determine exactly what Hansen meant in his comment, either by directly asking him or by finding the original transcript of the interview so that the exact words used can be used to rule out possible interpretations, they are clearly indulging in an attempted "gotcha" where the purpose it is only rhetorical. And because rhetorical, it is more important what they can persuade their audience to believe about what Hansen said, than what he actually said and meant.
As a side note, absent specific clarrification by Hansen, and given his apparent recent reiteration that he stands by his comments, then consistency requires that Hansen actually to have intended his words to be a response to scenario 3 above.
As a further note, I believe Hansen is wrong about sea level rise, even in his more clearly stated views. I doubt sea level rise over this century will exceed 2 meters, and it may be as low as 0.6 meters. That still represents a significant cause for concern.
Finally, while it is appropriate for SkS to acknowledge (in a footnote) at least that Watts has slightly ammended his post to eliminate one error, while retaining many others. That is so regardless of the standards of error correction at WUWT that, or other "skeptic" sites. It is unreasonable, however, to expect continuous inspection of posts on which SkS comments in the off chance of a rare correction. SkS authors are volunteers with many other demands on their time. Therefore concluding that SkS is unreliable because they got the fact correct at the time of publication but failed to take note of a correction by Watts of which they had not been notified is unreasonable. It suggests you are merely seeking a pretext to arrive at that conclusion - particularly given multiple egregious errors you seem prepared to over look at WUWT.
-
Digby at 12:13 PM on 23 December 2014CO2 effect is saturated
KR, you say the 220 K value in your first graphic corresponds with the -50 to -70 C temps of the tropopause, but your second graphic shows that the temperature of the atmosphere does not change at all between the tropopause, at 10 km, and the lower stratospphere up to around 20 km. This is seen more clearly in the graph in post #376 in Tom's post. It means, judging by temperature, the CO2 radiates anywhere from the tropopause to the lower stratosphere, or, anywhere from 10 km up to 20 km.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:52 AM on 23 December 2014Hockey stick is broken
As Scaddenp seems to have forgotten the link, here is the Santa Monica tide guage data:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/377.php
And here is the annual data from that site:
The trend since 1933 is 1.37 mm per annum.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:42 AM on 23 December 2014Hockey stick is broken
Gumball67 @143:
1) As Stephen Baines has already noted, the IPCC does not publish original research. Rather, it reviews original research already published in the peer reviewed literature.
2) Michael Mann's iconic hockey stick graph, as reproduced by the IPCC in the Third Assessment Report (IPCC TAR, 2001) was published in the Geophysical Research Letters in 1999 (PDF version of paper).
3) That version was an update and extension of the prior version published in Nature in 1998, which only extended back to 1400 (PDF version of paper).
4) Those papers were revolutionary in being among the first to use actual temperature proxies from a several cites around the globe to determine NH temperatures, and more importantly, being the very first to assess the error margins of the estimates. They represented a major step forward in paleoclimate temperature reconstructions for the last few thousand years, but not the last or most recent step by any means.
5) The graph used by the IPCC in its First Assessment Report (IPCC FAR, 1990) was a version of a graph devised by Hubert Lamb. Hubert Lamb's graph was based on the Central England Temperature series, a thermometer based record of temperatures in central England. That record only extends back to 1659, whereas Lamb's graph extended back prior to 1000 AD. Astute observers will therefore note that he must have relied on other information for the extension, and that other information was anecdotal historical data, mostly from Europe and Greenland. Astute observers will further note that Central England is not the World, or even the Northern Hemisphere. They will even note that Central England plus Greenland is still not the world or the NH and conclude that using strictly regional temperature information (and anecdotal information in the crucial period) is not an adequate methodology, and not to be preffered to using a number of temperature proxies from around the world.
6) In the IPCC Second Assessment Report (IPCC SAR, 1996), the figure based on Lamb's guesses was replaced by proxy data, primarilly that from Bradley and Jones, 1993, which was a reconstruction based on 16 proxies and hence already a quantum leap in methodology over Lamb's free hand line drawn based on regional anecdotes:
(Image version from wikipedia)
The SAR also featured icecore records from around the globe, giving a similar picture.
So, in summary, every feature of your account of the events relating to the IPCC, Lamb and Mann's graph is wrong. But that is indeed why the world is full of deniers. Because it is full of people who seize on convenient "facts" as an excuse to avoid uncomfortable conclusions - never bothering to check their sources. Consequently it is full of people who confidently assert fictions as the basis of their opinions, and then go on to assert fraud by scientists for disagreeing with those opinions (as the scientist's opinions must, being based on facts).
-
scaddenp at 11:17 AM on 23 December 2014Hockey stick is broken
And as an aside, the tide gauge data at Santa Monica does not seem to squate with your assertion of no sealevel rise. But given possibility of local tectonics, dont you think a better guage of sealevel rise would from satellites or analysis of the global tide guage data?
What is your evidence that a perception of a Mann graph is the reason for climate denial? In my experience, denial is mostly rooted in political values and identity and will jump on any ridiculous excuse to bolster a position. A cool-headed review of all available data seems beyond many people.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:19 AM on 23 December 2014Record-Breaking Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014: Has the Climate Shifted?
Gumball... Those are not questions the article is addressing. The article is addressing indicators that may signal whether we will see accellerated warming in the coming decades.
If you want to know about past sea surface temperatures you could try research posted on the NOAA website here.
-
Riduna at 10:15 AM on 23 December 2014Record-Breaking Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014: Has the Climate Shifted?
The short-term prognosis seems rather grim for corals and the cryosphere, particularly in the Arctic and all that implies.
Perhaps Rob Painting or other SkS scientists will publish their conclusions on the consequences of sustained rising SST on these areas in the near future. A glimpse is provided at Figs 3 and 4. Both are disturbing.
-
Stephen Baines at 09:46 AM on 23 December 2014Hockey stick is broken
Gumball.
No. The IPCC does not publish original research in journals. It only reviews the original research. IPCC authors may publish their own work in journals like Science, because as experts they do some of the original research being reviewed. Science may have published an IPCC figure from a report, but they are not doing so as the IPCC.
I have a guess as to what you're talking about, but the dates don't match up. You will have to provide more specific — providing links to these figures etc — before anyone can clear up your confusion about this.
Prev 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 Next
