Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 Next
Comments 40651 to 40700:
-
Timothy Chase at 08:08 AM on 17 November 2013The Other Bias
Kevin C., somehow it escaped me that you are the Kevin Cowtan that coauthored the paper with Robert Way. Congratulations! I am looking forward to reading the paper.
-
LuisC at 07:19 AM on 17 November 2013Free computer game - World at the Crossroads
None of that worked. I can run it only when the computer is in Safe Mode. I can't even established user rights on my own computer because of the disgusting piece of garbage that is Windows 7.
'2. On some computers the game may be blocked by an antivirus software (it was necessary to mark the file as "allowed" and everything run fine).'
How?
-
folke_kelm at 05:45 AM on 17 November 2013Cosmic rays fall cosmically behind humans in explaining global warming
HK@12
It is necessary to test hypotheses in realistic experiments. So i do not think it is a waste of time what they have done at CERN. You must know that they did not only test Svensmarks hypothesis of cosmic rays seeding cloud condensation nuclei, but also other factors which may have influence on seeding clouds.
There is a (in my onpinion) very important article in Nature 17.oct 2013 vol 502 Almeide et Al.
Molecular understanding of sulphuric acid-amine particle nucleation in the atmosphere
doi:10.1038/nature12663
They find a natural presence of Dimethylamine dwarfing cosmic rays in their effect on cloud nucleation. This is a direct result from the CLOUD experiment at CERN.
-
Timothy Chase at 05:13 AM on 17 November 2013The Other Bias
WebHub Telescope, the issue of switching from intake water to buckets is covered here:
What caused such a dramatic drop in SST in 1945? In the wartime years leading up to 1945, most sea temperatures measurements were taken by US ships, who measured the temperature of the intake water used for cooling the ship's engines. This method tends to yield higher temperatures due to the warm engine-room environment. However, in August 1945, British ships resumed taking SST measurements. British crews collected water in uninsulated buckets. The bucket method has a cooling bias.
A new twist on mid-century cooling
Posted on 2 June 2008 by John Cook
http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-new-twist-on-mid-century-cooling.html... and as you indicated it is a 1940s issue.
The problem involving the switch to buoys is more recent. It is introduced here:
Ships and buoys made global warming look slower
26 November 2010 by Michael Marshall
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19772-ships-and-buoys-made-global-warming-look-slower.htmlMet Office to revise global warming data upwards
Leon Clifford, 26 Nov 2010
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/met-office-to-revise-global-warming-data-upwards.htmlThe issue is identified here:
Kennedy, J. J., R. O. Smith, and N. A. Rayner. "Using AATSR data to assess the quality of in situ sea-surface temperature observations for climate studies." Remote Sensing of Environment 116 (2012): 79-92.
http://hadleyserver.meto.gov.uk/hadsst3/RSE_Kennedy_et_al_2011.doc... and receives some mention here:
Kennedy J.J., Rayner, N.A., Smith, R.O., Saunby, M. and Parker, D.E. (2011b). Reassessing biases and other uncertainties in sea-surface temperature observations since 1850 part 1: measurement and sampling errors. J. Geophys. Res., 116, D14103, doi:10.1029/2010JD015218
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_2_figinline.pdfAdditionally, NASA's approach uses a method of interpolation, and the somewhat more sophisticated kriging used in this more recent paper, which doesn't infill from satellite data per se, but uses how satellite data and surface temperatures are correlated over the ranges for which surface temperature measurements are available to infill where they are absent, appears more accurate.
Please see:
Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half
Filed under: Climate Science Instrumental Record — stefan @ 13 November 2013
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-halfFor more information on the new paper, might try:
Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature record
Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way
http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/... and in particular, the background:
http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/background.html
-
Timothy Chase at 04:03 AM on 17 November 2013The Other Bias
The third paragraph states, "One source of bias - due to poor observational coverage - has been discussed in our recent paper, although it was reported back in 2009, and it was addressed by NASA as long ago as 1987."
"Our recent paper" is hyperlinked to the main page of Skeptical Science. I believe you mean to link to:
Coverage bias. The HadCRUT4 and NOAA temperature records don’t cover the whole planet. Omitting the Arctic in particular produces a cool bias in recent temperatures. (e.g. Hansen et al 2006, Folland et al 2013). The video avoided this problem by using GISTEMP. However the issue affects the Foster and Rahmstorf analysis of the other records.
Has the rate of surface warming changed? 16 years revisited
Posted on 21 May 2013 by Kevin C
http://www.skepticalscience.com/has_the_rate_of_surface_warming_changed.html... although:
The 2012 State of the Climate is easily misunderstood
Posted on 24 October 2013 by MarkR
http://www.skepticalscience.com/2012_soc_misunderstood.html... may also be of some value.
-
Paul Pukite at 04:00 AM on 17 November 2013The Other Bias
Kevin, The bias that you have isolated accurately is the one during WWII. I agree that a measurement error of about +0.1C occurs between 1940 and 1945. It is not clear whether the time series such as GISTEMP actually correct for this. I have been doing my own time-series "reanalysis" via what I refer to as the CSALT model. This recreates the temperature record via non-temperature measurements such as CO2, SOI, Aerosols, LOD, and TSI (thus the acronym).
What I find is that there is a significant warming spike during the WWII years which I correct below. The amount of correction is 0.1C, and when I apply that the model residuals trends more to white noise over the entire record.
-
Timothy Chase at 03:10 AM on 17 November 2013The Other Bias
Just below Figure 1 a paragraph begins "The UK Met Office have developed a very sophisticated analysis to address these biases."
"very sophisticated analysis" is hyperlinked to the main page of Skeptical Science. Two places that seem more appropriate are:
First Look at HadCRUT4
Posted on 18 April 2012 by dana1981
http://www.skepticalscience.com/first-look-at-hadcrut4.htmlHadCRUT4: A detailed look
Posted on 22 May 2012 by Kevin C
http://www.skepticalscience.com/hadcrut4_a_detailed_look.htmlThe second seems especially relevant. I would leave Figure 1 as is, then hyperlinks "more complex" in the caption to figure 1 to the first and "a very sophisticated analysis" to the second.
I believe this would go a long way to addressing the concerns wili expressed in comment 3.
-
DMarshall at 02:50 AM on 17 November 2013Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
Mods,
Please note that the link to the Trenberth paper is broken and should point to
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf
-
michael sweet at 01:23 AM on 17 November 2013Deconstructing former Australian Prime Minister John Howard's 'gut feeling' on climate change
Vincentrj:
Just because you are only recently interested in climate change does not mean that it is a new scientific endeavor. The theoretical basis of AGW was mature in 1896 (that's 117 years ago) when Arhennius published his predictions for temperature increase worldwide from increase in CO2. Arhennius correctly predicted approximately how much the temperature would go up, greater increase in winter than summer, greater increase at night, greater increase in the Northern Hemisphere (especially the Arctic) and greater increase over land than water. These points were dismissed at the time but were confirmed experimentally in the 1980's and 90's as temperatures finally increased enough to go above the noise. Your objection to long time periods having to pass to confirm predictions have been met by waiting long enough. Exactly how long do you need to trust these validated predictions? Obviously furthur increases in temperature will have greater effect. That cannot be measured until we wait for them to occur. Scientists did not come to a consensus until the 1960's that AGW would be a problem and it was the 90's before the data was confirmed to be above the noise. The reason so many disciplines are in agreement is that they have had over a century to review the data. We are now 20 years past what any resonable person would call confirmed data and you want to delay because scientists are all in agreement? Do you also think the world is flat since that is no longer debated?
Many scientits understand AGW well. The reason scientists agree is that the data is overwhelming in support of AGW theory. Only those who are unwilling to objectively look at the data are outside the consensus. The scientific debate now concerns how bad the problem will be, what can be done to lessen the damage and how long we have before the damage is irreparable.
It strikes me that you are making an argument from ignorance. Since you do not know what the data is you claim no one else does. In fact, others have put in more time and effort and understand the data. Do you intend to perform your own brain surgery when you need it or will you obtain expert help on such a specialty subject?
-
Tom Curtis at 00:39 AM on 17 November 2013Deconstructing former Australian Prime Minister John Howard's 'gut feeling' on climate change
DSL @29, Vincentrj's "tone" is not reasonable just because he uses no pejoratives while suggesting, in effect, that climate scientists are involved in a tacit conspiracy to misrepresent research findings so as to defraud the public. The slander involved still makes his post obnoxious. Further, given that his argument is, in effect, that AGW must be doubtfull because the scientists who study it overwhelmingly report evidence that confirms it, I doubt sincerely he is capable of rational conversation on the topic.
-
DSL at 00:23 AM on 17 November 2013Deconstructing former Australian Prime Minister John Howard's 'gut feeling' on climate change
Vincentrj, I appreciate your reasonable tone.
It seems odd to me that the basis of trust should be the degree of debate. That seems a sure-fire way to end up never agreeng with a proposition. No debate? Don't trust it. Lots of debate? Too much uncertainty.
There is an overwhelming consensus on heliocentrism, therefore . . .
The greenhouse effect has been instrumentally measured from surface, inferred from satellite instrument, lab tested bajillions of times, etc. . . . so there's no debate, therefore . . .
The strength of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is established. There's no debate because no one is interested in debating. In feedbacks, there's plenty of debate. I suggest you make some distinctions and point out just where you think there's no debate and to the detriment of trust in science.
As for the complexity, it's not true to say that no one person can grasp it. It is true to say that no one person can grasp it all at once. So what? The same can be said of the human body. If we don't trust science when it addresses complex systems, science dies as a way of understanding things. Are you down with that? Or do you have a replacement -- something simpler?
-
Vincentrj at 00:02 AM on 17 November 2013Deconstructing former Australian Prime Minister John Howard's 'gut feeling' on climate change
The leader of the Liberal opposition party in Australia prior to the election of John Howard as Prime Minister, was Dr John Hewson, an economist.
Just a few days ago I heard John Hewson expressing his views on anthropogenic climate change, on an ABC program called The Drum.
What fascinated me is that his reasons for believing that our CO2 emissions are putting us at great risk of calamity, are the same reasons that cause me to be skeptical about the issue.
Dr Hewson claimed that on most matters involving complex research, scientists are always in some disagreement, expressing different opinions and interpretations of the evidence and the data. However, on the subject of Anthropogenic Global Warming, all the scientists working in the various fields related to climate change are in agreement.
Since this agreement, or consensus, is almost unprecedented in the world of science, or at least in the sphere of new research, it therefore follows that the climate scientists must be right, was his line of reasoning.
However, my line of reasoning, if it is indeed true that there is a genuine consensus among climate scientists, is that something other than science must be going on here, considering the enormous complexity of the numerous forcings or influences on climate, and their interactions.
In other words, if the subject being investigated is relatively straightforward, there might be no good reason to doubt a consensus of opinion among scientists working in the field. To do so might reasonably fit the description of denial.
However, as I understand, the field of climate science involves 20 or 30 different disciplines. There are elements of chaos that have to be dealt with, a lack of reliable historical data relating to climate change in the past and a lack of meteorological data on extreme weather events in the past.
Furthermore, because of the long time-spans involved, theories and predictions cannot be verified using practical, physical models of the earth's climate. It would therefore seem to me that the situation is ripe for continual differences of opinion among scientists working in the various disciplines.
Since there doesn't appear to be much difference of opinion, despite the enormous complexity of the subject, I think alarm bells should be ringing. Setting aside conspiracy theories, could there be some rational explanation for this apparent consensus of opinion, or this lack of the usual disputation among scientists.
For example, is the subject so complex that no single person can grasp the whole of it, just as no single person, however brilliant, could prove the theory of AGW fallacious? Perhaps the options are basically, either continual squabbling and differences of opinion at taxpayers' expense (because the climate research centres are usually government funded), or a tacitly understood agreement that a consensus of opinion is the best approach in order to maintain funding for the research centres and to provide effective advice to governments that at least gives the governments a chance of initiating effective action to reduce CO2 emissions.
-
Bart Verheggen at 23:17 PM on 16 November 2013Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
Jos Hagelaars made a figure comparing these new Cowtan and Way data to the CMIP5 model ensemble (and to HadCRUt4 for reference).
Blogpost: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/cowtan-and-way-global-average-temperature-observations-compared-to-cmip5-models/
Figure: http://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/cowtan_way_hadcrut_rcp85-jos-hagelaars-2013.png
-
Morgan Wright at 23:09 PM on 16 November 2013Antarctica is gaining ice
http://i.imwx.com/web/multimedia/images/blog/antarctica_wind_pattern.jpg
South polar high, as I said. Winds go towards the sea, rotation of the earth to the east causes the wind to turn west to make polar easterlies.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:05 PM on 16 November 2013Antarctica is gaining ice
Morgan Wright @200 & 202:
1) The South Pole itself is not in the blue patch shown on the O'Donell et al map, but rather on the border. The temperature trend at the South Pole as measured by instruments on the surface is scarcely distinguishable from zero (0.007 C per decade), but is not falling. But, does that really matter. Does any part of your argument actually hinge on the South Pole cooling while Antarctica in general warms?
2) I'm so glad your vast fount of knowledge has put the American Meteorological Society in its place:
"cold low
(Or cold cyclone;
also called cold-core low, cold-core cyclone.) At a given level in the atmosphere, any low that is generally characterized by colder air near its center than around its periphery; the opposite of a warm low.A significant case of a cold low is that of a cut-off low, characterized by a completely isolated pool of cold air within its vortex. The cyclonic intensity of a cold low increases with height in accordance with the thermal wind equation."
Or possibly you just don't know everything about meteorology, and you got that one wrong.
3) I say that increased CO2 cools the stratosphere by radiating from the stratosphere, not into it.
4) I say that when air moves from a location with high rotational velocity (m/s following a circumference) to a location with a low angular velocity, the air will conserve angular momentum and hence be diverted at right angles to the the initial impetus, resulting (at the poles) in a vortex around the pole. The greater the reduction in rotational velocity of the surface on over which the air is located, the greater the relative velocity of the air to the surface as a result of conserving angular momentum. I think, however, you had figured this out by your post 201.
5) I am not much concerned about your original ozone skepticism. The OP does not claim that decreased ozone cools the surface. Rather it claims that decreased ozone increases the velocity of the circumpolar vortex, thus breaking up pack ice and allowing more ice to form at the surface, thereby contributing to greater sea ice extent. The mechanism for doing this involves cooling of the stratosphere, not the surface. Reduced ozone cools the stratosphere by the very simple mechanism that less ozone results in less UV radiation being absorbed, and hence energy in the stratosphere.
You are welcome to be as skeptical as you like about your straw man. It just has no relevance to the topic discussed on this thread.
-
Bert from Eltham at 21:09 PM on 16 November 2013Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
What this work shows is how to start to merge all the data from physically different sensors.
My prediction is that one day ocean temperatures will also be better mathematically linked.
How long have the masses/ignorati cried out 'how do you measure the temperature of a whole planet?'
These criticisms are legitimate? from people who know nothing of science. The fact that they are totally ignorant of the complexities is very sad.
As night follows day this paper will be a focus for the ignorati for the most venomous response.
It has already started. Bert
-
penchant at 20:38 PM on 16 November 2013The Other Bias
Hi
Note that trends starting in 1997 and 1998 are most biased by the change in observational method. The striking thing about this result is that these are the same trends which are most impacted by coverage bias
2003 and 2004 seem to exceed 1997/8. Perhaps they should read -.053 and -051 ?
Moderator Response:[JH} The replication of the OP and the comment thread has been deleted. There is no need to copy and paste either one into a comment.
-
Bert from Eltham at 20:20 PM on 16 November 2013Help make our coverage bias paper free and open-access
Worked fine from Australia!
Bert
-
Morgan Wright at 19:14 PM on 16 November 2013Antarctica is gaining ice
OK on second read where you say the air moves from a position of high rotational velocity to low velocity, you were talking about the velocity of the rotating earth, not the rotational velocity of the air. OK never mind. As long as we are on the same page.
Now, what about the ozone? Or lack thereof.
-
Morgan Wright at 18:58 PM on 16 November 2013Antarctica is gaining ice
First, I did not say Antarctica is getting colder. I said the South Pole is. The chart you presented, of O'Donnell et al, clearly shows a large patch of blue over the south pole. Most other studies show the same thing. I understand the peninsula is warming and the pole is cooling. I am concerned about, and dispute, claims that the O3 hole is the reason for south polar cooling.
Second, you mention a low pressure system caused by the cooling of this air. This is never found. Cooling of air causes a high pressure system, always.Third, you say CO2 increases cooling by radiating heat into the stratoshpere, and describe a reverse greenhouse effect over the pole. I appreciate that and find it interesting. I'm sure what you say is true because I've noticed the same thing flying over the arctic, where stratospheric temps outside the cabin were -40 F and the ground temp over northern Canada and Alaska were -60 or lower. Very interesting and probably more true of the antarctic. I see the hump in illustration (c) and vaguely remember that from college. Thank you.
Fourth, you say air north of Antarctica moves southward and the rotational velocity slows down because it conserves angular momentum. This is the opposite of how a vortex works. Air moving towards the center of a vortex always increases rotational speed as its radius from the center of the vortex decreases. Oh wait, at the end of the same paragraph you say the speed increases. Never mind. Maybe it was an error. However, a true vortex is caused by a low pressure zone and adjacent air moving into the low and rotating as it moves in due to conservation of angular momentum. In this case, the center of the vortex is a high pressure zone, the air is not moving in but moving west, and the rotation is caused by the rotation of the earth. It's not really a vortex at all. Compare this to how a hurricane works. Not even similar.
This conversation has been fun but says nothing about my original ozone skepticism.
-
Tom Curtis at 17:20 PM on 16 November 2013Antarctica is gaining ice
Morgan Wright @197 & 198, you appear to be missing several crucial facts in your discussion.
First, Antarctica is getting warmer, not colder. This has been shown in several recent studies, including by Steig et al (2009) and O'Donell et al (2010)
The rate of warming is low relative to much of the rest of the planet, an in particular the Arctic, but it is still warming. That has little bearing on the formation of sea ice, however, as during the Antarctic winter when sea ice forms, temperatures plummet so that it remains cold enough for sea ice to form even with the slight warming.
Second, it is not postulated above that ozone depletion encourages the formation of sea ice by cooling Antarctica, but rather by causing stronger winds, which push sea ice apart, exposing additional surface area in which sea ice can form. Reduced ozone does in fact cause cooling, but in the stratosphere, where the reduced ozone results in less UV radiation being absorbed, and hence less warming of the stratosphere. As it happens, increased CO2 reinforces this effect by radiating that heat which is captured away more effeciently. Therefore, at the relevant level of the atmosphere (the lower stratosphere) both reduced ozone and increased CO2 reinforce the same effect, ie, cooling the lower stratosphere.
The result of this colder air is that warmer air from the further north is drawn towards the low pressure system formed by the cooling of the air. This is particularly the case in the Southern Hemisphere summer, when the air north of Antarctica is particularly warm due to the Sun being more directly overhead. However, as the air is drawn towards Antarctica, it moves from a position of high rotational velocity to one of lower rotational velocity. Because angular momentum is conserved, this diverts the winds westward, forming a circumpolar vortex. The colder the Antarctic stratosphere, the further south the warm winds from further North penetrate, and hence the greater their angular velocity relative to the surface, ie, the faster the circumpolar vortex.
These faster winds then tend to break up the ice as explained above.
Third, the greenhouse effect over Antarctica is very weak, and sometimes negative. This may seem counterintuitive, but the greenhouse effect is a consequence of the difference in temperature between the source of IR radiation emitted at the ground, which is then absorbed by the atmosphere, and the temperature of the layer of the atmosphere which emits most IR radiation to space. In Antarctica, the surface is very cold. More importantly, most of the heat in Antarctica is brought by warm air from the north rather than from the direct radiation from the Sun. As a result, the air above Antarctica is very warm relative to the surface compared to, for example, the tropics. As a result, the greenhouse effect is very weak in Antarctica. Indeed, sometimes, and particularly in winter, the air above Antarctica will be warmer than the surface, resulting in a reverse greenhouse effect - ie, a cooling tendency from the greenhouse effect rather than a warming tendency. This can be seen in the figure below, showing IR radiation to space at various locations. You will notice in Antarctica there are humps at the same locations where in other areas their are dips. The humps indicate the atmosphere was warmer than the surface, and that at that time there was a reverse greenhouse effect.
Finally, a strengthened circumpolar vortex does in fact reduce the rate at which heat is transported into Antarctica. This does not cool Antarctica, for the strengthened vortex was created by an increased initial heatflow southwards. But it does significantly reduce the rate at which heat penetrates to the interior of Antarctica. This is plain in the heat map of Antarctica by O'Donell et al (2010) (above), where (I believe) the warming on the Antarctic Peninsula is much stronger than that in the rest of Antarctica. That is because it sticks out under the vortex (at least some of the time), and into the circumpolar currents driven by the vortex.
-
boba10960 at 16:35 PM on 16 November 2013Help make our coverage bias paper free and open-access
Thomas Huld - Thank you for the clue. Although changing the country menu directly to United States did not work, changing it first to Francce and then changing it again to Etats-Unis brought up a menu with fields appropriate for U.S. donors. Others in the U.S. who doi not have PayPal accounts may want to try this.
-
Morgan Wright at 12:58 PM on 16 November 2013Antarctica is gaining ice
What I mean is, since CO2 is much more important than ozone as a greenhouse gas, and CO2 is increasing, there is nothing O3 can do to make the south pole get colder. O3 can decrease, increase, stay the same, or drop to zero (it's close to zero anyway and has been for 30 years), there is no logical way we can deduct that O3 can make the south pole get colder. It is not logically possible, when CO2 is increasing. Impossible.
-
Morgan Wright at 11:12 AM on 16 November 2013Antarctica is gaining ice
I don't believe the ozone hole is the reason the south pole is getting colder. By saying this, we are basically saying that ozone is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2. If ozone is decreasing, in the presence of increasing CO2, the south pole should be getting warmer unless CO2 is less important than ozone as a greenhouse gas. But since the ozone is not currently decreasing, (it's been flat for years), this means we need to stop making this false claim. My null hypothesis is that ozone is NOT the reason the south pole is getting colder, for the reasons I gave. Disprove my null hypothesis, please.
-
Kevin C at 06:47 AM on 16 November 2013The Other Bias
Wili: It would be nice to do something like figure 1 with real data, but to do that we would have to reproduce the HadSST3 calculation, which is a really complex piece of work. And having done that it would probably be impossible to interpret visually because you would have the weather signal superimposed on top of the trend.
You could complement the illustration with some figures compiled from the real data from this article. (Which I suspect is the least-read of my contributions here, although as a piece of science journalism I think it is my best work.)
-
Kevin C at 06:37 AM on 16 November 2013Help make our coverage bias paper free and open-access
Thank you to everyone for the generous donations so far. We're at about £1200.
-
wili at 06:31 AM on 16 November 2013The Other Bias
Great article. I like a lot about figure one--it really gets across what the problem is quite clearly, once you think about it for a moment. But I'm wondering why there are no units on the y axis. If these are taken from real studies, it shouldn't be that hard to add.
It makes me less likely to use this otherwise wonderful graph in explaining the issue to, for example, student, or from sharing it on other blogs, since the same criticism will likely be raised and I will be left with no answer (unless, of course, I am missing something blindingly obvious to everyone else...wouldn't be the first time '-) ).
My other suggestion for making that graph even stronger is to draw another red line (or another color, if you wish, with a legend to mark it) showing how the ship-alone data, too, goes up faster than than the combined set (blue line) does (unless my eyeballing calculation is off).
Anyway, thanks again and congrats on another great article.
-
Thomas Huld at 05:45 AM on 16 November 2013Help make our coverage bias paper free and open-access
I seem to have been able to make a donation by credit card from Italy without problem. The first thing I did was changing the country. That changed the whole form to Italian with Italian provinces etc. Maybe the CC problem only occurs for non-UK English-speaking countries?
-
The Other Bias
MP3CE - Most likely a low bias in the satellite records, as discussed here. Satellite temperature estimates are quite complex, and there have been repeated corrections to the data sets as various biases are found. Also see Po-Chedley and Fu 2012 for some specific UAH discussion.
See also the 2006 US Climate Change Science Program "Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere - Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences", authored in part by Dr. John Christy (of the UAH data). Executive Summary pg. 10 notes that
This inconsistency between model results and observations could arise either becaise "real world" amplification effects on short and long term time scales are controlled by different physical mechanisms, and models fail to capture such behavior, or because non-climatic influences remaining in some or all of the observed tropospheric datasets lead to biased long-term trends, or a combination of these factors. The new evidence in this Report [...] favors the second explanation. (emphasis added)
Christy, however, does not mention this report anymore, insisting instead that the satellite data is the most accurate measure possible... perhaps a bit of bias on his part?
-
rocketeer at 04:19 AM on 16 November 2013Help make our coverage bias paper free and open-access
I ended up contributing through PayPal. The county/state issue is only a problem for CC donations.
-
Esop at 03:10 AM on 16 November 2013Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
This past summer, the Arctic was somewhat cooler than it had been over the past few summers. As expected, the global average temp shot up to record tying level, further proving the negative bias provided by the non-measured heat bundled up in the Arctic over the past few years.
-
MA Rodger at 02:45 AM on 16 November 2013Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
michael sweet @40.
Curry has in truth responded to the comments made by both authors at her blog although there is little more to learn from her responses except that she is not up to speed with the literature (or the authors' names). Probably has too little time to spare now she's a blog-mom.
Later in the comments thread she (curryja) dismisses the attempt to establish a 'global' surface temperature record, but rather considers the key issue to be a comparison of 'model simulations with observations' and again refers to the Ed Hawkins analysis. So, unless HadCRUT is revised by added coverage or by revised data, the inability of CMIP5 models to reflect Arctic amplification will be ignored by curryja and the 'pause' will remain. Yet this is strange as I don't remember this 'pause' being measured by comparing models & observations. It is surely always a regression of temperature observations alone with not a sniff of model simulation.
-
Joel_Huberman at 02:35 AM on 16 November 2013Help make our coverage bias paper free and open-access
Yes, PayPal works easily in the USA.
-
tmac57 at 02:20 AM on 16 November 2013Help make our coverage bias paper free and open-access
Worked for me too in the U.S. using PayPal
-
MP3CE at 02:08 AM on 16 November 2013The Other Bias
Hi guys, interesting article, but raises one new question to me: These analyses show that observed surface temperature trend is larger than observed. Now, the question is: what about satellite data, as their trends are slighly lower than that of surface data. Is this due to different thing being measured or are there other biases in satellite data or after all, there are some other correction should be made to surface data ?
-
John Hartz at 01:17 AM on 16 November 2013Deconstructing former Australian Prime Minister John Howard's 'gut feeling' on climate change
@Tom Curtis #25:
I cannot help but wonder what the results would have been if a fourth option, "Not sure", had been offered to survey respondents.
-
babazaroni at 01:13 AM on 16 November 2013Help make our coverage bias paper free and open-access
I should have mention in #10 I used paypal.
-
babazaroni at 01:01 AM on 16 November 2013Help make our coverage bias paper free and open-access
I was able to contribute from the US. I didn't have to specify country/county.
-
boba10960 at 00:18 AM on 16 November 2013Help make our coverage bias paper free and open-access
I had the same experience as rocketeer (#4) and cannot donate. Even though "United States" is listed in the pull-down menu, the web site still requires a UK county.
-
michael sweet at 20:57 PM on 15 November 2013Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
Poster:
At RealClimate the OP clearly states that this paper is considered important and groundbreaking. Your suggestion in 35 that RC is not supportive in incorrect. Do not confuse scientists closely reading a paper to understand it better with Currie's criticism. In addition, there are several posters in the thread at RC who appear to be tone trolls.
The authors have countered Curries objections directly. Curry has not responded to these counters. The paper has been widely peer reviewed before publication. I personally doubt that Curry can find important issues in a single day of thought that the reviewers missed with much longer reflection. We will have to wait to see how the conclusions of this paper hold up.
-
Poster9662 at 20:19 PM on 15 November 2013Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
grindupBaker @38-with regard to your opinion that "global warming is an increase in ocean heat content", a new, peer reviewed paper by Chen , Feng and Huang (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002397)
suggests this may not be the case. Their bullet points are:
The global mean sea level started decelerated rising since 2004 with the rising rate 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012
Deceleration is due to slowdown of ocean thermal expansion during last decade.
Recent ENSO events introduce large uncertainty of long-term trend estimation.
In the Abstract they note that since 2004 the rate of rise in global mean sea levels has dropped from the 3.2±0.4 mm/year seen from 1993 to 2003 with the rate of rise in 2012 being 1.8±0.9mm/year. This fall in the rate of rise is thought due to "a slowdown in the rate of thermal expansion in the Pacific during the last decade as part of the Pacific decadal scale variability" . From their Figure 5b it looks as though the Pacific may have changed from gaining heat in the period 1993 to 2003 to losing heat from 2004 to 2012
Moderator Response:(Rob P) - That's a very interesting paper, but off-topic here. It does, however, provide independent support for greater heat being mixed into the deep ocean and the increased upwelling of colder, denser, water at the equator - all part of the spin-up of the wind-driven ocean circulation, and results in a phenomenon known as cabbeling. Please find a more appropriate thread if you wish to discuss that paper further.
-
Tom Curtis at 18:38 PM on 15 November 2013Deconstructing former Australian Prime Minister John Howard's 'gut feeling' on climate change
John Cook, thank you for the ammendment, update and clarrification. Based on the quote, Howard definitely called people such as you, me, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann etc religious zealots; although not concenating the words.
Given that, it represents a substantial hypocrissy when he then goes on to complain that:
"Increasingly offensive language is used. The most egregious example has been the term “denier”. We are all aware of the particular meaning that word has acquired in contemporary parlance. It has been employed in this debate with some malice aforethought."
Leaving aside the completely false claim about the meaning of the term (one he will not find supported in any modern dictionary) and about the malice in its use (another offensive claim by Howard); the lack of concern exhibited for the truly offensive language in the debate - the widespread charges of conspiracy, fraud, criminality and of genocidal intent made by deniers against climate scientists and those who defend them is breathtaking.
It is, however, unsurprising. In my view, Howard has never troubled his politics with a factual view of the world.
-
Tom Curtis at 18:26 PM on 15 November 2013Deconstructing former Australian Prime Minister John Howard's 'gut feeling' on climate change
John, another question asked in a survey in 2005 is easilly quotable:
"Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- [ROTATED: human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life and God guided this process, human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life, but God had no part in this process, or God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it]?
Evolved, God guided 31%
Evolved, God had no part 12%
God created man exactly how Bible describes it 53%
Other (vol.) 1%
No opinion 3%
2005 Sep 8-11"The main difference between the questions is that the one cited by Mal Adapted uses as the third choice, that "God created human beings in pretty much their present form at one time in the last 10,000 years or so" Interestingly, that question gained 45 and 46% percent of respondents in 2004 and 2006 respectively. In contrast, "Humans evolved, with God guiding" attracted 38 and 36% in those years, and no opinion attracted 4 and 5%. The approximately 6% rise in "Evolution, but God guided" in the second form of the questionaire relative to the form quoted above probably represents a shift of those whose interpretation of "exactly as the Bible describes" allows them to consider creation prior to 10,000 years ago as consistent with the Biblical creation accounts.
Given this, the 40% (2011; 46% in 2012) result almost certainly represent full blooded young earth creationists. I doubt phrasing of the question has inflated the figure. Rather, the phrasing may have inflated the figures of "theistic evolutionists" with a significant number of respondents (around 5%) who allow their theology to override their understanding of science.
Going back to Williams original point. He as definitely mistated the age factor. The figures do not support the claim that 40% of US citizens are Ussherites, only that they are young earth creationists. That, however, is a quibble that does not detract from his main point. I definitely doubt, however, his claims regarding Australians, who are far less prone to overt religion than are US citizens. Indeed, based on a 2009 poll:
"Nearly a quarter of us believe the biblical account of human origins over the Darwinian account. Forty-two per cent of people believe in a wholly scientific explanation for the origins of life and 32 per cent believe in an evolutionary process ''guided by God''."
Interestingly, a 2010 poll showed that only 10% of Australians did not believe in evolution, suggesting that a significant portion of those Australians who accept a Biblical account of the origin of humans accept a somewhat more scientific account for the origin of other species - or that they are very confused.
Finally, while I find this interesting, I'm not sure how it is on topic.
-
grindupBaker at 18:11 PM on 15 November 2013Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
I continue to hold the opinion that "global warming" is an increase in ocean heat content, but I can see that the complexities of surface temperatures and their distribution is erudite science and must be useful, just not "global warming". Need more Argos (the new 18kg ones).
-
macoles at 15:37 PM on 15 November 2013Help make our coverage bias paper free and open-access
Donated £20, well worth the many hours it will take me to even begin to understand it.
-
Flakmeister at 15:26 PM on 15 November 2013Help make our coverage bias paper free and open-access
Paging Al Gore and Michael Mann to tweet this....
I just tweeted them.... Let's see what comes of it..
-
Djon at 14:07 PM on 15 November 2013Help make our coverage bias paper free and open-access
@rocketeer (#4)
I donated from the US (District of Columbia) with no problem. Maybe because I used Paypal. Or maybe something in your browsing history makes the payment system think you're in the UK. Better luck next attempt.
-
chriskoz at 12:32 PM on 15 November 2013Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
jdixon1980@27,
I concur,
While congratulating Kevin & Robert (I need to note here that Kevin C recently mentioned few times of working busily on one important publication - now we can assume what publication it was :)
I have to warn the authors that thisk work falls into the area of "inconvenient science" where results are simple to undesrtand and likely to be denied by contrarians with encumbered agenda. I mean here, that your work, guys, falls into the same implicative category as e.g. the work of Mike Mann of Shaun Marcott, so expect lot of scientific scrutiny and denialist attacks. The former maybe a rewarding challenge, as I hope your results wthstand (i cannot be certain until I have time to read it) but the later may be unpleasant.
-
dhogaza at 12:22 PM on 15 November 2013Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
Poster:
"However despite Professor Curry being a climate scientist with a solid publication record of more than 150 peer-reviewed papers on climate related topics and the Chair of The School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech., Even though she is quite clearly not one of the scientific illiterati, I am aware that many climate scientists are not enamoured of her views. But does that make them wrong?"
The responses by the authors to Curry's criticism make it clear that either she didn't read the paper in detail, or chose to ignore the various tests of the robustness of the paper's methodology that made her objections moot.
While she's not part of the scientific illiterati, she often acts as though she is. It is that, not her contrarian views, that cause knowledgeable people to disagree with her. It is not enough to be contrarian, you have to have sound arguments to back up your contrarian views to gain respect.
-
Poster9662 at 11:46 AM on 15 November 2013Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
Bert my apologies for saying I had paraphrased your comment. I can see by your somewhat intemperate language that tis irritated you. You ask about other siies and on Judith Curry's site there is a lot less adulatoin than there is here. However despite Professor Curry being a climate scientist with a solid publication record of more than 150 peer-reviewed papers on climate related topics and the Chair of The School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech., Even though she is quite clearly not one of the scientific illiterati, I am aware that many climate scientists are not enamoured of her views. But does that make them wrong? Looking at the report of this paper on Real Climate, a site I would think not even you would criticise, the comments from some readers there are far more critical than those at this site. In addition the replies Gavin Schmidt and Stefan Rahmstorf are very helpful. Should you look at the comments on this paper on Real Climate you may find some that are relevant to your own comments here. Once again, my apologies.
Prev 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 Next
