Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  919  920  921  922  923  924  925  926  927  928  929  930  931  932  933  934  Next

Comments 46301 to 46350:

  1. Further Comments on The Economist's Take on Climate Sensitivity

    I think we are encountering a problem I find frequently in my work with financial modelling. These models are less complex than the climate models, but their use generates similar arguments about interpretation of actual results versus those expected from the models. The simple problem is that the vast bulk of consumers of model outputs (climate and financial) have a very limited appreciation of stochastic type outcomes.

    One can talk all one likes about 90% CIs and that 5% of actual outcomes will fall above and 5% below, but the users still get twitchy when the actuals are not tracking near the median line. The reaction in my experience is ALWAYS that there must be something wrong with the model and if the 90% CI line is broken the general view will be that the model is definitely and clearly wrong and must be fixed. 

    This inherent difficulty of understanding is coupled with the fact that the majority of the presentation of climate warming to date has demonstrated the effects using surface temperatures. Surface termperatures, after all, are what people, plants and animals actually experience.

    I started studying climate impacts and models back in the 1970's and have no doubts about the veracity of the current science or its predictions (naturally within the normal scientific error bars). The current results are falling close to the 90%CI boundary because of the correlations of effects that hold surface temperatures lower over recent years versus the correlation of effects that held them higher 15 years ago. The actuals have not broken the boundary in the timeframe on the chart above which covers nearly 100 years and we would have expected a few by now so the models are clearly doing a very good job and I, for one, am quite comfortable with the estimated sensitivity. It looks absolutely spot on (within error bars).

    But expect serious confusion and complaint against the models if the actuals actually do breach the 90%CI. The problem of course is much much wider than surface temperatures so we better start educating as even some of the comments on this forum demonstrate.

  2. Further Comments on The Economist's Take on Climate Sensitivity

    Climate4All - please tell me how you can get OHC values at current levels with a sensitivity of 1.5.

    For those of you here that think current surface temperature trends suggest climate models are wrong, can I ask which of these you believe?

    1/ The next El Nino of greater than 1.8 wont break surface temperature records.

    2/Models should be able predict the ENSO patterns

    3/ Eli Nino's will be rare in the future and La Nina/Neutral conditions will surface temperatures as they are.

    Ray, Climate4All, Archie?

  3. The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?

    In answer to MA Roger at post 14: I am glad I answered your second point.  Somehow I still failed to yet my answer through on you're first point. While one of the two methods in Tung and Zhou used smoothing, the second method, the MLR method, does not, and it is this second method that I discussed in the present post.  Let me try another way to presenting this point: Give me any nonlinear function that you prefer (within reason of course, and it should have an increasing long term trend), I go through the MLR.  I would still get a fairly linear response as long as I add back the residual.  The residual compensates for the non linearity of the assumed nonlinear function.  We pointed out in Zhou and Tung that it is the removal of the AMO that makes the most difference in getting the final result, a point that Dumb Scientist now correctly understood.   It is not the form of the anthropogenic regressor or the amount of smoothing involved. I will talk about the issues related to the choice of the AMO indice in the second post next week. It is not a circular argument.

  4. Further Comments on The Economist's Take on Climate Sensitivity

    If climate sensitivity hasn't fallen by a factor of 2, what would some of you suggest as a respectable amount of 'fallen off', and what percentage of certainty would that lay at?

  5. Further Comments on The Economist's Take on Climate Sensitivity

    Interestingly the UK Met office has just released a statement on cold winters that is completely at odds with its previous comments on the effects of global wrming on the UK climate.  Sometimes, like Archie Lever I find it difficult to determine what the real situation is.

  6. Further Comments on The Economist's Take on Climate Sensitivity

    And Archie, global ice mass loss has accelerated during the Had4 surface temp "hiatus."  Remember: the climate-scale global (plus poles) surface trend is .169C per decade, just a hair short of the expected rate of warming.  Use the eyecrometer and end up standing in the foolish line.

  7. Doug Hutcheson at 12:13 PM on 13 April 2013
    Further Comments on The Economist's Take on Climate Sensitivity

    Archie said

    "The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now."

    Er ... not rising temperatures? Are you referring to global temperatures, or land surface temperatures? Globally, the oceans have been warming at the expected rate. Land surface temperatures have been constrained by such influences as ENSO and have behaved as expected, given the forcings. Which part of this is a big puzzle?

  8. Further Comments on The Economist's Take on Climate Sensitivity

    Archie, we generally expect about 10% of the data to fall outside the 5-95% CI. That's kind of what a 90% CI means.

  9. Further Comments on The Economist's Take on Climate Sensitivity

    dana 1981

    This quote is the central issue posed by the Economist article.

    "Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise. Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models (see chart 1). If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.

    The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion. Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th. But the puzzle does need explaining.

    The mismatch might mean that—for some unexplained reason—there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy."Falling off the scale

    If the actual global mean temperature is exiting the 5-95% confidence level of the climate models - clearly there is something wrong with the models.  This has not been effectively addressed in any of the comments seen here of the Discovery News article or links.

  10. Dumb Scientist at 10:01 AM on 13 April 2013
    The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?
    But if you add that N.Atlantic SST does contain an AW signal, then the answer to Q1 will have to be yes. [MA Rodger]

    How could N. Atlantic SST not contain an AGW signal?

    But where do such answers lead? They say 'Yes, they will remove some of the AW signal' and then beg the question 'How much is "some"?'

    Exactly. Such answers would lead to the discussion I wanted to see in Tung and Zhou 2013: namely 'How much is "some"?' I'm astonished that they didn't even address the possibility that they're subtracting signal (unless I missed something?).

    That surely leads off towards the nature of AMO which is the subject of the next part of these posts.

    As I mentioned to Lee and ptbrown13 in the comments on my article, I have no problem with the idea that AMO variability has parts that are strictly internal and parts which alter the radiative imbalance of the climate. While a discussion of the nature of AMO could be informative, I'm skeptical that the nature of AMO can be elucidated by subtracting AGW after 1950.

  11. The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?

    Dumb Scientist @16.

    The two questions you pose could be answered in a number of contexts with differing assumptions to yield different answers.

    But if you add that N.Atlantic SST does contain an AW signal, then the answer to Q1 will have to be yes.

    And if you add that the AW signal is not linear, then AMO derived from N.A. SST through linear detrending will still contain an AW signal and the answer to Q2 will have to be yes.

    But where do such answers lead? They say 'Yes, they will remove some of the AW signal' and then beg the question 'How much is "some"?' That surely leads off towards the nature of AMO which is the subject of the next part of these posts.

     

    My apologies if the logic I present @ 14 has proved unclear. I shall attempt to re-state it.

    If the AW forcing profile is smooth, so too will the AW signal within the temperature record. And visa versa. Thus if an analysis has by its nature the effect of smoothing the AW signal, by its nature it will produce a smooth AW forcing profile. Therefore such analysis cannot in itself be used to show how smooth is AW forcing.

    This is perhaps why I spy in the post discontent with bendy forcing profiles - bendy profiles are inconsistent with a significant AMO signal being superimposed on the AW signal.

  12. Dumb Scientist at 07:10 AM on 13 April 2013
    The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?
    ... such a profile here is the implicit result of your analysis because you began by smoothing the temperature series. It is thus "assumed" and not "found". ... [MA Rodger]

    I don't understand this point. I thought the issue was simpler, but I might be failing to comprehend in addition to my obvious failure to communicate. Perhaps it would help if we all answered these yes/no questions:

    Question 1

    Would regressing global surface temperatures against N. Atlantic SST without detrending the SST remove some anthropogenic warming from global surface temperatures?

    Yes or no?

    Question 2

    Now suppose we regress global surface temperatures against N. Atlantic SST after linearly detrending the SST. In other words, we regress against the standard AMO index as Tung and Zhou 2013 did.

    Just imagine that anthropogenic forcings increased faster after 1950. In that case, would regressing global surface temperatures against the AMO remove some anthropogenic warming from global surface temperatures after 1950?

    Yes or no?

    I'll start: my answers are yes and yes. In fact, I think answering yes to question 1 also implies a yes to question 2, but I'm willing to be educated.

  13. The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?

    It should be interesting when the Chinese people demand that the Chinese government stops sending aerosols into the atmosphere.  A similar scenario unfolded when America started electrostatically precipitating particulate matter from her smoke stacks and began to scrub out SO2.

  14. The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?

    KK Tung @12.

    Thank you for clearing up my final enquiry point.

    It appears by your reply to my first point that we may be talking at cross-purposes. I will attempt to clarify the point.
    My concern here is that most constructions of net forcing in the literature (and as linked in the post) show a strong increase in the net forcing from the 1970s on. Conversely, your paper is proposing a smoother (less bent) increase (described in Tung&Zhou13 as "converging to" a linear trend which to me is highly suggestive of a linear forcing). Neither in this post nor Tung&Zhou13 is the smooth/bent forcing issue adequately addressed.
    The two methods presented in Tung&Zhou13, (the 50-y to 90-y wavelet band subtraction & the MLR with AMO index included) expressly attempt to produce a smoother (less bendy) temperature record. Thus when non-linear forcings are fed in (as described in the above post), it is obvious that the profile found "closest to the final adjusted data turns out to the QCO2(t) function", a very smooth forcing profile.
    "Finding" a smooth forcing profile is not wrong (your first take-away point). However, such a profile here is the implicit result of your analysis because you began by smoothing the temperature series. It is thus "assumed" and not "found".
    I wouldn't go so far to say that this makes for a circular argument. Yet it does require more support for use of a smooth forcing profile as it is "assumed" and to my limited knowledge forcing profiles for the century are usually rather bent. (@11 I also noted a seeming implied view within your post that the "bend" was being unreasonably exaggerated. This is still worthy of comment.)

  15. Further Comments on The Economist's Take on Climate Sensitivity

    John R:

    Kind of like the accident victim that is bleeding internally, with no visible signs of bruising or blood loss (yet), who is about to collapse and die?

  16. Further Comments on The Economist's Take on Climate Sensitivity

    Just a little point. I've heard the response from some of those in climate denial that if the heat is going into the oceans then that's a good thing; as if it's lost forever. I think it's important to reiterate what seems obvious to anyone who understands the basics of climate change: heat into the oceans is heat into the overall climate system and it will eventually come back to bite us.      

  17. The History of Climate Science

    Coincidentally, his team happened to solve the mystery while I working on the project:  Marble varieties with smooth ("granoblastic") grain boundaries would crack due to cycling thermal expansion and contraction, whereas marble varieties with rougher grain boundaries ("xenoblastic") tended to resist grains shifting around and thus didn't crack as easily.  

    Of course these ramblings have nothing to do with climate history and I wouldn't be offended if they were deleted as off-topic.  

  18. The History of Climate Science

    Reminds me of back in engineering school when I was doing a project for my failure analysis class, and I was corresponding with a guy via email who was the head of a multinational European research project studying marble cladding on buildings, and in particular why some of the  cladding was cracking and falling apart (due to the marble "bending" from non-uniform thermal expansion and contraction through its thickness), and some not. The name of the Danish gentleman in question was, I kid you not, Bent.  Bent Grelk.  And he insisted that I was the first person to comment on how appropriate that was!  Very nice guy.  

  19. The History of Climate Science

    I'm sure you've heard this before, but I love the name "Mason" for a guy who studies rocks.  

  20. Dumb Scientist at 03:06 AM on 13 April 2013
    The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?
    There was no assumption of net forcing being linear in our work. That was a misunderstanding on the part of Dumb Scientist.

    My previous comment explained that you are assuming the net anthropogenic forcing is linear, by subtracting the linearly detrended AMO.

    In fact, Figure 2 and Figure 3 are two examples using nonlinear net forcing indices.  A third example was given in the paper by Zhou and Tung (2013) in Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.  It discussed the case of using the nonlinear difference of the two anthropogenic forcing curves displayed in Figure 2a.  In all three cases, the deduced anthropogenic response appears rather linear for the past 100 years, as long as one remembers to add back the Residual before measuring the trend.

    Again, as I've already pointed out, that's just because you swept the faster warming since 1950 into the AMO(t) function.

  21. The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?

    Reply to MA Roger:

    While you are correct to say (as you do) that it is not wrong if net forcing is found to be linear over the period, this is not the same as basing your study on an assumption of net forcing being linear over the period.

    There was no assumption of net forcing being linear in our work. That was a misunderstanding on the part of Dumb Scientist.  In fact, Figure 2 and Figure 3 are two examples using nonlinear net forcing indices.  A third example was given in the paper by Zhou and Tung (2013) in Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.  It discussed the case of using the nonlinear difference of the two anthropogenic forcing curves displayed in Figure 2a.  In all three cases, the deduced anthropogenic response appears rather linear for the past 100 years, as long as one remembers to add back the Residual before measuring the trend.

    Your comment that warming follows CO2 with such little time lag being rather tricky and "will not be discussed here." I like 'tricky'. Is it to be discussed in a later post?

    It is tricky because it could easily lead to misunderstanding in such a public forum.  If CO2 were the only anthropogenic forcing, the response in Figure 3 would have implied that the climate sensitivity is low.  However, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gas radiative forcing is not the only anthropogenic forcing.  There are some negative anthropogenic forcings, such as tropospheric sulfate aerosols, that subtract from the greenhouse gas forcing.  At least that is my current understanding.  My previous work, Tung et al (2008), Geophysical Res. Lett., using the observed  transient response to the 11 year solar cycle, gives a climate sensitivity estimate that is at the high end of the IPCC range.

  22. Real Skepticism About the New Marcott 'Hockey Stick'

    Glen (@43) re:

    And as an aside, how does a spike that intense and that short occur in the NA? If there was a significant collapse of the MOC, would it recover that quickly?

    The evidence is pretty strong that it arises from a dramatic increase in fresh water from ice melt (or meltwater release from lake Agassiz in the case of the 8.2 kYr event)  that dilutes the cold salt rich waters in the N Atlantic and disrupts the thermohaline circulation. This can seemingly occur and recover very quickly indeed. Related events in glacial periods (Dansgaard–Oeschger events) typically show very rapid warming in Greenland (over a few decades) followed by a slower decline (the Wikipedia page seems pretty decent on this!). D-O events are marked by a N-hemisphere S-hemisphere “see-saw” where N-hemisphere (Greenland) warming matches S-hemisphere (Antarctic) cooling and vice versa.  It’s not clear whether the 8.2 kYr event matches the D-O events in terms of the bipolar “seesaw”. However the proxy evidence is consistent with more localised cooling in the high N-latitudes and little cooling (and perhaps some warming overall though this remains to be determined) in the S hemisphere [see my posts above and Morrill et al (2013) that Tom referred to which can be found here]:

    www.clim-past.net/9/423/2013/cp-9-423-2013.html

    Interestingly, the AMOC provides one of the few possibilities for fast “switch-like” processes in the climate system. On the question whether other large temperature excursions might have occurred in the past (e.g. the Holocene!) it's worth noticing that the other natural event expected to lead to rapid temperature responses is an intense and prolonged (e.g a decade or two) series of strong volcanic eruptions. Strong fast global scale temperature increases are less likely (requiring catastrophic release of CO2 or methane or a dramatic change in solar output). All of  these potential catastrophic events would leave their own particular signatures in the paleorecord, especially in ice cores….

  23. Real Skepticism About the New Marcott 'Hockey Stick'

    Tom (@44), one can’t invent data where it doesn’t exist. The Kilimanjaro paper you link simply doesn’t show evidence for a local cold spike. The delta 18O data (e.g. their Fig 4) shows high (warm) values for the period from about 10.8 kYr through about 6.8 kYr (when there is a very significant and abrupt “cooling” transition). All the apparent temperature spikes in the period are “warming” spikes.

    The Morrill et al paper you mention (thanks for that) gives a pretty good summary of existing knowledge on proxies covering the 8.2 kYr event. These indicate large cooling in Greenland (delta 18O of -0.08 - -1.2 %o), cooling in the N. Atlantic and Europe of around 1 oC (del 18O – 0.4 - -0.8%o), with positive del 18O (+ 0.4 - +0.8 %o) in the N. hemisphere tropics. The more limited S. hemisphere proxies support negligible cooling (or at least a mix of either no change or some regional warming or cooling).

    That’s simply what the data shows at this point. It seems reasonable to conclude that there was a very significant cooling in the high N. latitudes with an overall cooling in the N. Atlantic and Europe of around 1 oC, and negligible cooling (or warming) at lower latitudes and in the S. hemisphere. The pattern of temperature variation and the speed of the event is consistent with the meltwater hypothesis and its effect on the AMOC.

    So there simply isn’t any evidence for a widespread global cooling that matches the magnitude of contemporary global scale warming. The proxy data would certainly support a rapid high N hemisphere cooling that was “diluted” globally so that the 1oC identified in the proxies in these regions is reduced when considered on a N. hemisphere basis and then halved by the lack of S. hemisphere cooling. The proxies are consistent with a global scale cooling perhaps somewhere between 0-0.5 oC. And this cooling (and warming) occurred faster than contemporary global scale warming. As far as the evidence goes, the 8.2 kYr event isn’t a particularly good test of the Tamino analysis.

    One of the very useful things science-wise about the Marcott paper is that it provides a focus for addressing these issues (Holocene proxies and their spatial distribution). But it’s when the analyses enter the scientific literature that some incremental progress is made. Tamino’s analysis is simply the result of a couple of day’s consideration. It would be good if individuals with interest and expertise in this particular issue put their heads together and wrote a paper addressing the possibilities that particular scenarios could or could not be tested with existing proxies. Useful tests would involve inspecting the proxies themselves or addressing a global scale temperature reconstruction around the 8.2 kYr event using the proxies that cover this (e.g. in Morrill et al 2013). I expect that some of this is underway…

  24. Further Comments on The Economist's Take on Climate Sensitivity

    archie lever, the only way I can make sense of your contention that the Discovery News rebuttal story is "unimpressive in detail" and "would have much less authority than the Economist story," is to assume that you failed to click on the hyperlinks in the Discovery News story.

    Print media must list their references as immediately-viewable text. That is distracting, so footnotes and endnotes were invented to reduce interference with reading the primary material while still providing easy access to the supplementary details.  But electronic media often eliminate the distraction of the footnote and endnote numbers embedded in the primary text, by making key words and phrases links to that supplementary material.

    In both that Discovery News story and the ABC Environment story, please click the embedded links to get to the details that you thought were not provided.

    Here on the Skeptical Science site, most "Argument" rebuttals have multiple levels of detail contained in multiple tabbed panes: Basic, Intermediate, Advanced.  The Argument Rebuttals are the ones in the "Most Used Climate Myths" list at the top left of every page, plus a much fuller list you can access by clicking the "View All Arguments" link there or the "Arguments" link at the left of the blue horizontal bar at the top of every page.  (The Argument Rebuttals differ from the regular "Posts" such as the one you are reading now.)

    I suggest you get a quick orientation to the science of climate change, by visiting the Home Page of this Skeptical Science site, and clicking the three big buttons at the top of that page: "Newcomers, Start Here," "History of Climate Science," and "The Big Picture."  Remember that in all those pages, the details are accessible simply by clicking the hyperlinked in-line text.  To get an accurate impression of how much detail really does exist, then visit The New Abridged Skeptical Science Quick Reference Guide.

    You can keep an eye on comments across all the threads by monitoring the Comments page, which you can access by clicking the Comments link in the middle of the horizontal blue bar at the top of every page.

  25. Further Comments on The Economist's Take on Climate Sensitivity

    archie @2 - we did not dismiss The Economist article "as a sort of denialist rant."  We simply pointed out all the important research they did not include.  Failing to include that research skewed the article towards a conclusion that is not well supported when all evidence is considered.

    Your final paragraph misses the point.  They make a good case that the extent of warming has probably been overstated?  That's like saying climate contrarians make a good case that the surface temperature record is biased.  As long as you only consider the evidence and research that supports your conclusion, it's easy to "make a good case".  Until you account for the contradictory evidence.  That was the point of our article.

    The Economist is a good magazine and usually writes good climate pieces.  This one was not very good.  I'm not accusing them of being deniers, just pointing out that they made mistakes in this article, which led to a wrong conclusion.

  26. Models are unreliable

    bouke,

    I'll give you a half-apology, if in fact your question was innocent and genuine, but I've reread it several times, and it strikes me as part concern-troll, part denier-mythology.  You make a lot of broad-brush statements, dripping with doubt, like "I never hear a scientist say..." and "Why is that?" and "The issue I have is that I see scientists..." — as if your role as armchair-jurist is to judge how well scientists are doing their jobs, and your neighbor told you they aren't.

    You read one paper, and then drew a bunch of unjustified conclusions.  I suspect that much of your interpretation is tainted by the uneducated comments you may have seen on other sites, and if that is the case, I'd suggest that you follow up such comments with solid research to confirm their validity.

    In particular I would suggest that you follow the following Google Scholar search and see what you can infer from the actual work that is being done by scientists, rather than hobby-site comments and a single paper:

    Arctic Sea Ice Studies, 2009-present

  27. Further Comments on The Economist's Take on Climate Sensitivity

    Archie, if the article were well-researched, you'd expect the message to be in line with 'cutting edge' climate science.

    It isn't.

    Therefore, either it was poor research, if you give the economist the benefit of the doubt, or wilful ignorance (denialism).

  28. Real Skepticism About the New Marcott 'Hockey Stick'

    @49 chriskoz

    Many thanks for the excellent advice.  I had not yet taken the time to explore how to format the graphic for the net so thanks for saving me the time.  

  29. Further Comments on The Economist's Take on Climate Sensitivity

    Paul Magnus and Authors

    As a long time subscriber to the Economist, I have found their information on a range of subjects to be well researched and first class.  It is a 'newspaper' widely read amongst decision makers all over the world.  Their science and technology section is written for the layman but well detailed and cutting edge in many fields.

    I would not dismiss their subject article on climate change as a sort of denialist rant.  

    The Discovery News rebuttal story you quote above is unimpressive in detail and would have much less authority than the Economist story.  

    The Economist is not denying a contribution to global warming by CO2 means but the authors make a good case that the extent of warming has probably been overstated, and the uncertainties probably understated.

  30. Land Surface Warming Confirmed Independently Without Land Station Data

    This reanalysis is known to have large temperature biais in some part of the world. This is expected since there is no land temperature input and sea temperature are also a reconstructed. It is expected that in the next generation of reanalysis will integrated the temperature and wind measurments to improve the results. Nevertheles, and conterintuitively, most of the information is carried by pressure measurments. It is also expected that the addition of recentely reconvered historical weather data (like Old weather project) will improve further the results.

  31. Dikran Marsupial at 22:10 PM on 12 April 2013
    Models are unreliable

    Bouke wrote: "The issue I have is that I see scientists making predictions on the basis of their models. Those predictions will be used as the basis for policy,"

    Exactly what are the policy decisions that are being made based on predictions of SSIE?

  32. Models are unreliable

    bouke: Maslowski, et al 2012

  33. The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?

    KK Tung @6.

    While you are correct to say (as you do) that it is not wrong if net forcing is found to be linear over the period, this is not the same as basing your study on an assumption of net forcing being linear over the period. And given that, I would suggest that it is wrong to not emphasise your reliance on such a linearity and also wrong not to make clear the levels of non-linearity/linearity developed by other people. You acknowledge (but leave us to 'eyeball' your fig 2a rather than properly illustrate it) that GISS conclude there was accelerated heating after 1978 and link to two other graphs in the post. Those two graphs have very significant non-linearity - the SKSci graph of IPCC forcing shows an 8-fold increase in the rate of forcing after the 1960s and it is even more pronounced on the Skeie et al 2011 graph. As for findings of linearity - forgive my ignorance but do you reference any findings of linearity?

    Your writing comes close enough to accusing others of creating/exagerating the non-linearity in net forcing solely to support an otherwise unfounded theory (eg "...allowing the GISS model to produce..." "...models to adopt ..." and @6 "...were trying to simulate the observed warming using forced response alone..."), which I consider close enough to be worthy of comment. Are you in any way saying the non-linearity is being exaggerated for non-scientific reasons?

    Your comment that warming follows CO2 with such little time lag being rather tricky and "will not be discussed here." I like 'tricky'. Is it to be discussed in a later post? Or is such discussion available elsewhere?

  34. The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?

    Thanks for your integrity, Dumb Scientist.  Looking forward to more insights.

  35. Real Skepticism About the New Marcott 'Hockey Stick'

    Paul@48,

    While you work on your poster, consider my little technical advice:

    Don't save it as JPG file. JPEG format (natural contone image compression) does very bad job with text (does not compress it well and a lossy result means text is distort), save it in PDF format.

    Your embedded graphic (being simple, non-natural image) will be shown best in PNG format (both smallest and lossless).

    You'll achieve both small file size (easily downloadable) and nice resolution independent zoom-in.

  36. Real Skepticism About the New Marcott 'Hockey Stick'

    @46/47 Tom Curtis

    Quite right, I would indeed prefer the @20 graphic to be both effective and honest to the science and I'm happy to spend the time to improve it.  I had a problem with discerning your tone in @21, you will understand if I am wary on climate comment threads, so it is good of you to have another go.  

    By taking the time to spell them out, your suggestions now make a lot more sense to me and I will definitely look at them again as soon as I can.  I am happy to spend the time to get it 'right' in the kinds of ways you suggest.  And, of course, the  broad message of the graphic remains sadly the same.

    Thanks, Paul

  37. Further Comments on The Economist's Take on Climate Sensitivity

    So you would just wish the economist would chip in with comment on how we could achieve green house gas reduction within the economy rather than question the science.

    I don't think they have contributed to the economics of meeting the 2c. Rather they want to rant on about the science. Its the sort of denial we find in the general populous. Avoid avoid avoid.... Put off.

  38. Dumb Scientist at 15:26 PM on 12 April 2013
    The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?
    So yes, the paper uses the linear detrended AMO index - which has been indicated by several publications to be in part misidentified global warming.

    Dr. Tung promised to discuss "the choice of the AMO Index." Hopefully his discussion will address the fact that the linearly detrended AMO likely contains an anthropogenic trend after 1950. The alternative AMO index you mentioned which is relative to the global mean SST seems like it would be much less likely to mistakenly subtract signal.

    KR is right, and I was wrong to manufacture unwarranted doubt by implying that Tung and Zhou 2013 might have used a different AMO index.

    Exploring the frontiers of knowledge inevitably results in mistakes. The true test of a scientist is admitting these mistakes and moving on. Especially when the mistake affects the future of our civilization.

    So: I was wrong. KR: thank you for correcting me, and for all your other informative comments.

  39. Dumb Scientist at 14:10 PM on 12 April 2013
    Tung and Zhou circularly blame ~40% of global warming on regional warming

    Dr. Tung responds.

  40. The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?

    Dumb Scientist - From Tung and Zhou 2013:

    We will use the standard AMO Index of Enfield et al., which is defined as the North Atlantic mean sea-surface temperature (SST), linearly detrended.

    So yes, the paper uses the linear detrended AMO index - which has been indicated by several publications to be in part misidentified global warming.

  41. Real Skepticism About the New Marcott 'Hockey Stick'

    Paul, just a small additional note.

    Where you to make the corrections I recommend (or equivalent), I think you graphic would be an excellent tool that should be more widely spread; to which point I would heartilly recommend that SkS add it as an update to both this post and to the Y-axis of evil quote.

  42. Real Skepticism About the New Marcott 'Hockey Stick'

    Paul R Price @42, the question is whether or not we will accurately report the science.  As it stands, your diagram shows as temperatures never experience by human civilization where, at one point, Marcott et al show there was a 50% chance the 300 year average of  temperatures experienced by human civilization where higher than that; with a near certain chance that for individual decades they were higher than that.  You also say:

    "In the past 100 years temperature has increased from coldest in 10,000 years to the warmest in 125,000 years.  Warming is set to continue rapidly."

    That, again, contradicts what Marcott et al actually found.

    You may think it too much trouble to correct the graph by raising the "never experienced by human civilization" limt by 0.4 C to accurately reflect Marcott et al; or to modify the second claim to read:

    "In the past 100 years temperature has increased from close to the coldest in 10,000 years to close to the warmest in 125,000 years, and are still rising. That wWarming is set to continue rapidly."

    (Additions in italics)

    If you do so, you are choosing to be "effective" over being scientifically "honest", in Schneider's terms.  Why do so when you could so easilly do both?

  43. Real Skepticism About the New Marcott 'Hockey Stick'

    Glenn Tamblynn @43, Chris overstates the brevity of the 8.2 K event to the point of misrepresentation IMO.  He understates the geographical area of coverage; and overstates the SH warming by using model data where proxy data shows a more heterogenous situation.  Finally, he fails entirely to allow for the effects of errors in synchronization between different proxies.  See my post @44 for details.

  44. Real Skepticism About the New Marcott 'Hockey Stick'

    Chris @39:

    1) In Marcott's Agassiz-Renland data, the 8.2 K event first shows at 8.21 Kya and last shows at 8.09 Kya event, giving the event a total distinguishable duration of 140 years, with a peak duration of 100 years. That compares to a Tamino spike with a total distinguishable duration of 180 years and a peak duration of 20 years. (The total distinguishable duration is 180 rather than 200 as, for the first and last 10 years the spike would not be distinguishable from the background in any way.) Thus the 8.2 K event is comparable to a Tamino spike, and if anything should be easier to detect due to its longer duration at low values.

    This is in close agreement with your first link on the timing of the 8.2 K event, which shows the following graph, in which it can be clearly seen that the event starts at just under 8.25 Kya, has a period of lowest values from 8.21 kya to 8.14 Kya and finishes around 8.07 Kya, giving a total distinguishable duration of 180 years and a distinguishable peak duration of 70 years. Or, as claimed in the abstract:

    "Using a composite of four records, the cold event is observed as a 160.5 yr period during which decadal-mean isotopic values were below average, within which there is a central event of 69 yr during which values were consistently more than one standard deviation below the average for the preceding period."

    Finally, your second link on duration says:

    "Greenland temperature cooled by 3.3±1.1 °C (decadal average) in less than ∼20 years, and atmospheric methane concentration decreased by ∼80±25 ppb over ∼40 years, corresponding to a 15±5% emission reduction. Hemispheric scale cooling and drying, inferred from many paleoclimate proxies, likely contributed to this emission reduction. In central Greenland, the coldest period lasted for ∼60 years, interrupted by a milder interval of a few decades, and temperature subsequently warmed in several steps over ∼70 years. The total duration of the 8.2 ka event was roughly 150 years."
    (My emphasis)

    If you are going to quote only the coldest period of the 8.2 K event, as you appear intent on doing, you must compare it with only the coldest period of a Tamino style spike. At that spike has a triangular, not a square wave form, that coldest period is just 20 years.

    All in all, the comparison of durations suggest an 8.2 K event is more likely rather than less likely, to be picked up in the proxy record than a Tamino style spike.

    2) From the Kilamanjaro paper I linked to, the Kilamanjaro oxygen isotope data show a negative excursion at 8.2 Kya, although it is not large relative to other excursions. The Soreq Cave oxygen isotope data shows a positive oxygen isotope excursion at that time, indicating an enhanced isotope signature in groundwater. The isotope signature of d18O in caves depends on two functions, one of which always gets heavier (more 18O) with increasing decreasing temperature, and one which can get heavier or lighter with decreasing temperature. Thompson et al 2006 invert the d18O data for Soreq cave, presumably because the former function dominates at Soreq Cave, hence indicating a significant temperature excursion in palestine.

    Morril et al, 2013 show an up to date picture of the cooling pattern of the 8.2 K event. It is characterized by marked cooling in the North Atlantic and surrounding regions including the Tropical Atlantic; but by an amiguous pattern of regional warming or cooling in the south:

    Overall it would have been a net cooling event. GMST would have shown a negative excursion even if not all points globally experienced such an excursion. In fact, had it not we must assume that climate sensitivity is very low, because there was definitely an increase in albedo from extended glaciers, sea ice extent and snowfall in the Northern Hemisphere.

    The question is not whether there was an excursion, but how large (which is indeterminate) and why does it not show up in either the Marcott et al reconstruction or Tamino's partial replication of that reconstruction?

    3) Dome C data shows four large negative excursions within two standard deviations of the error in dating of 8.2 K. I doubt that they are statistically significant, but it provides no evidence of warming at 8.2 K, and is consistent with (that weakest of evidentiary measures) cooling at that time. They do not show up at low resolution as there are intervening spikes in temperature. Vostock does show a statistically significant spike, but depending on the age error that may or may not align with the 8.2 K event. If either of the two troughs on either side of that spike were in actuality the period of the 8.2 K event, then the 8.2 K event was global and about the size of a Tamino spike. If instead the spike was aligned, the 8.2 K event, while still reducing the GMST would only do so by a small amount. Which of these is the case we do not know.

    We too often pay only lip service to the error in dating or temperature estimation. We simply align proxies across the globe as though their mean date represented the actual date - but it does not. It is only the best estimate out of a range of dates, and may have a probability of being the actual date as low a 5% or less.

    Consequently, if I could suggest any single improvement to Tamino's attempted demonstration that a spike would show, it would be that he introduce the spike, then vary the time of that spike in each proxy based on the temporal error at the control points; and then from the pseudoproxies so created then attempt to reconstruct the spike using the full Marcott proceedure. His method assumes that all the temperature spikes are in fact alligned across all proxies, with the temporal jittering only smoothing the data. The temporal jittering, however, is an attempt to allow for the fact that, with very high probability, the temporal allignment of the various proxies has been lost. That is, events dated at 8 Kya in all proxies probably occured at different times by a varying amount depending on the temporal error of the proxy.

    It is a great advance by Marcott et al, IMO, to find a way to allow for that and to produce a statistical description of the constraints on global temperature given that error. Unfortunately many of us have insisted on interpreting Marcot et al as though they had not made that advance, or as if it was of no consequence.

  45. Dumb Scientist at 12:02 PM on 12 April 2013
    The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?
    How can the anthropogenic warming be approximately linear in time when we know that atmospheric CO2 has been measured to increase almost exponentially? Implicit in that statement is the expectation that the warming (i.e. the rate of surface temperature increase) should follow the rate of increase of greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere. This rather common expectation is incorrect. An accessible reference is that from Britannica.com: "Radiative forcing caused by carbon dioxide varies in an approximately logarithmic fashion with the concentration of that gas in the atmosphere. ...

    No, I'm not ignoring the last century of physics. It's exasperating to be lectured about the ancient fact that CO2's radiative forcing in Earth's current atmosphere depends approximately on the logarithm of its concentration. My article linked to a graph of CO2's radiative forcing, which accounts for this logarithmic dependence. Notice that CO2's radiative forcing increases faster after 1950, because increasing CO2 faster also increases its logarithm faster. That's what makes the forcing "slightly more curvy than linear".

    As shown in Figure 2a, the green line is quite nonlinear and shows the acceleration of greenhouse gas forcing after 1950 referred to by DS, but the aerosol cooling also increased after 1950. The net anthropogenic forcing is the small difference of the two large terms.

    That same radiative forcings graph also accounts for aerosols. Notice that the black line includes aerosols and also increases faster after 1950.

    Because the aerosol cooling part is uncertain, we actually do not know what the net anthropogenic forcing looks like. There is no obvious argument that one can appeal to on what the expected warming should be. There is nothing obviously wrong if the anthropogenic warming is found to be almost linear in time.

    Perhaps the IPCC's estimates are wrong, but subtracting the standard NOAA AMO index to determine anthropogenic warming is equivalent to assuming that anthropogenic warming is steady before and after 1950. If it isn't, you'll never know because subtracting the AMO will just subtract signal after 1950.

    That was probably the source of the circular argument criticism from DS: "Tung and Zhou implicitly assumed that the anthropogenic warming rate is constant before and after 1950, and (surprise!) that's what they found. This led them to circularly blame about half of global warming on regional warming." It is important to note that the trend we were talking about is the trend of the Adjusted data, and not the presumed anthropogenic predictor.

    No, that wasn't the source of my criticism. Dana1981, KR and bouke correctly pointed out that your circular argument results from adding the AMO(t) regressor, which is correlated with surface temperatures after 1950 if you used the standard NOAA AMO index.

    Concerning Dana181's statement that most models use radiative forcing that show acceleration after 1970s, I just want to make the following observation. The models that adopted the kind of net radiative forcing that varies in time in approximately the same manner as the observed global mean temperature---with cooling in the 1970s and accelerated warming in the 1980s to 2000--were trying to simulate the observed warming using forced response alone (under ensemble average). So the net heating used has to have that time behavior otherwise the model simulation would not have been considered successful. Here we are questioning the assumption that the observed warming, including the accelerated warming in the later part of the 20th century, is mainly due to forced response to radiative heating.

    That's only true for inverse models of aerosol forcings. It's important to note that they're compared to independent forward calculations which are based on estimates of emissions and models of aerosol physics and chemistry.

    Dumb Scientists claim of circular argument on our part consists of two parts. The first part deals with the linear regressor used, which is discussed here, and the second part deals with the AMO index used, which will be discussed in my second post. ... the choice of the AMO Index (whether the detrending should be point by point or by the global mean)...

    If you used the AMO index with global SST removed that KR mentioned, then your result is really interesting. I assumed that you used NOAA's linearly detrended N. Atlantic sea surface temperatures, in which case the anthropogenic warming would be hiding in your AMO(t) function. Again, that's because warming the globe also warms the N. Atlantic, and anthropogenic warming was faster after 1950.

    We have tried many other predictors with similar results. Using a nonlinear anthropogenic regressor would still yield an almost linear trend for the past 100 years, if the Residual is added back. And so this procedure is not circular.

    It's only circular if you used NOAA's standard detrended AMO index. If so, you added a regressor that's correlated with surface temperatures since 1950. Again, in that case the warming would be hiding in your AMO(t) function.

  46. Glenn Tamblyn at 11:48 AM on 12 April 2013
    Real Skepticism About the New Marcott 'Hockey Stick'

    chris


    If the 8.2 kYr event is that sharp and localised to the NA then you would not expect it to show up under Tamino's analysis. In fact it might be hard to detect at all in Marcotts data once you have looked at the global average. Although more of the proxies are in the NH, Marcott uses area weighting when calculating it so any localised event is going to be filtered out in the averge.

    Really what Tamino is showing is how likely a global spike is to be detected. Regional spikes, or regional spikes compensated for by opposite changes elsewhere will be even harder to detect if they can be detected at all.

    The point of the test is to evaluate whether a global change comparable to the current rise would be detected.

    And as an aside, how does a spike that intense and that short occur in the NA? If there was a significant collapse of the MOC, would it recover that quickly?

  47. The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?

    In reply to Dana181: As I said in the last paragraph of the post, I will address the AMO issue in Part 2, which is to come.  Dumb Scientists claim of circular argument on our part consists of two parts. The first part deals with the linear regressor used, which is discussed here,  and the second part deals with the AMO index used, which will be discussed in my second post.

    Concerning Dana181's statement that most models use radiative forcing that show acceleration after 1970s, I just want to make the following observation.  The models that adopted the kind of net radiative forcing that varies in time in approximately the same manner as the observed global mean temperature---with cooling in the 1970s and accelerated warming in the 1980s to 2000--were trying to simulate the observed warming using forced response alone (under ensemble average).  So the net heating used has to have that time behavior otherwise the model simulation would not have been considered successful.  Here we are questioning the assumption that the observed warming, including the accelerated warming in the later part of the 20th century, is mainly due to forced response to radiative heating.

  48. Real Skepticism About the New Marcott 'Hockey Stick'

    @21 Tom Curtis 
    I am not sure what to make of your response, on the one hand you seem to admit that the graphic in @21 does show the "broad ramifications" of climate change well, though you do not seem to engage with the ramifications and instead concentrate on details.

    All of your points do reduce to quibbles given that the graphic's intent is to give the broad ramifications from the graphic and from the comments regarding Marcott et al.'s findings by Mann, and others here at SkS.  Any real skeptics will go to Marcott et al. and read it and discussions directly, as referenced in the graphic, to get the detail.  

    By concentrating on 'uncertainty', and anything rather than on the ever increasing certainty of our predicament given the extreme rate of warming now under way, you seem to be criticising by saying we should worry about exactly the type of false skeptics that Dana's post above concerns.  They can go elswhere, why bother with time wasters?  We need to move on to mitigation action, that should be clear from the graphic, especially when combined with the analysis by Stocker.

    We need to get policy-makers to understand where the science is at, and that does mean we need 'un-sciencey' broad brush identification of dangerous global risks.  The vital message we need to convey and that comes through so clearly, thanks to the scientific work, is that the current rate of warming is outside any seen in the Holocene.  It does not take a climate scientist to see through the quibbling nonsense of the critiques from Pielke Jr and co.

    The aim of the Hagelaars' graphic and my attempt to present in another form is to convey the recent science to the public and decision-makers, to convey the enormous existential choice humanity faces regarding carbon emissions.  Somehow all of this weight of science has to get through more quickly and more fully to policy-makers, economists and most especially the public so that they too can recognise the dangers to their own childrens' future.  

  49. Models are unreliable

    @Sphearica, Dikran, CBDunkerson: You misunderstand me. I don't have a problem with climate models, I just thought this was the most appropriate place to ask my question. It is narrowly about SSIE, and I understand that it does not generalize to other output parameters of models. I guess I should have qualified my "it would be unwise to attribute too much predictive power to them" with "regarding SSIE".

    The issue I have is that I see scientists making predictions on the basis of their models. Those predictions will be used as the basis for policy, so they should be as accurate as possible. At the moment, a case can be made that simple statistics (or very simple models, if you like) are more accurate than these models regarding SSIE. I am missing that fact in the scientific discourse.

    I just read the leaked AR5 on the matter (paragraph 12.4.6.1), and it does not touch linear trends at all. The probable reason for that is that there are no papers on it, which in turn is because it is hard to present a new scientific result on just a simple linear trend. The result is that the AR5 is missing a piece of analysis that should have been present, IMHO.

    Btw, I read Neven's blog, so I know what these trends look like: ice free around 2020. A little earlier if you take PIOMAS volume, or an exponential fit, a little later if you take sea ice extent, or a linear fit. According to AR5, the best estimate for RCP4.5 is 2035–2065. There's an unexplained discrepancy there, IMHO.

    @Sphearica specifically: I am a bit surprised at your tone. I understand that you thought that I claimed that model problems regarding SSIE disqualified models altogether, which would indeed be a grandiose claim. The logical fallacy in this case would be Hasty Generalization. However, the things you mention, "false assumptions", "false dichotomy", "strawman", I really don't see in my post. I don't really think that using such strong words is helpful.

  50. Real Skepticism About the New Marcott 'Hockey Stick'

    hmmm...my HTML hasn't worked...oh well

Prev  919  920  921  922  923  924  925  926  927  928  929  930  931  932  933  934  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us