Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by MoruH.

$
0
0

Read the paper, Nick. CIs aren’t missing at all. No need to introduce a different method to calculate them.

All of these trends are statistically significant at the 95% level based on a p-test. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals are also provided taking into account the autocorrelation of the residuals based upon the methodology outlined by Santer et al. [2008].

The conclusion is, the difference between surface temps and satellites is largest over land areas. Possible explanations are offered aswell.

We conclude that the fact that trends in thermometerestimated surface warming over land areas have been larger than trends in the lower troposphere estimated from satellites and radiosondes is most parsimoniously explained by the first possible explanation offered by Santer et al. [2005].

Specifically, the characteristics of the divergence across the data sets are strongly suggestive that it is an artifact resulting from the data quality of the surface, satellite and/or radiosonde observations. These findings indicate that the reconciliation of differences between surface and satellite data sets [Karl et al., 2006] has not yet occurred, and we have offered a suggested reason for the continuing lack of reconciliation.


Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by Kristian

$
0
0

Worry rather about the stratospheric trends over the last 20 years, Steven. There seems to be a problem with your AGW finger print up there.

Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by jacobress

$
0
0

“2. There should be a hot spot, REGARDLESS of the cause of warming.”

So, if there is no hot spot – there is no warming, and temp data sets are in error, or introduced spurious warming through adjustments ?

Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by PA

$
0
0

The hot spot in the models is 1.4 to 5°C warmer than RSS/UAH/RATPAC data (according to the chart color coding).

This would appear to be several to many times greater than the CI, which is only about 0.8°C wide for the satellites (RATPAC would have a smaller CI than the satellites)

Why haven’t the models been corrected?

Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by Nick Stokes

$
0
0
<i>"Read the paper, Nick. CIs aren’t missing at all."</i> I have read the paper. The CI's that they base significance on make no sense, as I commented below. I have written a post <a href="http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/klotzbach-revisited-its-wrong.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. What they call Santer's method is Quenouille adjustment, which is also what I use. The problem comes when they take CIs for the differences.

Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by FOAS

$
0
0

Not sure I agree with this. This is the difference of what are presumably highly correlated random variables, so just adding variances would be a very conservative upper bound. A small variance seems quite possible. In the extreme, V[X-X]=0.

Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by Nick Stokes

$
0
0

“This is the difference of what are presumably highly correlated random variables”
Possibly. But that is what is being tested. You can’t really assume a correlation in advance.

In any case, the paper gives no information to suggest the CI of the difference is based on correlation. It certainly doesn’t give any data on that.

Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by beththeserf


Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by Bebben

$
0
0

Reference:

“The simulated responses to natural forcing are distinct from those due to the anthropogenic forcings described above.”

IPCC AR4, Chapter 9.2.2.1 Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Response.

Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by mouruanh

$
0
0

I’ve read your post now. Apart from a few knee jerks and your insinuations that they have something to hide, there is not much in it.

It all boils down to your claim that the CIs for trend differences are too narrow.

Why don’t you recalculate the correct CIs for the differences (also add for amplification), so everyone can see how wrong they got it.

Easy fix.

Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by Ron C.

$
0
0

Here’s a result using ME
The paper is Herbert et al 2013, Vertical Temperature Profiles at Maximum Entropy Production with a Net Exchange Radiative Formulation.
The abstract and key finding:

“Like any fluid heated from below, the atmosphere is subject to vertical instability which triggers convection. Convection occurs on small time and space scales, which makes it a challenging feature to include in climate models. Usually sub-grid parameterizations are required. Here, we develop an alternative view based on a global thermodynamic variational principle. We compute convective flux profiles and temperature profiles at steady-state in an implicit way, by maximizing the associated entropy production rate. Two settings are examined, corresponding respectively to the idealized case of a gray atmosphere, and a realistic case based on a Net Exchange Formulation radiative scheme. In the second case, we are also able to discuss the effect of variations of the atmospheric composition, like a doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration.”

“The response of the surface temperature to the variation of the carbon dioxide concentration — usually called climate sensitivity — ranges from 0.24 K (for the sub-arctic winter profile) to 0.66 K (for the tropical profile), as shown in table 3. To compare these values with the literature, we need to be careful about the feedbacks included in the model we wish to compare to. Indeed, if the overall climate sensitivity is still a subject of debate, this is mainly due to poorly understood feedbacks, like the cloud feedback (Stephens 2005), which are not accounted for in the present study.”

So there you have it: Convection rules in the lower troposphere. Direct warming from CO2 is quite modest, way less than models project.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1550.pdf

Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by rhhardin

$
0
0

Since you can’t tell a trend from a cycle with data short compared to the cycle, it’s more likely a phase difference in a long cycle than differing trends.

Phase differences come up all over. Trends don’t.

Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by Bob Ludwick

$
0
0

@ MoruH.

“The conclusion is, the difference between surface temps and satellites is largest over land areas. Possible explanations are offered as well.”

ONE possible explanation for the larger discrepancy over land areas is that the land area data is the data set that has been most heavily and frequently ‘corrected’, ‘adjusted’, ‘krigged’, and ‘infilled’ says Mr. Cynic.

Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by jim2

$
0
0

Dr. Curry. Do you think the entropy potential temperature would correctly model the fact, as evidenced by sat data, that the annual min/max difference decreases with altitude?

Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by Nick Stokes

$
0
0

Mouruanh,
“Why don’t you recalculate the correct CIs for the differences “
OK, I’ve done that, at the end. All significance disappears except for just one case – NCDC-UAH over land. But even then, we are testing for a 1 in 20 chance, and we’ve tried twelve times – not surprising.


Comment on IPCC in transition by Willard

$
0
0

> Looks like Pachauri just supplied the evidence that they were right,

Torturing two lines into forced confession finally confirms 30 years of editorial lines and yellow journalism.

The last stake in the last nail of the final straw.

The truth is now out there.

Well played!

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by jhprince2014

$
0
0

Judith, my advice is to ignore politicians on this subject. Politicians like Grijalva have warped and petulant motives. This issue is part of many useless dog and pony shows that politicians parade in a charade of policing those they do not like. Anyone can see that publicly trying groups to achieve control and dominance is a farce, diminishes even more the credibility of politicians and those participating in the public trying, and confuses the subject by simplifying the issue. Unless there is some legal reason to disclose your information (as sought in this issue) I would ignore politicians.

Comment on IPCC in transition by kim

$
0
0

Heh, Willard, now that’s a simple logical fallacy. Can you name it?
===============

Comment on IPCC in transition by Willard

$
0
0

> I’d asked for how you were defining “mainstream” and you came back with effectively the consensus view.

Guilty as charged, Danny. That we have a scientific consensus over AGW tells a lot about the kind of mainstream we’re talking about, don’t you think?

If you wished to define mainstream on the political axis, that would change, since the big energy interests are pretty well established on both sides of the democratic circus. By circus, I am not referring to congressional hearings.

These interests are so well established their cognitive frame is being replicated by climate zombies and other kinds of freedom fighters:

Comment on IPCC in transition by Willard

$
0
0

> now that’s a simple logical fallacy

Yet it is one of Denizens’ favorite:

When faced with conflicting data, you are likely to mention how the conflict will disappear if some new assumption is taken into account. However, if there is no good reason to accept this saving assumption other than that it works to save your cherished belief, your rescue is an ad hoc rescue.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AdHocRescue

Tougher to argue against AGW without it.

Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images