Dr. Curry — Have you ever given a presentation on what you think will happen when we come out of the “Pause”? (that “tables” Wildcards like the Sun)
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Stephen Segrest
↧
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by knr
The smart ones have already worked out the trick is make your claims for so far ahead in time you will not be around to be asked why you got it so wrong .
But by then you collected your cash and got your career shorted out so what is the real cost of doing it ?
Well in reality most papers will vanish into the black whole of time , a very few will be consider decades from now and fewer still will be held up has icons or comedy classics . And in fields where there is a lot of publishing, and climate science thanks it the bucket full of funding that seems to be available is one of them , this can happen much quicker than you think .
You have to face up to the fact that no matter how scientifically worthless or lie filed the papers are, most will have no long term affect at all on those that wrote them , while the short term benefits are clear both professionally and personal .
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Tom
Attribulation: Burnout, physical, mental, and emotional exhaustion that attribulate to work- related stress. Catastrophic Thinking, unrealistically pesimistic appraisals of stress …
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by DEEBEE
But it allows well funded smart people another five years to tweak models to slowly deflate and keep coming closer to reality. As long as the funding keeps coming in and reality is kept in the deflating 95% bound, who the heck would remember the 2000s.
To me the most interesting piece was that they use the 0.2K figure which seems in tatters.
Second through probability jumbo jumbo, they gave Trnberth’s 17 year figure a new short lease on life.
Thirds they moved the beginning goal post to 2000′ from 1998
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by maksimovich
The so called antarctic peninsula warming is restricted to a small area and is not without precedence.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11391.html
Over the last millenia or so,the antarctic has cooled.
↧
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by jim2
OT. I can’t remember having seen this before. What is remarkable is when it was written and who wrote it. Otherwise, it’s just alarmist boiler plate.
From the article:
Beginning in a decade or two, scientists expect the warming of the atmosphere to melt the polar icecaps, raising the level of the seas, flooding coastal areas, eroding the shores and sending salt water far into fresh-water estuaries. Storm patterns will change, drying out some areas, swamping others and generally throwing agriculture into turmoil. Federal climate experts have suggested that within a century the greenhouse effect could turn New York City into something with the climate of Daytona Beach, Fla.
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Bill_W
At least two or three a year just to say that computer models show that the pause could go on n years and still not be wrong, with n incrementing by +1 each year.
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Alellul
So, around 1978, if someone had written the following statements he would have been considered scientific and correct?-
>>>
Looming cold spurt could reshape climate debate
The pause in global cooling is finally explained.
Scientists now know why global cooling has slowed down
<<<
This is not science in my opinion but a series of excuses in trying to defend the indefensible; that scientists have been awarded millions if not billions of dosh to develop a hypothesis (prophecy) that has failed dismally. They are defending the money that they got.
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by A. Voip
Oh the humanity…
http://www.vice.com/read/should-climate-change-stop-us-from-having-babies-305
hope on.
↧
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Bill_W
R. Gates, The only way one could be so sure about the heat in the ocean is if one were sure that we could accurately measure the oceans to within a few hundredths of a degree. Odd, that no one cared about this metric until the pause occurred. Reeks of desperation to me.
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Al
“How can the pause be both ‘false’ and caused by something?”
I love this line. The degree of selective memory on display regarding the pause is impressive even by Climate Change debate standards. Mann isn’t the only one to have dismissed the existence of a pause outright, take a great deal of time, come up with an excuse for it but never change his public stance that it doesn’t exist in the first place.
“I didn’t kill her, but if I did this is how I would have done it” seems apt here.
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Bill_W
It has been warming for hundreds of years and we are adding more CO2 so it is very likely it will start to warm again. So pause or hiatus is fine for now. Using those terms does not say how long they will continue or whether temperatures will do as they did in late 1800’s and in the 1970s and go from a pause into a slight cooling. Plateau or leveling are also good terms. But it is likely that the GCMs greatly overestimate the warming and even if they are only off by a little, it is unlikely that increases of even 2C will be harmful even though there will be obvious responses by nature. Changes of 1.0 C in a hundred years are no problem – we just saw that. The unknowns are 1. what effect, if any, will the weak solar cycle and the upcoming (drawn out) minimum have, 2. what effect will PDO and in a few years the AMO have, and 3. will there be any major eruptions of volcanoes.
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by aaron
tingtg, +
↧
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by aaron
There was no reduction in energy gain. No pause where it matters, and only a slowdown in the rate of flow from ocean to atmosphere.
That’s not what TOA energy analysis suggests.
Unfortunately, heat accumulation error bars are wider than this thread is long. And there is no heat in any location that could plausibly ramp up warming much past the benign (likely beneficial) historical rates.
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by jim2
Attribulation: The unhappiness, pain, or suffering caused by attempts to determine the cause of global warming since 1900.
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Bob Ludwick
@ Bill_W.
“R. Gates, The only way one could be so sure about the heat in the ocean is if one were sure that we could accurately measure the oceans to within a few hundredths of a degree. ”
Bill, Bill, where HAVE you been!
We have been able to plot the ocean heat content with a resolution of 1e22 joules since 1955. See the official anomaly plots here:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
To do so REQUIRES that we have been able to measure the ‘annual temperature of the world’s oceans’, within a few THOUSANDTHS of a degree, not a few hundredths of a degree, over the entire interval for which the data is plotted.
As we used to say in the Navy: ‘Modern science knows no limitations!’
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by A. Voip
I have not been properly relieved of my post.
↧
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by R. Gates
“So where are you going to get the highest temperatures, atmospherically, of the Holocene, when the ocean is that much cooler?”
—–
You seem to unaware that the current rate of ocean warming is unlike anything the planet has seen in at least 10,000 years.
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by R. Gates
This is a huge fallacy that seems to be even circulated by some misinformed scientists. The facts are, warming oceans are already having impacts:
↧
Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by rpielke
Hi Zeke – Thank you for your follow up. You wrote
“I do agree with you that there is a noteworthy difference between surface and tropospheric trends.”
John Christy will address the details of the uncertainty issues you and Steve Mosher have raised.
Until he does, this report Scientific Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. and Tom Chase with Input from John Christy and Tony Reale https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-278b.pdf
provides more insight into the way the MSU data is used, As we start the report, we write 2009 regarding a exchange of views with Ben Santer et al
“In order to continue the discussion, I invited John Christy and Tony Reale to respond to the two papers. Their input provides further documentation of the value of using the NCEP Reanalysis for climate trend assessments, and as an independent assessment tool to the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) lower tropospheric MSU trend analyses.”
Among the statements are
“it is important to know that the satellite retrieval coefficients are
updated weekly by radiosonde comparisons (Christy et al. 2003). Thus the change in temperature with time is dependent on the radiosondes, not the satellites. As a result, the time series of NCEP and UAH data are essentially independent.”
I also refer you (and Steve Mosher) to the paper
Christy, J.R., B. Herman, R. Pielke, Sr., P. Klotzbach, R.T. McNider, J.J. Hnilo, R.W. Spencer, T. Chase and D. Douglass, 2010: What do observational datasets say about modeled tropospheric temperature trends since 1979? Remote Sensing, 2(9), 2148-2169. https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/r-358.pdf
The abstract reads in part
“Updated tropical lower tropospheric temperature datasets covering the period 1979–2009 are presented and assessed for accuracy based upon recent publications and several analyses conducted here. We conclude that the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) trend over these 31 years is +0.09 ± 0.03 °C decade−1 . Given that the surface temperature (Tsfc) trends from three different groups agree extremely closely among themselves (~ +0.12 °C decade−1) this indicates that the ―scaling ratio‖ (SR, or ratio of atmospheric trend to surface trend: TLT/Tsfc) of the observations is ~0.8 ± 0.3. This is significantly different from the average SR calculated from the IPCC AR4 model simulations which is ~1.4. This result indicates the majority of AR4 simulations tend to
portray significantly greater warming in the troposphere relative to the surface than is found in observations.”
Best Regards
Roger Sr.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
