Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Bob Ludwick

0
0

@ Kasuha

“‘Gaining energy’ and ‘warming’ are not exactly the same thing. ”

Yes it is. The only way to determine if a chunk of water is ‘gaining energy’ is to plot the time history of its temperature and calculate the change in energy from the measured change in temperature, the mass of the water, the heat capacity of water.

The much quoted change in heat of the upper 2000 meters of ocean is usually plotted in units of 1e22 joules. To know that the heat content has changed by 1e22 joules over a period of a year REQUIRES that you determine that the temperature of the top 2000 meters of oceans–all of them–changed by roughly 3 millidegrees over that same time period.

Not an easy trick.


Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by opluso

0
0

The first step is to admit you have a problem. And the initial problem for GCMs is that they fail to account for all forcing and feedback factors. “Internal variability” is largely (perhaps exclusively) the result of lagged feedback responses. Failing to account for this major feedback mechanism (i.e., internal variability) means that GCMs are incomplete. Redefining this flaw in the models as an exogenous random variable is essentially a magician’s misdirection technique to make the audience believe in the accuracy of the GCMs.

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by John Smith (it's my real name)

0
0

oh ye of little faith
the Messiah Heat will come

you non-believers will be made whole
unless you are consumed outright in Endofsnowmegeddan

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by kim

0
0

R Gates faith is from magic thermometers.
============

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Jan P Perlwitz

0
0

Adopting the term “pause” without having properly defined what this alleged “pause” was and what criteria need to be fulfilled to call it a “pause” lacks scientific rigour. A “pause” from what?

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by MichaelS

0
0

Is it just me, “out die”s anyone else’s BS meter peg “art” eleven when Joshua enters a thread.

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by JCH

0
0

The 15-year trend to 2006 was .26C. That’s less than ten years ago. Whatever caused the pause happened after 2005. 3 La Nina events, one of which was the 2nd strongest seen in the record versus one El Nino could fool anybody. So don’t feel bad.

The most real thing about the pause is the number of smart people it completely fooled.

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

0
0

Thanks for the explanation, Matthew. I am reading working to get my mind around this. I didn’t find Lalibertie, but did find this by Kleidon:

http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/10/nonequilibrium-thermodynamics-and-maximum-entropy-production-in-the-earth-system/

Else where, I saw this comment:

“In particular, it is not obvious, as of today, whether it is more efficient to approach the problem of constructing a theory of climate dynamics starting from the framework of hamiltonian mechanics and quasi-equilibrium statistical mechanics or taking the point of view of dissipative chaotic dynamical systems, and of non-equilibrium statistical mechanics, and even the authors of this review disagree. The former approach can rely on much more powerful mathematical tools, while the latter is more realistic and epistemologically more correct, because, obviously, the climate is, indeed, a non-equilibrium system.” Lucarini et al 2014


Comment on Understanding Time of Observation Bias by Can Adjustments Right a Wrong? | Watts Up With That?

0
0

[…] continue to receive attention in the mainstream media and science blogs. Zeke Hausfather wrote an instructive post on the Climate Etc. blog last month explaining the rationale behind the Time of Observation (TOBS) […]

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by jim2

0
0

Hint: global warming.

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by anng

0
0

Frederick,

Agreed. If you ask most climatologists (or Skeptical Science) about solar magnetic and wind changes they come back quoting figures for TSI.

I have a 1975 book which includes a New Scientist 1973 reprint by John Gribbin which says “the Sun’s slightest hiccup does affect the Earth’s atmosphere measurably.” e.g. increasing the size of Alaskan low-pressure systems, suggesting a trigger mechanism which occurs when there haven’t been many sunspots. Which I’m translating as some sort of a learning mechanism. Complex systems research was hardly off the ground in those days.

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

0
0

Differences between UAH and RSS TLT temperature trends:

Several comments on the difference between UAH and RSS have come to light. The difference in the 36-year global TLT trends are small with UAH about +0.017 C/decade warmer than RSS. The main reason for this is our different approaches in correcting for east-west satellite drift (i.e. diurnal drift.) UAH uses an empirical method based on actual satellite readings to correct of this while RSS uses a climate model estimate. In the period from 1979 to about 2000 the main effect of diurnal drift led to a spurious cooling of temperatures, so a correction needs to be applied to warm them back up. After 2000, the opposite occurs in which the main satellite (NOAA-15) drifts to warmer temperatures, so these must be cooled back down. The UAH corrections are smaller than RSS, so relative to UAH, RSS warms up the data in the period 1979-2000 more than UAH does. After 2000, UAH does not apply a diurnal correction because the main satellites we use were non-drifters, however, there is still a slight spurious warming in UAH due to our necessary use of NOAA-15 which we have not cooled back down (v6.0 will have this fixed). Since RSS has a relatively large correction to cool off the post-2000 data, their time series drops quite a bit relative to ours and to radiosondes. This was examined in several places, e.g. Christy et al. 2011, Int. J. Remote Sens. Since UAH has a bit too much warming after 2000 and RSS too much cooling, I’ve advised folks to simply take the average of our datasets for the best estimate. I’m the author of the upper air temperature section for the annual BAMS report on climate. I write that the 1979-2014 global TLT trend is +0.13 C/decade +/- 0.02 C/decade where this error range represents measurement error as it encompasses all of the estimates from radiosondes and satellites and even ERA-I. There is also statistical uncertainty which I calculate as +/- 0.06 C/decade using a reduction in degrees of freedom due to autocorrelation of the annual anomalies (N = 36, but Neff ~ 32). As an added note, the mean global TLT trend of 102 CMIP-5 RCP4.5 models for 1979-2014 is +0.27 C/decade with a standard deviation of +0.05 C. While this is significant, it becomes highly significant when considering TMT where the average model trend is over three times that of the observations from 1979-2014.

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Muon

0
0

So even though the thermometers haven’t budged for 20 years nearly (as even the rapid alarmists of the IPCC now finally admit), lolwot says there is no pause.
Pure genious. What else can be said?

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Muon

0
0

Rabid alarmists, that should have read.

It’s the inconvenient answer that blinkered Pause-Deniers like lolwot won’t touch with a bargepole.

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Ulric Lyons

0
0

More frequent than the mean of course. There is a known association between negative North Atlantic Oscillation and El Nino, so increased negative NAO increases El Nino.


Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by maksimovich

0
0

Has there been any statistically significant change in global temperature trend since 1998?

Hansen,Schmidt, Trenberth in various papers suggest No.

Schmidt (2014)suggested that both the absence of a statistical significant trend and the limitations in the CMIP5 models projections were problematic.

The global mean surface temperature trend was smaller between
1997 and 2013 (0.07±0.08 °C per decade) than over the last 50 years (0.16 ± 0.02 °C per decade), highlighting questions about the mechanisms that regulate decadal variability in the Earth’s temperature. In addition, the warming trend in the most
recent 15-year period is near the lower edge of the 5–95% range of projections from a collection of climate models that were part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5).

Where is he wrong?

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Ulric Lyons

0
0

typo sorry.. 1807-1817.

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Dr. Strangelove

0
0

You don’t know how to do regression analysis. You just drew three lines on the graph and pretend they are regression lines.

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Tuppence

0
0

The smarter committed alarmists having finally abandoned Pause Denial in favour of Pause Explaining (Away).

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by lolwot

0
0

I didn’t draw them, professionals drew them. You don’t understand data analysis clearly. Regression lines by themselves are no use in determining if there’s been a change in a prior trend. You kind of need to actually compare WITH the prior trend, not just stick a regression line since 1998 and say DUH DUH PAUSE DUH.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images