Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Robert Way

$
0
0

“The extension of high-latitude arctic land data over the Arctic Ocean is also questionable. Much of the Arctic Ocean is ice-covered even in high summer, so that the surface temperature must remain near freezing. Extending land data out into the ocean will obviously induce substantially exaggerated temperatures.”

They did not do this – tell Pat to read the paper again. They provide an estimate of what that would mean but do not include it in their surface temperature product.

“I am also unconvinced by NOAA’s gap filling in the Arctic, and in my opinion this introduces substantial error into their analysis. I addressed the issue of gap filling in the Arctic in this recent publication: Curry JA, 2014: Climate science: Uncertain temperature trends. Nature Geoscience, 7, 83-84. Relevant text:
Gap filling in the Arctic is complicated by the presence of land, open water and temporally varying sea ice extent, because each surface type has a distinctly different amplitude and phasing of the annual cycle of surface temperature. Notably, the surface temperature of sea ice remains flat during the sea ice melt period roughly between June and September, whereas land surface warming peaks around July 1. Hence using land temperatures to infer ocean or sea ice temperatures can incur significant biases.”

Two things. First it sounds based on your statement like you’re implying you published a peer-reviewed paper on the subject of infilling in the Arctic which is certainly not the case.

Secondly, you have never shown any original analysis to counter the temperature analyses performed by Cowtan and Way and Berkeley with respect to the Arctic. In the time since you made your ‘comments’ there have been a number of papers (see below) which have provided validation for our approach from atmospheric reanalysis datasets, isolated weather stations and satellite datasets. We have provided numerous follow-up investigations which once again support the methodology (see below) and include assessments against the Atmospheric Infrared Sounding Unit for instance. You can’t continue to keep hand-waving on the subject. If you want to say it can’t be done then please show us why – also provide your cross-validation statistics on your proposed improvement ;) If not show us why its better to pretend the Arctic is warming at the global average rate (FYI it’s not).

Comiso, J. C., & Hall, D. K. (2014). Climate trends in the Arctic as observed from space. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(3), 389-409.

Dodd, E. M., Merchant, C. J., Rayner, N. A., & Morice, C. P. (2014). An Investigation into the Impact of using Various Techniques to Estimate Arctic Surface Air Temperature Anomalies. Journal of Climate, (2014).

Simmons, A. J., & Poli, P. (2014). Arctic warming in ERA‐Interim and other analyses. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society.

Updates:
http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/updates.html


Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Willard

$
0
0

> Doug MacNeal’s take [link].

That says quite a lot.

Comment on Why Skeptics hate climate skeptics by PA

$
0
0

Well, PE, the percentages seem roughly right.

Anyone who isn’t a warmer or a catastrophist risks being called a denier.

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Don Monfort

$
0
0

Well, let’s just stipulate that your friend Ross was WRONG in the statement of his that you quoted. Is he WRONG about everything in his analysis of Karl?

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by sciguy54

$
0
0

“An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age…”

This is a classic straw man which does not address the actual timeline, but moves forward a decade, after the debate had flip-flopped. The following quotes provide a few time stamps to illustrate the actual timing. So yes, in the 1970s the climatologists, press and politicians were moving on to warming… after they had spent the 1960s warning about cooling:

After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of
specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder.
-New York Times – January 30, 1961

Like an outrigger canoe riding before a huge comber, the earth with its inhabitants is caught on the downslope of an immense climatic wave that is plunging us toward another Ice Age.
-Los Angeles Times December 23, 1962

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.
– Paul Ehrlich – The Population Bomb (1968)

It is now pretty clearly agreed that the CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.
-Presidential adviser Daniel Moynihan, 1969 (later Sen. [D] from New York 1976-2000)

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website

$
0
0

Prof Curry,

This is a common problem in other sciences, such as economics. People rely on the high quality data of current economic stats, and assume that historical estimates (paleo-economic data?) are as accurate – when in fact they’re little more than rough estimates.

Unfortunately we have little reliable economic data before WWII, and almost nothing before WWI. For example, we have all seen those wonderfully precise estimates of unemployment during the Great Depression. Guesses. The first survey was in March 1940, other than small surveys done by mailing postcards in 1937 and 1939.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1984/06/art2full.pdf

It gets worse the further one goes back. Often famous “lessons from history” are little more than legends dressed up with guesses about the numbers.

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Robert Way

$
0
0

Using UAH for the high elevation portions of the ice sheets is incredibly naive. There’s a reason RSS exclude that data.

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Salvatore del Prete

$
0
0

sham not shame although they both apply.


Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Dan Pangburn

$
0
0

Humanity has been egregiously deceived.

NOAA doubles down on their mistake.

Atmospheric CO2 has been identified as a possible climate change forcing. Forcings, according to the ‘consensus’ and the IPCC, have units of Joules /sec/m^2. Energy, in units Joules/m^2, divided by the effective thermal capacitance (Joules/K/m^2) equals average global temperature (AGT) change (K). Thus (in consistent units) the time-integral of the atmospheric CO2 level (or some function thereof) times a scale factor equals the AGT change. When this is applied to multiple corroborated paleo (as far back as 542 million years ago) estimates of CO2 and average global temperature, the only thing that consistently works is if the effect of CO2 is negligible and something else is causing the temperature change.

CO2 has no influence on climate, ocean cycles and solar cycle 24 are both on down-slope. The only way to make it appear that it is still warming is to change the temperature numbers.

See the proof that CO2 has no effect on climate and discover what does cause climate change (explains 97+% average global temperatures since before 1900) at .http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by GaryM

$
0
0

Delingpole’s take on this latest dose of CAGW PR disguised as science.

“The thrust of Karl’s paper is this: that far from staying flat since 1998, global temperatures have carried on rising. It’s just that scientists haven’t noticed before because they’ve been looking in the wrong place – on land, rather than in the sea where all the real heat action is happening.

And how did Karl et al notice what everyone else has missed until now? Well, by using a specialised scientific technique called ‘getting your excuses in early before the Paris climate conference in December.’”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/05/hide-the-hiatus-how-the-climate-alarmists-eliminated-the-inconvenient-pause-in-the-global-warming/

The hiatuspause is the scientific gift that keeps on giving.

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website

$
0
0

sci guy,

One thing we should have learned from the climate wars: journalists are not reliable guides to the state of a science. Their job is to sell stories, and science is among the most difficult to accurately dress up as lurid headlines.

On the other hand, we have reliable guides in the science literature. It’s just much more difficult to assess.

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Turbulent Eddie

$
0
0

Using UAH for the high elevation portions of the ice sheets is incredibly naive. There’s a reason RSS exclude that data.

That’s possible, surface pressure at the Greenland Summit would be quite low. However, the cooling trend is interesting.

And would interpolating over Greenland based on peripheral sea level stations also be incredibly naive?

I think so.

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Willard

$
0
0

> I can probably figure out some algorithm that ‘works’ for awhile based on the price of tea in China.

Go for it.

While you’re at it, an explanation as to why the correlation between the price of tea in China should be fed to the algorithm might be nice.

Finding two other indicators that give similar results, like Robert Way did, would be even nicer.

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Robert Way

$
0
0

“Even if your analysis gives similar results over a certain period, your method is unphysical and I would not expect comparable results going forward. Getting ‘close to’ the ‘right’ answer for a short period of time, for the wrong reasons, frankly isn’t useful.”

I’m really not sure where the unphysical arguments come in. We’re not talking about absolute temperatures we’re talking about anomalies and there are much fewer physical properties which can introduce bias when you interpolate anomalies. Even in absolute terms you can summarizes about 95% of geographic variation in air temperatures across land based on a small number of covariates (x,y,z) in for instance a thin plate spline algorithm. The idea that anomalies (which are much more autocorrelated at larger distances) can’t be used for interpolation in this manner is somewhat silly. What is unphysical about the interpolation when it’s guided by MERRA based anomalies or the UAH-based anomalies. I can tell you that the UAH-based ones probably miss some of the near-surface warming which is characteristic of Arctic Amplification.

“You use climatological sea ice data, not the daily (or even monthly) varying sea ice. During the summer time, sea ice surface temperatures have nothing to do with land temperatures.”

Using a climatology inserts a bias but it is smaller than the bias introduced using a variable (monthly) ice mask. These tests have been done. Expect to hear more on this in the future.

“I can probably figure out some algorithm that ‘works’ for awhile based on the price of tea in China.”

As Mosher said it wouldn’t pass cross-validation. If you have an alternative idea then please go ahead and present it – but there’s a certain sense of irony in watching you continually say that you’ve countered our approach when you’ve provided zero evidence to support your views.

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Turbulent Eddie

$
0
0

Greenland aside, the UAH trend map indicates a fair amount of spatial consistency with the surface temperature trends. Cooling in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific, two warming lobes in the Western Pacific ( consistent with PDO? ), cooling in the Souther Ocean and maximal warming in the Arctic.


Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

$
0
0

Robert Way, The “unphysical” part is the thermodynamics. -50C over sea ice represents 162 Wm-2, -2 C over ocean water represents 302 Wm-2 plus some latent, 18C over open water represents 406 Wm-2 plus approximately 100 Wm-2 of latent. Assuming that a temperature anomaly over sea ice is meaningful with respect to -2 over ocean Arctic or 18 C is pretty much naive.

Mathematically, the kriging is impressive. Thermodynamically it is just about useless.

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

TE.
Yes kriging across the boundary may introduce errors.
That’s not the question.
The question is are the errors significant?
Given the spatial area involved.. No.
We are down to polishing the bowling ball.

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Steven Mosher

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

$
0
0

Steven Mosher, it is polishing, but balling ball wasn’t the first thing that popped into my mind.

If you want to see Judith’s point you need to consider the what the polished temperature represents in thermodynamics. If you neglect latent, just the range of possible SST gives you a thermodynamic uncertainty of about 0.35 C or SST could vary by up to 0.35 C with zero change in energy. You could play around with converting all the temperature data to S-B energy before taking anomaly and you see that the tropics have a higher energy weighting than Arctic winter temps.

Since there isn’t much other data to use though, SST and mean surface temperature have to be used, but when you assume that the mean temperature can be reliably converted to S-B energy you are stepping in the “balling ball”. There is a “hidden” uncertainty you can’t get away from.

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Willard

$
0
0

> If you want to see Judith’s point you need to consider the what the polished temperature represents in thermodynamics.

Wait, Cap’n. Are you suggesting that unless we include daily sea ice concentration analysis or buoy measurements of open water SST in the Arctic Ocean, no statistical analysis can never make any physical sense?

Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images