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 sciguy54

$
0
0

A huge problem with this bias calculation goes back to the stakes and the lack of trust on both sides.

As to trust, its hard to trust parties who claim that science is settled (on almost any complex subject area, much less climate) and that anyone who claims otherwise is a flat-earther or corrupted denier (see various recent public statements from the President and the White House staff). It is also hard to trust when the ultimate stakes include the sacrifice of a wide swath of freedoms and huge quantities of wealth for all posterity.

With that in mind, and given the importance of the bias calculation, I have some concerns with a few omissions in K15 when the process is described, most pointedly this one:

““A database of nearly coincident ship and buoy observations for the period 1998-2007 was created in which ship-buoy pairs were selected that lay within 50km of one another and on the same day. To avoid complications from diurnal heating, only observations taken close to local dawn were used.”

Note that the authors did not say that ALL coincidental observations taken near dawn were used. Is that true? How was the database generated,… the actual queries? Is there original data for ALL coincidental observations. ALL taken near dawn? The final data set which was used? Could a third party replicate the culling process? Remember, taxpayers paid for the information and will have to make decisions based on the results, so unless claims of national security are made, then taxpayers are entitled to an open book. Anything less and trust simply descends yet another notch.


Comment on Driving in the dark by micro6500

$
0
0

It isn’t not caring about the future, it’s in a future of high uncertainty, the best indicator of the future is the past, and in climate the past is an uneventful future.

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

$
0
0

“Of course, climatologists don’t ever use the temperature of the surface, because it confuses them.”

ignorant

http://icoads.noaa.gov/advances/emery.pdf

Brunke, M. A., X. Zeng, V. Misra, and A. Beljaars, 2008: Integration of a prognostic skin sea surface temperature scheme into climate and weather models. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, D21117, doi:10.1029/2008JD010607.

Fairall, C. W., E. F. Bradley, J. S. Godfrey, G. A. Wick, and J. B. Edson, 1996: Cool-skin and warm-layer effects on sea surface temperature. Journal of Geophysical Research, 101, 1295-1308.

Garratt, J. R., 1992: The Atmospheric Boundary Layer, Cambridge University Press, 316 pp.

May, D. A., M. M. Parmeter, D. S. Olszewski, B. D. McKenzie, 1998: Operational processing of satellite sea surface temperature retrievals at the naval oceanographic office. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79, 397-407.

Schluessel, P., H.-Y. Shin, W. J. Emery, and H. Grassl, 1987: Comparison of satellite-derived sea surface temperatures with in situ skin measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research, 92, 2859-2874.

Wick, G. A., W. J. Emery, L. H. Kantha, and P. Schluessel, 1996: The behavior of the bulk-skin sea surface temperature difference under varying wind speed and heat flux. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 26, 1969-1988.

Zeng, X., and A. Beljaars, 2005: A prognostic scheme of sea surface skin temperature for modeling and data assimilation. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, doi:10.1029/2005GL023030.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015%3C0353:TIVOSS%3E2.0.CO;2

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/William_Emery/publication/234005940_On_the_bulk-skin_temperature_difference_and_its_impact_on_satellite_remote_sensing_of_sea_surface_temperature/links/0c960526fe6f0903ad000000.pdf

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

$
0
0

“If they accept a vague temperature between 1mm and 20 metres, then it is easy to pick a temperature which suits the purpose at hand. Adjustments and homogenisation can create a trend decrease, increase, or no change at all!

The interest is the trend not the temperature.

You dont like adjustments? use raw data. The observed rate of warming is higher. and models then perform better.

Use raw data? you just validated the models. thanks

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

$
0
0

Andrew..

Watch Don.

see how he doesnt buy warmist BS
see how he doesnt buy skeptics BS.

Its pretty simple: he accepts what the best science says:
AC02 MAY be a problem.

See.. a GOOD skeptic suspends judgement.

I have no issue with good skeptics: skeptical dogmatists.. like U?

big issue

Comment on What matters (and doesn’t) in the G7 Climate Declaration by jim2

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

$
0
0

Tony.. Nobody believes it to a FRACTION either.

You and others simply DO NOT GET what it means when we
say the average is 1.5

That does not mean the quanity is known to that level of precision or accuracy.

Thats NOT what a spatial average means.

get that through your thick skull

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

$
0
0

Mosh

Just because you say something in a forceful and a belligerent manner doesn’t make it true

From Envistat

’01:25 -SOT Shubha Sathyendranath, Senior Scientist, Plymouth Marine Laboratory
in the context of climate change, the oceans are the greatest reservoir of the anthropogenic, of the excess heat that our planet is accumulating, and the satellites help us to see how the – at least at the surface – how the temperature is changing. With the melting of the ice and the increasing in the temperature, sea level has been increasing, not everywhere, and not uniformly, but overall the trend is an increasing trend.

01:47 VO: ESA’s Earth observation satellites have been monitoring oceans for years. On board the Envisat satellite, an infrared radiometer measured sea surface temperature to within a fraction of a degree.

Plymouth Marine Observatory, The UK Environment Agency, The British Parliament and many other \agencies believe they know SST’s to fractions of a degree.

Now, instead of lambasting me for making correct statements, how about dealing with the fact that we often proclaim a degree of accuracy that is unrealistic. Also, why don’t you answer the question as to when you believe we started to have an accurate picture of GLOBAL sea surface temperatures.

tony


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

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

$
0
0

Tony

just because you read people who dont know how to express the actual meaning of an average, doesn’t make what you say or say they true.

in the first place satellites do NOT measure bulk SST.

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

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by john321s

$
0
0

Mike Flynn:

You’re quite right about the problems of historical SST data obtained by ships of opportunity. Ironically enough, the very papers that Mosher cites here manifestly underscore that tangle of problems. Apparently his scientific attention/comprehension extends no further than selling the rank conceit that histories of global temperatures are adequately known back to the 1750s, as peddled by BEST.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Skurnick

$
0
0

Heartland Institute’s web site shows interest in fracking, endangered species, electric cars, school choice, welfare reform, industrial silica sand, patent reform, the EPA, etc.

Franklin Center is primarily interested in news reporting. Their site says, “Franklin Center identifies, trains, and supports journalists working to detect and expose corruption and incompetence in government at the state and local levels.”

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Twin Peaks of Global Warming Are Twin LiesNatural Gas Now

$
0
0

[…] with buoy data, and account for the contamination? Perhaps because, as Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry observed, this latest NOAA analysis “will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama […]

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

“So if you come up with a policy relevant issue that doesn’t require the correct feedback or regional climate, but merely a realistic sense of large scale fluid flow, please let me know.”

Simple: total limit on carbon emissions.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by curryja

$
0
0

nope, this depends critically on climate sensitivity, which is dominated by the fast feedbacks.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

god forbid that in a short blog post that Held should not address all the issue that Sir Rud the poser thinks are important.

His piece was measured and balanced.

You could learn something from him, but you won’t.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by richardswarthout

$
0
0

Tony

I agree. When presenting the idea to SoD last year he said “From what I understand, regional climate projections have much more uncertainty than global climate projections.”. Is this an insurmountable dilemma?

Richard

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website

$
0
0

tony,

“Will development reduce the rise in population?”

I think we can be more optimistic. Development produces a by-now predictable population boom — followed by a collapse in fertility. The resulting population “busts” will shape the 21st century world, as the population rise shaped the 20thC.

I don’t have data on Syria, but its trend is probably roughly similar to Iran’s — which was flat until ~1980, then dropping 7.0 to 1.9 in 2006. So the forces which will reduce its population are already in motion.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid

$
0
0

Izen’s comments are as nutty as some who suggest a jobs program is just the ticket to solve all the geo-political, religious problems in the Middle East. Talk about over simplification. Let’s wipe out hundreds of years of conflict and just channel FDR to get a New Deal for the region. Some can’t grasp that some problems won’t be solved by spending money.

Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images