At the Denver American Chemical Society meeting in August 2011 there were two symposia on global warming hosted by the “SCHB” Division. Several speakers at the morning symposium were from the nearby NREL. I asked about “optimal’ CO2 level, and one speaker told me the 280 ppm pre-industrial level was far from desirable. Mike Flynn’s question is completely legitimate. Nature has so many processes for effectively removing CO2 from the biosphere, as evidenced by oil, gas, coal and limestone deposits.
Comment on 2015 → 2016 by PeteBonk
↧
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by climategrog
Jim , you are confusing detrending and attribution via regression analysis. See my reply to your last comment.
Detrending ( which is NOAA’s doing not Craig’s idea ) is a pernicious, undeclared attempt at attribution. As you argue, it is not a very good way to go about it but that the price for not being open about the assumptions you are making.
If the declared aim is to fit CO2 forcing ( under the assumption that nothing else could be vaguely trending upwards ) then what you suggest would be better than linear detrending.
The problem is that climatologists are not being open and objective about the aims and the effects of removing ALL linear trend from climate variables. There is absolutely no reason to assume that no natural process can cause upward or downward variation, which is what detrending does assume.
That is why everything becomes a trend-neutral “oscillaiton”. But it is nothing but an induced result.
↧
Comment on 2015 → 2016 by PeteBonk
And we are probably not all going to die from this horror.
↧
Comment on 2015 → 2016 by Peter Lang
Seven Mosher,
On an objective basis, the optimum temperature and CO2 concentration would be those the temperature when the planet had the most carbon tied up in the biosphere – i.e. the thickest, densest most productive vegetation and most/largest animal life. I understand that was during the Mesozoic Era and Early Tertiary Period.
I also understand these times were some 5C to 8C warmer than now.
Also, there seems to be some evidence the climate was less variable when warmer, and when there are no ice sheets at the poles, and more variable when the climate was colder.
All these seem to suggest the optimum temperature is much warmer than now.
I accept there are some adaption costs, but are they greater than the benefits of warming? That’s my question of 2016.
↧
Comment on 2015 → 2016 by dpy6629
Happy New Year to Judith and all reading this. Despite sniping from various politically motivated propagandists, Climate Etc. continues to be a good open forum where moderation does not impact free expression of ideas and scientific content. That’s quite an achievement compared to the host of other climate blogs, such as ATTP’s, where rudeness and equivacation is punctuated by obscure references to a weird game called ClimateBall invented by Lord Bertrand Russel’s squirrel (he knows who he is) and meaningless, obscure and quite long but scientifically vacuous searches for inconsistencies by Jo$hua. At least when Rice shows up here he can’t delete inconvenient but correct comments. Climate Etc. is still beating the competition.
↧
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by Joel Williams
Happy NEW Yew, ALL you bloggers!
When I looked at the graph above, I did not see a linear regression. I saw flats on either side of a rising center. Consequently, I digitized the curve and subjected the data to both linear and sixth-degree polynomial fits. Both give fairly good R2 fits, but give very different expectations for the future. The linear fit will continue merrily upward. The polynomial fix indicates that the future could very well be otherwise. (I have broken the 35-year data into 3 segments. The center portion indicates an ~12-year rise of anomaly temperature from 1990 to 2002, although it could be decal. I have not indicated why this period nor rise occurred.) . The linear fit indicates 0.17C/decade so it should be 0.95C. Since the current 12-year period has ended, the next 12 years (actually to ~2030 should be observed) will be very telling. Will the anomaly go up or down? Most likely it will not remain constant, although it could.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by Jim D
climategrog, the much simpler alternative is to fit the temperature and CO2 during the period of a known accurate record of both as follows.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25
Since we don’t know if the other forcing changes in this period are net positive or negative (although solar variation appears net negative), this represents a middle estimate of an effective transient sensitivity which is 2.4 C per doubling in this particular fit. If you don’t agree this is a middle estimate and think it must be high, you need to present a so-far-lacking good idea of some other positive natural variation in the last 60 years that just happens to be correlated with the CO2 forcing, i.e. not just a response to it. This is what it comes down to when you just look at the evidence. This is even before you come to the imbalance part of the >100% attribution argument that I have stated elsewhere.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by David Springer
There’s a major frickin’ problem in your desert hypothesis, Don. The climate type with the highest mean annual temperature is the tropical desert.
Sure tropical deserts get colder at night than tropical rain forests. Conversely the tropical desert gets a lot hotter during the day too. Critically the tropical desert has the higher average annual temperature.
Say it after me, Donny: clouds have a net negative feedback.
The “why” of the matter is simple: energy in vs. energy out.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/biomes/deserts.php
Desert surfaces receive a little more than twice the solar radiation received by humid regions and lose almost twice as much heat at night.
Warmunists don’t like talking about this but observations prove that clouds have a net negative feedback. Climate models assume they are a net positive feedback. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong. Demonstrably so.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by David Springer
There’s a major frickin’ problem in your desert hypothesis, Don. The climate type with the highest mean annual temperature is the tropical desert.
Sure tropical deserts get colder at night than tropical rain forests. Conversely the tropical desert gets a lot hotter during the day too. Critically the tropical desert has the higher average annual temperature.
Say it after me, Donny: clouds have a net negative feedback.
The “why” of the matter is simple: energy in vs. energy out.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/biomes/deserts.php
Desert surfaces receive a little more than twice the solar radiation received by humid regions and lose almost twice as much heat at night.
Warmunists don’t like talking about this but observations prove that clouds have a net negative feedback. Climate models assume they are a net positive feedback. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong.
↧
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by Mike Flynn
AK,
I repeat, you wrote –
“The reality is that we don’t know how the planet’s climate and other systems will respond to increased CO2. To the extent the “equilibrium climate sensitivity” actually achieves closure as a number, it could actually be less than zero, although I would regard that as unlikely.”
So my attempt to get a definition of the a Greenhouse Effect has resulted in no definition, claims that such a definition exists (tucked away with the hidden heat, perhaps), but that the definition would be incomprehensible to anyone other than a highly trained climatologist. Sounds like secret cult ritual business to me.
Moving along, you claim that we don’t know how the planets climate and other systems will respond to unknown and unquantified increases of CO2. This of course implies that you don’t know the response to reductions in CO2, otherwise you would be able to know the response to an increase in CO2 levels from the reduced state to the current increase, which you have stated is unknowable.
Now, I don’t understand what “equilibrium climate sensitivity” means in physical terms, but I believe Warmists claim that it relates to some type of temperature increase of unknown quantum, somewhere, sometime. I have seen some absurd claims that the Earth is 33 C warmer (whatever that means), due to CO2. Do you actually believe this?
In any case, you appear to state that you don’t know what the impact of CO2 is, but you are certain it is between more than nothing, and less than nothing. I agree. Maybe you don’t actually mean what you wrote – this appears to standard fare for Warmists on occasion. All part of the Warmist deny, divert and obscure ploy.
So it would seem that the as yet undefined greenhouse effect has an unknown impact, but you are sure it is either positive or negative. I’ve just repeated this for you in case you forgot what you wrote before. Others might have different opinions, of course.
Cheers.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by Mike Flynn
Don Monfort,
Where are my Skydragon Wings? You promised me Skydragon Wings! You can’t be trusted. You promised the World heating from CO2. Another busted promise!
No wonder 99.9% of the world’s population doesn’t care what Warmists think. You talk a lot, and deliver nothing at all.
Cheers.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by AK
↧
Comment on 2015 → 2016 by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)
No Free Lunch, CO2 increases Carbs, lowers Proteins. Pick your poison
http://tinyurl.com/jfqayty
↧
↧
Comment on 2015 → 2016 by JCH
No, but some smart people could be exposed as complete fools. Nothing new there.
2017 could see another El Nino. Not impossible.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Danny Thomas
Evanmjones,
Thank you for this above: “In terms of the science writ large, by dropping the perturbed stations, we have created a “check sum”.”
I’m late to this discussion, but in a nutshell this describes what I perceive as the value of this offering and can in no way find an issue with this approach. After all, it’s the ‘trends’ which are important. Having a “check sum” or ‘control’ (unadulterated) seems like it should have value to all sides. It seems to me that those whose results (predictions) lay further away from the ‘check sum’ should ask more questions as to why.
Mosher himself has stated that the GAT (as it’s currently manifested via numerous means and sources) is no more than a prediction and certainly is not an observation. I cannot see how your method is any worse than the other offerings. Thank you for the effort and the sharing.
↧
Comment on 2015 → 2016 by matthewrmarler
Thank you again, Prof Curry, and keep up the good work. I am looking forward to the 2016 postings at ClimateEtc.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Steven Mosher
evan
“And if you haven’t figured it out by now, that means review of method.”
You havent revealed your method either.
↧
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Steven Mosher
” I am trying to figure out how to harness the advantage of both approaches.”
Simple. our code is on the web.
Approach 1. you release the data and We redo the station quality paper.
Approach 2. You take the code for station quality and use your data.
its been there for 3 years!!!!!
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Steven Mosher
You got your history wrong. We did exactly what we promised. we used anthony’s data and did a paper that SUPPORTED HIS CONCLUSIONS.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Steven Mosher
easily testable.
Homogenization does not change the values of CRN stations.
in over 90% of the cases, CRN values are unchanged.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
