@tonyb
Jim D has posted a graph. It does not show what he says it does.
It does not support his proposition that
‘Land temperatures have risen 0.3 per decade for the last three decades’
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Latimer Alder
↧
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Latimer Alder
@jim d
You say
‘These are relevant for assessing whether the pause is robust or showing signs of cracks before another warm bump. You can’t look at the pause alone to assess its future’
I have tried to extract meaning from this oracular statement. But I have failed. Please restate in plain English..
↧
Comment on Has Trenberth found the ‘missing’ heat? by Generalissimo Skippy
All I get in a serch for turnover at Lake Travis was when the tourists all ran to the same side of the boat at the nudist beach. That wasn’t you was it Springer?
Normally happens in temperate lakes. The 208m altitude might help a little – about 3 degrees.
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Beth Cooper
‘Something there is that doesn’t love a wall.
H/t Robert Frost.
… Hi ho Shibboleth.
Down with serfdom!
.
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by kim
You spose he’s froze or is he still trying to recreate Pekka’s graph?
=====================
↧
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Peter Davies
Ain’t you an old guy yourself Max_OK? You sounded like one in many of your other comments. Well getting on a bit anyway! ;)
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by kim
i. Relatively irrelevant and yours is wrong, i.e. not 0.3 C/dec.
ii. So, it’s warmed during a 30 year data period.
iii. Is heat missing or not?
So your ‘relevancies’ don’t contain enough information to help.
Robustupidity.
===========
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Edim
It’s very important to note that if the consensus AGW hypothesis is true, then AGW became significant roughly after the middle of the 20th century – anything before that would be physically (and logically) nonsense. This shouldn’t be controversial at all and I’ve never seen any consensus attribution study that differs from these for example:
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2012/01/GillettteFig1.png
http://www.climatechangeconnection.org/science/images/Global_temperature_change.jpg
… (there are many)
They all look very similar. Now, I often see the convinced denying this when it suits them. That’s not even wrong.
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Pekka Pirilä
What I plotted was simply the 30 year trend since 1982, nothing more fancy. The result is clear. A trend slightly less than 0.3 C/decade.
What Jim did show is 10 year smoothed average. To get 30 years in that we must take the period from 1977 to 2007. Again the result is the same: A rise close enough to 0.9 C over three decades.
This isn’t difficult. What’s he problem with this?
How can anyone disagree?
↧
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Edim
So, the warming 1700 – 1950 is 100% natural (non-antropogenic).
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Pekka Pirilä
The Marcott work does not tell anything about the last 150 years. We know from instrumental record rather well, what has happened over this period. These two peaces of knowledge are supplementary, not contradictory or confirmatory.
From the combined information we learn that the present temperature is close to the highest holocene smoothed temperature. We cannot compare to peak values as the Marcott study tells only the smoothed ones. Smoothed means in this case something like 500 year average judging from the fact that all variability up to 300 years is lost, but most 1000 year variability retained.
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Latimer Alder
@pekka
‘How can anyone disagree?’
Please show your graph.
And I remind you that the claim is that temperatures *have risen* 0.3c per decade for 30 years. Not about what the trend is. But what actually happened.
i.e that T(2012) = T(1983) + 0.9C.
Does your graph show this?
When I studied science a long time ago, it was thought to be very important to be precise in one’s language when reporting results.
Seems to me that many climatologists and their hangers-on have a more ‘flexible’ approach to what they mean…it seems to adjust itself according to the desired impact rather than trying to be a true representation of the observations, experiments and conclusions. I do not view this as a tendency that enhances my opinion of their integrity.
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Pekka Pirilä
I have told exactly what the graph is.
I don’t accept your sophistry on the meaning of the statement of Jim..
↧
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by izen
There is an argument that land use changes associated with agriculture drove some climate change from the begining of human exploitation of the environment. The Pielke’s are probably best known for this line of hypothesis, but others have suggested that the MWP was in part driven by increasing forest clearance and the LIA was the result of a fall in CO2 after the population drop from the plague.
However it is certainly defensible to claim that most of the AGW has happened since 1950. So an increase of CO2 much short of a doubling has resulted in an immediate transient warming of 0.7degC with inevitably, more to come given the thermal inertia of the climate system. Often climate change deniers seem to forget the amount of global warming that we have already seen from the less than 50% increase in CO2 so far.
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Pekka Pirilä
What we see in the land temperatures is:
- overall trend of slightly less than 0.3 C/decade over a period of more than 30 years
- some variability around the trend, but not at a level that would justify statements like those made about the global averages that include the oceans.
The formulation of Jim was fully justified and an appropriate description of the data.
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Peter Lang
Often climate change deniers seem to forget the amount of global warming that we have already seen from the less than 50% increase in CO2 so far.
But hasn’t that warming been good for humanity and life on planet Earth so far. How good will the next lot of warming be? Does anyone know? The doomsayers have had lots to say, but nothing persuasive that more warming is bad.
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Nick Stokes
<a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/crutem4vgl/from:1980/trend/plot/best/from:1980/trend/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1970/trend/plot/best/from:1970/trend" rel="nofollow">Here</a> are the actual trend numbers. A bit less than 0.3; about 0.27 °C/dec from 1980. But also from 1970, so that does make it over a degree. In fact, says WFT, from 1970, 1.2°C for CRUTEM4, 1.16°C for BEST since 1970.
↧
↧
Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by Joshua (the nice putz)
tony -
Putz is a Yiddish expression, typically used as a synonym for “dick.” I just looked up the etymology – and it’s quite interesting, as it seems that it derives from a word meaning “finery, adornment.” Not sure how the common usage was derived from the original usage.
I only heard it used by Jews when I was growing up, but apparently it has crossed over into the basic American vernacular – kind of like how now you can find bagels in the supermarket in Omaha.
As for why I’m a “nice one,” I have no real idea – but there was a discussion yesterday where tim and PG agreed that I am a putz, but disagreed as to whether I am a nasty putz. Another denizen requested that my name appear as “Joshua the nice putz.”; I thought I’d comply, at least for a while.
FWIW – I’d say that just about everyone here qualifies as a putz. A pretty dickish crowd all-around, I’d say. There are a few exceptions – Pekka comes to mind, BillC and John Carpenter also – although they’ve been scarce recently. I used to put you in the non-putz category also – but lately your comments do have a bit more of a dickish quality. The jury’s still out…
↧
Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by patrioticduo
My prediction is that you won’t see Shakun doing any PR work until he has done some very thorough public speech and interview training. His interview with Revkin was a body language and interviewing technique disaster.
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by blueice2hotsea
Bart R
Describe Bart R.
– Bald
We haven’t died yet so we’re safe?!
What absurdity.
– Yes, that was my point – which you missed.
That cost isn’t borne by the culprits, and ought.
– Such comments come across as schizoid. No biggee. However, it then interests me to look for assurance in another area.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
