Does anyone here believe man does NOT affect climate in some manner?
Comment on Open thread weekend by jim2
↧
↧
Comment on PDO, ENSO and sea level rise by Jeffn
That’s it? Student must apply himself!
↧
Comment on PDO, ENSO and sea level rise by Chief Hydrologist
The science I linked to shows the cloud changes associated with the PDO. Energy into the global system peaked at the end of the last century. There is a peak in both energy and heat content in 1998.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=136
The 1998/2001 climate shift was captured in a couple of ways.
‘Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.’
There is a peak in ocean heat in 2003 in Lyman and Johnson (2013).
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/oceanheat_zps2cb4a7a1.png.html?sort=3&o=1
There is an increase in ARGO in 2005 to 2010.
It is all minor cloud changes.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_MODIS-1.gif.html?sort=3&o=94
Do you expect everything to be smooth and simple? Can short term ARGO data explain everything about climate? Although there more severe limitations in earlier data – it provides a perspective not available from ARGO and CERES. The 1998/2001 climate shift has been identified in a number of ways. It suggests not only that non warming over decades is a possibility – but indeed a probability.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim Cripwell
In a Rolling Stone article http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warming-is-very-real-20130912, the headline reads
“Scientists are fighting deniers with irrefutable proof the planet is headed for catastroph.”
Further into the article I find
“To put it another way: In the real world, climate sensitivity means zip.”
I find these statements to be exaggerated, to say the least. Skeptic/demniers are often accused of spreading disinformation, but I think Rolling Stone goes much further than that.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Latimer Alder
Great experiment (not). Changed the conditions expected to take over 100 years in just 5 weeks and drew conclusions about ‘response’. That’s 1000 times faster. Relevant and accurate?
↧
↧
Comment on PDO, ENSO and sea level rise by Chief Hydrologist
Again.
Clouds and PDO.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Clementetal2009.png.html?sort=3&o=68
Tropical cloud.
Do you really expect an ARGO record from 2005 to reveal all?
↧
Comment on PDO, ENSO and sea level rise by stevefitzpatrick
The numbers look right. But I rather expect that isostatic rebound from weight loss of eroding continents, and isostatic depression of ocean floors due to the weight of sediments would compensate for most all of this influence (with a few thousand years of lag, of course).
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Harold
It’s worse than that:
“In fact, as prominent climate blogger Joe Romm pointed out, these arcane, highly technical numbers are “far less interesting and consequential subject than the fact that we are headed way, way past [emissions targets] or that the real-world slow feedbacks are expected to make a very big contribution to warming this century.” To put it another way: In the real world, climate sensitivity means zip.”
IOW, the world isn’t warming, and it doesn’t matter because CO2. Or something like that.
This is dreck of Gorian magnitude.
↧
Comment on Leaked IPCC report discussed in the MSM by Beth Cooper
Failure of meta reasoning maybe but whole lotta metamorphosis
goin’ on.
↧
↧
Comment on Nic Lewis on the UK Met Office on the pause by Pekka Pirilä
Looking at the Otto et al paper, I don’t understand the methodological choice they have made in using the full 40 year period. Including 1970′s and 1980s with equal weight in the calculation makes the final result much more uncertain than it would be if the decades were combined taking into account the higher power of the latest decades in the combined estimate.
Comparing with their value 1.4 C (range 0.7-2.5 C) the alternative method that weights the decades based on the uncertainties of the decadal estimates would lead to a slightly higher best estimate (still 1.4 C when given in tenths of degree) and significantly narrower uncertainty range (perhaps 1.0-2.0 C). That much can be seen from Figure 1b without any calculations. The uncertainties concerning the reference period 1860-79 combine differently from those related to the final period. That should be taken into account in estimating the uncertainty of the combined estimate, but the effect of that is likely to be very small.
Taking into account what the Otto et al paper contains, the choice of Met Office to use the values based on the 40 year average is reasonable. I would not fault Met Office for using the value with a wide error bar but the Otto et al paper as picking the last decade, when the previous gives a different result would be a biased choice.
↧
Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
↧
Comment on A standard for policy-relevant science by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
↧
Comment on Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
↧
↧
Comment on PDO, ENSO and sea level rise by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
↧
Comment on Nic Lewis on the UK Met Office on the pause by Herman A (Alex) Pope
This modern warm period has warmed much the same as the Roman and Medieval Warm periods warmed. In the past ten thousand years there were warm and cold periods that have always alternated,warm then cold then warm then cold.
They tell us that alternating was natural variability then, but now, that has stopped and this Modern warming would have not happened without man-made CO2.
I have asked, “why should we have not warmed just like we have done for ten thousand years and why will we not cool again like we always did.
They tell us that it is warmer now than in those other warm periods. The data does not show that. Only model output shows that.
They have used their models to build a Hockey Stick that is ten thousand years long.
They must explain why natural warm and cold alternating periods should have stopped so that only CO2 can cause a warming just like happened after every cold period before and only a lack of CO2 can cause a cooling just like happened after every warm period before. CO2 has replaced natural variability in Climate Control and they can’t tell us what it was that was replaced.
↧
Comment on Leaked IPCC report discussed in the MSM by David L. Hagen
Walter Carlson
Re: “AGW isn’t happening”
What definition? Or equivication?
Yes all anthropogenic efforts affect climate.
Is that statistically distinguishable?
or from 5% to 50%?
or > 50%?
or > 90%?
Or are you appealing to the argument from ignorance?
See Bjorn Lomborg Global Warming Without Fear
Compared to the actual temperature rise since 1980, the average of 32 top climate models (the so-called CMIP5) overestimates it by 71-159% (see graph). A new Nature Climate Change study shows that the prevailing climate models produced estimates that overshot the temperature rise over the last 15 years by more than 300%.
Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/realism-in-the-latest-ipcc-climate-report-by-bj-rn-lomborg#GDQ1167YORV78cOo.99
Both unquantifiable parameters and predictions outside statistical expactation = fail the scientific method.
↧
Comment on Nic Lewis on the UK Met Office on the pause by Steve Fitzpatrick
Joshua,
“Perhaps you don’t know about Fred that he has a well-established record here at Climate Etc. of participating in long and extensive exchanges, at notable levels of technical depth, with people that disagree with him on a range of issues – and to persist in maintaining a measured tone even when his interlocutors direct much personal venom his way (without responding in kind).”
I am aware of Fred’s participation in the past. This is one of the reasons I was very unhappy with his comment, which was far from measured, and IMO, intended only to discredit without offering substance. He did not even explicitly state what he objected to until pressed by other commenters. I already wrote what I think would have been a fair and reasonable way to address the issue of Soden&Held with Nic Lewis, but most anything other than the comment he actually made would have been an improvement.
With regard to Fred refusing to engage in a technical exchange: Simply declaring that he thinks Nic is wrong without offering any reasoned explanation, even when that explanation is requested, is indeed rubbish, IMO. If Fred wants to say Nic is wrong, then he has a burden to show why. Consider the possible exchange:
Steve: “Joshua is evil and corrupt.”
Joshua: “Why do you say that?”
Steve: “I couldn’t be bothered to explain, it is obvious to all the smart people who comment here; only the stupid ones think otherwise, and I would be just wasting my time on them… and most of the people here are in fact stupid.”
Joshua: “You call me evil and corrupt, but won’t say why?”
Steve: ” If any smart bystanders want to confirm that Joshua is evil and corrupt, they can just read over all the things he has written in the past and confirm it.”
Joshua: “You are an obnoxious a$$hole.”
And your conclusion in this case would be perfectly justified. Feigned, civility (“Thanks for your opinion.”) is not the same as civility.
↧
↧
Comment on Leaked IPCC report discussed in the MSM by Mickey Reno
Fan, are you, in fact, identifying “China’s scorching summer of 2013″ as this year’s official “Trenberth Spot [tm]?”
↧
Comment on Leaked IPCC report discussed in the MSM by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Breaking News: Has “The Pause” Ended (Already)?
Massive Heat Dome Bakes Asian Oceans“A massive heat dome is baking the ocean itself to unprecedented high surface water temperatures. As a result, a large area of open ocean now shows readings above 30 degrees Celsius ( 86 Fahrenheit). This extremely hot, near 90 degree water, has formed the central pulse of the current heatwave even as it has pumped extraordinarily humid air for such hot conditions over adjacent land areas.”
Supposing that “The Pause [in surface temperatures]” has ended already (as seems increasingly likely) perhaps we can all resume a unifying adult-level climate-change dialog!
That would be a step forward, eh Climate Etc folks?
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ccffdd&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
Comment on Leaked IPCC report discussed in the MSM by A fan of *MORE* discourse
J Martin wonders why “They can’t bring themselves to mention the possibility of cooling.”
Breaking News:
Has “The Pause” Ended (Already)?
Massive Heat Dome Bakes Asian Oceans
Perhaps that’s why, J Martin?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
