Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148649 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by Forrest Gardener

$
0
0

A very interesting explanation followed by some learned debate, but whatever happened to the the idea of simply saying two things.

First, that the average (or whatever other statistic) for locations for which you hold data is what it is. Second, state the locations for which you do not hold data?

By all means use some method to estimate temperature in a location for which there is no measurement. Then test your estimate by taking actual measurements.

Sorry to be naive, but I just don’t see this statistical wizardry to be at all related to science.


Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by RichardLH

$
0
0

Doug is wrong. There is no confusion, except on his part.

Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by Brian H

$
0
0

Which has the higher specific heat: ocean or land? Which controls the other.

More Mosh mush.

Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by Peter Lang

$
0
0

Stephen Segrest @ February 25, 2014 at 5:49 pm

You have started (probably inadvertently) one of the more interesting sub-threads I’ve seen here for a while. I think the debate and testing of Hypothesis III is where a significant proportion of the science effort should be (together with improving the understanding of the damage function and reducing its uncertainties). I suspect the IPCC and climate modellers’ nice, visually appealing, progressively rising global temperature and climate damages projections (leading to inevitable catastrophe) are likely to be unrealistic and nothing like what happens in the real world.

I strongly support Faustino’s comments, and thank him for quoiting excerpts from Judith’s description of Hypothesis III. It seems sensible to me. I also, especially, agree with Faustino’s comments about the policy implications and policy relevance.

I suspect Robert Ellison is on the right track with his oft quoted statements that the climate is wild and that the climate changes suddenly. There is paleoclimate evidence to show this is true: see for example Figure 15.21, p391 here: http://eprints.nuim.ie/1983/ – climate in Ireland, Iceland and Greenland changed from glacial conditions to near present temperatures in 7 years (14,500 years ago) and in 9 years (11,500 years ago). We can also see in this chart a ‘stadium wave’ of ~1000 year period (cold at 15,500, 14,500, 13,800, 13,000, 12,600, 11, 600 years ago). And the ‘waves’ seem to continue during the warmer times but with smaller amplitude. [As an aside, does this suggest climate changes are of greater magnitude and more rapid when the climate is colder? Is this another reason to prefer a sudden warming to as sudden cooling? Is increasing the CO2 concentrations actually reducing the risk of massive starvation of billions of people?]

Faustino said and I strongly agree:

We do know that policies adopted in the last 20 years in response to potential CAGW have been very costly, both in economic terms and in terms of cost per unit of emissions reduced, and that, whatever truly drives climate change, our costly efforts have made very little difference to it. Continuation along the same lines seems worse than pointless.

So I come back to a point I’ve made many times before, that our best approach is to pursue policies which give us the greatest opportunity of dealing well with whatever befalls. All we know of the future is that it will surprise us, there will be major developments which we did not foresee and therefore can not have a planned response too.

For those interested in policy and what climate science can usefully provide to assist policy analysis, I suggest they should take not of Faustino’s comments.

Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by Peter Lang

$
0
0

Jim D said:

Hypothesis III has no predictive value. It can’t say whether the temperature will warm again as it did in the last 60 years, or whether it will cool back, or just stay the same. I don’t call this a hypothesis because it doesn’t say anything except that the future is all random chaos.

That argument doesn’t make sense to me. Firstly, Hypothesis I does not have predictive value. Secondly, if Hypothesis II is the better description of reality, why avoid it and stick with the Hypothesis I? What is the use of Hypothesis I if it is wrong? If Hypothesis II is correct, it means we should ramp up our efforts to increase our “robustness” or better still our “thriveability”. We should not be wasting our time, resources and money on politically and ideologically driven policies that cost a fortune and will almost certainly fail to deliver any measureable change to the climate or climate damages avoided. Examples of such wasteful, damaging and delaying policies are: Kyoto, carbon pricing, renewable energy targets, mandates and subsidies, and policies that impede the development and roll out of low-cost nuclear power.

Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by RichardLH

$
0
0

Steve:

At what point do you accept that the BEST data and the satellite data over land do not match and have significantly different trends?

They cannot both be right.

Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by RichardLH

Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by David Springer

$
0
0

Humans migrated out of Africa very recently. Large mammals adapted for living in cold have heavy coats of fur. Many have evolved to hibernate. Or didn’t your obviously deficient education cover those things, Elifritz?


Comment on UK-US Workshop on Climate Science Needed to Support Robust Adaptation Decisions by http://hearthstonegoldhacks.blogspot.com

$
0
0

Hello fantastic website! Does running a blog like this require a massive amount
work? I have no understanding of computer programming however
I had been hoping to start my own blog in the near future.
Anyhow, should you have any recommendations or techniques for
new blog owners please share. I know this is off
topic nevertheless I just had to ask. Thanks!

Comment on APS reviews its Climate Change Statement by Neil Hampshire

Comment on Week in review by Faustino

$
0
0

OT but interesting, from BBC News online: New research suggests a strong link between the powerful smell of pine trees and climate change. Scientists say they’ve found a mechanism by which these scented vapours turn into aerosols above boreal forests. These particles promote cooling by reflecting sunlight back into space and helping clouds to form. The research, published in the journal Nature, fills in a major gap in our understanding, researchers say. …

“In a warmer world, photosynthesis will become faster with rising CO2, which will lead to more vegetation and more emissions of these vapours,” said lead author, Dr Mikael Ehn, now based at the University of Helsinki. “This should produce more cloud droplets and this should then have a cooling impact, it should be a damping effect.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26340038

Well, what a surprise. Nature has feedback mechanisms which help to constrain temperature changes. Who would have thought it?

Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by Faustino

$
0
0

OT but interesting, from BBC News online: New research suggests a strong link between the powerful smell of pine trees and climate change. Scientists say they’ve found a mechanism by which these scented vapours turn into aerosols above boreal forests. These particles promote cooling by reflecting sunlight back into space and helping clouds to form. The research, published in the journal Nature, fills in a major gap in our understanding, researchers say. …

“In a warmer world, photosynthesis will become faster with rising CO2, which will lead to more vegetation and more emissions of these vapours,” said lead author, Dr Mikael Ehn, now based at the University of Helsinki. “This should produce more cloud droplets and this should then have a cooling impact, it should be a damping effect.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26340038

Well, what a surprise. Nature has feedback mechanisms which help to constrain temperature changes. Who would have thought it?

(Accidentally posted on Week in Review)

Comment on Week in review by Beth Cooper

$
0
0

We live in interestin’ times, Faustino aka Blond gedgehog. ).
A serf.

Comment on Week in review by Beth Cooper

$
0
0

oops too late … Hedgehog! Apologies

Comment on Week in review by RichardLH

$
0
0

“Let me help here, with something simpler, allowing for valid visual inspection of UAH vs. RSS:”

Let me help you out instead with an even simpler graph

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/trend:7/offset:0.09/plot/rss/trend:7

“What’s this? The two sets are so divergent as to have next to no similarity except in the grossest sense? Even someone who was almost blind could see the difference, with the Fruit Loops removed.”

Wrong. So wrong. See above.

“The dissimilarities and divergences of RSS and UAH have been noted, commented on, and the subject of frequent debate for years.. except by UAH, which has steadfastly stonewalled on the topic.”

As you can see, it is hard to drive a wedge between them (in the main). Sure there are tiny differences but that is all.

“You again make false claims. I won’t even ask what balloons you’re imagining support your case.”

See http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/

“Uh.. well, talking about veering left into the Twilight Zone, prithee, what the heck are you talking about now? How exactly does Christy being indefensible bring Cowtan and Way into question? What are your questions about Cowtan and Way? They themselves have — unlike Christy — openly and at length examined the weaknesses and failings in their own work. Did you need me to add something to what they’ve said?”

Because C&W used UAH to do their work? Or did you miss that when you scanned their paper!

“It’s my feeling Cowtan and Way have performed a good service and come to interesting findings, often overlooked. Their novel methods bear closer scrutiny (which they’ve said themselves), and don’t always work (which they’ve said themselves), but on the balance of probabilities lead to conclusions likelier than not accurate or very nearly true. Do you see how these qualities are different from Dr. Christy’s UAH work and absurd testimony over the past several years?”

They managed to infill one data set from another data set without aligning (as they should have done) other the whole of their overlap period but instead used very short time spans and very small geographical distances.

If you do not understand what the potential problems are with that then…..

“However, since BEST Global Land and Ocean is available, we can easily examine which — UAH or Cowtan & Way — more closely resembles this ambitious grand daddy of climate records.

Why not look at what happens when you line up UAH, RSS, C&W vs. BEST Global?”

Sure.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/trend:7/offset:0.09/plot/rss/trend:7/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/trend/plot/best/from:1979/trend

What does that tell you about the various offerings?


Comment on Week in review by RichardLH

Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by RichardLH

$
0
0

Steve: That WFT jibe shows you to be stupid and defensive. The data used there is just as good as if I downloaded it from the sources and ran some procedures on it myself (as I normally do just in case you were in any doubt, in R, C# and Excel depending on need).

The reason I used WFT was to show my workings so that there could be no doubt as to the accuracy of what I said. So that others can replicated the work. Otherwise you will just say that I have done something wrong and ask for the code, etc. Up front and clear instead.

So these are the various data sets from 1979 on, UAH, RSS, GISS, HadCrut and BEST.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/trend:/plot/rss/trend:/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/trend/plot/best/from:1979/trend

and this is what happens if you do a best attempt to align them during their overlap period

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/trend/offset:0.09/plot/rss/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/offset:-0.3/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/trend/offset:-0.2/plot/best/from:1979/trend/offset:-0.55

Any objections as to the methodology?

Cae to discuss what it shows?

Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by RichardLH

$
0
0

Sure it does. As I do also. I used WFT just so that the work is sharable in the shortest possible time and with the most clarity. If you believe that WFT data is wrong then please reproduce the above with the ‘correct ‘ data.

Just OLS trends will do from 1979, I, by habit, included the data itself because that helps people to get context. A bad habit I know. Clarity.

Are you saying that your OLS trends since 1979 are significantly different in the published work from that on WFT? If so please demonstrate with a simple graph.

Comment on Week in review by mosomoso

$
0
0

Oh, nature is okay, but she couldn’t invent the polar vortex or make the Greenland ice sheet go all melty. Nature is so pre-1980.

Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by Jim D

$
0
0

I could suggest that the earlier trend was aided by a solar increase, but the only evidence I have of that is that sunspots tripled in that period. Just because we don’t have full quantification of forcing changes for 1910-1940 doesn’t mean we can’t suggest that CO2′s effect has become strong enough to cause the later trend, while also noting that sunspots didn’t show an upward trend after 1950. The temperature trend is large enough to be accounted for by the CO2 forcing change alone.

Viewing all 148649 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images