tony,
I have no opinion on Dr Mann’s latest paper, other than to acknowledge and commend him for making his data and code available. I figure (or maybe hope is a better term) that it will stand or fall based on its merits, the way any paper should.
Comment on Critique of Mann’s new paper characterizing the AMO by timg56
↧
↧
Comment on Critique of Mann’s new paper characterizing the AMO by R. Gates
“I think it is a bit harsh for R.Gates to be claiming that the IPCC and its foot soldiers have been myopic and unscientific for so long. But whom am I to disagree?”
____
Fortunately, I have no allegiance to the IPCC, and in fact, think their watered- down political process probably has been understating the effects of anthropogenic climate change.
Regarding the use of sensible tropospheric heat as the proxy for energy being added to the climate system. It is only useful over long time frames with the minimum being at the decadal average. It is the ocean that warms the atmosphere and the flow of energy from ocean to atmosphere is highly influenced by natural variability, with the largest factor being ENSO. The upshot is, the best current proxy we have for energy being added to the climate system is OHC, and since we’ve only had ARGO for about a decade now, and a full ARGO float deployment for about 7 years, adopting OHC has a more stable long-term proxy for both climate sensitivity and energy gains in the system will take a while, but could happen. Tropospheric sensible heat was all we had and so we used it, but, especially has ARGO will be expanding to greater depths and more floats (assuming funding is approved), then it will be the better proxy.
↧
Comment on Critique of Mann’s new paper characterizing the AMO by GaryM
tonyb,
“… it surely doesn’t merit the concerted attention Of four major blogs?”
Michael Mann has insisted on making himself the central issue in much of the climate debate. Suing Mark Steyn and NRO being just one of the latest examples. It is no surprise his latest foray into the wonderful world of statistics, for which he has such a grand reputation, is is gathering such broad attention.
I believe all four blogs have covered his suit against Steyn, his claim to a Nobel prize, his repeated defenses of the hokey stick, including inverted Tijlander in all its glory, etc. I see no over reaction here. If he wants to be the clown at the party, there is no reason for those in attendance to ignore him.
More to the point, Steyn and NRO are not the only targets in his assault on free speech. Not to mention, I think he has had the occasional unfriendly word for Watts, Curry, McIntyre and the Bishop himself.
He merits all the negative attention he receives.
↧
Comment on Critique of Mann’s new paper characterizing the AMO by Chuck L
Can’t wait to hear yours, Hansen’s and other true believers’ sputtering excuses when Super El Nino fails to materialize again and instead an El Nino Modiki materializes and quickly fades away by next Spring.
http://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-cpc_plume
↧
Comment on Critique of Mann’s new paper characterizing the AMO by climatereason
timg56
I agree. Let it stand or fall on its merits
Gary said;
‘Not to mention, I think he has had the occasional unfriendly word for Watts, Curry, McIntyre and the Bishop himself.’
With that, I think you have just answered my question as to why the paper is playing on four channels simultaneously.
tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Critique of Mann’s new paper characterizing the AMO by GaryM
“…the IPCC, and … their watered- down political process probably has been understating the effects of anthropogenic climate change.”
Glad to see you coming out from behind your faux skeptic facade with such clarity. I bet it was finding yourself in agreement with me twice in the period of a week that did it.
↧
Comment on Critique of Mann’s new paper characterizing the AMO by pokerguy (aka al neipris)
“How good this paper is I cannot say but it surely doesn’t merit the concerted attention Of four major blogs?”
That’s a good question Tony. Whether merited or not is of course a judgment call. But it’s certainly understandable. Close minded, contemptuous, mendacious, and bullying, Mann more than anyone else I can think of, embodies the very things we skeptics find so hard to take among the alarmists.
He is the most divisive figure I can think of in the climate debates…even among his own peers…with the possible exception of the of the President of the U.S.. The iconic, now infamous hockey stick chart galvanized the world around the issue of global warming to use the quaint phrase of yesteryear. Including yours truly for a time. I remember thinking to myself, well hell, this has to be the real deal after all. And it turns out to be, to be polite, a bunch of cr**.
Little wonder that anything Mann publishes is going to attract outsized attention.
↧
Comment on Critique of Mann’s new paper characterizing the AMO by mwgrant
-AK
JCL. Gack! Doppelgack!
Seriously, I wonder if how easier interaction with computers over the years has in a number of ways made us more careless with that resource and by extension those things to which it is applied.
I also think that ease in computation has lead to an unfortunate blurring of the concept of models and a computer implementations at times by both advocates and critics. Somehow science is lost.
↧
Comment on ‘Global warming’ versus ‘climate change’ by k scott denison
Eric | June 1, 2014 at 9:22 pm |
Not a big deal until all of these inadequacies are used to influence Congress and policy.
___________________
Yep, exactly what Gary M was saying, the IPCC et al were using an inadequate data set to influence Congress all the way until,that data set stopped showing the trend that fit their narrative. Glad you’ve finally seen the light.
Own goal.
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Global warming’ versus ‘climate change’ by ordvic
Thanks
↧
Comment on ‘Global warming’ versus ‘climate change’ by rls
Holdren is a person I do not trust. He is radical of no doubt, but I am also suspicious of his intentions. Does he have the best intentions for America?
↧
Comment on ‘Global warming’ versus ‘climate change’ by Steven Mosher
Eric
“This is not the same as saying it has stopped. ”
Of course it means the same thing.. If you ask me what I mean by the short hand phrase
“the warming has stopped” I will tell you exactly what I mean. You might object to how other people interprete that phrase. Sorry, take it up with them.
“We start with a term which has been defined inadequately (GaryM, this means not adequate) and then use inadequate means to measure the inadequate term and some draw strong conclusions from this such as stating that greenhouse warming has stopped. Not a big deal until all of these inadequacies are used to influence Congress and policy.”
Look nobody in congress should be reading comments in blogs to make their decisions. If you or they or skeptics are confused by a shorthand description, on a blog, then dont read blogs. Referring to the land sea record as “global warming” was just fine when the temps were going up.
You never saw Gore testify that “global warming” means increase in OHC.
Never. when the air temps were going up that short hand definition worked just fine.
live by the sword, die by it
↧
Comment on ‘Global warming’ versus ‘climate change’ by rls
The sun cannot heat?
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Global warming’ versus ‘climate change’ by Antonio (AKA "Un físico")
Judith Curry said: ” This time scale is nominally taken to be 30 years. Is there a scientific justification for this period? I don’t think there is,”
Judith, please, read my pdf in:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2TWRnRVhwSnNLc0k/
in there you have “In general, values from all climatic parameters (e.g.: precipitation, wind, a radiative forcing, climate sensitivity, a climate feedback, …) must be obtained through statistical estimations. That is why WMO set those 30 years (see §1.1) for averaging variables: because, by statistical convention, a minimum of 30 samples is required to apply the central limit theorem and to accurately obtain the statistical inference: meaning that inferences from less samples might be inaccurate.”
Now I understand why you, Judith Curry, did not want to publicite my pdf: because you had not read it.
↧
Comment on The Astonishing Math of Michael Ghil’s Climate Sensitivity by R. Gates
Skippy Ellison,
I’ve got no problem with your general characterization of chaotic systems and bifurcation points, etc. but only your unscientific, wimpy and evasive “planet is cooling” nonsense.
Good luck on your submissions. Should Scientific American quote you as saying the “planet is cooling” it will only confirm my decreasing respect for them.
↧
Comment on ‘Global warming’ versus ‘climate change’ by gbaikie
–Ragnaar | June 1, 2014 at 8:23 pm |
gbaikie | June 1, 2014 at 6:35 pm |
This climate science is similar to the drunk looking under the street lamp for keys despite knowing the keys aren’t there. They know it’s all about the ocean but they have data from weather reporting.
Good. Sea Surface Temperatures are part way to where we should be. However we have our situation as it is.
I don’t understand why the oceans cold reserves doesn’t get much traction. How far can the atmosphere stray from the ocean’s leash?–
Not far in terms of over 70% of Earth surface.
But if looking at idea of average air temperature of latitudes higher than 30 degree north or south, It is ocean heat which is kept whereas the surface of land can cool rapidly- so oceans will keep it above freezing.
If you want a warm world you have have warm ocean. Unlike land surfaces at depth, ocean water mixes, so if interested in warm climate [as compared to warm weather] the entire ocean must become warmer. In other words if want Oregon to be tropical- you need average ocean temperature which is higher. Though if simply need one mild winter in Oregon, that does not necessarily require the entire Ocean to be warm.
Quite simply an ocean can warm and can stay warm. There are consequences of having a warm ocean- you will get more rainfall [or snowfall]. A warmer ocean could lead to a build up of glaciers- and runaway effect in terms of temperate ice caps could be a result of warmed ocean during the interglacial period of our ice box climate.
But I generally assume our oceans not near to being this warm.
In terms of surface of ocean as compare entire ocean, it’s about 100 meters of warmed water of tropics which determines amount heat transported poleward. Or why Europe has milder climate.
So it’s the warmed tropical water and rate and pattern this heated water is distributed which is dominate factor of climate patterns of our interglacial period [present warmed period, LIA, Medieval warm period, etc].
I would say that in terms of interglacial periods, oceans are control land temperature and global temperature, whereas in comparison during glacial periods, land areas are a of more controlling factor and have bigger effect upon global temperature. Or say it this way, during our interglacial periods it is recognized that Antarctica is a significant factor in terms of global climate- and if it wasn’t a massive ice cap, it would have considerably less global effect. And with continental ice caps in temperate zones, they will have greater effect than a polar ice cap.
Or land cools the globe [or same thing as oceans are warming the land and lands does not warm oceans]], during glacial periods, land cools the world to a greater extent.
↧
Comment on ‘Global warming’ versus ‘climate change’ by Anthony Watts
In reviewing correspondence and blog posts, I see that “R.Gates.” memory of what transpired seems to be selectively faulty, but I’m glad to see he no longer has any problems using his real name.
I see from your Facebook page that you like dressing up in Furry head gear, that would make a good (funny) WordPress avatar for you now that you have decided to start using your real name. I applaud that decision. Good for you!
You are welcome to post at WUWT, with or without furry headgear avatars.
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Global warming’ versus ‘climate change’ by bolts4tw
No. “Climate change” is being used currently as a description of supposedly ill effects from CO2 concentration. It is by NO MEANS UNBIASED.
Thank you for paying attention.
↧
Comment on ‘Global warming’ versus ‘climate change’ by Bob Ludwick
@ Andywest2012
In all the hoopla over Global Warming vs Climate Change, don’t forget, increasing Global Temperature is ALWAYS cited as the threat to be addressed. We never see breathless reports of ice on the Great Lakes confining Memorial Day beach-goers to the actual beach (except for the photo-op babes on the icebergs: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2641861/Ice-weather-Sunbathers-flock-banks-Lake-Superior-despite-FROZEN.html ) being cited as clear evidence of Catastrophic Climate Change.
↧
Comment on ‘Global warming’ versus ‘climate change’ by R. Gates
Eric
“April 2014 may have been the warmest April on record but people like Steven Mosher are claiming global warming has stopped. Should we listen to the data or those claiming warming has stopped?”
——
Allow for an evolution of the science, or more specifically, a refinement in the public understanding of it. Earth, as a system has not stopped accumulating energy, and trying to educate the public as to why provides a chance for them to gain a greater insight into climate dynamics. The motivations so those who would not like to take advantage of this chance for giving deeper understanding are also interesting.
Simply repeating “the Earth is cooling” or “global warming has stopped” only spreads ignorance.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
