PDA

View Full Version : Man-Made Climate Change: Issues and debates



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Ian Murray
16-10-2012, 09:41 PM
What makes you think I made such conclusion?
By your statement:


Let me just point out that if we indeed have a trend change mid-ninety (rising, then flat), you'd expect most hot years to be in the latest 16 years.
But perhaps it was Andrew Bolt's conclusion, or one of his ilk, and you were again quoting without attribution.

Desmond
16-10-2012, 09:42 PM
I don't expect you to know much about statistics, but you didn't have to demonstrate it so blatantly.
I'm afraid it is mankind's loss that you "didn't analyse data myself, nor going to do".

While you're here though, any chance you might acknowledge that your article cherry picked a El Nino year start point and La Nina year endpoint? Or backup up your goalpost shift 1973 theory? Or would you like to try a third strike swing?

pax
16-10-2012, 10:30 PM
According to Daily Mail article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29GQ0fi16) the temperature was statistically flat over the last 16 years. If this reporting is factually correct, it'll be interesting to see alarmist trying to spin the way out of embarrassment.

The fact that it is a Daily Mail article says enough about how credible it is.

Ian Murray
16-10-2012, 10:36 PM
The fact that it is a Daily Mail article says enough about how credible it is.
It said so in the paper, so it must be true :rolleyes:

Damodevo
17-10-2012, 12:02 AM
The Daily Mail is just reporting from the UK Met Office which shows that temp hasn't increased over the last 16 years. This is significant because only a few years ago alarmists were saying that there has to be a lack of warming for 15 years (http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2009/07/noaa-explains-global-temperature.html) or more to show a real discrepancy with the warming models.

Prof. of environment and alarmist, Roger Pielke Jr.


Until the "slowdown" reverses you can expect that people will continue to talk about it. Kudos to NOAA for being among the first to explicitly state what sort of observation would be inconsistent with model predictions -- 15 years of no warming.

Capablanca-Fan
17-10-2012, 02:09 AM
The fact that it is a Daily Mail article says enough about how credible it is.
Oh of course, those dependent on the globull warm-mongering gravy train are the epitome of objectivity.

Kevin Bonham
17-10-2012, 07:22 AM
The Daily Mail is just reporting from the UK Met Office which shows that temp hasn't increased over the last 16 years. This is significant because only a few years ago alarmists were saying that there has to be a lack of warming for 15 years (http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2009/07/noaa-explains-global-temperature.html) or more to show a real discrepancy with the warming models.

It's worth reposting their actual quote here:


The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

So all they were saying is that a zero-trend period of 15+ years is, according to their model, weakly statistically significant evidence against the idea that warming has been occurring at the predicted rate during that period. It doesn't provide evidence that warming has really stopped; it might just have temporarily slowed, for instance. And indeed the Met Office response is quite open to the idea of the rate slowing.

In practical political terms it's all a bit inconclusive because if policy-makers decide that the rate has tailed off in the last 15 years so we'll ignore it and see if it goes away, they run the risk that there is actually some long-term oscillation holding the trend line down that will later go the other way and accelerate it.

Desmond
17-10-2012, 07:32 AM
The Daily Mail is just reporting from the UK Met Office which shows that temp hasn't increased over the last 16 years. As already explained, starting with an exceptionally hot year and ending with an exceptionally cool year (for reasons predicted and understood - the southern oscillation in the Pacific Ocean) are of course going to yield a different result from the general trend. Cherry picking start and end points is easy - you might impress some tabloid readers but that's about it. Really you should compare rolling averages over several years / decade or more.

But if you are so hell bent on comparing two years, why not compare like with like and compare two La Nina years? Tell me, are the blue ones gettin bigga or smalla?



http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/hazards/2011/12/enso-global-temp-anomalies.png
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/13

Desmond
17-10-2012, 07:57 AM
Ten Charts That Make Clear The Planet Just Keeps Warming (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/)
ThinkProgress
15.10.2012


Perhaps you thought that the whole “planet isn’t warming” meme was killed by this summer’s bombshell Koch-funded study (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/). After all, it found ”global warming is real,” “on the high end” and “essentially all” due to carbon pollution.

Sadly, denial springs eternal. Long-debunked denier David Rose has an article in the Daily Mail, “Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released … and here is the chart to prove it.”

The piece is so misleading, even the UK Met Office felt a need to instantly debunk it with a blog post...Permalink to that article (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/15/1014151/ten-charts-that-make-clear-the-planet-just-keeps-warming/).

Igor_Goldenberg
17-10-2012, 09:55 AM
I'm afraid it is mankind's loss that you "didn't analyse data myself, nor going to do".

While you're here though, any chance you might acknowledge that your article cherry picked a El Nino year start point and La Nina year endpoint? Or backup up your goalpost shift 1973 theory? Or would you like to try a third strike swing?
Your "gibberish" post is a solid evidence of your complete and utter ignorance.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-10-2012, 10:00 AM
By your statement:

.
But perhaps it was Andrew Bolt's conclusion, or one of his ilk, and you were again quoting without attribution.
Complete non sequitur and absolutely irrelevant.
Do you need explaining why most warm years would be in the last 16 year in case of a trend change?
Me not analysing data means I am not going to check calculations done by, for example, Met Office. I hope someone does as they have been shown in the past arriving to conclusions not supported by the data.
I also hope that caveat "if calculations are correct" is easily understandable, at least by intelligent people.

BTW, Met Office could show that the difference between trend estimates for 1973-1997 periods and 1997-2012 periods is not significant at 95% level. Didn't see it in their reply though.

Desmond
17-10-2012, 10:18 AM
Your "gibberish" post is a solid evidence of your complete and utter ignorance.Let's review.

Your first claim regarding the Mail's article was debunked by the Met Office response I found and spoon-fed you. So far that is utterly unaddressed by you.

You instead switched the conversation to try to imply some sort of impropriety with one of my graphics by questioning the 1973 start-point. When asked to state any specific point on this, you did not do so. Was hoping to give you enough rope to hang yourself there but again you just ignor the questions and blunder on to the next thought that flitters by. Just for your enlightenment though, 1973 is non-contentious and even used by a WUWT quoted source here (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/16/spencer-direct-evidence-that-most-u-s-warming-since-1973-could-be-spurious/)with reasons stated:


I will restrict the analysis to 1973 and later since (1) this is the primary period of warming allegedly due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions; (2) the period having the largest number of monitoring sites has been since 1973; and (3) a relatively short 37-year record maximizes the number of continuously operating stations, avoiding the need to handle transitions as older stations stop operating and newer ones are added.


You then switch to some sort of ad hominem attack of my understanding of statistics, with is pretty funny considering you championed the cherry-picked data of the Mail in the first place, and by your own words did not even understand it attempt to analyse it.

Since we already know you are not going to address these points, the only question remains is, where will you blunder off to next?

Igor_Goldenberg
17-10-2012, 10:38 AM
Let's review.

Indeed, let's look again at your post 2246 (ignoring cheap personal attack that seem to be characteristic of you) again:



Also trying to fit single constant trend through the data doesn't capture any change in trends and leads to the model that lacks predictive power Gibberish.

By calling it gibberish you shown lack of understanding. Why me pointing it out is an "ad hominen attack"?

Desmond
17-10-2012, 10:47 AM
Indeed, let's look again at your post 2246 (ignoring... ...the response to the Mail article. Let's start with that shall we.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-10-2012, 10:49 AM
You then switch to some sort of ad hominem attack of my understanding of statistics, with is pretty funny considering you championed the cherry-picked data of the Mail in the first place, and by your own words did not even understand it attempt to analyse it.

Since we already know you are not going to address these points, the only question remains is, where will you blunder off to next?
I will try to explain it to you one more time. If it does not sink in you'll need someone (who suffer fools lighter) else to explain it to you:

- Saying I didn't analyse the data nor going to means I am not going to spend considerable time and effort required to recalculate all the finding claimed from the raw data.
- 39 year period might or might not have a statistically significant trend change at year 24.
- Met office reply didn't not provide any evidence such change of trend does not exist.
- Estimating two trends (1973-1997 and 1997-2012) and providing mean and standard error of the difference is usually sufficient (assuming normal distribution) to see if it's significant or not.
- Cherry picking will not convert insignificant change into a significant one.

Desmond
17-10-2012, 12:03 PM
Indented comments are from the Met Office article previously linked (which I wonder if you have actually read).


I will try to explain it to you one more time. If it does not sink in you'll need someone (who suffer fools lighter) else to explain it to you:

- Saying I didn't analyse the data nor going to means I am not going to spend considerable time and effort required to recalculate all the finding claimed from the raw data.OK.

- 39 year period might or might not have a statistically significant trend change at year 24.
- Met office reply didn't not provide any evidence such change of trend does not exist.

Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.
...
Q ...I accept that there will always be periods when a rising gradient may be interrupted.
A ... such a period is not unexpected.


- Estimating two trends (1973-1997 and 1997-2012) and providing mean and standard error of the difference is usually sufficient (assuming normal distribution) to see if it's significant or not.
- Cherry picking will not convert insignificant change into a significant one.

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade

Ian Murray
17-10-2012, 01:02 PM
Got Science? Not at News Corporation (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/news-corporation-climate-science-coverage.html)

Representations of climate science on Fox News Channel and in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages are overwhelmingly misleading...

Damodevo
17-10-2012, 02:36 PM
As already explained, starting with an exceptionally hot year and ending with an exceptionally cool year (for reasons predicted and understood - the southern oscillation in the Pacific Ocean) are of course going to yield a different result from the general trend. Cherry picking start and end points is easy - you might impress some tabloid readers but that's about it. Really you should compare rolling averages over several years / decade or more.

How is it cherry picking? Look at the graph yourself there is nothing cherry picking about it. They could have picked dates that showed warming and others that would have shown cooling. But the overall trend is to stay the same. Note too that the CO2 increase in these last decades is far greater than in the 50s 60s and 70s so such an anomaly is all the more striking.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg

Here is alarmist high priest Phil Jones


‘Yet in 2009, when the [temperature] plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, Jones told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

Desmond
17-10-2012, 02:59 PM
How is it cherry picking? Look at the graph yourself there is nothing cherry picking about it. I suggest you read the rest of my post and look at the graph there yourself in the context of a longer period of time.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-10-2012, 03:12 PM
...
Q ...I accept that there will always be periods when a rising gradient may be interrupted.
A ... such a period is not unexpected.
There are statistical tests to tell whether they are significant or not. More importantly, they are good to determine whether they are significantly different from other periods. Traditionally they ran at 95% confidence level (even though can be done at any level. 95% is easy for normal distribution).


...


The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade
Once again, cherry picking leads to two possible results:
- trend change is insignificant. (no trend change)
- trend change is significant but there is a better model (trend change occurs at different point in time)
Including insignificant trend changes lead to over-parametrised model that lack predictive power.
At the same time, excluding significant trend changes leads to under-parametrised model that also lack predictive power.
In time series analysis one of the most important (but, sadly, often overlooked) task is identifying the most stable(statistically) recent trend, as it allows the most robust prediction.

In relation to HadCRUT4 data:
If the change of trend at 1997 is significant, then 0.03°C/decade is a better predictor for the future. If not, then 0.16°C/decade is better.
Response from The Met doesn't answer that.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-10-2012, 04:13 PM
The fact that it is a Daily Mail article says enough about how credible it is.It said so in the paper, so it must be true :rolleyes:
Anything from a newspaper that doesn't support IM's views must be summarily dismissed...

Got Science? Not at News Corporation (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/news-corporation-climate-science-coverage.html)

Representations of climate science on Fox News Channel and in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages are overwhelmingly misleading...
...While a source that supports IM's view should be taken at face value.
BTW, ucsusa is a recipient of government fund for warmongering research to confirm global warming. Never mind, it's a completely objective non-partisan source. At least their website says so.

Ian Murray
17-10-2012, 06:55 PM
BTW, ucsusa is a recipient of government fund for warmongering research to confirm global warming. Never mind, it's a completely objective non-partisan source. At least their website says so.
Yogi is making a totally unfounded allegation - "ucsusa is a recipient of government fund" is completely untrue and can only be a figment of his fevered imagination. The Union of Concerned Scientists does not receive a cent in government funding.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-10-2012, 07:16 PM
Yogi is making a totally unfounded allegation - "ucsusa is a recipient of government fund" is completely untrue and can only be a figment of his fevered imagination. The Union of Concerned Scientists does not receive a cent in government funding.
As I understand correctly deliberate misspelling of my name must be a clumsy attempt of personal attack. It might sound funny in prep or year 1, but I doubt anyone over 6 years old is going to be amused (unless you they got older without growing up). It also makes hard to put any credibility on your posting. For example, the last statement is contradicted by the very basic source - Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists) which says:

According to the George C. Marshall Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute), the UCS was the fourth-largest recipient of foundation grants for climate studies in the period 2000–2002, a fourth of its $24M grant income being for that purpose.[7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists#cite_note-marshall-6)]
The same article also mentions that:


The UCS is regularly criticized by conservative and right-wing groups for being "left-wing" and "liberal".[34][35][36][37] David Martosko of ActivistCash.com asserts that the organization harbors a "pro-regulation, anti-business" agenda.[34] The UCS is also often criticized by skeptics of global warming. In 2007, the conservative think tank Capital Research Center accused the UCS of waging a "jihad against climate skeptics"...

Viewing their claim as anything more then opinion doesn't impress anyone apart from die-hard supporters.

Patrick Byrom
17-10-2012, 07:59 PM
Grants from foundations are not the same thing as government funding - unless the ExxonMobile Foundation is actually funded by the government.

This article (http://www.skepticalscience.com/misleading-daily-mail-prebunked-nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html) from Skeptical Science 'prebunks' the Daily Mail article.

Note that although atmospheric temperatures have not changed dramatically in the last 15 years, the ocean has warmed considerably (which is where all the heat is going).

Desmond
17-10-2012, 08:10 PM
Grants from foundations are not the same thing as government funding - unless the ExxonMobile Foundation is actually funded by the government.Yes that article links to here (http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/289.pdf):



The paper has two elements. The first
examines the financial relationships between
private grant-making foundations and those
they support over a three-year period, 2000-
2002, in the climate change area. The second
examines the funding support provided by the
U.S. federal government for climate change
research and policy activities.

The UCS ranking fourth under the private element.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-10-2012, 08:33 PM
Grants from foundations are not the same thing as government funding - unless the ExxonMobile Foundation is actually funded by the government.
My understanding that their funding eventually comes from government, either directly or through foundation. The same paper claims that federal US funding in 2004 totalled 2Bn. It is reasonable to expect that some of those money were channelled to ucsusa.


This article (http://www.skepticalscience.com/misleading-daily-mail-prebunked-nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html) from Skeptical Science 'prebunks' the Daily Mail article.
More credible source then ucsusa. Don't know how it's funded, it might be independent.
However, this site certainly has an agenda and I do not accept their claim as a final verdict.

Desmond
17-10-2012, 08:50 PM
My understanding that their funding eventually comes from government, either directly or through foundation. You're not one to correct your mistakes or retract your shown wrong claims, are you.

Rincewind
17-10-2012, 10:10 PM
You're not one to correct your mistakes or retract your shown wrong claims, are you.

If he was to do that then it would double his post count.

Damodevo
18-10-2012, 12:33 AM
Even if it can be proved that the earth has heated 0.8 degrees over the last 150 yrs, the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomena and just as warm as today;

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

Capablanca-Fan
18-10-2012, 01:06 AM
Grants from foundations are not the same thing as government funding — unless the ExxonMobile Foundation is actually funded by the government.
They are the same in principle: in both cases, there is an incentive to please those who fund the researchers. If anyone thinks that government bureaucrats are pure while holy whole corporations are evil, then I have a nice acoustic building in Sydney to sell this person. Government funding of warm-mongering is on a much larger scale as well.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-10-2012, 07:59 AM
You're not one to correct your mistakes or retract your shown wrong claims, are you.
No mistakes to correct ATM. BTW, look in the mirror, then look at your post 2246.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-10-2012, 08:07 AM
They are the same in principle: in both cases, there is an incentive to please those who fund the researchers. If anyone thinks that government bureaucrats are pure while holy whole corporations are evil, then I have a nice acoustic building in Sydney to sell this person. Government funding of warm-mongering is on a much larger scale as well.
Sometimes money flow directly from the government to warm-mongers climate researchers, sometimes they channelled through foundations, sometimes they go as subsidy to con-artists green energy companies (remember certain multi-millionaire named Al Gore?). Those companies give some of it to foundations, foundations to the likes of ucsusa. At the end, if you trace the funding most of it comes back to government funding for warm-mongers climate research.
IIRC, money laundering is also done by channelling money through many intermediates, and for the same reason - to hide the source of money. Isn't is the real inconvenient truth?

Desmond
18-10-2012, 08:25 AM
No mistakes to correct ATM.
It is obvious that you mistook foundations for government funding, as shown.


IM: The Union of Concerned Scientists does not receive a cent in government funding.
IG: statement is contradicted by ... " the UCS was the fourth-largest recipient of foundation grants for climate studies..."
rr: (Quoting the wiki source) "private grant-making foundations"

I don't think there could be a clearer case of mistake in comprehension.


BTW, look in the mirror, then look at your post 2246.Yeah, still waiting for that 1973 conspiracy theory. :lol: :hand:

Igor_Goldenberg
18-10-2012, 08:33 AM
It is obvious that you mistook foundations for government funding, as shown.


IM: The Union of Concerned Scientists does not receive a cent in government funding.
IG: statement is contradicted by ... " the UCS was the fourth-largest recipient of foundation grants for climate studies..."
rr: (Quoting the wiki source) "private grant-making foundations"

I don't think there could be a clearer case of mistake in comprehension.

Another runt from rr, already addressed. The mistake is in your gibberish imagination:owned: :owned:


Yeah, still waiting for that 1973 conspiracy theory. :lol: :hand:
Another "gibberish imagination"?:lol: :lol: :owned: :owned:

Ian Murray
18-10-2012, 08:34 AM
My understanding that their funding eventually comes from government, either directly or through foundation. The same paper claims that federal US funding in 2004 totalled 2Bn.
You stated categorically that "ucsusa is a recipient of government fund for warmongering research to confirm global warming". Now you say it is your "understanding" they receive indirect government funding, with no supporting evidence.

From the UCS 2011 annual report (http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ucs/annual-report-2011.pdf). its total income of $21.2 million was derived from:
$17.7 million - membership and contributions
$3.1 million - foundation and other institutional grants
$555,000 - bequests and annuities
$295,000 - other
($466,000) - investment loss

The 1000+ foundations and individuals donating $1000 or more are named. There are no government agencies among them.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-10-2012, 08:38 AM
You stated categorically that "ucsusa is a recipient of government fund for warmongering research to confirm global warming". Now you say it is your "understanding" they receive indirect government funding, with no supporting evidence.

From the UCS 2011 annual report (http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ucs/annual-report-2011.pdf). its total income of $21.2 million was derived from:
$17.7 million - membership and contributions
$3.1 million - foundation and other institutional grants
$555,000 - bequests and annuities
$295,000 - other
($466,000) - investment loss

The 1000+ foundations and individuals donating $1000 or more are named. There are no government agencies among them.
Looks like you managed to move up to year 2 (or maybe even 3).
What about "$3.1 million - foundation and other institutional grants"?
Do you have a list of those grants? Someone claimed that
"ucsusa is a recipient of government fund" is completely untrue and can only be a figment of his fevered imagination. The Union of Concerned Scientists does not receive a cent in government funding. Why don't you list those grants to confirm such a categorical statement?

Ian Murray
18-10-2012, 08:39 AM
...sometimes they channelled through foundations...
Name one private foundation receiving government funding

Ian Murray
18-10-2012, 08:42 AM
What about "$3.1 million - foundation and other institutional grants"?
Do you have a list of those grants? Someone claimed that Why don't you list those grants to confirm such a categorical statement?
Try reading my post, where it says The 1000+ foundations and individuals donating $1000 or more are named. There are no government agencies among them.

Desmond
18-10-2012, 09:03 AM
Another runt from rr, already addressed. The mistake is in your gibberish imagination:owned: :owned:


Another "gibberish imagination"?:lol: :lol: :owned: :owned:
:lol: Piss weak. I would have said that your credibility in Non-Chess has reached new lows, but I'm afraid that ship has already sailed.

Rincewind
18-10-2012, 09:08 AM
:lol: Piss weak. I would have said that your credibility in Non-Chess has reached new lows, but I'm afraid that ship has already sailed.

Yeah one would have thought that Iggy had reached rock-bottom. But apparently he hasn't stopped digging.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-10-2012, 09:30 AM
:lol: Piss weak. I would have said that your credibility in Non-Chess has reached new lows, but I'm afraid that ship has already sailed.
Is it the most substantiated comment you can make?
I wonder whether you are just plain stupid or just a wanker?

Capablanca-Fan
18-10-2012, 09:45 AM
Evidently the leftards RW and rr have imbibed Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: (http://www.saveamericanow.us.com/rulesforconservatives.html) going after people not issues, personalizing, polarizing, and ridiculing opponents rather than deal with the substance.

Desmond
18-10-2012, 09:53 AM
Is it the most substantiated comment you can make?
I wonder whether you are just plain stupid or just a wanker?I invite you again to explain to me why you questioned my graphic's start point of 1973, and what your "a critical thinking" about it has revealed to you.

Desmond
18-10-2012, 09:56 AM
Evidently the leftards RW and rr have imbibed Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: (http://www.saveamericanow.us.com/rulesforconservatives.html) going after people not issues, personalizing, polarizing, and ridiculing opponents rather than deal with the substance.I suppose if you begin the conversation as Igor did in #2241 with charged terms such as "alarmists", "spin" and "embarrassment", you reap what you sow.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-10-2012, 09:56 AM
I invite you again to explain to me why you questioned my graphic's start point of 1973, and what your "a critical thinking" about it has revealed to you.
For start you might want to explain why my post 2246 is "gibberish".
Then I am happy to explain whatever is missed or not clear in my subsequent posts about trend structure. I believe those post sufficiently address the issue (whether usage of 1973 or 1997 as a start year gives a better prediction of future behaviour).

Desmond
18-10-2012, 10:02 AM
For start you might want to explain why my post 2246 is "gibberish".I am asking you to backup your questioning of the start year in #2244, and I only later used the word gibberish in #2246.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-10-2012, 10:07 AM
I suppose if you begin the conversation as Igor did in #2241 with charged terms such as "alarmists", "spin" and "embarrassment", you reap what you sow.
Was it personally offensive to you? Do you view yourself as "alarmists"? Do you "spin"? Were you "embarrassed" by the article in daily mail? Was it personally offensive to someone else specific?

If the answer to all of those is "no", who did you take an offence for?

Desmond
18-10-2012, 10:12 AM
Was it personally offensive to you? Do you view yourself as "alarmists"? Do you "spin"? Were you "embarrassed" by the article in daily mail? Was it personally offensive to someone else specific?

If the answer to all of those is "no", who did you take an offence for?
No, but I suspect you view me as an alarmist.
No, but I suspect you view my replies as spin.
No, but I suspect you think I am embarrassed.

Basically it's you pissing into the well of decency in conversation in the very opening post of the conversation. So, you reap that you sow.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-10-2012, 10:13 AM
I am asking you to backup your questioning of the start year in #2244, and I only later used the word gibberish in #2246.
That's fine, and I addressed it shortly in #2244 (to which you replied very rudely in #2246, without retracting and apologising) and at a considerable length in consequent post. If some of them were too technical, I am happy to elaborate or explain. However in the absence of justification for #2246 I want to see full and unreserved apology first. Otherwise I see no point in proceeding further.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-10-2012, 10:15 AM
No, but I suspect you view me as an alarmist.
No, but I suspect you view my replies as spin.
No, but I suspect you think I am embarrassed.

Basically it's you pissing into the well of decency in conversation in the very opening post of the conversation. So, you reap that you sow.
How you suspect me to view you is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is how you view yourself. And it's a bit rich of you to talk about "pissing into the well of decency in conversation" when you are the one who often initiates rude exchange on a personal level.

Desmond
18-10-2012, 10:16 AM
How you suspect me to view you is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is how you view yourself. And it's a bit rich of you to talk about "pissing into the well of decency in conversation" when you are the one who often initiates rude exchange on a personal level.
You initiated this one.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-10-2012, 10:21 AM
You initiated this one.
Wrong. My post 2241 (that started "this one") didn't mention you at all. The very next post in response (2242 from the user "road runner") was less then civil and directed at me.

Desmond
18-10-2012, 10:25 AM
That's fine, and I addressed it shortly in #2244 #2244 was


Have [sic] you been able to do a [sic] critical thinking[,] you'd ask yourself why [the] graph starts from 1973.
No intimation as to what your critical thinking, that you rudely oh so decently suggest me incapable of, revealed to you.

I later explained to you, by quoting a "hostile witness", why 1973 was a reasonable start year. You didn't even acknowledge that post.

Kevin Bonham
18-10-2012, 10:40 AM
Evidently the leftards RW and rr have imbibed Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: (http://www.saveamericanow.us.com/rulesforconservatives.html) going after people not issues, personalizing, polarizing, and ridiculing opponents rather than deal with the substance.

False dichotomy. Also, there was very little substance to deal with because Igor cannot substantiate his claim about government funding (#2271), but continues to assert it without evidence and then expects his opponents, who have presented evidence, to present more evidence to more firmly prove a negative.

Rincewind
18-10-2012, 11:28 AM
Evidently the leftards RW and rr ... going after people not issues, personalizing, polarizing, and ridiculing opponents rather than deal with the substance.

So you are defending someone who calls other posters idiots in their sigline by saying people arguing with this moron are not dealing with substance. Nice blind spot Jono. :lol:

You will note I have a reliably sourced direct quote of Iggy in my sigline in response. I find Iggy's own words sufficient to demonstrate the level at which he operates.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-10-2012, 08:43 PM
False dichotomy. Also, there was very little substance to deal with because Igor cannot substantiate his claim about government funding (#2271), but continues to assert it without evidence and then expects his opponents, who have presented evidence, to present more evidence to more firmly prove a negative.
Actually, they didn't present evidence, especially to support such a categorical claim. Even though I acknowledge that it's difficult to prove absence of government funding when the number of grantors/contributor/donators is vast and the chain is long.
At the same time foundations do not publics the list of grantors, only list of grantees (at least those I looked at). In the absence of detailed information one has to take an educated guess. Given the vast amount US federal government contributed to global warming group is it a far-fetched conclusion to expect some it to find it's way (through those foundations) to groups like uscusa? I don't think so.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-10-2012, 08:51 PM
#2244 was


Have [sic] you been able to do a [sic] critical thinking[,] you'd ask yourself why [the] graph starts from 1973.
No intimation as to what your critical thinking, that you rudely oh so decently suggest me incapable of, revealed to you.

I later explained to you, by quoting a "hostile witness", why 1973 was a reasonable start year. You didn't even acknowledge that post.
1. 2244 was preceded by 2242
2. For further details see 2295 and 2299.

Kevin Bonham
18-10-2012, 09:11 PM
Actually, they didn't present evidence, especially to support such a categorical claim.

You made your claim first. I would not say they have proven conclusively that the UCS receives no indirect public funding in response but at least Ian has provided a breakdown from which government funding appeared to be absent.


Even though I acknowledge that it's difficult to prove absence of government funding when the number of grantors/contributor/donators is vast and the chain is long.

Well it certainly is if it is allowed to stretch indefinitely. Suppose that organisation D receives no direct government funding, but is funded by C. C receives no direct government funding, but is funded by B. B receives no direct government funding, but is funded by A. A receives a government grant that is unrelated to what D actually does. Is D funded by government? I would say no, but conspiratorially minded "sceptics" might say that the government effectively causes D to be covertly funded by this method, because some money may be making its way from government to D indirectly.

I think many readers would see a resort to unproven indirect funding as a backpedal. The original claim ""ucsusa is a recipient of government fund for warmongering research to confirm global warming" did not explicitly specify receiving money directly, but would probably be read as implying such, or at least that if the funding was technically indirect it would have been obvious what was going on.

Desmond
18-10-2012, 09:15 PM
1. 2244 was preceded by 2242
2. For further details see 2295 and 2299.No worries, I think I'll leave you to it, dummy.

Rincewind
18-10-2012, 09:40 PM
I think many readers would see a resort to unproven indirect funding as a backpedal. The original claim ""ucsusa is a recipient of government fund for warmongering research to confirm global warming" did not explicitly specify receiving money directly, but would probably be read as implying such, or at least that if the funding was technically indirect it would have been obvious what was going on.

I think most readers would think an honest person would have admitted they made a mistake and moved on.

Patrick Byrom
19-10-2012, 02:35 AM
Even if it can be proved that the earth has heated 0.8 degrees over the last 150 yrs, the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomena and just as warm as today;

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
Skeptical Science (http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm)disagrees with you again.

Comment #30 is quite interesting - it does appear that the studies which are quoted on that map are not consistent with each other.

Patrick Byrom
19-10-2012, 03:39 AM
- Estimating two trends (1973-1997 and 1997-2012) and providing mean and standard error of the difference is usually sufficient (assuming normal distribution) to see if it's significant or not.
Unfortunately, statistically significant trends calculated using a small, carefully selected sample of data are not always reliable.

For example, have a look at this plot:
http://www.southsidejuniorchessclub.org/AGWshort.gif
It appears that there is a clear downwards trend from 1992 to 1997, and this 'trend' is indeed highly statistically significant (-0.03+/-0.01). However I can be absolutely certain that this 'trend' is meaningless.

Patrick Byrom
19-10-2012, 04:01 AM
The reason I can be absolutely certain is that I created this data. The only long-term trend is upwards, as you can see from the long-term plot:
http://www.southsidejuniorchessclub.org/AGWlong.gif.

To be technical, the data is a combination of a small linear term, a constant term and a sinusoid, plus random noise. Over the long term, the linear term dominates, but over the short term the other contributions are more significant.

Damodevo
19-10-2012, 06:59 AM
Right but even the alarmists aren't denying a cessation in warming but instead saying its statistically insignificant.

The other point to make is that one could indeed start the graph at 1999 and there would be a warming trend but then the generally agreed warming period from 1980 until 1996 would have to be extended to 1999 which would turn it into a cooling trend.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Damodevo
19-10-2012, 07:09 AM
Skeptical Science disagrees with you again.

Comment #30 is quite interesting - it does appear that the studies which are quoted on that map are not consistent with each other.

The results are quite consistent and do indeed point to a greater than today warming period. Here's a plot of the studies (http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php);

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/mwpquantitative.gif

Damodevo
19-10-2012, 07:26 AM
And lets not forget the flourishing life of the Greenland Vikings who grew crops during the Medieval Period that is now covered in thick layers of snow (http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/);



The Greenlanders prospered. From the number of farms in both colonies, whose 400 or so stone ruins still dot the landscape, archaeologists guess that the population may have risen to a peak of about 5,000. Trading with Norway, under whose rule they eventually came, the Greenlanders exchanged live falcons, polar bear skins, narwahl tusks, and walrus ivory and hides for timber, iron, tools, and other essentials, as well luxuries such as raisins, nuts, and wine.

And more crop production for Po River (http://www.foodinitaly.org/blog/2011/07/27/pini-%E2%80%93-%E2%80%9Ctwo-specialized-medieval-crops-grapes-and-olives-in-the-po-river-valley%E2%80%9D/) during Medieval times


Professor Antonio Ivan Pini’s article’s title in Italian is “Due colture specialistiche del Medioevo: la vite e l’olivo nell’Italia padana.” It originally appeared in a volume called Medioevo rurale: Sulle tracce della civilità contadina, edited by Vito Fumagalli and Gabriella Rossetti. The paper discusses the vicissitudes of olive oil and vine production in the Po River Valley from the Roman times until the late Middle Ages, much like Allen Grieco’s paper, of which it was one of the primary sources. Valuable about the Pini article though is the author’s list of sources that a historian can use to reconstruct the geography of a certain food product’s production in the past. These include medieval chronicles, literary texts (epic poems, travelogues, bourgeois sonnets), contracts, city statutes, fiscal records, and even toponymy. Pini also discusses religion’s role in both expanding (Christianity-England) and contracting (Islam-Dar-Islam) wine production, as well as the differences between ecclesiastic, noble, and bourgeois wine production. Unfortunately only available in Italian. (Società editrice il Mulino, 1980) ZN

Desmond
19-10-2012, 07:29 AM
Right but even the alarmists aren't denying a cessation in warming but instead saying its statistically insignificant. Actually .03 degrees per decade of warming is still warming.


You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Indeed not - which is why it is surprising that you would be so categorical about something contentious such as MWP being global and warmer than today, yet "skeptical" about warming over the last 150 years of records.

Desmond
19-10-2012, 07:35 AM
The results are quite consistent and do indeed point to a greater than today warming period. Here's a plot of the studies (http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php);

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/mwpquantitative.gif
Does that include the one from New Zealand in the 1970's?

Damodevo
19-10-2012, 08:15 AM
Actually .03 degrees per decade of warming is still warming.


Beside the point. It is an aberration from warming model predictions which significantly weakens its evidential basis.


Indeed not - which is why it is surprising that you would be so categorical about something contentious such as MWP being global and warmer than today, yet "skeptical" about warming over the last 150 years of records.

I can afford to be categorical given the plethora of direct and indirect evidence for the MWP.

I'm not necessarily skeptical about current warming accept when it is exaggerated and based on one anomalous tree ring record.

The whole point of bringing up the MWP is to show the CWP is not unusual so there is no need for my skepticism.

Desmond
19-10-2012, 08:56 AM
Beside the point. It is an aberration from warming model predictions which significantly weakens its evidential basis. Actually it is a clear contradiction of your assertion that there is a cessation of warming.


I can afford to be categorical given the plethora of direct and indirect evidence for the MWP.I do not dispute that there is sufficient evidence that there was a MWP, what I dispute is that it is categorically 1. global and 2. warmer than today.


I'm not necessarily skeptical about current warming accept when it is exaggerated and based on one anomalous tree ring record. Good because it isn't. It's based on, as you put it, a plethora of evidence.


The whole point of bringing up the MWP is to show the CWP is not unusual so there is no need for my skepticism.The temperatures might not be unprecedented but the causes for them might be different. From the article Patrick gave you:


Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

Ian Murray
19-10-2012, 10:03 AM
It is obvious that you mistook foundations for government funding, as shown.


IM: The Union of Concerned Scientists does not receive a cent in government funding.
IG: statement is contradicted by ... " the UCS was the fourth-largest recipient of foundation grants for climate studies..."
rr: (Quoting the wiki source) "private grant-making foundations"

I don't think there could be a clearer case of mistake in comprehension.

Quite so. Private foundations do not receive government grants - by definition they make grants from their own funds (e.g. the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, with around $40 billion in the bank).

Desmond
19-10-2012, 11:11 AM
Also of interest is this article on the MWP. It links the conversation back to the thread title. :)

Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Common-graphical-tricks-and-the-Medieval-Warm-Period.html)


...The Great Global Warming Swindle and every other skeptical source that shows you this graph and claims it shows that the MWP was warmer than today is not giving you the full picture. They are showing you evidence that central England was warmer around 1200AD than it was around 1920. They are showing you that the last decade was warmer than any 50 year period on the graph including the MWP.

Many similar graphs are loved by skeptical sites, but this is a useful demonstration because it contains all 3 of the common ‘tricks to hide the incline’ of global warming. Firstly they change the temperature scale and/or hide the values. Next they pick a single region, and finally they either cut off or ignore instrumental evidence showing recent warming. ...

Rincewind
19-10-2012, 11:26 AM
Comment #2 on that thread makes an interesting point if it checks out...


CO2science do a similar dodgy job with their analysis of the various studies into temperature reconstruction of the MWP.

They classify each localised study by whether it (MWP) was warmer than the current period (CWP) or not.

But for each study they vary the time period they call the MWP. They pick out the highest part of the data near the MWP and then label that as the MWP even if it's a few hundred years away from other studies.

Sometimes they label the MWP as being centered around 1300AD, sometimes at 800AD.

Desmond
19-10-2012, 11:34 AM
Comment #2 on that thread makes an interesting point if it checks out...Yes and #5 also goes into more depth.

Patrick Byrom
19-10-2012, 01:48 PM
Yes and #5 also goes into more depth.
Looking at the two (two!) papers from SE Asia, I noticed some problems.

The paper on the NZ "MWP" indicates it was from 1300AD to 1400AD, but it was published in 1979, so it obviously can't compare recent global temperatures to those in the MWP.

The other paper, on the Indonesian "MWP", locates it in the period from 1000AD to 1250AD. Its temperature reconstruction stops around 1850.

So from a period of over 30 years (1979 - 2012), there are only two MWP papers from SE Asia. They indicate different MWPs, and neither of them includes modern temperature data.

There are only ten papers from the entire Southern Hemisphere. I think a lot more evidence is needed before a global MWP is established.

pax
19-10-2012, 03:15 PM
Right but even the alarmists aren't denying a cessation in warming but instead saying its statistically insignificant.

Try again. Anybody who has the first clue about statistics will tell you that a slow trend in noisy data cannot be measured over short time periods. In the case of world temperature data, you need a multi-decade timeline to observe the trend, and when you do so, the trend is extremely clear.



The other point to make is that one could indeed start the graph at 1999 and there would be a warming trend but then the generally agreed warming period from 1980 until 1996 would have to be extended to 1999 which would turn it into a cooling trend.

It would do nothing of the sort.

Damodevo
19-10-2012, 11:29 PM
Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

Now you're getting on the right track. There is some suggestive evidence of at least a correlation between solar neutrino influx and temperature as illustrated here. Which means the sun may be the main driver of temperature;

http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_sst_snu_ghi8.gif

http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_vs_hadcrut3_1980.gif

Desmond
20-10-2012, 12:30 AM
Which means the sun may be the main driver of temperature;
Seems dubious given how many papers find the opposite, i.e. that solar activity cannot account for recent warming. Got a link to more info than the graphs?

Damodevo
20-10-2012, 01:38 AM
Looking at the two (two!) papers from SE Asia, I noticed some problems.

The paper on the NZ "MWP" indicates it was from 1300AD to 1400AD, but it was published in 1979, so it obviously can't compare recent global temperatures to those in the MWP.

The other paper, on the Indonesian "MWP", locates it in the period from 1000AD to 1250AD. Its temperature reconstruction stops around 1850.

So from a period of over 30 years (1979 - 2012), there are only two MWP papers from SE Asia. They indicate different MWPs, and neither of them includes modern temperature data.

There are only ten papers from the entire Southern Hemisphere. I think a lot more evidence is needed before a global MWP is established.

So because the papers don't include modern temps we can't compare the temperatures of the MWP to the CWP retrospectively? That's ridiculous.

And this evidence is the tip of the ice berg. I don't know why you intimate that the whole case for the MWP rests on these two studies. There are hundreds in the literature. And how about the RomanWP (http://www.geo.uni-mainz.de/1358.php)?

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/esper_2012_fig4.png

Patrick Byrom
20-10-2012, 02:01 AM
Seems dubious given how many papers find the opposite, i.e. that solar activity cannot account for recent warming. Got a link to more info than the graphs?
The graphs Damodevo refers to might better be described as 'climastrology'. Skeptical Science once again (http://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1293#75969) has the refutation - see the comments from #28 onwards.

What is lacking is some physics-based explanation for the graphs. Otherwise it's just curve-fitting.

Patrick Byrom
20-10-2012, 02:15 AM
So because the papers don't include modern temps we can't compare the temperatures of the MWP to the CWP retrospectively? That's ridiculous.
But the two papers aren't measuring temperatures directly. They are measuring 'proxies' for the temperatures. In order to compare the temperatures in the two periods, we need to know the current values of the proxies - which aren't given in the papers.


And this evidence is the tip of the ice berg. I don't know why you intimate that the whole case for the MWP rests on these two studies. There are hundreds in the literature. And how about the RomanWP (http://www.geo.uni-mainz.de/1358.php)?
There were only two studies from SE Asia included on the map you provided. If there are more, shouldn't they be listed on the map?

The Roman WP does not demonstrate that the warming was global. My point was that there isn't a lot of evidence for unusual warming in the Southern Hemisphere. Can you provide some links showing that temperatures in Australia were unusually warm in the MWP?

More importantly, what about my point that the studies seem to have different MWPs?

Damodevo
20-10-2012, 04:44 AM
Are you a glutton for punishment? Has your AGW faith not taken enough of a hammering?


But the two papers aren't measuring temperatures directly. They are measuring 'proxies' for the temperatures. In order to compare the temperatures in the two periods, we need to know the current values of the proxies - which aren't given in the papers.


There were only two studies from SE Asia included on the map you provided. If there are more, shouldn't they be listed on the map?

The Roman WP does not demonstrate that the warming was global. My point was that there isn't a lot of evidence for unusual warming in the Southern Hemisphere. Can you provide some links showing that temperatures in Australia were unusually warm in the MWP?

More importantly, what about my point that the studies seem to have different MWPs?

How about China? This paper measures the MWP and RWP as the same as CWP and evidences the sun as the culprit.

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/china/liu-2011-tibet-tree-rings-2485-year-web.gif

Liu Y, Cai Q F, Song H M, et al. Amplitudes, rates, periodicities and causes of temperature variations in the past 2485 years and future trends over the central-eastern Tibetan Plateau. Chinese Sci Bull, 2011, 56: 29862994, doi: 10.1007/s11434-011-4713-7

Japan? Here is a 1995 paper (http://notrickszone.com/2012/06/17/hockey-stick-was-refuted-before-its-fabrication-study-ignored-ipcc-and-mann-took-world-on-a-10-year-joyride/) that was conveniently ignored by Mann and the IPCC reps at the time. From memory it also credits the sun as the driver of temp;

http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/yakushima.gif

Desmond
24-10-2012, 05:28 PM
This article (http://www.skepticalscience.com/misleading-daily-mail-prebunked-nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html) from Skeptical Science 'prebunks' the Daily Mail article.

Note that although atmospheric temperatures have not changed dramatically in the last 15 years, the ocean has warmed considerably (which is where all the heat is going).
And a follow up article:

Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial (http://www.skepticalscience.com/rose-curry-double-down-denial.html)


...
To sum up, rather than admit the errors they made in their first Mail on Sunday article, Rose and Curry have doubled down on their previous mistakes and added a few new ones.

They continue to ignore that the 90+% of global warming that has gone into heating the oceans has not slowed or "paused", as most recently illustrated in Nuccitelli et al. (2012).
They fail to understand the fundamental physics of the climate system - that when there is a global energy imbalance, warming is an inevitable response, and natural variations in the climate system can only offset that warming for so long.
They continue to cherrypick convenient dates in their surface temperature data analysis.
They claim that natural temperature influences like ENSO are responsible for some of the global surface warming in the 1990s (which is true), but deny that they are responsible for the slowed rate of surface warming in the 2000s (which is also true).
They deny the existence of historical ocean heat content measurements.
They misunderstand and thus misrepresent global climate model simulations.
As a result of these errors, they wrongly downplay future global warming.
Rose also scores an own goal by essentially arguing for large future warming by claiming the MWP was hot, which would suggest the climate is sensitive to changes in the Earth's energy imbalance.

Damodevo
25-10-2012, 02:23 AM
They continue to ignore that the 90+% of global warming that has gone into heating the oceans has not slowed or "paused", as most recently illustrated in Nuccitelli et al. (2012).

So what! There has been ocean warming which is quite possibly caused by an increase in solar activity which in turn may be a cause in the increase in warming. A recent paper (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658)


The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

Its hard to argue with empirical evidence of a lag of CO2 behind temps! As in recent times;

http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/dTleadsdCO2_.jpg

And over the last half a million years

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearslarge.gif

And the mechanism is hardly suitable - infrared radiation from GHGs cannot penetrate the atmosphere but UV radiation can. The solar effect may be more relevant for the ocean warming as well as having a general warming effect re the Svensmark Effect (increased radiation from the sun means less cosmic radiation means more clouds and more heat reflected back out).

How does the cessation in warming, increased CO2, increased ocean heat (but even that is in doubt (http://jennifermarohasy.com//wp-content/uploads/2009/03/loehle_ocean-heat-content-blog.jpg)) all fit together? I have no idea. This stuff is incredibly complex except to global warming religionists.

Desmond
25-10-2012, 06:26 AM
So what! There has been ocean warming which is quite possibly caused by an increase in solar activity which in turn may be a cause in the increase in warming. A recent paper (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658)The "so" is that the Mail piece argued that there was no warming, when this ignores the warming that did occur in oceans and overall. Whether this, as you suggest, may be partially caused by the sun is irrelevant to the article's misrepresentation that there was no warming.


Its hard to argue with empirical evidence of a lag of CO2 behind temps! This tired old argument has been so long rebutted that if you haven't seen the rebuttal then I'm afraid that you haven't looked very hard.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean? (http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm)

CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase. ...


The mechanism for why CO2 has a warming effect is not normally denied by sane people, and is explained and demonstrated here:

Rt6gLt6G5Kc


How does the cessation in warming, increased CO2, increased ocean heat (but even that is in doubt) all fit together? I have no idea.Yes, how does a cessation in warming and increased ocean heat fit together? Answer, it doesn't, because the first is false. Even cherry picking the measurement (land temp only) and cherry picking the timeframe shows measurable warming!

Damodevo
26-10-2012, 12:42 AM
The "so" is that the Mail piece argued that there was no warming, when this ignores the warming that did occur in oceans and overall. Whether this, as you suggest, may be partially caused by the sun is irrelevant to the article's misrepresentation that there was no warming.

But the climate models actually predict a land temperature increase ergo they are wrong.


This tired old argument has been so long rebutted that if you haven't seen the rebuttal then I'm afraid that you haven't looked very hard.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase. ...

Here is the actual explanation from the site you quote;


as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming.


I cannot make sense of this. We have an example of retrocausality. To see how absurd this is look at this graph.

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/files/2012/08/Humlum-et-al-temp-vs-CO2JPG.jpg

The downturns in heating precedes the downturns in CO2 production - in other words, the temperature is tanking whilst CO2 is still increasing...lol...how is this even possible on your model? Unless you are going to say some external cause comes in and kicks off a cooling process which in turn leads to a reduction in CO2...


The mechanism for why CO2 has a warming effect is not normally denied by sane people, and is explained and demonstrated here:

you're a goose. Read my comment again. My dispute was with whether CO2 can heat the ocean not produce a general atmospheric warming in general (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/why-greenhouse-gases-wont-heat-oceans.html).


The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes, "Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans." (p. 196).

Desmond
26-10-2012, 01:28 AM
But the climate models actually predict a land temperature increase ergo they are wrong.Land temperatures did increase.


I cannot make sense of this. Are you having trouble understanding the principle or do you dispute something else?


you're a goose. Read my comment again. ...and have now done so. Sorry I missed that your "refutation" of the Nuccitelli 2012 study covering ocean, land, ice, and atmosphere data since 1960 was an unlabelled diagram from a blog post which appears to cover the years 2005-2008. No idea what it's meant to show, but hey it does appear to have a downward trend, so I guess I'll just toddle along and cancel my GW religion tithe, shall I? duck duck duck duck duck duck goose. :lol: :hand:


My dispute was with whether CO2 can heat the ocean not produce a general atmospheric warming in general (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/why-greenhouse-gases-wont-heat-oceans.html).And I suppose you think you'll find an answer to that question more reliably at a blog called hockey schtick than in a peer reviewed paper. Probably part of the problem.

Capablanca-Fan
03-11-2012, 09:19 AM
Australian Taxpayers Alliance (http://us2.campaign-archive.com/?u=d9f51dd317ac24a90c904906c&id=fe9a5fd1c6)

In just two weeks Aussie families will be slugged with a carbon tax to pay for a ‘green utopia’.

But where is this money really going? And are our carbon tax bureaucrats practicing what they preach?

We did a little digging, and discovered what many long suspected: While Aussie families are struggling, bureaucrats are living the high life and travelling to exotic destinations at our expense.

Documents released to the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance under Freedom of Information laws revealed that bureaucrats in the Department of Climate change flew 6,528,616km last financial year, costing us a staggering $3,274,286.40!

The actions of Department staff make one thing clear: the carbon tax isn’t about the environment, it’s about squeezing taxpayers for their own benefit.

Rincewind
03-11-2012, 10:06 AM
travelling to exotic destinations at our expense.

Speaking of which, where in the world is Maiami?

Ian Murray
05-11-2012, 12:50 PM
Asia white paper assumes away environment (http://www.rossgittins.com/2012/11/asia-white-paper-assumes-away.html)
Ross Gittins
5.11.12


The most glaring weakness in the Prime Minister' s white paper on the Asian century is its failure to factor in the high likelihood that mounting environmental problems will stop Asia continuing to grow so rapidly as well as limit our ability to take advantage of what growth there is....

Ian Murray
17-11-2012, 09:58 PM
Exxon backs US carbon tax (http://newyork.newsday.com/news/nation/carbon-tax-exxon-backs-obama-plan-to-impose-climate-change-fees-1.4229894)


Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) is part of a growing coalition backing a carbon tax as an alternative to costly regulation, giving newfound prominence to an idea once anathema in Washington.

Conservative economists and fossil-fuel lobbyists united in 2009 to fend off climate-change legislation that would have established a cap-and-trade mechanism. They are now locked in a backroom debate over a tax on carbon-dioxide emissions that could raise an estimated $100 billion in its first year.

A carbon tax would force electricity producers, refiners and manufacturers to pay a fee for the greenhouse gases they emit. It is gaining interest as lawmakers and President Barack Obama pledge to simplify the corporate tax code and raise revenue to narrow the deficit. The devastation from superstorm Sandy following the wildfires and drought of this summer have also increased concern about global warming....

Igor_Goldenberg
23-11-2012, 11:04 AM
Unfortunately, statistically significant trends calculated using a small, carefully selected sample of data are not always reliable.

For example, have a look at this plot:
http://www.southsidejuniorchessclub.org/AGWshort.gif
It appears that there is a clear downwards trend from 1992 to 1997, and this 'trend' is indeed highly statistically significant (-0.03+/-0.01). However I can be absolutely certain that this 'trend' is meaningless.

Meaningless in what sense?

Igor_Goldenberg
23-11-2012, 11:08 AM
Right but even the alarmists aren't denying a cessation in warming but instead saying its statistically insignificant. Actually .03 degrees per decade of warming is still warming.

Looks like rr still struggles with concept of statistical significance.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-11-2012, 11:12 AM
Try again. Anybody who has the first clue about statistics will tell you that a slow trend in noisy data cannot be measured over short time periods. In the case of world temperature data, you need a multi-decade timeline to observe the trend, and when you do so, the trend is extremely clear.

Only predicated on constant trend. What if this assumption is incorrect?

Rincewind
23-11-2012, 11:16 AM
Looks like rr still struggles with concept of statistical significance.

This from the guy who was predicting a Romney win (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=346583&postcount=3339) on November 5 based on some weird combination of numerology and biased polling.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-11-2012, 11:18 AM
Asia white paper assumes away environment (http://www.rossgittins.com/2012/11/asia-white-paper-assumes-away.html)
Ross Gittins
5.11.12


The most glaring weakness in the Prime Minister' s white paper on the Asian century is its failure to factor in the high likelihood that mounting environmental problems will stop Asia continuing to grow so rapidly as well as limit our ability to take advantage of what growth there is....

Are you suggesting that Prime Minister and her team do not expect a negative effect from global warming? Or do they expect that the carbon tax will stop the warming, thus no need to worry?

Desmond
23-11-2012, 11:40 AM
Looks like rr still struggles with concept of statistical significance.
Looks like you should look up what "cessation" means.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-11-2012, 12:31 PM
Looks like you should look up what "cessation" means.
Your initiated and didn't apologise. Don't complain then.

Desmond
23-11-2012, 12:39 PM
Your initiated and didn't apologise. Don't complain then.
No idea what you're on about, but I unreservedly apologize to your delusion for the fact that there has not been a cessation in warming.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-11-2012, 01:10 PM
No idea what you're on about, but I unreservedly apologize to your delusion for the fact that there has not been a cessation in warming.
Really, try to understand what "statistically insignificant" before painting yourself in the corner.

Rincewind
23-11-2012, 01:14 PM
Meaningless in what sense?

That the data was generated by apply a noise signal to an upward trend. There is no long term downward trend in the data and Patrick knows that because he produced the data. One is able to find downward trends. However they are not symptomatic of a real trend but rather a combination of the short term oscillation, random noise and cherry picking by the data analyst. In that sense the downward trend is meaningless.

Desmond
23-11-2012, 01:55 PM
Really, try to understand what "statistically insignificant" before painting yourself in the corner.
:rolleyes: I know what it [means].

Try to reconcile the statements such as in #2333


the 90+% of global warming that has gone into heating the oceans has not slowed or "paused", as most recently illustrated in Nuccitelli et al. (2012).

with "cessation in warming". Use a dictionary if you need to.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-11-2012, 01:58 PM
Does the 0.03 C per decade you were talking about relates to oceans or land temperature? Do you also have a SE of estimation?

Desmond
23-11-2012, 02:11 PM
Does the 0.03 C per decade you were talking about relates to oceans or land temperature? Do you also have a SE of estimation?
True or false: there has been a cessation in global warming.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-11-2012, 02:47 PM
Feel free to answer the question when ready.

Desmond
23-11-2012, 02:52 PM
Feel free to answer the question when ready.
You mean the one you asked in #2353 while ignoring the one I asked in the previous post?

pax
23-11-2012, 05:26 PM
Only predicated on constant trend. What if this assumption is incorrect?

It's not an assumption, it is a simple (i.e not overfit) model which fits a very significant quantity of data.

Desmond
25-11-2012, 05:58 AM
No idea what you're on about, Ah I get it now, you're still smarting from the hiding I gave you over a month ago. :lol:
Thanks Igor, you made my day. :clap:

Who are you voting for in the next Foundational elections?

Igor_Goldenberg
26-11-2012, 10:09 AM
It's not an assumption, it is a simple (i.e not overfit) model which fits a very significant quantity of data.
The assumption you use is that trend was constant since early 1970s.
However, if the trend change since 1998 is significant, the model would not be overfitted. Sometime there is a genuine doubt whether parameter should be included, in this case statistician looks at some information criteria (AIC, BIC, etc). However, in the absence of additional a priori knowledge of the process the last stable trend is usually the best predictor.

In case of global warming it means that at least two scenarios must be considered:
1. The trend will continue at zero (as it stayed in the last 15 or 16 years)
2. The trend will revert to what it was between 1973-1997.

I didn't look at the correlation between CO2 and temperature, but I given the increase of CO2 concentration in the last 15 year it's likely to be even less significant then warming trend.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-11-2012, 10:11 AM
Ah I get it now, you're still smarting from the hiding I gave you over a month ago. :lol:
Thanks Igor, you made my day. :clap:

Who are you voting for in the next Foundational elections?
Your rant makes me think you forget your medication. Come back when you can discuss thing rationally again.

Desmond
26-11-2012, 05:23 PM
Your rant makes me think ...excellent, that is a start. Now that you're all warmed up, try to reconcile the statements such as in #2333

the 90+% of global warming that has gone into heating the oceans has not slowed or "paused", as most recently illustrated in Nuccitelli et al. (2012).
with "cessation in warming".

Capablanca-Fan
05-12-2012, 01:25 AM
Open letter to UN Secretary-General: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125-plus scientists (http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/)

Of course, the leftists here don't care, because what they really want is even more surrendering of our money and freedom to the government, and even better, to the UN kakistocracy.

Ian Murray
05-12-2012, 06:37 AM
Of course, the leftists here don't care...
Far from it. While current extreme weather events may be a result of climate change, it is too early yet to draw cause-and-effect conclusions. However the signs are disturbing.

However the calibre and/or motives of those 125 scientists are questionable, when they sign a statement beginning with: "The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years." The Met Office disavowed that report (http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/), published in Mail on Sunday, the following day, affirming that its findings confirmed significant global warming.

Either the 125 boffins rely on newspapers for their data, or are following their own agenda without regard for the truth.

MichaelBaron
05-12-2012, 09:16 AM
Far from it. While current extreme weather events may be a result of climate change, it is too early yet to draw cause-and-effect conclusions. However the signs are disturbing.

.

This is what I find so annoying: the events MAY BE result of the climate change but MAY BE NOT - but in the meantime - we have to pay some stupid tax :)

Ian Murray
05-12-2012, 10:40 AM
This is what I find so annoying: the events MAY BE result of the climate change but MAY BE NOT - but in the meantime - we have to pay some stupid tax :)
Today's extreme weather events may or may not be due to climate change - weather is not directly linked to climate - but weather is certainly affected by climate trends. Artificially increasing global temperature over time affects climate, with a consequent disruptive effect on weather patterns over time. There is some likelihood that the extreme weather events now happening are due to climate change, but not enough time has elapsed yet to measure the data over time.

pax
05-12-2012, 01:40 PM
This is what I find so annoying: the events MAY BE result of the climate change but MAY BE NOT - but in the meantime - we have to pay some stupid tax :)

Perhaps this is pertinent:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4254681996_27b1ed7ff0.jpg

Kevin Bonham
05-12-2012, 01:48 PM
This is what I find so annoying: the events MAY BE result of the climate change but MAY BE NOT - but in the meantime - we have to pay some stupid tax :)

To what extent, if any, are you paying it?

MichaelBaron
06-12-2012, 05:13 PM
To what extent, if any, are you paying it?
This is what the Greens want us to do? :)

Ian Murray
06-12-2012, 08:15 PM
This is what the Greens want us to do? :)
I've no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Kevin Bonham
06-12-2012, 09:45 PM
I've no idea what that is supposed to mean.

I'm struggling too!

Ian Murray
08-12-2012, 08:09 PM
The jury may still be out over whether current extreme weather events are due to climate change, but food for thought:

* Hurricane Sandy, the largest Atlantic hurricane ever recorded, and second only to Katrina in intensity

* Typhoon Bopha, the second most southerly super-typhoon ever recorded

* the series of tornadoes in New Zealand since 2004

Capablanca-Fan
22-12-2012, 06:41 AM
Spencer: Climatologist opens up storm of criticism (http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2012/12/12/opinion/doc50c806892f920086899893.txt?viewmode=fullstory)
By GIL SPENCER Times columnist, December 12, 2012

Professor Mann claims to have been defamed by the defendants for attacking his work and making fun of him after embarrassing emails were released to the public in the scandal known as “Climategate.”

The professor found this sentence written by Steyn to be particularly offensive:

“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”


Free speech and the right to criticize public figures are the heart of this case. And Michael Mann has made himself a very public figure. He has done so by being at the forefront of one of the great scientific and political debates of our times. He appears on TV. He writes and lectures and works for a publicly funded institution to promote a scientific theory that remains just that, a theory.

That theory is basically that global warming is occurring, that it is being caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and that left unchecked it will lead to global catastrophe and human ruin. There are a lot of people who believe Mann is right on the money with his beliefs.

But there are plenty of scientists who question all — or parts — of the global warming theory.

There are those who think that the burning of fossil fuels is contributing a minimal amount to the current warming of the planet. Other scientists think that to the extent that warming is occurring, that it may actually be a good thing. (A warmer planet is a planet with more arable land for growing food. Even some of the least skeptical of these scientists believe that the whole subject should be studied further before world governments impose perceived fixes that will cost trillions of dollars. The taxes and regulations proposed could slow the world economy to a crawl. And the people who suffer most when that happens are the world’s poorest people.

It was this concern that led the hacker known as “FOIA” to “steal” and leak the embarrassing emails written by Mann and other climatologists involved in promoting the alleged dangers of climate change.

Damodevo
22-12-2012, 07:35 AM
The jury may still be out over whether current extreme weather events are due to climate change, but food for thought:

* Hurricane Sandy, the largest Atlantic hurricane ever recorded, and second only to Katrina in intensity

* Typhoon Bopha, the second most southerly super-typhoon ever recorded

* the series of tornadoes in New Zealand since 2004

Apparently the latest (http://climatedepot.com/a/18800/Prof-Pielke-Jr-Analysis-of-UN-IPCC-Draft-report--IPCC-shows-almost-complete-reversal-from-AR4-on-trends-in-drought-hurricanes-floods) IPCC is in doubt.



IPCC AR5 draft shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods and is now consistent with scientific literature

IPCC AR5 Draft: "we have high confidence that natural variability dominates any AGW influence in observed/historical TC records"

Patrick Byrom
22-12-2012, 01:25 PM
That theory is basically that global warming is occurring, that it is being caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and that left unchecked it will lead to global catastrophe and human ruin. There are a lot of people who believe Mann is right on the money with his beliefs.
But there are plenty of scientists who question all — or parts — of the global warming theory.
So "people" agree with the theory, while "scientists" disagree. Actually, the overwhelming majority of scientists agree with the theory.


Even some of the least skeptical of these scientists believe that the whole subject should be studied further before world governments impose perceived fixes that will cost trillions of dollars. The taxes and regulations proposed could slow the world economy to a crawl.
Like the carbon tax did in Australia?


It was this concern that led the hacker known as “FOIA” to “steal” and leak the embarrassing emails written by Mann and other climatologists involved in promoting the alleged dangers of climate change.
So hacking into a computer and leaking private emails isn't really stealing - whatever happened to private property?

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2012, 08:02 AM
So "people" agree with the theory, while "scientists" disagree. Actually, the overwhelming majority of scientists agree with the theory.
The overwhelming majority of scientists have no opinion. The "consensus" is a political leftist one.


Like the carbon tax did in Australia?
Another leftist tax that hurts the lowest-income people disproportionately.


So hacking into a computer and leaking private emails isn't really stealing - whatever happened to private property?
Ah yes, so you're more concerned with the method of leakage than the corruption and bullying revealed in these emails?

Rincewind
23-12-2012, 09:32 AM
The overwhelming majority of scientists have no opinion.

Are you playing word games here Jono? The overwhelming majority of scientists working in climate sciences or related disciplines do have an opinion. If by scientists you are including scientists from unrelated fields like physical chemistry then perhaps some of those may have no firm opinion.

pax
23-12-2012, 01:43 PM
Are you playing word games here Jono? The overwhelming majority of scientists working in climate sciences or related disciplines do have an opinion. If by scientists you are including scientists from unrelated fields like physical chemistry then perhaps some of those may have no firm opinion.

I think you'll find the overwhelming majority of scientists working in *any* discipline also have an opinion which is consistent with those working in geology, meteorology and climate science.

But this is Jono we're talking about. He will try to persuade you that there is significant debate among scientists whether the world is more than 6000 years old.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
24-12-2012, 03:17 PM
i woke up this morning and it was 22 degrees. i have now checked the temperature and it is 31 degrees.

that means that in 6 hours global warming has increased by nearly 50%. :hmm:

Ian Murray
24-12-2012, 03:38 PM
i woke up this morning and it was 22 degrees. i have now checked the temperature and it is 31 degrees.

that means that in 6 hours global warming has increased by nearly 50%. :hmm:
Don't say I didn't warn you!

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
24-12-2012, 05:42 PM
Don't say I didn't warn you!

i just went to eat my twix bar but the chocolate had already melted.:(

im having a really rough day.........

Ian Murray
09-01-2013, 07:54 AM
2012 Hottest Year On Record For Lower 48 States, NOAA Confirms (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/2012-hottest-year-on-record_n_2433210.html#slide=more237999)
Huffington Post
8.1.13


It’s official: 2012 was the warmest year on record in the lower 48 states, as the country experienced blistering spring and summer heat, tinderbox fire weather conditions amid a widespread drought, and one of the worst storms to ever strike the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2012 had an average temperature of 55.3°F, which eclipsed 1998, the previous record holder, by 1°F. ...

Damodevo
09-01-2013, 12:01 PM
Cold spell leaves 123 dead in Russia


A bitter cold snap (http://africa.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2012-12/27/content_16059096.htm) in Russia has claimed 123 lives in the past 10 days, an official said on Tuesday.

The early freeze has tested authorities in a country used to notoriously difficult winters.

Temperatures have plunged as low as -30 C in the Moscow region and -60 C in eastern Siberia.

Ian Murray
09-01-2013, 01:03 PM
Cold spell leaves 123 dead in Russia

Meanwhile Hobart (http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/tasmania-engulfed-by-catastrophic-level-fires-20130104-2c8j1.html) recorded its highest-ever temperature of 41.8C last week as catastrophic bushfires swept the Tasman peninsula. Now it's NSW ablaze, with 140 bushfires burning, 40 of them uncontained. With the monsoonal rains overdue in northern Australia there is no respite in sight and heatwave conditions are forecast until the Wet arrives.

But climate change is just a hoax, the deniers tell us.

Mephistopheles
09-01-2013, 07:58 PM
You do both realise that your talking points are basically bulldust? "It was this cold at X" and "It was this hot at Y" really don't speak to the broader climate picture at all.

Ian Murray
09-01-2013, 09:42 PM
You do both realise that your talking points are basically bulldust? "It was this cold at X" and "It was this hot at Y" really don't speak to the broader climate picture at all.
With a warming planet and changing climate increasingly extreme weather events and changes to weather patterns can be expected and have been forecast. And lo and behold!

Met charts in Australia now include new colours (http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/temperatures-off-the-charts-as-australia-turns-deep-purple-20130108-2ce33.html) representing a temperatuire range of 50-54oC, reflecting the record highs now being recorded.

http://images.theage.com.au/2013/01/08/3937332/art-weather-620x349.jpg

Damodevo
12-01-2013, 07:40 AM
Hard to say we have a 'warming planet' when...

Meanwhile in China (http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2013-01/11/content_16104823.htm)...


Temperatures across nation fall To the lowest in decades

Temperatures in China since the end of November have been the lowest in 28 years, meteorologists say.

They have averaged -3.8 C since the last 10 days of November, about 1.3 degrees below the previous lowest recorded average, and the extreme cold has led to a debate over the lack of public heating nationwide.

In Northeast China temperatures have been at a 43-year low of -15.3 C, about 3.7 degrees below the previous lowest recorded average.

North China has experienced its coldest winter in 42 years, with temperatures falling to -7.4 C, 2.4 degrees lower than the average level in previous years.

"I haven't seen such cold for at least 15 years," says Wu Xinxin, a white-collar worker in Beijing. "Most of my female colleagues have been wrapping themselves in blankets."

Ian Murray
12-01-2013, 08:22 AM
Hard to say we have a 'warming planet' when...

Meanwhile in China...
Yet more extreme weather, as to be expected with a changing climate

Damodevo
12-01-2013, 10:16 AM
Yet more extreme weather, as to be expected with a changing climate

But that's not what the warmists are saying (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2013/01/08/australias-climate-bureau-get-used-to-record-breaking-heat/). And they certainly aren't predicting certain parts of the globe to have record breaking heat and other parts record breaking cold


‘‘The current heatwave – in terms of its duration, its intensity and its extent – is now unprecedented in our records,’’ the Bureau of Meteorology’s manager of climate monitoring and prediction, David Jones, said.

“Clearly, the climate system is responding to the background warming trend. Everything that happens in the climate system now is taking place on a planet which is a degree hotter than it used to be.”

As the warming trend increases over coming years, record-breaking heat will become more and more common, Dr Jones said.

“We know that global climate doesn’t respond monotonically – it does go up and down with natural variation. That’s why some years are hotter than others because of a range of factors. But we’re getting many more hot records than we’re getting cold records. That’s not an issue that is explained away by natural variation.”

Desmond
12-01-2013, 10:51 AM
But that's not what the warmists are saying (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2013/01/08/australias-climate-bureau-get-used-to-record-breaking-heat/).
Hilarious that you think that that article supports your stance.

Rincewind
12-01-2013, 10:56 AM
But that's not what the warmists are saying (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2013/01/08/australias-climate-bureau-get-used-to-record-breaking-heat/). And they certainly aren't predicting certain parts of the globe to have record breaking heat and other parts record breaking cold

Yes they are and have been at least as far back as the second assessment report in 1996.

Damodevo
12-01-2013, 11:02 AM
Yes they are and have been at least as far back as the second assessment report in 1996.

The models predict that? Got a reference?

Damodevo
12-01-2013, 11:02 AM
Hilarious that you think that that article supports your stance.

Hilarious that you have no acquaintance with nuance.

Desmond
12-01-2013, 11:35 AM
Hilarious that you have no acquaintance with nuance.
one country != global
one winter < multi-decadal trend.

but please, cherry pick away, oh nuancy one.

Rincewind
12-01-2013, 04:50 PM
The models predict that? Got a reference?

IPCC SAR is a reference.

Ian Murray
13-01-2013, 08:37 AM
But that's not what the warmists are saying (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2013/01/08/australias-climate-bureau-get-used-to-record-breaking-heat/). And they certainly aren't predicting certain parts of the globe to have record breaking heat and other parts record breaking cold
Arctic ice cover has been falling for decades, bringing colder weather to Canada and northern Europe. The process continues:


Arctic sea ice extent for December 2012 remained far below average, driven by anomalously low ice conditions in the Kara, Barents, and Labrador seas. Thus far, the winter has been dominated by the negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation, bringing colder than average conditions to Scandinavia, Siberia, Alaska, and Canada.

National Snow and Ice Data Center (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/)

Damodevo
13-01-2013, 01:32 PM
Arctic ice cover has been falling for decades, bringing colder weather to Canada and northern Europe. The process continues:


Arctic sea ice extent for December 2012 remained far below average, driven by anomalously low ice conditions in the Kara, Barents, and Labrador seas. Thus far, the winter has been dominated by the negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation, bringing colder than average conditions to Scandinavia, Siberia, Alaska, and Canada.

National Snow and Ice Data Center (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/)

Interesting. Considering the Antarctic shows a significant increase (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00068.1?af=R&) in sea ice, contrary to warmist models.


Many of the models have an annual SIE cycle that differs markedly from that observed over the last 30 years. The majority of models have too small a SIE at the minimum in February, while several of the models have less than two thirds of the observed SIE at the September maximum. In contrast to the satellite data, which exhibits a slight increase in SIE, the mean SIE of the models over 1979 - 2005 shows a decrease in each month, with the greatest multi-model mean percentage monthly decline of 13.6% dec-1 in February and the greatest absolute loss of ice of -0.40 × 106 km2 dec-1 in September.

Damodevo
13-01-2013, 02:36 PM
Even in the Arctic NASA has admitted (http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/09/21/reuters-tv-nasa-says-arctic-cyclone-played-key-role?videoId=237916780&videoChannel=118065) that


NASA says Arctic cyclone played "key role" in record ice melt

Ian Murray
13-01-2013, 05:19 PM
Interesting. Considering the Antarctic shows a significant increase (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00068.1?af=R&) in sea ice, contrary to warmist models.
Despite rising atmospheric and ocean temperatures, antarctic sea ice extent has increased. Modelling (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI4136.1) solves the riddle


The ice melting from ocean heat flux decreases faster than the ice growth does in the weakly stratified Southern Ocean, leading to an increase in the net ice production and hence an increase in ice mass. This mechanism is the main reason why the Antarctic sea ice has increased in spite of warming conditions both above and below during the period 1979–2004 and the extended period 1948–2004.

Ian Murray
13-01-2013, 05:32 PM
Even in the Arctic NASA has admitted (http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/09/21/reuters-tv-nasa-says-arctic-cyclone-played-key-role?videoId=237916780&videoChannel=118065) that


Extent began dropping rapidly beginning in May, and by the end of the melt season on September 16, extent was at the lowest level recorded in the satellite record of 3.41 million square kilometers (1.32 million square miles). While summer weather conditions were not as favorable for ice loss as during 2007, the year of the previous record low, an unusually strong cyclone in August helped to quickly break up the already thin and fragmented ice cover in the Chukchi Sea. This cyclone—remarkable in its intensity and its duration—lasted for thirteen days, of which ten days were spent in the Arctic basin.

While it appears that a record low extent would have been reached even without the cyclone, thinning over the last several decades has made the ice more vulnerable to such storms, compared to earlier decades when the Arctic Ocean was dominated by thick, multiyear ice.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Damodevo
13-01-2013, 07:18 PM
Despite rising atmospheric and ocean temperatures, antarctic sea ice extent has increased. Modelling (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI4136.1) solves the riddle


The ice melting from ocean heat flux decreases faster than the ice growth does in the weakly stratified Southern Ocean, leading to an increase in the net ice production and hence an increase in ice mass. This mechanism is the main reason why the Antarctic sea ice has increased in spite of warming conditions both above and below during the period 1979–2004 and the extended period 1948–2004.

Indeed the warmist models are infinitely malleable. When contrary evidence is thrown up the warmists just make post hoc alterations. Its completely unfalsifiable.

But the AR4 predicted a decrease in Antarctic Ice (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-2-4.html)



“In 20th- and 21st-century simulations, antarctic sea ice cover is projected to decrease more slowly than in the Arctic (Figures 10.13c,d and 10.14),”

Rincewind
13-01-2013, 09:19 PM
Indeed the warmist models are infinitely malleable. When contrary evidence is thrown up the warmists just make post hoc alterations. Its completely unfalsifiable.

You seem to be very confused about the purpose of Zhang's paper. To explain...

We know about the SAT warming trend diectly from measurement. We all so about the increase in ice mass, again from measurement. The question is why? Therefore the model was explanatory and not predictive.

The earlier prediction of an overall reduction in sea ice was not based on the sort of detailed modelling undertaken by Zhang. The inference was warming conditions would lead to more energy being stored in the ocean and thus more liquid water and hence less ice. As both an increase in SAT and ice was measured there was obviously some mechanism causing this unexpected result. Detailed modelling including ocean stratification and salt concentration finds an explanation.

However without Zhang's modelling we would still know the SAT is increasing. We just wouldn't be able to explain why ice was also increasing at the same time. The take home message is, despite what some denialists would have you believe, ice mass is not a good proxy for temperature.

Damodevo
13-01-2013, 11:24 PM
You seem to be very confused about the purpose of Zhang's paper. To explain...

We know about the SAT warming trend diectly from measurement. We all so about the increase in ice mass, again from measurement. The question is why? Therefore the model was explanatory and not predictive.

The earlier prediction of an overall reduction in sea ice was not based on the sort of detailed modelling undertaken by Zhang. The inference was warming conditions would lead to more energy being stored in the ocean and thus more liquid water and hence less ice. As both an increase in SAT and ice was measured there was obviously some mechanism causing this unexpected result. Detailed modelling including ocean stratification and salt concentration finds an explanation.

However without Zhang's modelling we would still know the SAT is increasing. We just wouldn't be able to explain why ice was also increasing at the same time. The take home message is, despite what some denialists would have you believe, ice mass is not a good proxy for temperature.

You assume a warming ocean (as do the models even though there is no clue of a mechanism). Which, BTW, f the two La Nina events are accounted for (one in the 70's the other in the mid 90's) the trend in ocean temperature has been down.

http://i47.tinypic.com/jhphmc.jpg

Damodevo
14-01-2013, 12:26 AM
I don't know what merit there is for Zhang's explanation of increased stratification leading to more ice from warming water but there is a huge problem. The great alarm from climate models of increased frequency and intensity of storms is supposed to lead to less stratification of the oceans because the storms mix the ocean.

Contradiction.

Patrick Byrom
14-01-2013, 01:08 AM
You assume a warming ocean (as do the models even though there is no clue of a mechanism). Which, BTW, f the two La Nina events are accounted for (one in the 70's the other in the mid 90's) the trend in ocean temperature has been down.
The plot actually shows heat content, not temperature.
It seems to be similar to these plots (http://i49.tinypic.com/jiermv.jpg)made by Bob Tisdale, except that the positive heat content has become negative in your blue graph.
Could you give the source for your plot, please?

Rincewind
14-01-2013, 01:12 AM
You assume a warming ocean (as do the models even though there is no clue of a mechanism).

Not sure what you mean by the comment in parentheses. If the surface air temp is increasing then more thermal energy will transfer to the ocean. This is an application of Fourier's law and the mechanism is very well understood.


I don't know what merit there is for Zhang's explanation of increased stratification leading to more ice from warming water but there is a huge problem. The great alarm from climate models of increased frequency and intensity of storms is supposed to lead to less stratification of the oceans because the storms mix the ocean.

I don't know about the de-stratification of the ocean caused by storms but I'd be surprised if an increased variability of storm patterns would cause a large immediate effect. I would expect changes/disruptions to ocean currents caused by ice melts and changes to the relative surface temperatures to have a more significant impact since they have the potential to penetrate the strata in ways that surface phenomena like storms do not.

Damodevo
14-01-2013, 04:45 AM
The plot actually shows heat content, not temperature.
It seems to be similar to these plots (http://i49.tinypic.com/jiermv.jpg)made by Bob Tisdale, except that the positive heat content has become negative in your blue graph.
Could you give the source for your plot, please?

Yes its Tisdale's work. His working hypothesis, as I understand it, is the varying temperature anomalies between the different ocean basins which is indicative of various natural events driving key structural breaks in the graphs. The mistake is in looking at the ocean globally instead of dividing up the different basins. The warming is not relatively uniform as the models predict.

The point of contention is the spike at 02-04 which is mostly the Atlantic Ocean (although not all data shows this spike). It looks as if there was a significant problem with the data around 02-04 when the new ARGO system came on detecting temp below the 700m mark. There were relatively few temp points at that depth prior to then so the temp differential may be picking up the Meridional Overturning Circulation mechanism between the different depths. In any case the 2000m data was spliced on to the 700m data.

Anyway the stalling in warming of the oceans over the last several years or so is a major problem for warmist models (there has been some drop in SST (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/trend) since 2003) (support for this would be the Knox and Douglass (http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf) paper which point up the 02-04 anomaly).

Anyway, that's my layman's take on it.

Ian Murray
14-01-2013, 08:30 AM
You assume a warming ocean
Observations (http://www.acecrc.org.au/access/repository/resource/4f15b7ba-6abc-102f-a3d0-40404adc5e91/ACE_OCEANS_POSITION_ANALYSIS_LOW_RES.pdf) confirm that the Southern Ocean is warming:


A small change in temperature of the ocean requires a massive amount of heat compared to that required to warm the atmosphere, and the capacity of the oceans to store heat is very much greater than that of the atmosphere. Warming the whole atmosphere by 1 degree requires the same amount of energy as heating just the top three meters of the surface ocean by 1 degree. The ocean is so deep and, in some regions the currents so slow, that some waters have not seen the ocean surface for over 1000 years. These time-scales indicate that it may take centuries for changes in the surface ocean to be completely communicated throughout the depth of the ocean. Nonetheless, significant changes in Southern Ocean temperatures are being observed at all depths.

Since 1992 the observed average warming in the upper 400 m of the ocean around the globe near 40°S has been much greater than the globally averaged upper ocean warming over this period (Willis et al., 2004). This increase in temperature causes thermal expansion of the water column, and sea-level rise in this region is one of the highest seen on Earth. In the upper 700 m of the Southern Ocean an increase of 0.2°C has been observed since the early 1960s (Dominigues et al., 2008). This warming is largely due to changes in the near-surface layers north of the ACC. Warming of Mode Water is observed and is thought to be due to warmed surface waters from south of the ACC sinking into the ocean interior at about 40°-50°S (Wong et al., 2001; Aoki et al., 2003). In the Indian and Western Pacific sectors of the Southern Ocean, warming has been observed where deep water upwells in the lower limb of the overturning circulation, between about 50°S and 60°S (Aoki et al., 2005a, Böning et al 2008),

The mid-depth waters of the Southern Ocean have also warmed. Near 900 m temperatures increased from the 1950s to the 1990s throughout most of the Southern Ocean (Aoki et al., 2003; Gille, 2002). The largest changes are found in the main part of the ACC, where the warming at 900 m is up to 0.5°C and is similar in magnitude to the increase in regional surface air temperatures. This large ocean warming reflects both a southward shift of the ACC and water-mass changes driven by changes in surface forcing, consistent with predictions of a warming climate (Böning et al., 2008, Miejers et al., 2011).

Making scientific measurements in the ocean is not a simple task, and until recently there was a paucity of observation in the Southern Ocean compared with elsewhere. Robotic oceanographic instruments (“Argo floats”) have dramatically improved the observational coverage of the upper 2 km of the Southern Ocean. These observations, combined with measurements from ships and satellites, show the Southern Ocean as a whole has warmed in recent decades. Overall, the Southern Ocean shows significant changes in heat content, although differences between regions (Heywood et al., 2009) can complicate the detection of longer-term trends. These Southern Ocean heat content changes show the importance of the overturning circulation for transferring ocean surface changes towards the equator and into the deep ocean.

The very deep Antarctic Bottom Water has also warmed (Johnson and Doney, 2006a,b; Johnson et al., 2007; Purkey and Johnson, 2010).

For orientation purposes, Hobart's latitude is 42S, the Antarctica coastline is ~62S.

Patrick Byrom
14-01-2013, 03:15 PM
Yes its Tisdale's work. His working hypothesis, as I understand it, is the varying temperature anomalies between the different ocean basins which is indicative of various natural events driving key structural breaks in the graphs. The mistake is in looking at the ocean globally instead of dividing up the different basins. The warming is not relatively uniform as the models predict.
But where in Tisdale's work did your plot (with its negative heat content) come from?

Damodevo
15-01-2013, 12:36 AM
Not sure what you mean by the comment in parentheses. If the surface air temp is increasing then more thermal energy will transfer to the ocean. This is an application of Fourier's law and the mechanism is very well understood.

The oceanographer Robert Stevenson (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html)


The top layer of the ocean to that depth warms up easily under sunlight. Below 100 meters, however, little radiant energy remains. The ocean becomes progressively darker and colder as the depth increases. (It is typical for the ocean temperature in Hawaii to be 26°C (78°F) at the surface, and 15°C (59°F) at a depth of 150 meters.

The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimeters into the ocean. This means that the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere affects only the top few millimeters of the ocean. Water just a few centimeters deep receives none of the direct effect of the infrared thermal energy from the atmosphere! Further, it is in those top few millimeters in which evaporation takes places. So whatever infrared energy may reach the ocean as a result of the greenhouse effect is soon dissipated.

Patrick Byrom
15-01-2013, 02:31 AM
The oceanographer Robert Stevenson (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html)
Who unfortunately died in 2001, so we don't know what his opinion would have been of recent papers (and ocean heat content measurements).
By the way, the Knox and Douglass (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=351241&postcount=2406) paper was probably not refereed, and the journal seems a bit dubious also.

Damodevo
15-01-2013, 05:04 AM
But where in Tisdale's work did your plot (with its negative heat content) come from?

You don't need Tisdale's work. The NODC gives a cooling trend from the mid 50's to the late 80's (something that's not supposed to happen under warming models).

Ian Murray
15-01-2013, 07:35 AM
You don't need Tisdale's work. The NODC gives a cooling trend from the mid 50's to the late 80's (something that's not supposed to happen under warming models).
From Warming of the world ocean, 1955–2003 (ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat05.pdf) (NODC 2005)


During 1955–1998 world ocean heat content (0–3000 m) increased 14.5 x 1022J corresponding to a mean temperature increase of 0.037C...

Rincewind
15-01-2013, 09:42 AM
You don't need Tisdale's work. The NODC gives a cooling trend from the mid 50's to the late 80's (something that's not supposed to happen under warming models).

What's so difficult about linking to Bob Tisdale's post from where you sourced the graphic?

Rincewind
15-01-2013, 09:48 AM
The oceanographer Robert Stevenson

If he was a physicist then he would have known that the reason it becomes "progressively colder" is Fourier's law and if the surface temperature increases then that will work its way down into the ocean depths without the need for radiation to penetrate more than the first few millimeters of water.

My question to you is if no radiative heat penetrates the ocean, how is it then that their depths are not frozen?

Damodevo
15-01-2013, 08:13 PM
My question to you is if no radiative heat penetrates the ocean, how is it then that their depths are not frozen?

UV rays from what I recall from the Stevenson article.

Damodevo
15-01-2013, 08:19 PM
From Warming of the world ocean, 1955–2003 (ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat05.pdf) (NODC 2005)


During 1955–1998 world ocean heat content (0–3000 m) increased 14.5 x 1022J corresponding to a mean temperature increase of 0.037C...

Right. That's why I said 'late 80's' it commenced heating after that but the warming process is supposed to be uniform not monotonic.

Rincewind
15-01-2013, 09:25 PM
UV rays from what I recall from the Stevenson article.


Sunlight (including UV) goes down 100 metres or so. Some other "mysterious" mechanism must be warming water below that depth to keep it in the liquid state. Any ideas how that might happen? The clue is in Stevenson's article where he says "The ocean becomes progressively darker and colder as the depth increases".

Ian Murray
15-01-2013, 09:57 PM
Right. That's why I said 'late 80's' it commenced heating after that but the warming process is supposed to be uniform not monotonic.
Actually you said:

The NODC gives a cooling trend from the mid 50's to the late 80's (something that's not supposed to happen under warming models).
which is not what NODC gives at all. The trend given by NODC (ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat05.pdf) is clearly upward from 1955, with two periodic falls:

http://acfappeal.aunz.org/Ocean%20warming%201955-2003.jpg

Damodevo
15-01-2013, 10:37 PM
Sunlight (including UV) goes down 100 metres or so. Some other "mysterious" mechanism must be warming water below that depth to keep it in the liquid state. Any ideas how that might happen? The clue is in Stevenson's article where he says "The ocean becomes progressively darker and colder as the depth increases".

So what's your proof that longwave radiation has had an impact below the skin? Tisdale's hypothesis makes sense: that its shortwave radiation and the warming interruptions are due to ENSO impacting cloud formation rates (clouds dictating the amount of SW going through).

Damodevo
15-01-2013, 10:44 PM
Actually you said:

which is not what NODC gives at all. The trend given by NODC (ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat05.pdf) is clearly upward from 1955, with two periodic falls:

http://acfappeal.aunz.org/Ocean%20warming%201955-2003.jpg

Should have clarified that was for the Pacific which is obvious from the reference you gave. If Tisdale's hypothesis makes sense you have various La Nino events influencing the spikes in temp for different oceans at different periods.

Rincewind
15-01-2013, 10:52 PM
So what's your proof that longwave radiation has had an impact below the skin? Tisdale's hypothesis makes sense: that its shortwave radiation and the warming interruptions are due to ENSO impacting cloud formation rates (clouds dictating the amount of SW going through).

Nope, wrong answer. Guess again.

Ian Murray
16-01-2013, 03:36 AM
Should have clarified that was for the Pacific which is obvious from the reference you gave. If Tisdale's hypothesis makes sense you have various La Nino events influencing the spikes in temp for different oceans at different periods.
Regardless of any La Nina/ENSO effects NODC plots warming trends in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian basins during the period:

http://acfappeal.aunz.org/Ocean%20HC%20300m.jpg
Time series (1955-2003) of yearly ocean heat content ... for the upper 300 m of the world ocean and individual ocean basins. Vertical lines through each yearly estimate represent plus and minus one standard error of the estimate of heat content. The linear trend is plotted as a red line. The percent variance accounted for by this trend is given in the upper left corner of each panel.

Equivalent plots for the upper 700 and upper 3000 m also demonstrate upward trends in all cases (Levitus et al (ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat05.pdf)).

Damodevo
16-01-2013, 10:01 AM
Regardless of any La Nina/ENSO effects NODC plots warming trends in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian basins during the period:

http://acfappeal.aunz.org/Ocean%20HC%20300m.jpg
Time series (1955-2003) of yearly ocean heat content ... for the upper 300 m of the world ocean and individual ocean basins. Vertical lines through each yearly estimate represent plus and minus one standard error of the estimate of heat content. The linear trend is plotted as a red line. The percent variance accounted for by this trend is given in the upper left corner of each panel.

Equivalent plots for the upper 700 and upper 3000 m also demonstrate upward trends in all cases (Levitus et al (ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat05.pdf)).

But no warming since 2003 according to the ARGO data and contrary to warming models. Knox and Douglas


A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.

And here

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst2gl/from:2003/trend

Rincewind
16-01-2013, 11:53 AM
But no warming since 2003 according to the ARGO data and contrary to warming models.

You have to be very careful in using Argo data for two reasons. One is it has only been available for a relatively short period of time and only fully operational from 2007. Argo data from 2004-2007 is prone to a bias in deployment as the number of collection points tripled in size over that period in a way which was not uniformly distributed over the globe. Hence if the number of trackers in cooler parts of the ocean increased disproportionately then there will be a cooling trend picked up in the data which is simply an artifact of the deployment.

I think Ian may have already cited a paper by Levitus et al from 2009 which looked at Argo and other data and plots the yearly ocean heat content from 1955 - 2008 which show a strong positive signal single the late 1960s without a significant cooling in the 2003-2008 period. There trend line shows something like an additional 1.2 * 10^23 Joules contained in the ocean in 2008 compared with 1980.

Ian Murray
17-01-2013, 07:22 AM
...I think Ian may have already cited a paper by Levitus et al from 2009...
I hadn't got past Levitus et al 2003 (the goalposts were then 1955-1989) but Levitus et al 2012 (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml) is now in press - the abstract confirms increases over the period 1955-2010:

The heat content of the world ocean for the 0-2000 m layer increased...The heat content of the world ocean for the 0-700 m layer increased...

The upcoming paper is discussed in some detail here (http://skepticalscience.com/levitus-2012-global-warming-heating-oceans.html)

...Putting Ocean Heating Into Perspective

The amount of global warming which has gone into the oceans over the past 55 years is quite impressive.

"The global linear trend of OHC2000 is 0.43x1022 joules per year for 1955-2010 which corresponds to a total increase in heat content of 24.0±1.9x1022 J"

This is an immense amount of energy being added to the oceans which Levitus et al. put into perspective (emphasis added):


"We have estimated an increase of 24x1022 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09°C of the 0-2000m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36°C (65°F)."

Levitus et al. note that of course this heat won't be instantly transferred to the atmosphere (fortunately!), and that this comparison is simply intended to illustrate the immense amount of energy being stored by the oceans.

This heating amounts to 136 trillion Joules per second (Watts), which as Glenn Tramblyn noted in a previous post, is the equivalent of more than two Hiroshima "Little Boy" atomic bomb detonations per second, every second over a 55-year period. And Levitus et al. note that this immense ocean heating has not slowed in recent years - more of it has simply gone into the deeper ocean layers.

Damodevo
18-01-2013, 12:19 AM
I hadn't got past Levitus et al 2003 (the goalposts were then 1955-1989) but Levitus et al 2012 (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml) is now in press - the abstract confirms increases over the period 1955-2010:

The heat content of the world ocean for the 0-2000 m layer increased...The heat content of the world ocean for the 0-700 m layer increased...

The upcoming paper is discussed in some detail here (http://skepticalscience.com/levitus-2012-global-warming-heating-oceans.html)

...Putting Ocean Heating Into Perspective

The amount of global warming which has gone into the oceans over the past 55 years is quite impressive.

"The global linear trend of OHC2000 is 0.43x1022 joules per year for 1955-2010 which corresponds to a total increase in heat content of 24.0±1.9x1022 J"

This is an immense amount of energy being added to the oceans which Levitus et al. put into perspective (emphasis added):


"We have estimated an increase of 24x1022 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09°C of the 0-2000m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36°C (65°F)."

Levitus et al. note that of course this heat won't be instantly transferred to the atmosphere (fortunately!), and that this comparison is simply intended to illustrate the immense amount of energy being stored by the oceans.

This heating amounts to 136 trillion Joules per second (Watts), which as Glenn Tramblyn noted in a previous post, is the equivalent of more than two Hiroshima "Little Boy" atomic bomb detonations per second, every second over a 55-year period. And Levitus et al. note that this immense ocean heating has not slowed in recent years - more of it has simply gone into the deeper ocean layers.


So this is from the Levitus et al (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml)


The heat content of the world ocean for the 0-2000 m layer increased by 24.0×1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.39 Wm-2 (per unit area of the world ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09ºC. This warming rate corresponds to a rate of 0.27 Wm-2 per unit area of earth’s surface.

Apparently the Levitus et al imbalance is well below (http://landshape.org/enm/levitus-data-on-ocean-forcing-confirms-skeptics-falsifies-ipcc/) that predicted by the IPCC


To compare these figures, say the continuous top-of-atmosphere forcing is 1Wm-2, a figure given by Meehl and Hansen and consistent with the IPCC estimates. The forcing of the ocean from a TOA forcing of 1Wm-2 is a lower 0.6m-2 due to losses, estimated by Hansen.

The best, recent measurements of the forcing 0f 0.3Wm-2 are half these IPCC estimates. The anthropogenic component of the forcing is even less, as a large part of the 0.3Wm-2 in the last 60 years is due to increased solar insolation during the Grand Solar Maximum.

This mild forcing is right in the ballpark that skeptic scientists such as Lindzen, Spencer, Loehle and Idso (and myself) have been consistently saying is all that is justified by the evidence. It appears that Levitus et al. confirms the skeptics, and the IPCC has been falsified.

Rincewind
18-01-2013, 09:48 AM
Apparently the Levitus et al imbalance is well below (http://landshape.org/enm/levitus-data-on-ocean-forcing-confirms-skeptics-falsifies-ipcc/) that predicted by the IPCC

Before we get to whether it is above or below predictions I think it is important to recognise that the oceans have been consistently warming for the last 40 years and continued to do so over the last decade.

Do you now agree that the oceans have been warming?

Kevin Bonham
18-01-2013, 03:30 PM
Couldn't happen to nicer guys:

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/heatwave_it_was_hotter_in_1790/

Piers Akerman publishes a piece from Liberal MP Craig Kelly claiming that the hot day last week (42.3) was eclipsed by half a degree (42.8) during a heatwave in 1790.

Article includes such gems as:


They may even seek to deny Tench’s measurements and have them purged from our history, sent down a memory hole - as the global warming texts & prophesies deem it heresy for it to have been warmer in Sydney way back in summer of 1790/91 than it is in the ‘unprecedented’ extreme heat of Sydney’s ‘globally warmed’ summer of 2012/13.

Three days after the article was published Sydney has had 45.8, which is indeed unprecedented (and not the only very hot day this summer either).

(The stuff about the 1790-1 heatwave in the article is actually very interesting if read in isolation from its misuse as propaganda.)

Damodevo
18-01-2013, 10:28 PM
Australia's 2013 heat wave isn't even that special. Doesn't even make the top 15 according to this.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BpBX30QWn1g/UPdcnB90eOI/AAAAAAAAJ4I/Fdkoa_acMXw/s400/Screen+Shot+2013-01-17+at+1.04.26+PM.png

Damodevo
18-01-2013, 10:36 PM
Before we get to whether it is above or below predictions I think it is important to recognise that the oceans have been consistently warming for the last 40 years and continued to do so over the last decade.

Do you now agree that the oceans have been warming?

There has been warming over the last half of the 20th century. But there has been no warming over the last decade as ARGO has demonstrated.

Kevin Bonham
18-01-2013, 11:09 PM
Australia's 2013 heat wave isn't even that special. Doesn't even make the top 15 according to this.

Sydney's "heat wave" isn't that special because it isn't a prolonged "heat wave" as such, "just" an instance with the hottest recorded day ten days after another day in the top ten.

Patrick Byrom
18-01-2013, 11:13 PM
Australia's 2013 heat wave isn't even that special. Doesn't even make the top 15 according to this.

Unfortunately, this heatwave is Australia-wide, and not just confined to Sydney and Melbourne. The opinion of actual climatologists from the BOM is that the heatwave is exceptional (http://theconversation.edu.au/whats-causing-australias-heat-wave-11628).

Note that the records broken are for mean temperatures, as AGW increases both minimum and maximum temperatures (unlike solar warming):

The sequence of Australian mean temperature has been just as impressive. As things currently stand, the first two weeks of January 2013 now hold the records for the hottest Australian day on record, the hottest two-day period on record, the hottest three-day period, the hottest four-day period and, well, every sequential-days record stretching from one to 14 days for daily mean temperatures.

Rincewind
18-01-2013, 11:21 PM
But there has been no warming over the last decade as ARGO has demonstrated.

Sorry, already dealt with that one.

Damodevo
18-01-2013, 11:59 PM
Sydney's "heat wave" isn't that special because it isn't a prolonged "heat wave" as such, "just" an instance with the hottest recorded day ten days after another day in the top ten.

Good point, but how is it the 'hottest recorded day'? Did anywhere in the country exceed 50C? Because it has in the distant past.

Kevin Bonham
19-01-2013, 01:15 AM
Good point, but how is it the 'hottest recorded day'?

It is the hottest recorded day in Sydney, which is relevant both to the Akerman article and to your strange attempt to use evidence confined to Sydney to debunk claims about "Australia's 2013 heat wave".


Did anywhere in the country exceed 50C? Because it has in the distant past.

As it happens there have been just three recorded Australian cases of 50+ temperatures measured with reliable standard equipment. Two in Oodnadatta on consecutive days in 1960 and one at Mardie, WA, in 1998. 1998 is hardly the distant past. (There are also cases over 100 years old with non-standard equipment.)

I wouldn't take too much comfort from the highest temperature recorded this summer (so far) in Australia being a feeble 49.6.

Damodevo
19-01-2013, 03:03 AM
It is the hottest recorded day in Sydney, which is relevant both to the Akerman article and to your strange attempt to use evidence confined to Sydney to debunk claims about "Australia's 2013 heat wave".

Because Sydney is one data point used to prove "record Australian heat". So there is a very high likelihood that an 'Australian heat wave' would imply a heat wave in Sydney as we are experiencing now.



As it happens there have been just three recorded Australian cases of 50+ temperatures measured with reliable standard equipment. Two in Oodnadatta on consecutive days in 1960 and one at Mardie, WA, in 1998. 1998 is hardly the distant past. (There are also cases over 100 years old with non-standard equipment.)

I don't know what you're counting as 'reliable standard equipment' but it is all a moot point then since we don't know what the temperatures were like during the 1800's or early 1900's.

Though we can get some idea from Charles Sturt's (http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/charles-sturts-time-so-hot-that-thermometers-exploded-was-australias-hottest-day-in-1828-53-9c/) thermometer reaching 53.9C in the shade during the 1820's.


I wouldn't take too much comfort from the highest temperature recorded this summer (so far) in Australia being a feeble 49.6.

Right. It isn't record heat and it doesn't have implications for global climate trends.

Damodevo
19-01-2013, 03:07 AM
Unfortunately, this heatwave is Australia-wide, and not just confined to Sydney and Melbourne. The opinion of actual climatologists from the BOM is that the heatwave is exceptional (http://theconversation.edu.au/whats-causing-australias-heat-wave-11628).

Note that the records broken are for mean temperatures, as AGW increases both minimum and maximum temperatures (unlike solar warming):

The sequence of Australian mean temperature has been just as impressive. As things currently stand, the first two weeks of January 2013 now hold the records for the hottest Australian day on record, the hottest two-day period on record, the hottest three-day period, the hottest four-day period and, well, every sequential-days record stretching from one to 14 days for daily mean temperatures.

Someone forgot to tell William Kininmonth (http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/william-kininmonth-is-it-extreme-weather-or-climate-change/), former head of the National Climate Centre.


The recent heat wave across much of Central Australia and its occasional extension east and south is a pattern of extreme weather. Climate is the recurring patterns of weather that inure us to such extremes. The climate of Alice Springs is exemplified by 1887, the previously hottest January with an average maximum of 40.7oC. The extreme, nearly 5oC above the long term January average, was made possible by a spell of 11 days over 40oC, a brief respite then another 10 days over 40oC.

Climate change, of course, is a persisting significant departure from the experienced pattern of weather. The current pattern of extreme weather is not outside the envelope of experience that describes Central Australian climate.

Kevin Bonham
19-01-2013, 11:12 AM
Because Sydney is one data point used to prove "record Australian heat". So there is a very high likelihood that an 'Australian heat wave' would imply a heat wave in Sydney as we are experiencing now.

That doesn't follow because there are two different kinds of heat records both being observed around the same time. Firstly records for average temperature including prolonged average temperatures as mentioned by Patrick Byrom above. Second highest-recorded temperatures being recorded in certain cities, including both Hobart and Sydney, even though those centres themselves have not recorded prolonged heatwaves. Neither of these events are alone proof of climate change, merely consistent with it.


I don't know what you're counting as 'reliable standard equipment' but it is all a moot point then since we don't know what the temperatures were like during the 1800's or early 1900's.

The BoM counts the national standardisation of the Stevenson Screen in 1910 as the starting point for measuring extreme temperatures reliably across all stations.

As for the extreme temperatures recorded in the 19th century, it's possible they were genuinely higher than any recorded since. But when you have mobile explorers recording temperatures, as opposed to readings from established weather stations at certain fixed points, you're not comparing like with like anyway.


Someone forgot to tell William Kininmonth, former head of the National Climate Centre.

Kininmonth isn't disputing the national average record, just pointing out (correctly) that such records alone do not prove climate change.


Right. It isn't record heat and it doesn't have implications for global climate trends.

It is heat that has set a number of records of various kinds; that it has not broken all records at the same time over the entire continent is immaterial to that. Even if a given summer broke every heat record I would agree that would not prove anything about climate trends. I just found it amusing that immediately after Akerman/Kelly engaged in their silly game of talking about marginally hotter weather in Sydney 200+ years ago, the rug was snatched out from under them.

Damodevo
24-01-2013, 12:55 PM
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/co2-temp-rss.png?w=640&h=647

(Ok so the difference between the CO2 bars are exaggerated but you get the point)

Rincewind
24-01-2013, 01:26 PM
(Ok so the difference between the CO2 bars are exaggerated but you get the point)

The point being that by cherry picking your periods of analysis you can find any trend you want to? Or that you should really rely on someone with no climate or statistical training to comment on trend in the climate?

Ian Murray
24-01-2013, 03:40 PM
More tripe from the Mail on Sunday (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming--deniers-now.html?ito=feeds-newsxml), cherrypicking Met Office data. The actual Met Office decadal forecast can be found here (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc):

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/i/c/fcst_global_t4.png
Figure 1: Observed (black, from Hadley Centre, GISS and NCDC) and predicted global average annual surface temperature difference relative to 1971-2000. Retrospective predictions starting from June 1960, 1965, ..., 2005 are shown as white curves, with red shading representing their probable range, such that the observations are expected to lie within the shading 90% of the time. The most recent forecast (thick blue curve with thin blue curves showing range) starts from November 2012. All data are rolling annual mean values. The gap between the black and blue curves arises because the last observed value represents the period November 2011 to October 2012 whereas the first forecast period is November 2012 to October 2013.

Damodevo
25-01-2013, 01:38 PM
More tripe from the Mail on Sunday (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming--deniers-now.html?ito=feeds-newsxml), cherrypicking Met Office data. The actual Met Office decadal forecast can be found here (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc):

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/i/c/fcst_global_t4.png
Figure 1: Observed (black, from Hadley Centre, GISS and NCDC) and predicted global average annual surface temperature difference relative to 1971-2000. Retrospective predictions starting from June 1960, 1965, ..., 2005 are shown as white curves, with red shading representing their probable range, such that the observations are expected to lie within the shading 90% of the time. The most recent forecast (thick blue curve with thin blue curves showing range) starts from November 2012. All data are rolling annual mean values. The gap between the black and blue curves arises because the last observed value represents the period November 2011 to October 2012 whereas the first forecast period is November 2012 to October 2013.

But funny that they had to significantly revise down their 2012 decadal forecast. Why is it that these models always seem to over estimate the projected warming?

Capablanca-Fan
29-01-2013, 09:27 AM
Carbon pain unfair to small businesses (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/carbon-pain-registers-for-businesses/story-e6freuy9-1226453653623)
STEVE LEWIS and LISA CORNISH The Daily Telegraph November 29, 2012 2:34PM


Some businesses claimed the effect of the tax is so bad they may have to close some operations.

"We have to consider closing one business down to keep the other business open because of the carbon tax," said Doug Cush, the owner of Bellata Gold Pasta, in the northern NSW electorate of New England.

And in more bad news for Prime Minister Julia Gillard, backing for Labor among small businesses has plunged.

Only 7 per cent of those surveyed said they would vote Labor at the next election. Eighteen per cent voted for the ALP at the 2010 federal poll.

The Federal Opposition was quick to seize the survey results and say small businesses will be the main casualties of the tax.

"Small businesses are stuck between a rock and a hard place with the carbon tax," Coalition small business spokesman Bruce Billson told reporters in Canberra.

"They are the intended casualties of a carbon tax designed to hurt and harm the Australian economy."
If they have to lay off any workers, then lay off Layba/Green voters first to teach them a lesson!

Rincewind
29-01-2013, 09:59 AM
Some businesses claimed the effect of the tax is so bad they may have to close some operations.

What some businesses believe is not necessarily a fact. For example...

Businesses overestimate carbon tax costs (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-29/businesses-count-carbon-tax-costs/4488490) by Michael Janda


A survey has found many businesses believe the carbon tax has increased their costs by far more than it actually has.
...
"In the November survey, manufacturing businesses attributed close to 85 per cent of their total electricity cost increases over the past year to the carbon tax, whereas data from other sources suggest that, at least for many smaller businesses, the contribution of the carbon tax to total energy price rises was probably closer to one half," observed the Ai Group's chief executive Innes Willox.

The Ai Group says the recent 18 per cent price increase for electricity in New South Wales was roughly half due to the Federal Government's carbon pricing scheme and half due to rising network costs.

Ian Murray
29-01-2013, 02:59 PM
What some businesses believe is not necessarily a fact. For example...

Businesses overestimate carbon tax costs (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-29/businesses-count-carbon-tax-costs/4488490) by Michael Janda
Results of a study of nearly 500 firms by the Australian Industry Group, which is a bit more reputable than 'a national survey of 186 businesses by News Limited' Jono quotes. News Ltd is not noted for its balanced reporting.

pax
29-01-2013, 06:02 PM
(Ok so the difference between the CO2 bars are exaggerated but you get the point)

Looks to me that decade-on-decade, the 2000s are warmer than the 1990s are warmer than the 1980s (are warmer than the 1970s are warmer than the 1960s, but they aren't shown because, gee we wouldn't like to take a long term view now would we?)

pax
29-01-2013, 06:05 PM
Carbon pain unfair to small businesses (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/carbon-pain-registers-for-businesses/story-e6freuy9-1226453653623)
STEVE LEWIS and LISA CORNISH The Daily Telegraph November 29, 2012 2:34PM


Surprise, surprise, News Limited have managed to find someone to complain about the carbon tax and turn it into yet another anti-Labor story. What are the chances they will write a story about the fact that the vast majority of people have found the financial impact of the carbon tax to be negligible?

Damodevo
30-01-2013, 01:28 AM
Looks to me that decade-on-decade, the 2000s are warmer than the 1990s are warmer than the 1980s (are warmer than the 1970s are warmer than the 1960s, but they aren't shown because, gee we wouldn't like to take a long term view now would we?)

Let's do that then. In fact, let's do a very recent millennial comparison of, say, China
(http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/507/2013/cpd-9-507-2013.html)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aI9AAKUqLC4/UQLyahf4GzI/AAAAAAAAEtg/FbwJl_qA12c/s1600/Fullscreen%2Bcapture%2B1252013%2B125812%2BPM.jpg

Desmond
30-01-2013, 06:51 AM
Let's do that then. In fact, let's do a very recent millennial comparison of, say, China
(http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/507/2013/cpd-9-507-2013.html)Showing warming since late 1800s.

Damodevo
31-01-2013, 11:11 PM
Norway Data Shows Earth’s Global Warming Less Severe Than Feared

New (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-27/norway-data-shows-earth-s-global-warming-less-severe-than-feared.html) estimates from a Norwegian research project show meeting targets for minimizing global warming may be more achievable than previously thought.

After the planet’s average surface temperature rose through the 1990s, the increase has almost leveled off at the level of 2000, while ocean water temperature has also stabilized, the Research Council of Norway said in a statement on its website. After applying data from the past decade, the results showed temperatures may rise 1.9 degrees Celsius if Co2 levels double by 2050, below the 3 degrees predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s,” said Terje Berntsen, a professor at the University of Oslo who worked on the study. “This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.”

The findings also show the effect of reduced airborne particulates from burning coal, which may decrease the cloud cover that cools the earth, probably has less of an impact on climate through indirect cooling than originally projected.

Ian Murray
01-02-2013, 08:21 AM
New (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-27/norway-data-shows-earth-s-global-warming-less-severe-than-feared.html) estimates from a Norwegian research project show meeting targets for minimizing global warming may be more achievable than previously thought.

After the planet’s average surface temperature rose through the 1990s, the increase has almost leveled off at the level of 2000, while ocean water temperature has also stabilized, the Research Council of Norway said in a statement on its website. After applying data from the past decade, the results showed temperatures may rise 1.9 degrees Celsius if Co2 levels double by 2050, below the 3 degrees predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s,” said Terje Berntsen, a professor at the University of Oslo who worked on the study. “This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.”
Good news if borne out by peer review after publication. However -

Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project’s findings (http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Newsarticle/Global_warming_less_extreme_than_feared/1253983344535/p1177315753918?WT.ac=forside_nyhet) must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought.

Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years.

Desmond
03-02-2013, 08:46 AM
But funny that they had to significantly revise down their 2012 decadal forecast. Why is it that these models always seem to over estimate the projected warming?

Climate Scientists Erring on the Side of Least Drama (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-esld.html)

A paper recently published in Global Environmental Change by Brysse et al. (2012) examined a number of past predictions made by climate scientists, and found that that they have tended to be too conservative in their projections of the impacts of climate change. The authors thus suggest that climate scientists are biased toward overly cautious estimates, erring on the side of less rather than more alarming predictions, which they call "erring on the side of least drama" (ESLD).
...

Ian Murray
08-02-2013, 07:08 AM
Renewables now cheaper than coal and gas in Australia (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/renewables-now-cheaper-than-coal-and-gas-in-australia-62268)
reNew Economy
7.2.13


A new analysis from research firm Bloomberg New Energy Finance has concluded that electricity from unsubsidised renewable energy is already cheaper than electricity from new-build coal and gas-fired power stations in Australia.

The modeling from the BNEF team in Sydney found that new wind farms could supply electricity at a cost of $80/MWh –compared with $143/MWh for new build coal, and $116/MWh for new build gas-fired generation.

These figures include the cost of carbon emissions, but BNEF said even without a carbon price, wind energy remained 14 per cent cheaper than new coal and 18 per cent cheaper than new gas.

“The perception that fossil fuels are cheap and renewables are expensive is now out of date”, said Michael Liebreich, chief executive of Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

“The fact that wind power is now cheaper than coal and gas in a country with some of the world’s best fossil fuel resources shows that clean energy is a game changer which promises to turn the economics of power systems on its head,” he said.

But before people, such as the conservative parties, reach for the smelling salts and wonder why renewables need support mechanisms such as the renewable energy target, BNEF said this was because new build renewables had to compete with existing plant, and the large-scale RET was essential to enable the construction of new wind and solar farms.

The study also found that Australia’s largest banks and found that lenders are unlikely to finance new coal without a substantial risk premium due to the reputational damage of emissions-intensive investments – if they are to finance coal at all.

It also said new gas-fired generation is expensive as the massive expansion of Australia’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) export market forces local prices upwards. The carbon price adds further costs to new coal- and gas-fired plant and is forecast to increase substantially over the lifetime of a new facility....

Damodevo
08-02-2013, 10:33 PM
Climate Scientists Erring on the Side of Least Drama (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-esld.html)

A paper recently published in Global Environmental Change by Brysse et al. (2012) examined a number of past predictions made by climate scientists, and found that that they have tended to be too conservative in their projections of the impacts of climate change. The authors thus suggest that climate scientists are biased toward overly cautious estimates, erring on the side of less rather than more alarming predictions, which they call "erring on the side of least drama" (ESLD).
...

New paper finds climate models exaggerate global warming compared to historical data


A paper (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/new-paper-finds-climate-models.html) published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres admits that state-of-the-art climate models exaggerate alleged warming from greenhouse gases, finding the models "overestimate the observed temperature change" in comparison to historical data since 1850. The authors also find the various models have a "large spread" or widely divergent temperature projections. The paper adds to hundreds of other peer-reviewed papers demonstrating the abject failure of climate models

Damodevo
09-02-2013, 12:43 AM
Renewables now cheaper than coal and gas in Australia (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/renewables-now-cheaper-than-coal-and-gas-in-australia-62268)
reNew Economy
7.2.13


A new analysis from research firm Bloomberg New Energy Finance has concluded that electricity from unsubsidised renewable energy is already cheaper than electricity from new-build coal and gas-fired power stations in Australia.

The modeling from the BNEF team in Sydney found that new wind farms could supply electricity at a cost of $80/MWh –compared with $143/MWh for new build coal, and $116/MWh for new build gas-fired generation.

These figures include the cost of carbon emissions, but BNEF said even without a carbon price, wind energy remained 14 per cent cheaper than new coal and 18 per cent cheaper than new gas.

“The perception that fossil fuels are cheap and renewables are expensive is now out of date”, said Michael Liebreich, chief executive of Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

“The fact that wind power is now cheaper than coal and gas in a country with some of the world’s best fossil fuel resources shows that clean energy is a game changer which promises to turn the economics of power systems on its head,” he said.

But before people, such as the conservative parties, reach for the smelling salts and wonder why renewables need support mechanisms such as the renewable energy target, BNEF said this was because new build renewables had to compete with existing plant, and the large-scale RET was essential to enable the construction of new wind and solar farms.

The study also found that Australia’s largest banks and found that lenders are unlikely to finance new coal without a substantial risk premium due to the reputational damage of emissions-intensive investments – if they are to finance coal at all.

It also said new gas-fired generation is expensive as the massive expansion of Australia’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) export market forces local prices upwards. The carbon price adds further costs to new coal- and gas-fired plant and is forecast to increase substantially over the lifetime of a new facility....

Bloomberg New Energy Finance? Who'd thought that a consultant group for renewable energy would produce a report in favour of renewable energies? The $80/MWh and the figures for Coal and NG seem like utter bullshit to me. I haven't seen the actual report but this is probably referring to wind capacity which assumes the wind blows all the time which of course it doesn't. E.g. a 90% capacity ranges from a pathetic 3% to 6% (http://aefweb.info/data/Wind%20farming%20in%20SE%20Australia.pdf). As Lomborg points out
(http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/gone-with-the-wind)

Making up for a 5% shortfall in supply is manageable, but the situation will change dramatically as the UK increases its reliance on wind power to reach the 31% target by 2020. Wind power becomes much more expensive when we factor in the large supplies of power that must be created for backup whenever the wind dies down.

The cheapest backup power by far is provided by open-cycle gas plants, which imply more CO2 emissions. Thus, wind power will ultimately be both costlier and reduce emissions less than officially estimated. (This is also why simple calculations based on costs per kWh are often grossly misleading, helping to make wind and other intermittent renewables appear to be cheaper than they are.)

This has been shown in recent reports by KPMG/Mercados and Civitas, an independent think tank. A new report by University of Edinburgh professor Gordon Hughes for the Global Warming Policy Foundation estimates that 36 GW of new wind power would cost £120 billion for just 23 megatons of CO2 reduction per year. In other words, temperature rises would be postponed by a mere 66 hours by the end of the century.

Other estimates (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/energy-black-hole-we-cannot-afford/story-e6frgd0x-1226513296455) of wind energy


The Productivity Commission estimates abatement costs to be $473 to $1043 a carbon tonne for solar technologies and $60 a carbon tonne for wind. The Electric Power Research Institute estimates that wind-powered electricity costs $150 to $214 a megawatt hour and solar photovoltaic systems cost $400 to $473/MWh compared with coal-fired electricity, which costs just $78 to $91/MWh.

The BREE AETA (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/canberra-concedes-wind-solar-to-be-cheapest-energy-by-2030-82930) from last year puts it at


The AETA report sees the average cost of onshore wind at $116/MW (although some are being built now in Australia for around $80/MW), and while it sees this falling to the low $90s/MW by 2025, it then predicts a gradual rise in costs, which may be disputed by the industry. It says offshore wind would cost around $194/MW now, and be virtually unchanged out to 2050.

Capablanca-Fan
09-02-2013, 03:24 AM
Of course, if renewables really were more economical, then the market would move towards them. There should be no need for government to pick winners and losers (which are mostly losers, like bankrupt Solyndra run by Obamov cronies (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/09/corrupt-media-continues-to-cover-up-obamas-solyndra-disaster/) and bald-eagle–killing wind farms (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300546/bald-eagles-fall-green-energy-deroy-murdock)).

Also, fossil fuel power generation is much cleaner and more efficient than ever now. Natural gas or coal gas can power combined cycle power generators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle) with about 60% efficiency (first a Brayton Cycle turbine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brayton_cycle), then the waste heat powers a Rankine Cycle steam engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_cycle)).

Desmond
09-02-2013, 06:38 AM
New paper finds climate models exaggerate global warming compared to historical data

I was curious to read the quote in context and when I did I notice that the line quote does actually not appear in the paper as seen here (http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mzelinka/Forster_etal_subm.pdf).

What does appear in the abstract is they are talking about forcing of Representative Concentration Pathway, and it being underestimated.

Look at figure 7 and tell me again how "these models always seem to over estimate the projected warming". :eh:

Igor_Goldenberg
10-02-2013, 08:14 PM
Looks to me that decade-on-decade, the 2000s are warmer than the 1990s are warmer than the 1980s (are warmer than the 1970s are warmer than the 1960s, but they aren't shown because, gee we wouldn't like to take a long term view now would we?)
Pax,
Your average height during your twenties is higher then during your tens, and your average height during your tens is greater then during your first decade of life. Yet you stopped growing, I presume, in your late teens.
By itself this observation does not say if the average temperature is still increasing.
As I shown earlier in this thread, two questions have to be answered:
1. Is there a statistically significant trend change around 1995-1997?
2. Is this trend significantly different from zero?

I don't know the answer to question 1. From what I read the answer to question 2 seems to be no (the trend between 1995 or 1997 to 2012 is not significantly different from zero).

Patrick Byrom
10-02-2013, 10:20 PM
If you look at the human contribution to global warming, then the answers (http://www.skepticalscience.com/16_years_faq.html) are:
1.No
2.Yes.

Capablanca-Fan
11-02-2013, 07:54 AM
If you look at the human contribution to global warming, then the answers (http://www.skepticalscience.com/16_years_faq.html) are:
1.No
2.Yes.
3. Is it a proven hazard even if the world were a little warmer?
No.
4. Even if it were dangerous, is massive taxation and government control a better solution than the market?
No.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-02-2013, 08:24 AM
If you look at the human contribution to global warming, then the answers (http://www.skepticalscience.com/16_years_faq.html) are:
1.No
2.Yes.
And what is the answer if you look just at the temperature?

Capablanca-Fan
11-02-2013, 02:24 PM
10 killer questions for climate extremists
Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

1. CO2 concentration has risen by 10% in the past 23 years, but the RSS satellite global lower-troposphere temperature-anomaly record shows warming over that period that is statistically indistinguishable from zero. How come?

2. Aristotle, 2350 years ago, demonstrated that to argue from “consensus” is a logical fallacy—the headcount fallacy. Some 95% of all published arguments for alarm about our influence on the climate say we must believe the “consensus”. Why was Aristotle wrong?

3. Aristotle, 2350 years ago, demonstrated that to argue that the “consensus” is a “consensus” of experts is a logical fallacy—the fallacy of appeal to authority. What has changed since 2350 years ago to make argument from appeal to authority acceptable rather than fallacious?

4. There has been 0.6 Celsius global warming since 1950. There are 5–7 times more polar bears today than there were in 1950. In what meaningful sense, then, are polar bears a species at imminent threat of extinction caused by global warming?

5. A recent paper shows that a naturally-occurring reduction in cloud cover has had four and a half times more warming effect than man-made increases in CO2 concentrations. Why are you so certain that the recently-published paper is wrong?

6. In the past 247 years—almost a quarter of a millennium—the trend in rainfall over England and Wales shows an increase of just 2 inches/year, or 5%. Why do you regard so insignificant an increase over so long a period as being beyond the natural variability of the climate?

7. Australia’s carbon tax, a typical measure intended to make global warming go away, will cost $150 billion over ten years. In that time, the tax is intended to abate 5% of Australia’s CO2 emissions, which represent 1.2% of global emissions. Do you agree, therefore, that at a cost of $150 billion the Australian scheme, if it succeeds, will abate just 0.06% of global CO2 emissions over ten years, at a cost of $150 billion?

8. The IPCC’s own climate-sensitivity equations show that abating 0.06% of global carbon emissions would reduce CO2 concentration from a predicted business-as-usual 410 microatmospheres to 409.988 microatmospheres, and that this would reduce global mean surface temperature by just 0.0006 Celsius degrees—if the carbon tax succeeded every bit as fully as its framers had intended. Do you consider that spending $150 billion to cut surface temperature by 0.00006 Celsius degrees is a sensible, proportionate, cost-effective use of other people’s money?

9. If Australia’s carbon tax were adopted worldwide, and if it worked every bit as well as its inventors had intended, it would cost $317 trillion to abate the one-sixth of a Celsius degree of warming that is predicted for the current decade. That is $45,000 per head of the global population over the period, or 59% of global GDP? Compared with the 1.23%-of-GDP cost of paying to abate the damage from 1/6 C of warming the day after tomorrow, is it worth spending 59% of GDP today?

10. In 2005 the UN said there would be 50 million climate refugees because of rising sea levels and other effects of global warming by 2010. Where are they?

Rincewind
11-02-2013, 03:25 PM
2. Aristotle, 2350 years ago, demonstrated that to argue from “consensus” is a logical fallacy—the headcount fallacy. Some 95% of all published arguments for alarm about our influence on the climate say we must believe the “consensus”. Why was Aristotle wrong?

3. Aristotle, 2350 years ago, demonstrated that to argue that the “consensus” is a “consensus” of experts is a logical fallacy—the fallacy of appeal to authority. What has changed since 2350 years ago to make argument from appeal to authority acceptable rather than fallacious?

Regarding these two philosophical points Monckton is so wide of the mark that he has missed the side of the barn and hit himself squarely in the foot.

Regarding 2, the appeal to population is a fallacious deductive argument but can be a reliable form of inductive argument. In the case where the consensus is that of subject-domain experts (as is the case with man-made warming) then not only is it a good form of inductive reasoning but there is a persuasive argument that it is the best form of inductive reasoning that is available. Since science is necessarily contingent - deductively proving a phenomenon such as man-made warming will never be available.

As for 3, Monckton is really having a go at the same thing. I guess he only had 9 questions but wanted to pad things out to make it a round number. In any case it is widely accepted that appeal to authority is a very good form of inductive reasoning (see above) when the authority is legitimate and there is expert consensus. Again in the case of man-made warming both of these apply and therefore inductively there is good reason to accept it.

Rank appeals to authority are inductively fallacious when the authority is not a subject matter expert (for example someone trained as a physical chemist who pontificates on life sciences, cosmology and biblical interpretation) or in cases when there is no consensus among experts.

I'm a little surprised that someone are high profile as Monckton would release a public statement which demonstrate such basic misunderstanding of logic. I'm less surprised that Jono replicated it here.

Patrick Byrom
11-02-2013, 06:33 PM
10 killer questions for climate extremists
Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

2. Aristotle, 2350 years ago, demonstrated that to argue from “consensus” is a logical fallacy—the headcount fallacy. Some 95% of all published arguments for alarm about our influence on the climate say we must believe the “consensus”. Why was Aristotle wrong?

3. Aristotle, 2350 years ago, demonstrated that to argue that the “consensus” is a “consensus” of experts is a logical fallacy—the fallacy of appeal to authority. What has changed since 2350 years ago to make argument from appeal to authority acceptable rather than fallacious?


Rincewind has already demonstrated that these questions are philospohically meaningless. But there is also a serious practical problem with them: If we can't rely on the 'consensus of experts' when making our decisions, what can we rely on? In practice, of course, everyone (even Monckton) relies on expert consensus on a daily basis.

Desmond
11-02-2013, 06:40 PM
And what is the answer if you look just at the temperature?
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/34679149.jpg

Patrick Byrom
11-02-2013, 07:16 PM
10 killer questions for climate extremists
Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

7. Australia’s carbon tax, a typical measure intended to make global warming go away, will cost $150 billion over ten years. In that time, the tax is intended to abate 5% of Australia’s CO2 emissions, which represent 1.2% of global emissions. Do you agree, therefore, that at a cost of $150 billion the Australian scheme, if it succeeds, will abate just 0.06% of global CO2 emissions over ten years, at a cost of $150 billion?

8. The IPCC’s own climate-sensitivity equations show that abating 0.06% of global carbon emissions would reduce CO2 concentration from a predicted business-as-usual 410 microatmospheres to 409.988 microatmospheres, and that this would reduce global mean surface temperature by just 0.0006 Celsius degrees—if the carbon tax succeeded every bit as fully as its framers had intended. Do you consider that spending $150 billion to cut surface temperature by 0.00006 Celsius degrees is a sensible, proportionate, cost-effective use of other people’s money?

9. If Australia’s carbon tax were adopted worldwide, and if it worked every bit as well as its inventors had intended, it would cost $317 trillion to abate the one-sixth of a Celsius degree of warming that is predicted for the current decade. That is $45,000 per head of the global population over the period, or 59% of global GDP? Compared with the 1.23%-of-GDP cost of paying to abate the damage from 1/6 C of warming the day after tomorrow, is it worth spending 59% of GDP today?


According to actual economists (http://johnquiggin.com/2012/07/04/quiggin-and-bolt-agree/), the reduction in global temperature is about 0.004 Celsius as a result of Australia's action. And the cost Monckton quoted of $15 billion per year seems ridiculous - as the tax has been in place for almost eight months, according to Monckton it has already cost us over $10 billion.

Patrick Byrom
11-02-2013, 07:22 PM
And what is the answer if you look just at the temperature?
If we're trying to determine if there has been a 'pause' in global warming, we need to look at the human contribution. The other factors (such as the El Nina/El Nino cycle and volcanic eruptions) will have no effect over the long term.
And this is only looking at surface temperatures - ocean warming is much more important.

Damodevo
11-02-2013, 10:33 PM
According to actual economists (http://johnquiggin.com/2012/07/04/quiggin-and-bolt-agree/), the reduction in global temperature is about 0.004 Celsius as a result of Australia's action. And the cost Monckton quoted of $15 billion per year seems ridiculous - as the tax has been in place for almost eight months, according to Monckton it has already cost us over $10 billion.

Assuming you're referring to a 2100 end date that 0.004 Celsius is not Quiggin's figure but Professor Roger Jones (http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/the-question-is-what-earthly-difference-can-we-make-20110903-1jrom.html) (of the IPCC).


Victoria University climate scientist Professor Roger Jones has calculated that if the rest of the world did not act and Australia reduced emissions until 2020, then did nothing else, Australia's policy would knock 0.0038 degrees off the global temperature rise by 2100.


Quiggin gives 0.02 Celsius but has to make a bunch of dubious assumptions (http://johnhumphreys.com.au/2012/07/03/australias-carbon-tax-and-global-temperatures/) to get it through.

Damodevo
11-02-2013, 10:51 PM
Carbon tax starting to hit jobs


ANU Professor Warwick McKibbin says industries most impacted by the carbon tax are starting to see job losses.

http://video.theaustralian.com.au/2333611851/Carbon-tax-starting-to-hit-jobs

Damodevo
11-02-2013, 11:28 PM
Flannery and Garnaut: no carbon tax

In their own ways (http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/03/29/flannery-and-garnaut-no-carbon-tax/), both Tim Flannery and Ross Garnaut have issued a stern warning to the Government to not proceed with a carbon tax. Flannery said

if we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years

While Garnaut in his recent review update paper Global Emissions Trends was erudite in his denunciation of a carbon tax. He has kindly provided us with a table (page 40) on projected average annual growth in carbon dioxide emissions to 2030. If you take Garnaut’s projections and combine it with the current emissions by country (table 1 in the International Energy Agency’s CO2 Emissions from fuel Combustion, 2010, we find that:

Australia’s emissions (on a business as usual basis) fall from around 1.3 per cent of global emissions to 0.7 per cent of global emissions in 2030 and to 0.4 per cent of global emissions in 2050.
China’s emissions (on a business as usual basis) increase from 22.8 per cent of global emissions to 37 per cent of global emissions in 2030 and to 58.6 per cent of global emissions in 2050.
Global CO2 emissions in 2030 are projected to be 57512 Mt, of which Australia would contribute 415 Mt.

So the economic and environmental case against Australia imposing a carbon tax before taking it to the people at a Federal election is compelling.

That is, whether at a modest level or a prohibitive extreme green level, a carbon tax in Australia will make no significant difference to global emissions and hence no significant difference to global temperatures.

And the current ”agreement” with China and other developing countries that allow them to continue to increase their emissions massively, will not assist in reducing the pressure from global emissions.

That leaves only one possible argument for a carbon tax: that by unilaterally imposing a tax on itself, Australia would persuade other countries to do the same. Well, as can be seen, that is not the case. Unless China (India …) make dramatic absolute cuts in their emissions – which they can’t, won’t and shouldn’t – Australia’s persuasive powers will fall on deaf ears.

Patrick Byrom
12-02-2013, 12:36 AM
So the economic and environmental case against Australia imposing a carbon tax before taking it to the people at a Federal election is compelling.

That is, whether at a modest level or a prohibitive extreme green level, a carbon tax in Australia will make no significant difference to global emissions and hence no significant difference to global temperatures.

And the current ”agreement” with China and other developing countries that allow them to continue to increase their emissions massively, will not assist in reducing the pressure from global emissions.

What is the environmental argument against a carbon tax supposed to be? At best, this claims that the carbon tax will have little effect, which is not an environmental argument against it.

No country can make a significant difference to global temperatures by themselves, of course, so if every country adopted the above argument then no country would do anything - they would just wait for someone else.

Mephistopheles
12-02-2013, 05:50 AM
10 killer questions for climate extremists
Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
And known climate extremist.



4. There has been 0.6 Celsius global warming since 1950. There are 5–7 times more polar bears today than there were in 1950. In what meaningful sense, then, are polar bears a species at imminent threat of extinction caused by global warming?
Actually, the numbers for the 1950s are no more than guesses (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x181791). If climate change does cause significant habitat loss then polar bears will be in more danger than they currently are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Climate_change).

Monckton frequently contradicts his cited sources (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Examples-Monckton-contradicting-scientific-sources.html) and has been shown up as a serial offender (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jun/03/monckton-us-climate-change-talk-denial).

It takes more than a bulldust claim to being a member of the House of Lords and a posh accent to convince this little, black duck.

Ian Murray
12-02-2013, 07:36 AM
And known climate extremist.
And not just climate. Monckton was on TV last night throwing his support behind fellow-weirdo Danny Nalliah (of Catch the Fire fame) and his new Rise up Australia Party (http://anonymouslefty.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/rise-up-australian-stomachs/). He's a proxy Australian xenophobe as well as a Pommy git.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-02-2013, 10:27 AM
If we're trying to determine if there has been a 'pause' in global warming, we need to look at the human contribution. The other factors (such as the El Nina/El Nino cycle and volcanic eruptions) will have no effect over the long term.
And this is only looking at surface temperatures - ocean warming is much more important.
You assume that you know what contribution other factors make.
You also assume that they have temporary effect that will ebb away. However, climate has been changing all the time, even well before humans increased the production of CO2.
When you do a statistical analysis with the aim of finding contributing factors, analysing separate parts is important.
However analysis of aggregateegate has much better predictive power. While looking at human contribution might be an interesting and worthwhile exercise, it tells little about future trends. Hence, it has little predictive power (but might have great PR/spin power).
We should only be interested in human contribution if the planet is warming dangerously - which might be, but yet to be supported by evidences, let alone proven.
And if planet is indeed warming dangerously, then we can look at human contribution. After that we can try to work out what affect any reduction in CO2 might make. For example, there are conflicting report about effect of our carbon tax. They all fall in a very wide range between 0.000001C and 0.001C. After we establish the cost and the possible effect, we can decide whether we should proceed.
We already did, but it only shows ineptitude of our politicians.

And why ocean temperature is much more important than surface temperature? It is another variable that contributes to the surface temperature (the one we are interested in), but it would be captured in the trend if it had an effect.

Patrick Byrom
12-02-2013, 04:57 PM
You assume that you know what contribution other factors make.
You also assume that they have temporary effect that will ebb away. However, climate has been changing all the time, even well before humans increased the production of CO2.
When you do a statistical analysis with the aim of finding contributing factors, analysing separate parts is important.
However analysis of aggregateegate has much better predictive power. While looking at human contribution might be an interesting and worthwhile exercise, it tells little about future trends. Hence, it has little predictive power (but might have great PR/spin power).
We should only be interested in human contribution if the planet is warming dangerously - which might be, but yet to be supported by evidences, let alone proven.
And if planet is indeed warming dangerously, then we can look at human contribution. After that we can try to work out what affect any reduction in CO2 might make. For example, there are conflicting report about effect of our carbon tax. They all fall in a very wide range between 0.000001C and 0.001C. After we establish the cost and the possible effect, we can decide whether we should proceed.
We already did, but it only shows ineptitude of our politicians.

And why ocean temperature is much more important than surface temperature? It is another variable that contributes to the surface temperature (the one we are interested in), but it would be captured in the trend if it had an effect.
I think you're missing my point, Igor. Over the period we are interested in - the next few centuries - non-human effects are not significant. Volcanoes have only a short-term effect on the global temperature, as the dust they produce does not remain in the atmosphere for more than a few years. And the El Nino/La Nina cycle does not affect the long-term trend. Solar irradiance does have a long-term effect, but it is only significant over thousands of years. So what remains (the human contribution) is the most important for the near future.

The other contributions were not assumed - they were measured (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf). And ocean warming is more important (http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-lesson-for-monckton-and-co.html), as most of the heat content is in the oceans.

Desmond
12-02-2013, 07:07 PM
And why ocean temperature is much more important .For those who came in late...

N49wTL8NK0g

Ian Murray
12-02-2013, 09:18 PM
For those who came in late...
Uniquely, water contracts when cooled down to 4 degC. It then expands as it cools to O degC then freezes. Which is fortunate for life on the planet ...

Damodevo
12-02-2013, 10:24 PM
And known climate extremist.


Actually, the numbers for the 1950s are no more than guesses (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x181791). If climate change does cause significant habitat loss then polar bears will be in more danger than they currently are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Climate_change).

Monckton frequently contradicts his cited sources (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Examples-Monckton-contradicting-scientific-sources.html) and has been shown up as a serial offender (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jun/03/monckton-us-climate-change-talk-denial).

It takes more than a bulldust claim to being a member of the House of Lords and a posh accent to convince this little, black duck.

No need to worry about the PBs. As it turns out its just another scare and more BS (http://seeingthesword.com/2013/02/05/there-is-no-doom-and-gloom/) (who would have thought that?!) - as this author (an AGW believer) found out


So when I got up there, I started realizing polar bears were not in as bad a shape as the conventional wisdom had led me to believe, which was actually very heartening, but didn’t fit well with the book I’d been planning to write.

Well, here’s a fact that kind of blew me away when I first realized it. There are far more polar bears alive today than there were 40 years ago. There are about 25,000 polar bears alive today worldwide. In 1973, there was a global hunting ban. So once hunting was dramatically reduced, the population exploded. This is not to say that global warming is not real or is not a problem for the polar bears. But polar bear populations are large, and the truth is that we can’t look at it as a monolithic population that is all going one way or another.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-02-2013, 10:29 PM
I think you're missing my point, Igor. Over the period we are interested in - the next few centuries - non-human effects are not significant. Volcanoes have only a short-term effect on the global temperature, as the dust they produce does not remain in the atmosphere for more than a few years. And the El Nino/La Nina cycle does not affect the long-term trend. Solar irradiance does have a long-term effect, but it is only significant over thousands of years. So what remains (the human contribution) is the most important for the near future.

The other contributions were not assumed - they were measured (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf). And ocean warming is more important (http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-lesson-for-monckton-and-co.html), as most of the heat content is in the oceans.
Again, you assume that every contributing factor was accuraetly measured.
In reality the uncertainty level for every contributing factor is much greater. On top of that you have greater error of measurement and greater process uncertainty (because scientist still don't quite understand those factor and their impact, despite claims to the contrary).

That's why I am very sceptical of the those attempts to measure human contribution alone (in degrees Celsius, at least)

Damodevo
12-02-2013, 11:17 PM
And ocean warming is more important (http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-lesson-for-monckton-and-co.html), as most of the heat content is in the oceans.

Where is the heat?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSRE_SST_2002_thru_July_7_2011.gif

Or for OHC up to 700m

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/argo-ocean-heat.gif

Patrick Byrom
13-02-2013, 12:17 AM
Damodevo, why does Tisdale's plot only start in 2003 (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/favorite-denier-tricks-or-how-to-hide-the-incline/)?

Damodevo
13-02-2013, 01:16 AM
Damodevo, why does Tisdale's plot only start in 2003 (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/favorite-denier-tricks-or-how-to-hide-the-incline/)?

Its not Tisdale's plot. Its the ARGO data.

Where is the missing heat? At 700 - 2000m?

Rincewind
13-02-2013, 08:49 AM
Its not Tisdale's plot. Its the ARGO data.

You can find the figure here (http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/the-travesty-of-the-missing-heat-deep-ocean-or-outer-space/).

The unreliability of ARGO data during the deployment phase has previously been outlined to Damodevo but he seems to be carrying on regardless.


Where is the missing heat? At 700 - 2000m?

Quite possible and possibly even deeper than that as mean ocean depth is something like 4km. See for example Kouketsu, S., et al. (2011), Deep ocean heat content changes estimated from observation and reanalysis product and their influence on sea level change, J. Geophys. Res., 116, C03012 which find non-negligible warming in the oceans below 3km depth.

Damodevo
14-02-2013, 03:06 AM
You can find the figure here (http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/the-travesty-of-the-missing-heat-deep-ocean-or-outer-space/).

The unreliability of ARGO data during the deployment phase has previously been outlined to Damodevo but he seems to be carrying on regardless.

ARGO is the most reliable information out there. Just because is contradicts your presupposition - and the fact that the *huge* amount of missing heat can't be accounted for - doesn't make it wrong.

Even the warmist paper Lyman 2010 (using the old XBT) finds the temp flattening since 2003 - consistent with ARGO.




Quite possible and possibly even deeper than that as mean ocean depth is something like 4km. See for example Kouketsu, S., et al. (2011), Deep ocean heat content changes estimated from observation and reanalysis product and their influence on sea level change, J. Geophys. Res., 116, C03012 which find non-negligible warming in the oceans below 3km depth.

So the heat leap frogs the first 700m? How preposterous. Churning takes centuries. So what other mechanism could you possibly appeal to?

Patrick Byrom
14-02-2013, 01:23 PM
Its not Tisdale's plot. Its the ARGO data.
The starting point of 2003 was chosen by Tisdale. If it's true (as Tisdale claims) that "prior data prior [sic] has huge uncertainities", then it should be shown with appropriate error bars, not removed altogether.
The data before 2003 shows a huge amount of ocean warming (see here (http://www.skepticalscience.com/modeled-and-observed-ohc-is-there-a-discrepancy.html), for example).

Rincewind
14-02-2013, 02:16 PM
ARGO is the most reliable information out there. Just because is contradicts your presupposition - and the fact that the *huge* amount of missing heat can't be accounted for - doesn't make it wrong.

The point is ARGO only looks at part of the ocean and not the whole ocean. So while it might be a very reliable measure - it is a reliable measure of a small part of the picture.


Even the warmist paper Lyman 2010 (using the old XBT) finds the temp flattening since 2003 - consistent with ARGO.

Yes and correct me if I am mistaken by Lyman et al 2010 was also an upper ocean study.


So the heat leap frogs the first 700m? How preposterous. Churning takes centuries. So what other mechanism could you possibly appeal to?

The question of where the heat is going cannot be answered by only concentrating on the 0-700m region. If heat is being stored further down the total thermal energy in the ocean could be increasing much more than a naive analysis of the 0-700m region would lead you to believe.

I mean this is obvious statement but if the thermal flux at the depth=0 boundary is approximately equal to the flux across the 700m boundary then the thermal content of the 0-700m region would be in steady state but the lower ocean would be warming. There is no need for heat to leapfrog anywhere. The thermal energy ending up below 700m is not necessarily the recently arrived solar radiation. To think there much be some process to leap frog underlines a basic misunderstanding of the problem.

As a final comment it would be pointed out that to focus in on the upper ocean which accounts for something like 20% of the total ocean volume (and hence 20% of the total thermal capacity) is fraught with danger. Especially when other indicators such as satellite measures of reflected heat and ocean level rises are not consistent with that picture.

pax
15-02-2013, 02:36 PM
Where is the heat?

Why are you looking for long term (multi decade) trends in an 8 year long graph?

Desmond
15-02-2013, 04:05 PM
Why are you looking for long term (multi decade) trends in an 8 year long graph?
It's easier looking for down steps in the up escalator.

Damodevo
15-02-2013, 11:32 PM
I mean this is obvious statement but if the thermal flux at the depth=0 boundary is approximately equal to the flux across the 700m boundary then the thermal content of the 0-700m region would be in steady state but the lower ocean would be warming. There is no need for heat to leapfrog anywhere. The thermal energy ending up below 700m is not necessarily the recently arrived solar radiation. To think there much be some process to leap frog underlines a basic misunderstanding of the problem.

The ocean-air boundary, which you call 'dept=0' produces an evaporated cooling effect because the water is warmer (due to solar influence) than the atmosphere. So the LWIR from CO2 influence can't penetrate beyond a few millimeters let alone beyond 700m. Stephen Wilde (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4245) of the Royal Meteorological Society.


I am told that this is a good summary of the situation so far:

"Suppose one gets a vastly increased infra red input from above to the ocean surface.

If that infra red energy input is high enough the few microns involved in evaporation could reach boiling point but there would still be a layer below that is cooler than the ocean bulk because the speed of evaporation just ramps up and takes the vastly increased latent heat of evaporation it needs from the layer below the evaporating layer. The temperature discontinuity between the cool layer and the ocean bulk will intensify and go deeper because there is an increased gap between the energy sucked into the air and the energy coming up from below.

Fourier's Law will be of no consequence in the face of such an energy hungry process. The energy flow will never go downwards however hot the evaporative region gets because of the energy needs of the faster and faster evaporative process.

You need to see that evaporation needs more than the infra red energy available in the evaporating layer because of the net cooling effect. There is not enough energy in the evaporating layer even with the extra IR to effect the evaporative process. That is why the cooler layer occurs at all. The evaporative process is taking the energy it needs from where it is most readily available. There is not enough in the evaporative layer so it is taken from below.

That is the physical mechanism. It renders Fourier's Law irrelevant in the locality of ongoing evaporation.

One has to see that the infra red coming down is all used up in provoking the extra evaporation leaving a deficit that has to be supplied from elsewhere and that elsewhere is the ocean skin. The simple existence of a cooler ocean skin below the evaporative layer is the proof of it.

This principle applies to ALL downward IR and not just any extra bit supplied by human activity. Downwelling IR always accelerates energy flow from water to air. It can never slow it down despite Fourier's Law.

I think that's as far as I can go. If one still doesn't get it then there is nothing more I can say save to point out that if one thinks there is enough energy from the downwelling infra red to provide all or more than the energy needed by evaporation then one is denying all the text books that clearly describe evaporation as a net cooling effect. One's description would be of a neutral or net warming effect."

Damodevo
15-02-2013, 11:33 PM
Why are you looking for long term (multi decade) trends in an 8 year long graph?

Who's looking for long term trends? The missing heat at least for the ocean is readily apparent from 2003 for OHC.

Rincewind
16-02-2013, 08:58 AM
Stephen Wilde (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4245) of the Royal Meteorological Society.

Stephen Wilde is wrong. What drives the diffusion of thermal energy is a temperature gradient. If the ocean is cooler that the air then there will be diffusion of heat across the boundary if the deep ocean is cooler than the upper ocean then there will be the diffusion of heat into the deep ocean.
Note that diffusion is not the only mechanism by which thermal energy might be transported in a liquid but it is one that should not be ignored.

If Stephen Wilde's outlandish view was scientifically valid he should get it publish in a peer reviewed journal. Why does he not do this? Because he doesn't understand the science and he is wrong!

Damodevo
19-02-2013, 01:43 PM
Stephen Wilde is wrong. What drives the diffusion of thermal energy is a temperature gradient. If the ocean is cooler that the air then there will be diffusion of heat across the boundary if the deep ocean is cooler than the upper ocean then there will be the diffusion of heat into the deep ocean.
Note that diffusion is not the only mechanism by which thermal energy might be transported in a liquid but it is one that should not be ignored.

If Stephen Wilde's outlandish view was scientifically valid he should get it publish in a peer reviewed journal. Why does he not do this? Because he doesn't understand the science and he is wrong!

Do you know any references on this? Any climate papers that discuss the mechanism of OHC by virtue of GHG effects? Roy Clarke (http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/EE_21-4_paradigm_shift_output_limited_3_Mb.pdf)


Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans. Similarly, the changes in land surface temperatures produced by this flux increase are too small to detect in measured diurnal and seasonal surface temperature variations. Furthermore, a 100 ppm increase in CO2 concentration is not detectable in the meteorological surface temperature record. The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing and the ‘prediction’ of meteorological surface temperature in climate simulation are invalid. Based on these arguments, a null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed

Rincewind
19-02-2013, 03:04 PM
Do you know any references on this? Any climate papers that discuss the mechanism of OHC by virtue of GHG effects?

The transport of thermal energy has been studied for centuries the mechanisms are not new. The point I was making was that for increased temperature in the atmosphere can drive a increase to the deep ocean temperature without increasing the temperature in the upper ocean if the thermal fluxes at the two boundaries are roughly in balance.

Regarding references I have already provided you references to studies on the heating of the deep ocean. Which you have only ignored by claiming it required a leap-frog process to explain which I subsequently rebutted.


Roy Clarke (http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/EE_21-4_paradigm_shift_output_limited_3_Mb.pdf)

The "journal" you point to is very low impact and also a little suspect in that it is not clear that peer-review is happening rigorously in E&E. Particularly when the paper in question is in alignment with the editors political agenda. So there is not much point reading that paper in much detail.

However a quick scan of Clark's paper leaves the impression that he considers only radiative transport in the ocean (although he does consider conduction in his toy concrete model for land). Certainly the section you quote, regarding Beer's Law is pertaining to the adsorption of radiation (light). Nothing to do with diffusion which was the mechanism I was talking about. A third mechanism would be convection which would be very important in the ocean (like the 700m boundary) but not so important at the ocean surface.

The point is you were trying to make the argument that by looking at the upper ocean (0-700m) one observes that the thermal content is not increasing by so much anymore and therefore there must be nothing to this global warming hypothesis. My point is that while we know the most about the that region (because it is relatively easy to measure) it is not the whole story and there are other measurements that indicate that the deeper ocean is warming. So a total look at all the evidence (and not just the one that supports your a priori view) indicate that global warming has not stopped and at best all that has happened is that the rate at which energy being stored in the upper ocean has slowed.

Damodevo
21-02-2013, 02:27 AM
The transport of thermal energy has been studied for centuries the mechanisms are not new. The point I was making was that for increased temperature in the atmosphere can drive a increase to the deep ocean temperature without increasing the temperature in the upper ocean if the thermal fluxes at the two boundaries are roughly in balance.

So why did Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al., in 2005 project a further warming in the upper 750m of the ocean? The GISS predictions they gave are here.

http://i635.photobucket.com/albums/uu72/jdeere5220/oceans.jpg

Clearly they had no idea of the mechanisms of which you speak and this demonstrates the shifting sands of climate models.

Damodevo
21-02-2013, 02:44 AM
Even Kevin Trenberth (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025) can't explain what's going on (and note that he and Willis assume the accuracy of the Argo data which you absurdly dismiss)


Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.

That can't be directly measured at the moment, however.

"Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says.

It's also possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean, he says. Or it's possible that scientists need to correct for some other feature of the planet they don't know about. It's an exciting time, though, with all this new data about global sea temperature, sea level and other features of climate.

"I suspect that we'll able to put this together with a little bit more perspective and further analysis," Trenberth says. "But what this does is highlight some of the issues and send people back to the drawing board."

Desmond
21-02-2013, 06:12 AM
The Argo floats were deployed between 2003 and 2007. So obviously comparing averages of the floats from a period when there were fewer of them to when the system was fully deployed is not comparing like with like. So even looking at the micro trend from 2003-09 is dubious.

But, even if true, what does a short term cooling trend prove? That you've found another down step in the up escalator. Ocean heat content is not hotter year over year every year nor expected to be. What matter is the long term trends. Look at the big picture.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/ocean_heat_content.gif

Patrick Byrom
21-02-2013, 10:53 AM
So why did Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al., in 2005 project a further warming in the upper 750m of the ocean? The GISS predictions they gave are here.
Did the model in the original paper by Hansen et al have a zero in 2003?

Rincewind
21-02-2013, 01:50 PM
So why did Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al., in 2005 project a further warming in the upper 750m of the ocean? The GISS predictions they gave are here.

Is your argument is that if some scientists gave incorrect projections then all science is wrong?

What we were discussing was whether the deep ocean can warm while the upper ocean remains more or less static. I think it is trivial to show that it is a possibility and certainly your unscientific hyperbole regarding a leap-frog process has been shown to be just that.

What has actually happened is more difficult and no-one knows for sure. What we do see is some evidence for warming in the deep ocean and sea levels rises consistent with some warming of water somewhere (when sea levels rise you can't say where in the ocean the expansion has happened).

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_downloads/sea-level-download1-2012.png

The point is to look at thermal content of the 0-700m region of the ocean and claim there is no warming is bad deduction. Warming could well have occurred lower down and certainly there is some evidence that it has happened.

None of this is invalidated by incorrect expectations of warming in the 0-700m layer.


Clearly they had no idea of the mechanisms of which you speak and this demonstrates the shifting sands of climate models.

Science by its very nature is contingent and seeks the best explanation given the data available. With those particular papers you cited and taking it on face value their models predicted something which did not occur. This doesn't mean we throw away Fourier's Law. The systems they are modelling are very complicated and their models would seem to be missing important physics. When this happens you look to improve the model.

It certainly isn't evidence of a lack of warming.

Damodevo
22-02-2013, 02:17 AM
Is your argument is that if some scientists gave incorrect projections then all science is wrong?

What we were discussing was whether the deep ocean can warm while the upper ocean remains more or less static. I think it is trivial to show that it is a possibility and certainly your unscientific hyperbole regarding a leap-frog process has been shown to be just that.

What has actually happened is more difficult and no-one knows for sure. What we do see is some evidence for warming in the deep ocean and sea levels rises consistent with some warming of water somewhere (when sea levels rise you can't say where in the ocean the expansion has happened).

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_downloads/sea-level-download1-2012.png

Even taking this on its face doesn't give you what you want. There doesn't appear to be any acceleration in warming since 1930 even though 85% of the CO2 produced has come since 1945.

But that data (Church and White 2011) was found by NASA JPL to be erroneous.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/grasp_science_goals.png

The IPCC 5th assessment sums up its case here


(T)he rate of sea level rise has increased since the late 19th century and has continued during the 20th century …. the estimated acceleration in GMSL since 1900 ranges from0.000 mm yr–2 in the Ray and Douglas (2011) record, 0.013 mm yr–2 in the Jevrejeva et al. (2008) record, and 0.012 mm yr–2 in the Church and White (2011) record.

Hardly compelling for AGW. An acceleration from 1900 couldn't have come from CO2 since the vast bulk of the output came post 1945.

Consider also that the latest NOAA measurements (http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf) of sea level change from 2005 - 2012 show just over 1 mm per year growth which is well down from the rate shown by the chart you put up. In other words, sea level rise is decelerating contrary to AGW hyperbole.


The point is to look at thermal content of the 0-700m region of the ocean and claim there is no warming is bad deduction. Warming could well have occurred lower down and certainly there is some evidence that it has happened.

None of this is invalidated by incorrect expectations of warming in the 0-700m layer.

Its bad deduction committed by warmists (Hansen, Trenberth, Willis) whose models predicted the warming in those 0-700m which means the models are vastly inadequate.


Science by its very nature is contingent and seeks the best explanation given the data available. With those particular papers you cited and taking it on face value their models predicted something which did not occur. This doesn't mean we throw away Fourier's Law. The systems they are modelling are very complicated and their models would seem to be missing important physics. When this happens you look to improve the model.

It certainly isn't evidence of a lack of warming.

If it was the simple matter of applying Fourier's Law then there wouldn't have been any mistake about the matter which you mention. This means that the climate is vastly more complicated than simply calculating the effects of various laws of physics using models. Which means the planet is not understood to any extent as to establish AGW or even know how its models are worked out.

Damodevo
22-02-2013, 02:41 AM
The Argo floats were deployed between 2003 and 2007. So obviously comparing averages of the floats from a period when there were fewer of them to when the system was fully deployed is not comparing like with like. So even looking at the micro trend from 2003-09 is dubious.

But, even if true, what does a short term cooling trend prove? That you've found another down step in the up escalator. Ocean heat content is not hotter year over year every year nor expected to be. What matter is the long term trends. Look at the big picture.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/ocean_heat_content.gif

First of all that jump around 2003 was found to be nearly statistically impossible. David Stockwell (http://landshape.org/enm/possible-error-in-ohc/#more-3180)


At the suggestion of cohenite, I plotted the distribution of changes in the OHC data (above), at lags of one, two, three and four years. These changes have been normalized to a mean of zero and the x-axis is the standard deviation. The changes in the OHC around 2002-3 stand out, particularly at lag 2 and 3, as 3-sigma events. That is, the probability of a change in OHC of this magnitude is around 0.001, or there is a high probability that this jump is an outlier, and due to some problem in the data.

Second, no one's doubting the general trend in rising temperatures that are nothing unusual in the planet's history. But the downward steps on the escalator are important because it shows warmist models are exaggerated. That is, they almost never predict them. Which means future warming is almost certainly exaggerated.