knocker

http://www.uibk.ac.at/public-relations/presse/archiv/2013/466/

A little article out of the Northwest Territories supporting the warming arctic. I bet someone has fudged the readings from the lakes. Oil and gas waste leaking into N.W.T. lakes, study shows http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/oil-and-gas-waste-leaking-into-n-w-t-lakes-study-shows-1.2418767

Seismic detection of an active subglacial magmatic complex in Marie Byrd Land, Antarctica http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1992.html The press release Volcano discovered smoldering under a kilometer of ice in West Antarctica Its heat may increase the rate of ice loss from one of the continent’s major ice streams http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/25611.aspx

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131117155502.htm I don't know whether it's just me but I find these videos a tad annoying if informative. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8gh7snSDak

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-39#entry2837845 The whole argument is not on possible outcomes but in trying to scare/convince people into believing that we are heading into the abyss, this without any credible evidence or data. On the contrary it's about making people aware of the dangers that are ahead if we continue to bury our heads in the sand and ignore what is happening. Scare and abyss are the emmotive words so loved by deniers but rarely if ever used by scientists. Without credible evidence? Ice mass loss in the Antarctic and Greenland, sea level rise, glacier melt around the world, increasing evidence that nature is responding to a warming world, and the fact that Monkton is becoming more hysterical, etc, etc. The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report states with 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming. Many media outlets have reported that this is an increase from the 90 percent certainty in the fourth IPCC report, but actually the change is much more significant than that. In fact, if you look closely, the IPCC says that humans have most likely caused all of the global warming over the past 60 years. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-ar5-human-caused-global-warming-confidence.html

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-39#entry2837794 Study: Tropical cyclones are occurring more frequently than before http://phys.org/news/2012-10-tropical-cyclones-frequently.html

Paths out of uncertainty: Increasing extreme confidence http://phys.org/news/2013-11-paths-uncertainty-extreme-confidence.html

Update

Yes I've been wondering about this. Some fair questions Spark.

Rubbish. It was perfectly obvious who you were talking about and I would still like to know whether I'm included in your comment. As for none on "CO2 being responsible for the majority of the past warming". I take it then we can safely dismiss numerous scientific papers by climatologists and scientists from other disciplines on the basis of your unqualified say so? Kindly point me to the scientific opinions that states CO2 was the trigger for the tragedy, and if you can, explain how the data was fudged. I'm interested because I haven't come across any. Frankly I think you are just a wind up merchant.

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-38#entry2836730 The reply refers to this. "You didn't really think they could let a juicy disaster go to waste do you?" "Same old garbage, weasel words and emotive nonsense like this:" Of course not. That master of the rant and best standup comedian on the web, excluding present company of course, foamed at the mouth about imaginary comments from respected scientists. On that subject I note links to scientific papers are conspicuous by their absense as usual in the other thread. Much easier to have a swipe at people who hold genuine opinions and who have a habit of backing them up with scientific links. Okay one doen't have to agree with the science but it's treating people with disdain when comments like, fudge and fabrication, are used without any attempt to justify scientifically. Garbage and weasel words really does apply and a poor substitute for a complete lack of intelligent thinking.

Looks like another day of anti-cyclonic gloom. 8/8 Sc 3,500ft, temp 8C and calm.

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-38#entry2836598 I can only assume this refers to the last couple of posts by GW as you haven't the bottle to say so. To say that some proponents of AGW are only in it due to their hatred of all things man, is not only backed up by scant evidence but shows a paucity of scientific reasoning and human understanding all so often displayed by the acolytes of Watts. I'm intruiged as to whom else you refer but have to assume I'm included so I would appreciate some supporting facts to go with the woffle. I mean to say this from someone who repeatable comes up with this unsupported tosh. "You knew it was only a matter of time when fabricated and fudged data would be presented in order to prop up a failing theory".

Anti cyclonic gloom. Nough said.

I agree with the comments by BFTV but given your excellent nose for whiffing out bull manure in a instance what is the specific bull manure within the paper by Kevin Cowtan, and Robert G. Way?

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-38#entry2835698 Good for Judith. The Arctic is warming at about eight times the pace of the rest of the planet The paper has been described and discussed in various places. What the researchers did was take a novel approach to work out recent temperature changes in parts of the world where there are gaps in the data. Here is a report from ScienceDaily.com: An interdisciplinary team of researchers say they have found 'missing heat' in the climate system, casting doubt on suggestions that global warming has slowed or stopped over the past decade. Observational data on which climate records are based cover only 84 per cent of the planet -- with Polar regions and parts of Africa largely excluded. Now Dr Kevin Cowtan, a computational scientist at the University of York, and Robert Way, a cryosphere specialist and PhD student at the University of Ottawa, have reconstructed the 'missing' global temperatures using a combination of observations from satellites and surface data from weather stations and ships on the peripheries of the unsampled regions. The new research published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society shows that the Arctic is warming at about eight times the pace of the rest of the planet. Previous studies by the UK Met Office based on the HadCRUT4 dataset, which only covers about five-sixths of the globe, suggest that global warming has slowed substantially since 1997. The new research suggests, however, that the addition of the 'missing' data indicates that the rate of warming since 1997 has been two and a half times greater than shown in the Met Office studies. Evidence for the rapid warming of the Arctic includes observations from high latitude weather stations, radiosonde and satellite observations of temperatures in the lower atmosphere and reanalysis of historical data. A member of the Department of Chemistry at York, Dr Cowtan, whose speciality is crystallography, carried out the research in his spare time. This is his first climate paper. He says: "There's a perception that global warming has stopped but, in fact, our data suggests otherwise. But the reality is that 16 years is too short a period to draw a reliable conclusion. We find only weak evidence of any change in the rate of global warming." Robert Way adds: "Changes in Arctic sea ice and glaciers over the past decade clearly support the results of our study. By producing a truly global temperature record, we aim to better understand the drivers of recent climate change." More about the research There are some very readable discussions about the paper at: [*]realclimate.org by Stefan Rahmstorf [*]skepticalscience.com by the authors, Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way, with Dana Nuccitelli [*]Variable Variability by Victor Venema - with lots more links [*]Arctic Sea Ice Blog by Neven The authors used a statistical technique known as kriging to interpolate data from neighbouring sites that have temperature observations to determine the temperature in between. Here is how Wikipedia describes kriging: The basic idea of kriging is to predict the value of a function at a given point by computing a weighted average of the known values of the function in the neighborhood of the point. The method is mathematically closely related to regression analysis. Both theories derive a best linear unbiased estimator, based on assumptions on covariances, make use of Gauss-Markov theorem to prove independence of the estimate and error, and make use of very similar formulae. They are nevertheless, useful in different frameworks: kriging is made for estimation of a single realization of a random field, while regression models are based on multiple observations of a multivariate dataset. Kriging was also used by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature team. What was novel about this research was that the authors also used a hybrid method, combining satellite data and surface data. They found by testing that the hybrid method gave the most accurate results over land and sea ice, whereas kriging was best over open oceans. It's all a bit too much for Anthony Watts and his band of fake skeptics Anthony would discount any reasonable discussion of the paper as being too sciency. He managed to find a denier slant proffered by Judith Curry (archived here). And he did find some words of his own to help get his crew fired up (archived here):It looks as if Anthony didn't read the paper or any discussion of it. If he had, he would have seen that the authors used both satellite and surface data. I guess he didn't watch the video he posted, either. Judith Curry shows her ignorance - and she has researched the Arctic Over at Judith Curry's blog (archived here), Kevin Cowtan, one of the authors, explains, rather nicely and politely, that (my hyperlinks): Robert Way added some comments of his own in response to Judith Curry's complaints (my bold, with Judith Curry's comments in italics ). Dear Dr Curry Thank you for you comments. We indeed hope that one of the results of our paper will be to stimulate a vigorous discussion in this area. Most interesting is the issue of the UAH data over Antarctica. We’ve recently been looking at this with respect to both Vostok, and the Bromwich 2012 Byrd reconstruction. Byrd particularly interesting – it sits on a cell boundary and is remarkably well modelled by the cell to the north in the hybrid reconstruction. The cell to the south models the year-to-year variations, but not the long term trend. We’ve made some preliminary analysis of what is going on based on differencing North-South transects in the UAH data. Some regions show no significant changes, whereas others show large changes in either direction around 2000. I hope to write this up as another update, and maybe Dr Christie will be able to shed more light on the issue, although I’m afraid everything takes a long time when you’re doing it in your spare time.With respect to kriging across land ocean boundaries, we note that this is a problem in the paper. Can I draw your attention to our update memo [Sou: I think Kevin is referring to this] in which we test separate reconstruction of the land and ocean data before blending, which is in our view a better approach. To do this properly would require access to the HadCRUT4 land ensemble which is not currently distributed, but with the CRUTEM4 data (which lacks some corrections) the results of blending pre- or post-reconstruction is almost indistinguishable, even under different ice-coverage assumptions. (There is no reason why this must be the case, it is a result of the distribution of the unobserved regions). Dynamically changing ice is more difficult, and you can’t do it with anomalies as you don’t know what kind of bias you introduce when changing a cell from land to ocean, so we’ll have to leave that problem to the BEST team. We also provide an attempt at showing the impacts of changing sea ice conditions on the reconstruction. Although not available in the supplemental information we have also tested the method in Antarctic against the reconciled Byrd station located in one of the most icebound, isolated places on the planet. The results of this test show very reasonable performance with the hybrid method.Response [2] As indicated in the response to the 1st comment – we have tested the methodology adopted in this study against both held-out observations and against grounded/floating buoys in the Arctic ocean, often located on sea ice. The results of our study indicate that the performance of the hybrid method is reasonable over ice (Figure 4; Figure S5).Second, UAH satellite analyses. Not useful at high latitudes in the presence of temperature inversions and not useful over sea ice (which has a very complex spatially varying microwave emission signature). Hopefully John Christy will chime in on this.Response [1] Actually in the paper we show through rigorous cross-validation tests (see Table 1; Table 2; Figure 3) that kriging is an effective approach for estimating temperatures, even across boundaries. However the hybrid approach performs better than any other method at reconstructing high latitude temperatures (see Figure 3 – cross validation) even at distances of 1650 km). In the case of sea ice this hypothesis has been tested (see Figure 4) where it is shown that kriging from land regions outperforms kriging from ocean cells.First, Kriging. Kriging across land/ocean/sea ice boundaries makes no physical sense. While the paper cites Rigor et al. (2000) that shows ‘some’ correlation in winter between land and sea ice temps at up to 1000 km, I would expect no correlation in other seasons. Judith, having mispelt Robert's family name throughout (Wray instead of Way) posts a reply immediately under Robert's but for some reason decides to call him James and then, for no reason at all, says she doesn't believe him. (Yeah, I went 'huh?' too). Judith also said she doesn't know of any reanalysis studies done by James Screen despite her having done some recent research on the general topic.Response [3] Since the paper in question was published there have been significant advances in reanalysis methods. In particular, 4-D methods such as those employed by ERA-Interim have shown to be much more reliable in the Arctic and Antarctic. There are a series of papers by James Screen at Exeter which delves into many of these issues and examines the performance of reanalysis products in both the Arctic and Antarctic. I would suggest that Dr. Curry take a bit of time to have a look at the results of some of these studies. That being said the paper does not use reanalysis to infill temperatures, nor do we use it with the kriging, reanalysis is simply presented as an additional source of evidence in additional to satellites, radiosondes and isolated weather stations which show that the Arctic is rapidly warming. Physical evidence is also available in the form of sea ice reduction and glacier changes as well as melt records from high Arctic ice caps. There is a wealth of literature supporting the conclusions that the Arctic is warming rapidly and this relationship (Arctic Amplification) is clear in the paleorecords. November 13, 2013 at 4:31 pm Third, re reanalyses in the Arctic. See Fig 1 from this paper [Sou: the paper Judith cites is one of hers published in 2002], which gives you a sense of the magnitude of grid point errors for one point over an annual cycle. Some potential utility here, but reanalyses are not useful for trends owing to temporal inhomogeneities in the datasets that are assimilated. James, thanks for stopping by and engaging here. I agree that there is evidence of warming in the Arctic, however, I remain unconvinced that your methods are verified in any meaningful way for surface temperatures of open water and sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. I see no reference to papers by James Screen in your paper, I don’t know what papers you are referring to. I have recently done a comprehensive literature survey regarding in situ surface temperature and surface flux measurements in the Arctic Ocean (for a grant proposal). I have not seen any recent studies evaluating reanalyses using these data sets. November 13, 2013 at 6:56 pm So much for Judith's research skills! I would have said that a ten second Google Scholar search would have saved Judith Curry a certain amount of embarrassment, except that she has never shown any sign of being embarrassed by her bloopers. From the WUWT comments I'll leave interested readers to do any further reading with the links I've provided above. Let's just see what the various members of the WUWT brigade have to say (archived here). Just one comment from the literati. Eliza says she doesn't know why WUWT bothers with sciency stuff (maybe it should stick to paranoid conspiracy theories) and says: November 14, 2013 at 10:15 am I dont’ know why such drivel (The paper) even gets mentioned here Thanks to HotWhopper http://blog.hotwhopper.com/

Certainly no snow in Cornwall in the foreseable and I doubt very much elsewhere. Could get a tad chilly in parts but not in the Duchy hopefully. The ten day animation. http://www.weather-forecast.com/maps/United-Kingdom

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-37#entry2835348 http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/antarctic-ice-melt

Warming of Global Abyssal and Deep Southern Ocean Waters between the 1990s and 2000s: Contributions to Global Heat and Sea Level Rise Budgets* http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3682.1

http://www.sciencecodex.com/study_shows_wind_turbines_killed_600000_bats_last_year-123074

Panel Warns of ‘Catastrophic’ Gap in Weather Satellite Data http://www.climatecentral.org/news/review-team-urges-noaa-to-build-a-gap-filling-weather-satellite-16742