New Research

[BornFromTheVoid]

Just based on the trend analysis.  Or is this going back to the station homogenisation issue?

 

 

Judith Curry is a well respected climate scientist who works for the MetO so how can she not be an official source, unless your knowledge of the science far exceeds hers that is. As for the pause, well unless your in possession of a tardis then there is no way of knowing whether or not warming will resume. Remember not one scientist or climate model predicted a pause so I would tread on egg shells either way in making predictions.

 

JC works for the Met Office? Proof? An individual scientist that does not work on their own global temperature data set cannot be an official source of anything other than their own opinion, especially when all they're doing is blogging.

[VillagePlank]

Just based on the trend analysis.  Or is this going back to the station homogenisation issue?

 

Not at all, although, of course, it's all linked in somehow. Just wondered how you did it, really, particularly, that you concluded that the {pause/slowdown/halt/hiatus/continuance*} is not statistically significant.

 

*delete as appropriate

Edited August 8, 2013 by Sparkicle

[BornFromTheVoid]

Not at all, although, of course, it's all linked in somehow. Just wondered how you did it, really, particularly, that you concluded that the {pause/slowdown/halt/hiatus/continuance*} is not statistically significant.

 

*delete as appropriate

 

I said the warming trend was not statistically significant, not the pause. The uncertainty range is too large for the trend be statistically significant.

 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

[UV-RAY]

Just based on the trend analysis.  Or is this going back to the station homogenisation issue?

 

 

 

JC works for the Met Office? Proof? An individual scientist that does not work on their own global temperature data set cannot be an official source of anything other than their own opinion, especially when all they're doing is blogging.

She has worked alongside TomC over on two weather, a respected climate scientist who doesn't always share Judith's views Your dismissal of her is astounding for a blogger, maybe you would like to correct her on her views,

Anyway here is her profile.

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currycv.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry

[BornFromTheVoid]

She has worked alongside TomC over on two weather, a respected climate scientist who doesn't always share Judith's views Your dismissal of her is astounding for a blogger, maybe you would like to correct her on her views,

Anyway here is her profile.

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currycv.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry

 

So, no proof yet again?

 

You still think an individual blog is an official source?

 

I haven't dismissed her at all, that's just a strawman tactic. What I've dismissed is your assertion that her blog is an official source of global temperature data.

[VillagePlank]

I said the warming trend was not statistically significant, not the pause.

 

OK, sorry - I misunderstood you, then. Well, I agree, the warming over the last decade or so appears to be not stastically significant.

[UV-RAY]

So, no proof yet again? You still think an individual blog is an official source? I haven't dismissed her at all, that's just a strawman tactic. What I've dismissed is your assertion that her blog is an official source of global temperature data.

Your dismissing the views of a climate scientist, one of your own just because she is more open minded than yourself and willing to question certain aspects of the science. She still is an ardent supporter of AGW not a blogger with a keyboard who thinks they know it all BFTV. It's a waste of bandwidth debating with you, as your arrogance is astounding. Your on the permanent ignore list from here on.

[jethro]

OK, sorry - I misunderstood you, then. Well, I agree, the warming over the last decade or so appears to be not stastically significant.

 

So if it isn't statistically significant, does that mean that plateauing/not warming, is accurate?

[jethro]

So, no proof yet again?

 

You still think an individual blog is an official source?

 

I haven't dismissed her at all, that's just a strawman tactic. What I've dismissed is your assertion that her blog is an official source of global temperature data.

 

Me thinks you're being a tad pedantic and slipping into the bickering for bickering's sake. Judith Curry is a reliable source, she's a qualified and respected scientist and she's absolutely in favour of AGW - what's the problem with that?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Your dismissing the views of a climate scientist, one of your own just because she is more open minded than yourself and willing to question certain aspects of the science. She still is an ardent supporter of AGW not a blogger with a keyboard who thinks they know it all BFTV. It's a waste of bandwidth debating with you, as your arrogance is astounding. Your on the permanent ignore list from here on.

 

I just said, I'm not dismissing her views. That's just another strawman attempt. I'm just saying that her blog is not an official source of global temperature data, as you have been claiming.

I'm on your permanent ignore list, yet again then!

 

Me thinks you're being a tad pedantic and slipping into the bickering for bickering's sake. Judith Curry is a reliable source, she's a qualified and respected scientist and she's absolutely in favour of AGW - what's the problem with that?

 

Nope, no bickering for the sake of bickering. Her blog is not an official source of global temperature data, as SI is claiming, it's only an individuals opinion. Her stance on AGW doesn't come into it, infact, I've linked to her blog on here before, she occasionally posts some very interesting stuff.

[VillagePlank]

So if it isn't statistically significant, does that mean that plateauing/not warming, is accurate?

 

I don't know quite how BFTV arrived at his conclusions (I'd like to see the working, TBH) but generally it's not boolean in that respect; ie it doesn't mean if it's not true, it must therefore be false. Confusing, isn't it? Essentially rejecting the tested hypothesis rarely leads us to conclude that the opposite is true; it means (i) the test carried out was poorly done, (ii) the null hypothesis choice was poor, (iii) that we simply don't have enough evidence for the hypothesis, and, of course, (iv) the hypothesis really is incorrect. People don't normally try to test negative things, it must be said, so (iv) is quite rare indeed.

 

As it happens, I don't think that 15 years or so is enough to conclude anything: ie that warming is continuing or that warming has stopped due to (iii) I certainly wouldn't, for the moment, take the view that since it's hard/impossible to determine, we must regress the whole series for an answer. For sure, it is very interesting, it is also unexplained, although most modern climate models all show that some form of {pause/hiatus/continuance*} of one sort or another should occur. That this isn't being used to explain this current period is curious, and certainly the hunting for theories when models already purport this behaviour is certainly odd.

 

* delete as appropriate

Edited August 8, 2013 by Sparkicle

[knocker]

Ozone hole might slightly warm planet

8 August 2013
AGU Release No. 13-39

 

WASHINGTON, DC—A lot of people mix up the ozone hole and global warming, believing the hole is a major cause of the world’s increasing average temperature. Scientists, on the other hand, have long attributed a small cooling effect to the ozone shortage in the hole.

Now a new computer-modeling study suggests that the ozone hole might actually have a slight warming influence, but because of its effect on winds, not temperatures. The new research suggests that shifting wind patterns caused by the ozone hole push clouds farther toward the South Pole, reducing the amount of radiation the clouds reflect and possibly causing a bit of warming rather than cooling.

 

http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2013/2013-39.shtml

Edited August 8, 2013 by knocker

[jethro]

I just said, I'm not dismissing her views. That's just another strawman attempt. I'm just saying that her blog is not an official source of global temperature data, as you have been claiming.

I'm on your permanent ignore list, yet again then!

 

 

Nope, no bickering for the sake of bickering. Her blog is not an official source of global temperature data, as SI is claiming, it's only an individuals opinion. Her stance on AGW doesn't come into it, infact, I've linked to her blog on here before, she occasionally posts some very interesting stuff.

 

You're splitting hairs. Judith Curry is more qualified to comment than anyone on here. She isn't going to use unverified data, nor quote data from non peer reviewed sources. I can quite understand objecting to a blog like Watts, but objecting to one from a qualified climate scientist, really is bickering for the sake of bickering. As you say, you've linked to her blog before and presumably expected it to be an acceptable source. If it's acceptable for you to do so, then it's acceptable for everyone else too.

[jethro]

I don't know quite how BFTV arrived at his conclusions (I'd like to see the working, TBH) but generally it's not boolean in that respect; ie it doesn't mean if it's not true, it must therefore be false. Confusing, isn't it? Essentially rejecting the tested hypothesis rarely leads us to conclude that the opposite is true; it means (i) the test carried out was poorly done, (ii) the null hypothesis choice was poor, (iii) that we simply don't have enough evidence for the hypothesis, and, of course, (iv) the hypothesis really is incorrect. People don't normally try to test negative things, it must be said, so (iv) is quite rare indeed.

 

As it happens, I don't think that 15 years or so is enough to conclude anything: ie that warming is continuing or that warming has stopped due to (iii) I certainly wouldn't, for the moment, take the view that since it's hard/impossible to determine, we must regress the whole series for an answer. For sure, it is very interesting, it is also unexplained, although most modern climate models all show that some form of {pause/hiatus/continuance*} of one sort or another should occur. That this isn't being used to explain this current period is curious, and certainly the hunting for theories when models already purport this behaviour is certainly odd.

 

* delete as appropriate

 

But the flip side of that, is that when the climate change debate really got going, the IPCC were quoting the steep rise in temperatures over 10-15 years as being significant. 

 

Couldn't the hiatus in warming be something as simple as the climate isn't as sensitive to CO2 as was thought? Curiously, Roy Spencer has always maintained this to be the case and his temperature projections have been a lot closer than some of the official ones.

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

[BornFromTheVoid]

So if it isn't statistically significant, does that mean that plateauing/not warming, is accurate?

 

Failing to reject the null hypothesis (that there is no warming trend) is not acceptance of the null hypothesis, just failure to reject it. As Sparkicle says, it can be confusing!

 

You're splitting hairs. Judith Curry is more qualified to comment than anyone on here. She isn't going to use unverified data, nor quote data from non peer reviewed sources. I can quite understand objecting to a blog like Watts, but objecting to one from a qualified climate scientist, really is bickering for the sake of bickering. As you say, you've linked to her blog before and presumably expected it to be an acceptable source. If it's acceptable for you to do so, then it's acceptable for everyone else too.

 

If you wish to count an individuals blog (once more, I'm not dismissing her work, just not misrepresenting it as an official source) as official global data over the actual scientific institutions and peer reviewed literature, go ahead.

 

Some of her blog posts are interesting and she's certainly qualified to comment on things, as are the other hundreds/thousands of climate scientists. That doesn't mean each of their opinions is counted as official data.

 

As for Spencer, once again, a qualified scientist. But he keeps his "sceptical" predictions and criticisms of most climate science to blog posts because they don't meet the standard of peer reviewed science. He's argued that the CO2 rise isn't because of us, that CO2 doesn't cause warming, that increased CO2 will bring only benefits, and other such things, all in blogs.

 

We have the peer review standard for a reason.

[UV-RAY]

But the flip side of that, is that when the climate change debate really got going, the IPCC were quoting the steep rise in temperatures over 10-15 years as being significant. 

 

Couldn't the hiatus in warming be something as simple as the climate isn't as sensitive to CO2 as was thought? Curiously, Roy Spencer has always maintained this to be the case and his temperature projections have been a lot closer than some of the official ones.

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

I've followed Spencer's work for some time and his projections for warming have been far nearer the mark than the so called "gold standard", yes he is critical of certain aspects of AGW and rightly so IMO, but he does so with science not blogging.

[jethro]

Failing to reject the null hypothesis (that there is no warming trend) is not acceptance of the null hypothesis, just failure to reject it. As Sparkicle says, it can be confusing!

 

 

If you wish to count an individuals blog (once more, I'm not dismissing her work, just not misrepresenting it as an official source) as official global data over the actual scientific institutions and peer reviewed literature, go ahead.

 

Some of her blog posts are interesting and she's certainly qualified to comment on things, as are the other hundreds/thousands of climate scientists. That doesn't mean each of their opinions is counted as official data.

 

As for Spencer, once again, a qualified scientist. But he keeps his "sceptical" predictions and criticisms of most climate science to blog posts because they don't meet the standard of peer reviewed science. He's argued that the CO2 rise isn't because of us, that CO2 doesn't cause warming, that increased CO2 will bring only benefits, and other such things, all in blogs.

 

We have the peer review standard for a reason.

 

You've clearly been reading the more vitriolic blogoland, rather than actually bothering to learn what he thinks about climate change. Here's an example of his official stance on climate change, made only a few weeks ago to The Environment and Public Works Committee of The United States Senate - he's clearly regarded highly enough to be involved with official USA departments.

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer_EPW_Written_Testimony_7_18_2013_updated.pdf

 

 

Despite the vitriol he attracts from certain quarters, he's eminently qualified to comment on climate and so far, his temperature predictions have been far more accurate than the official ones. As they say, proof is in the eating, peer reviewed or not, the official ones have failed.

[BornFromTheVoid]

You've clearly been reading the more vitriolic blogoland, rather than actually bothering to learn what he thinks about climate change. Here's an example of his official stance on climate change, made only a few weeks ago to The Environment and Public Works Committee of The United States Senate - he's clearly regarded highly enough to be involved with official USA departments.

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer_EPW_Written_Testimony_7_18_2013_updated.pdf

 

 

Despite the vitriol he attracts from certain quarters, he's eminently qualified to comment on climate and so far, his temperature predictions have been far more accurate than the official ones. As they say, proof is in the eating, peer reviewed or not, the official ones have failed.

 

Joe B'stardi and even Monkton have been called to give talks to the US senate, it really doesn't require much over there!

 

So anyway... Spencer makes some statements, based on his own debunked papers, ignoring all other data on climate sensitivity! Also, he was not included as part of the 97% consensus. He then shows a regional temperature graph and claims it shows modern global warming is not exceptional... Have an objective look at his comparison graph between satellites and models, ask yourself why does he use a 5 year average for the satellite data? Why has he included balloon data?

How about his extreme weather claims? Does the papers he cites back up what he says? What does the other evidence suggest? Might he be cherry picking?

 

C'mon J, I know it's much easier to just blindly believe what feels right to you, ingore the litany of false accusations of fraud made on here about Michael Mann, and falsely accuse me of just reading vitriolic blogoland stuff. But a little bit of critical analysis can go quite a way, so go on, give it a try

 

 

Here's some more comments he's made.

 

"the warming trend over the Northern Hemisphere, where virtually all of the thermometer data exist, is a function of population density at the thermometer site."

 

"there are benefits to more CO2 in the air, and probably to a little bit of warming"

 

"for some reason it stopped warming in the last 10 years, which is one of those dirty little secrets of global warming science"

 

"warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the climate system — not to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning."

 

"The supposed explanation that global warming is due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide from our burning of fossil fuels turns out to be based upon little more than circumstantial evidence."

 

"Are we really sure that ALL of the atmospheric increase in CO2 is from humanity’s emissions? After all, the natural sources and sinks of CO2 are about 20 times the anthropogenic source, so all it would take is a small imbalance in the natural flows to rival the anthropogenic source. "

 

So denying CO2 is from us, claiming most of the warming in recent decades is natural, then claiming it's mostly the UHI effect, that adding CO2 is mostly a good thing, that the recent lack of warming is a "dirty little secret", and so on, and so on.

 

It doesn't matter how eminently qualified he is, or how impressive "former NASA scientist" sounds, he tends to make a lot of unfounded and often contradictory claims.

Edited August 9, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[Methuselah]

I think it's true to say that, by and large, the bulk of the vitriol and aspersion-casting has come from the 'sceptics' corner: Mann being accused of fraud, Anthony Watts's vacuous claims about misplaced temperature sensors and the joke that was 'Climategate'...?

 

But, as I keep repeating: real, genuine scientifically-literate sceptics have no need for such tactics; they make a valid and essential case, without resorting to sleight of hand...

 

Rather one sceptic who knows what he/she is on about, than a thousand 'Lord' Moncktons!

[UV-RAY]

I think it's true to say that, by and large, the bulk of the vitriol and aspersion-casting has come from the 'sceptics' corner: Mann being accused of fraud, Anthony Watts's vacuous claims about misplaced temperature sensors and the joke that was 'Climategate'...?

 

But, as I keep repeating: real, genuine scientifically-literate sceptics have no need for such tactics; they make a valid and essential case, without resorting to sleight of hand...

 

Rather one sceptic who knows what he/she is on about, than a thousand 'Lord' Moncktons!

Indeed, so line up Judith Curry, Roy Spencer and hundreds of other honest scientist who though think CO2 has caused warming of the globe, the amount attributed to said gas is far lower than the IPCC projections, which are already reeling from the pause of the last 16 years.

[knocker]

A model–data comparison of the Holocene global sea surface temperature evolution

 

Abstract. We compare the ocean temperature evolution of the Holocene as simulated by climate models and reconstructed from marine temperature proxies. We use transient simulations from a coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model, as well as an ensemble of time slice simulations from the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project. The general pattern of sea surface temperature (SST) in the models shows a high-latitude cooling and a low-latitude warming. The proxy dataset comprises a global compilation of marine alkenone- and Mg/Ca-derived SST estimates. Independently of the choice of the climate model, we observe significant mismatches between modelled and estimated SST amplitudes in the trends for the last 6000 yr. Alkenone-based SST records show a similar pattern as the simulated annual mean SSTs, but the simulated SST trends underestimate the alkenone-based SST trends by a factor of two to five. For Mg/Ca, no significant relationship between model simulations and proxy reconstructions can be detected. We test if such discrepancies can be caused by too simplistic interpretations of the proxy data. We explore whether consideration of different growing seasons and depth habitats of the planktonic organisms used for temperature reconstruction could lead to a better agreement of model results with proxy data on a regional scale. The extent to which temporal shifts in growing season or vertical shifts in depth habitat can reduce model–data misfits is determined. We find that invoking shifts in the living season and habitat depth can remove some of the model–data discrepancies in SST trends. Regardless whether such adjustments in the environmental parameters during the Holocene are realistic, they indicate that when modelled temperature trends are set up to allow drastic shifts in the ecological behaviour of planktonic organisms, they do not capture the full range of reconstructed SST trends. Results indicate that modelled and reconstructed temperature trends are to a large degree only qualitatively comparable, thus providing a challenge for the interpretation of proxy data as well as the model sensitivity to orbital forcing.

 

 

http://www.clim-past.net/9/1807/2013/cp-9-1807-2013.pdf

[knocker]

Australia's unique influence on global sea level in 2010–2011^†

Abstract

[1] In 2011, a significant drop in global sea level occurred that was unprecedented in the altimeter era and concurrent with an exceptionally strong La Niña. This analysis examines multiple datasets in exploring the physical basis for the drop's exceptional intensity and persistence. Australia's hydrologic surface mass anomaly is shown to have been a dominant contributor to the 2011 global total and associated precipitation anomalies were among the highest on record. The persistence of Australia's mass anomaly is attributed to the continent's unique surface hydrology, which includes expansive arheic and endorheic basins that impede runoff to ocean. Based on Australia's key role, attribution of sea level variability is addressed. The modulating influences of the Indian Ocean Dipole and Southern Annular Mode on La Niña teleconnections are found to be key drivers of anomalous precipitation in the continent's interior and the associated surface mass, and sea level responses.

 

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50834/abstract

 

The 2011 La Niña: So strong, the oceans fell

[1] Global mean sea level (GMSL) dropped by 5 mm between the beginning of 2010 and mid 2011. This drop occurred despite the background rate of rise, 3 mm per year, which dominates most of the 18-year record observed by satellite altimeters. Using a combination of satellite andin situdata, we show that the decline in ocean mass, which explains the sea level drop, coincides with an equivalent increase in terrestrial water storage, primarily over Australia, northern South America, and Southeast Asia. This temporary shift of water from the ocean to land is closely related to the transition from El Niño conditions in 2009/10 to a strong 2010/11 La Niña, which affected precipitation patterns world-wide.

 

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL053055/abstract

Edited August 13, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Are recent Arctic ozone losses caused by increasing greenhouse gases?^†

Abstract

[1] It has been suggested that the Arctic ozone losses observed in recent years might be a manifestation of climate change due to increasing greenhouse gases. We here offer evidence to the contrary, by focusing on the volume of polar stratospheric clouds (V_PSC), a convenient proxy for polar ozone loss whose simplicity allows for easily reproducible results. First, we analyze the time series of V_PSC in three reanalysis datasets and find no statistically significant trends in V_PSC – nor changes in their probability density functions – over the period 1979-2011. Second, we analyze V_PSC in a stratosphere-resolving chemistry-climate model forced uniquely with increasing greenhouse gases following the A1B scenario: here too, we find no significant changes in V_PSC over the entire 21^st century. Taken together, these results strongly suggest that the sporadic high ozone losses in recent years have not been caused by increasing greenhouse gases.

 

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50835/abstract

Edited August 13, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Climate Benefit for Cutting Soot, Methane Smaller Than Previous Estimates

Aug. 12, 2013 — Cutting the amount of short-lived, climate-warming emissions such as soot and methane in our skies won't limit global warming as much as previous studies have suggested, a new analysis shows. The study also found a comprehensive climate policy (including methane) would produce more climate benefits by 2050 than if soot and methane were reduced alone.

 

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130812154403.htm#.Ugn0-XrcJAY.twitter

[knocker]

The Arctic is especially sensitive to black carbon emissions from within the region

 

Black carbon, also known as soot, emitted from combustion of fuels and biomass burning, absorbs solar radiation in the atmosphere and is one of the major causes of global warming, after carbon dioxide emissions. When black carbon is deposited on snow and ice, the soot-covered snow or ice absorbs more sunlight, leading to surface warming. Due to the large amount of snow and ice in the Arctic—which has warmed twice as fast as the global average over the past century—the region is likely to be especially sensitive to black carbon.

 

To investigate how sensitive the Arctic is to black carbon emissions from within the Arctic compared to those transported from mid-latitudes, Sand et al. conducted experiments using a climate model that includes simulation of the effects of black carbon deposited on snow.

 

They find that most of the Arctic warming effect from black carbon is due to black carbon deposited on snow and ice, rather than in the atmosphere. Black carbon emitted within the Arctic is more likely to stay at low altitudes and thus to be deposited on the snow and ice there, whereas black carbon transported into the Arctic from mid-latitudes is more likely to remain at higher altitudes. Because of this, the Arctic surface temperature is almost 5 times more sensitive to black carbon emitted from within the Arctic than to emissions from mid-latitudes, the authors find.

 

They note that although there are currently few sources of black carbon emissions within the Arctic (the most dominant ones are oil and gas fields in northwestern Russia), that is likely to change as human activity in the region increases. Therefore, the authors believe there is a need to improve technologies for controlling black carbon emissions in the Arctic.

Source:

Geophysical Research Letters, doi: 10.1002/jgrd.50613, 2013

Edited August 13, 2013 by knocker