Ipcc Report On Climate Change And Extreme Weather Events

[jethro]

What 'large' body is that, J? All natural? That said, I'm always sceptical of these 'extreme weather is caused by AGW' claims... :smiliz19:

More caffeine needed Pete.....

"I think if you say 'it's all natural' you'll be in the minority on this forum and ignoring a large body of scientific study".

The large body of scientific study which says it isn't all natural.

[Methuselah]

More caffeine needed Pete.....

"I think if you say 'it's all natural' you'll be in the minority on this forum and ignoring a large body of scientific study".

The large body of scientific study which says it isn't all natural.

Aye, J. Defo more coffee erquired!

[Village]

Listen, forget the emails, the pro scientific data in terms of the temperature sets from the University of east Anglia was thrown into doubt after the first climategate episode. Its obvious to many that the figures have been massaged with a heavy bias to warming.

We know this because it was made clear that the data sets used had been adjusted to try and eliminate the UHI signal. (urban heat island) But of course the degree of elimination is a man made adjustment.

I have always maintained that this is how the data sets are being manipulated. If one studies the raw data one can see where the adjustment is being made and how this can be used to paint a pro warming set. My personal observation is that the UHI is most significant during the night when radiation cooling is most obvious. The data sets focus on the UHI in relation to daily maxima and therefore the lowest example of forcing. Basically the adjustment made for UHI effect is too little. Check out the raw data sets and you will note that the small warming over the past few dacades has been most prominant at night!! It backs up my theory and also demonstrates why the temperature data cannot and is not now trusted.

the new emails are too late....the damage is already done and the manipulation of data has been exposed.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Village

[Cloudman]

Listen, forget the emails, the pro scientific data in terms of the temperature sets from the University of east Anglia was thrown into doubt after the first climategate episode. Its obvious to many that the figures have been massaged with a heavy bias to warming.

We know this because it was made clear that the data sets used had been adjusted to try and eliminate the UHI signal. (urban heat island) But of course the degree of elimination is a man made adjustment.

I have always maintained that this is how the data sets are being manipulated. If one studies the raw data one can see where the adjustment is being made and how this can be used to paint a pro warming set. My personal observation is that the UHI is most significant during the night when radiation cooling is most obvious. The data sets focus on the UHI in relation to daily maxima and therefore the lowest example of forcing. Basically the adjustment made for UHI effect is too little. Check out the raw data sets and you will note that the small warming over the past few dacades has been most prominant at night!! It backs up my theory and also demonstrates why the temperature data cannot and is not now trusted.

the new emails are too late....the damage is already done and the manipulation of data has been exposed.

Totally wrong there is no manipulation of the data indeed the BEST study has confirmed again that the warming rate is robust, and if anything the UEA series slightly underdoes the recent warming relative to the satellite data (which cannot be contaminated by UHI) , GISS, NOAA. and BEST

[VillagePlank]

And of course, if you are an evil scientific genius manipulating data behind the scenes in attempt to vilify the whole of humanity why would you try to 'eliminate the UHI' signal - when that's a clear human indicator: cities are getting warmer. Surely you'd want that bias front page, at the top, and off to the left, Arial font, size 72, in bold and italic.

OK - maybe it's a bluff. I mean a double bluff. I mean a double double bluff. Actually, I don't know what I mean ....

Edited November 23, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[4wd]

And of course, if you are an evil scientific genius manipulating data behind the scenes in attempt to vilify the whole of humanity why would you try to 'eliminate the UHI' signal - when that's a clear human indicator: cities are getting warmer. Surely you'd want that bias front page, at the top, and off to the left, Arial font, size 72, in bold and italic.

OK - maybe it's a bluff. I mean a double bluff. I mean a double double bluff. Actually, I don't know what I mean ....

Village told you:

The data sets focus on the UHI in relation to daily maxima and therefore the lowest example of forcing. Basically the adjustment made for UHI effect is too little.

[VillagePlank]

Village told you:

Time series of the Earth’s average land temperature are estimated using the

Berkeley Earth methodology applied to the full dataset and the rural subset; the difference of

these shows a slight negative slope over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.19°C ±

0.19 / 100yr (95% confidence), opposite in sign to that expected if the urban heat island

effect was adding anomalous warming to the record. The small size, and its negative sign,

supports the key conclusion of prior groups that urban warming does not unduly bias

estimates of recent global temperature change

Here emphasis, mine.

Of course, I'd be happy to listen to any problems with this paper.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[loafer]

...indeed the BEST study has confirmed again that the warming rate is robust...

Except the last 10 years BEST data shows no warming?

[VillagePlank]

Except the last 10 years BEST data shows no warming?

Does the last 11 years show a warming trend?

[VillagePlank]

Except the last 10 years BEST data shows no warming?

Has Global Warming Stopped?

Some people have suggested that there has been no global warming over the past 13 years, and they ask whether our land-only analysis verifies that. The graph shows the results of our analysis with 1-year averaging (to smooth it) for the last 6 decades so you can better see the period in question. The blue curve is the result of our analysis, and the grey lines represent our 95% confidence limits.

The large fluctuations up and down that take place every few years correlate very strongly with the North Atlantic temperatures (the AMO index) and with El Nino (ENSO index 3.4). The presence of these fluctuations makes any strong extrapolations from short-term behavior uncertain.

Some people draw a line segment covering the period 1998 to 2010 and argue that we confirm no temperature change in that period. However, if you did that same exercise back in 1995, and drew a horizontal line through the data for 1980 to 1995, you might have falsely concluded that global warming had stopped back then. This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years.

from BEST, here, emphasis mine

Edited November 23, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[songster]

Additionally, the last 10 years of BEST data *do* show warming, so long as you remember to exclude the last two monthly data points. Why should you exclude them? Well, they're based on incomplete data: the few dozen stations in Antarctica that happened to have reported in early when BEST did their data grab. The error bars for those two specific points are something like 3 degrees C - they're useless.

Drop those out, and the trend over the last 10 years is upwards, and not significantly different from the warming trend of the previous century or so.

[4wd]

Some of these graphs are misleading: note the one above is not Global temperatures.

That's why it looks nothing like the global series - which does show nothing significant for 15 years now.

As usual, there's deliberate obfuscation going on here.

[jethro]

Just pondering....

It's now expected that natural variation will outweigh any AGW signs in the next 20-30 years. If this is the case, how then do we measure climate change? Does this mean that for the next 20-30 years all climate science will revolve around a future, untestable point? Also, if the next 20-30 are expected to not show any meaningful sign of warming or climate change, how does that then reflect upon the last 20-30 years? We've been led to believe that the warming in recent decades was directly attributable to AGW, so what is changing in the next 20-30 years to over-ride that, when emissions continue to rise?

I am fighting to put my cynic's hat back in the cupboard but I'm having difficulty.

[cyclonic happiness]

I haven't a clue what to think anymore.

If global warming is so obvious, why hasn't anyone other than scientists noticed?

You can wave facts and figures and graphs around all you want, next to non of them are really believable because people are mainly liers and selfish ones at that.

There aren't many scientists worried about saving humanity, they are worried about keeping their jobs, or getting a promotion or just getting more money.

Also how can the amount of human error and instrumental error be calculated? Surely even if one person taking readings cocks up and writes down the wrong number in 1984 or something doesn't that throw the entire system out (butterfly effect)?

I think the best thing to do is just to wait and see, there not even any point in trying to change anything because no=one has proved that CO2 that we make is having an effect on the planet.

Me myself, I'm preparing for us entering the next ice age having not really left the last one yet, seems more sensible to me.

[VillagePlank]

Some of these graphs are misleading: note the one above is not Global temperatures.

That's why it looks nothing like the global series - which does show nothing significant for 15 years now.

As usual, there's deliberate obfuscation going on here.

How many years would you like me to go back? They all trend one way. Up. I note that you say 'significant' - what exactly do you mean by that?

Edited November 23, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[VillagePlank]

Just pondering....

It's now expected that natural variation will outweigh any AGW signs in the next 20-30 years. If this is the case, how then do we measure climate change? Does this mean that for the next 20-30 years all climate science will revolve around a future, untestable point? Also, if the next 20-30 are expected to not show any meaningful sign of warming or climate change, how does that then reflect upon the last 20-30 years? We've been led to believe that the warming in recent decades was directly attributable to AGW, so what is changing in the next 20-30 years to over-ride that, when emissions continue to rise?

I am fighting to put my cynic's hat back in the cupboard but I'm having difficulty.

It's in the nature of analysis at hand. AGW is supposed to be something of the order of 0.1C/decade - that's it's signature. Now, all of that is covered with noise, which we call natural variation. One standard deviation is 0.18C between the beginning of the series and 1950 - we'd expect all natural variation to be within 2 standard deviations from the average which is 0.37C.

Whilst it's nice to have the big boys finally admit to natural signals easily overriding the supposed AGW signal even a cursory analysis shows how much the 0.1C signal can do. If you look at any of the charts I've just posted, you'll see the anomaly at some 0.7C above the climate mean. Let's say that since 1970 the AGW signal kicked in at 0.1C (a conjecture I don't particularly agree with, but it'll do for now) we can possibly then say that its possible that nearly half of that 0.7C signal is anthropogenical.

That, it seems to me, is the theory. The crux of the matter isn't the rather tiresome "of course it's no longer warming," it's how much is the underlying anthro component - the 0.1C/dec is hypothesised from computer modelling - and that is, in my view, where the argument is.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[jethro]

How many years would you like me to go back? They all trend one way. Up. I note that you say 'significant' - what exactly do you mean by that?

Really?

I can't see an upward trend here over the last 5 years.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2011.png

[VillagePlank]

Really?

I can't see an upward trend here over the last 5 years.

http://www.drroyspen...ctober_2011.png

Here's the last five years (2006,2007,2008,2009,2010) from UEA:

So, yes: really.

Besides the minimum dataset most surely be at least the length of the mean, which is thirty years - five years is just an exercise in futility, as in ten years, twenty years, twenty five years, twenty nine years 11 months, 30 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds.

Let's say someone took an average of 30 people's height in a room next to yours. If another group of 30 people were fed into a room where you were sitting and the first five happened to fall below the mean what would you think you knew about the mean of 30, plus the mean of 5?

Edited November 23, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[jethro]

It's in the nature of analysis at hand. AGW is supposed to be something of the order of 0.1C/decade - that's it's signature. Now, all of that is covered with noise, which we call natural variation. One standard deviation is 0.18C between the beginning of the series and 1950 - we'd expect all natural variation to be within 2 standard deviations which is 0.37C.

Whilst it's nice to have the big boys finally admit to natural signals easily overriding the supposed AGW signal even a cursory analysis shows how much the 0.1C signal can do. If you look at any of the charts I've just posted, you'll see the anomaly at some 0.7C above the climate mean. Let's say that since 1970 the AGW signal kicked in at 0.1C (a conjecture I don't particularly agree with, but it'll do for now) we can possibly then say that nearly half of that 0.7C signal is anthropogenical with 95% certainty

That, it seems to me, is the theory. The crux of the matter isn't the rather tiresome "of course it's no longer warming," it's how much is the underlying anthro component - the 0.1C/dec is hypothesised from computer modelling - and that is, in my view, where the argument is.

That does nothing for my cynic's hat. Roughly translated, the above means the expected signal can be lost in noise, so if it can be lost in noise there's no evidence to show it is anything but noise. The only way to show that the anthro signal is real and as expected, is if climate was static - it isn't, it never will be.

My personal opinion is that there's a possibility that we've contributed to warming but there's an equal possibility that we haven't. There's no way of showing whether either possibility is real. All this climate stuff is an exercise in abstract ideas with as much chance of being proven either way as I've got of flying to the Moon on a carpet.

Here's the last five years (2006,2007,2008,2009,2010) from UEA:

So, yes: really.

Besides the minimum dataset most surely be at least the length of the mean, which is thirty years - five years is just an exercise in futility, as in ten years, twenty years, twenty five years, twenty nine years 11 months, 30 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds.

Trading graphs.....they all tell a different story, the only thing they have in common is a teeny, tiny rise (easily lost in noise) and an utterly meaningless, arbitrary time span which is irrelevant in climate terms.

Cynical old me thinks there's a fair chance that this has all been one of the most successful job creation schemes ever to be invented.

[VillagePlank]

That does nothing for my cynic's hat. Roughly translated, the above means the expected signal can be lost in noise, so if it can be lost in noise there's no evidence to show it is anything but noise. The only way to show that the anthro signal is real and as expected, is if climate was static - it isn't, it never will be.

My personal opinion is that there's a possibility that we've contributed to warming but there's an equal possibility that we haven't. There's no way of showing whether either possibility is real. All this climate stuff is an exercise in abstract ideas with as much chance of being proven either way as I've got of flying to the Moon on a carpet.

Trading graphs.....they all tell a different story, the only thing they have in common is a teeny, tiny rise (easily lost in noise) and an utterly meaningless, arbitrary time span which is irrelevant in climate terms.

Cynical old me thinks there's a fair chance that this has all been one of the most successful job creation schemes ever to be invented.

Well, that's why I put in the last line that the 0.1C/decade is discerned by computer modelling and that's also where all the questions are. I've seen some of the source-code, and I wouldn't let such software run a pub, let alone dictate economic policy for the rest of our lives.

WRT trading graphs; it's a rebuttal to a claim that the world has ceased warming and has absolutely nothing to do with any argument about human influence whatsoever. Given the variance: does a drop in global temperature over fives show that AGW isn't happening? does an increase in global temperature show that it is happening? Those are the questions.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[jethro]

Well, that's why I put in the last line that the 0.1C/decade is discerned by computer modelling and that's also where all the questions are. I've seen some of the source-code, and I wouldn't let such software run a pub, let alone dictate economic policy for the rest of our lives.

WRT trading graphs; it's a rebuttal to a claim that the world has ceased warming and has absolutely nothing to do with any argument about human influence whatsoever.

No it's not a rebuttal, a rebuttal would be showing that the other data set was wrong. We provided graphs from different data sources, they're different with different conclusions - one doesn't trump the other.

[VillagePlank]

No it's not a rebuttal, a rebuttal would be showing that the other data set was wrong. We provided graphs from different data sources, they're different with different conclusions - one doesn't trump the other.

Whilst we're being pedantic - you got a picture off a website, I got the peer-reviewed data, and drew the graphs myself - as well as interpolating the least squares regression myself - no buggy Excel on my laptop

Here's the data,

http://www.cru.uea.a.../crutem3vgl.txt

(you'll note I use the variance adjusted set)

Here's the references for how the data was assimilated:

• Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones, 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophysical Research 111, D12106,doi:10.1029/2005JD006548 -- Available as PDF
  
• Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G., 1999: Surface air temperature and its variations over the last 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics 37, 173-199.
  
• Rayner, N.A., P. Brohan, D.E. Parker, C.K. Folland, J.J. Kennedy, M. Vanicek, T. Ansell and S.F.B. Tett, 2006: Improved analyses of changes and uncertainties in marine temperature measured in situ since the mid-nineteenth century: the HadSST2 dataset. J. Climate, 19, 446-469.
  
• Rayner, N.A., Parker, D.E., Horton, E.B., Folland, C.K., Alexander, L.V, Rowell, D.P., Kent, E.C. and Kaplan, A., 2003: Globally complete analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice and night marine air temperature, 1871-2000. J. Geophysical Research 108, 4407, doi:10.1029/2002JD002670
  

All of which has been confirmed, in the main, using different methods, by the BEST analysis.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[4wd]

You can probably conjure up a 0.1C per decade (that really is rather tiny) increase from various periods going back to the earliest thermometer records.

I am utterly and increasingly unconvinced that anything remotely alarming is going on.

And if there is a slow rise it's not harmful and may well be beneficial.

[VillagePlank]

You can probably conjure up a 0.1C per decade (that really is rather tiny) increase from various periods going back to the earliest thermometer records.

I am utterly and increasingly unconvinced that anything remotely alarming is going on.

And if there is a slow rise it's not harmful and may well be beneficial.

Oh - I totally agree on the beneficial remark. I can't remember where I found it, but cold weather kills more people than hot weather.

The conjecture by the big boys is that it will accelerate - I was waiting for someone to post that, but it seems I shall play both sides of the fence, tonight; the global temperature - no matter which series you are using - is not accelerating in the manner supposed by the associated increases in man-made CO2 pumped into the air on an annual basis.

The answer to this, is, of course, that natural signals are overriding that acceleration and will do for 30 years. 30 years is an awful long time to be pumping CO2 into the atmosphere amounting to some 0.3C (or more!) on the temperature record. Surely that'd show out through the noise. It's why I posted a few pages ago - I don't for a second trust this new IPCC report.

However, as far as I can ascertain, at this present moment - the underlying trend of the global temperature is still upwards. It might be slowing down, but upwards it is.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[jethro]

Whilst we're being pedantic - you got a picture off a website, I got the peer-reviewed data, and drew the graphs myself - as well as interpolating the least squares regression myself - no buggy Excel on my laptop

Here's the data,

http://www.cru.uea.a.../crutem3vgl.txt

(you'll note I use the variance adjusted set)

Here's the references for how the data was assimilated:

• Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones, 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophysical Research 111, D12106,doi:10.1029/2005JD006548 -- Available as PDF
  
• Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G., 1999: Surface air temperature and its variations over the last 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics 37, 173-199.
  
• Rayner, N.A., P. Brohan, D.E. Parker, C.K. Folland, J.J. Kennedy, M. Vanicek, T. Ansell and S.F.B. Tett, 2006: Improved analyses of changes and uncertainties in marine temperature measured in situ since the mid-nineteenth century: the HadSST2 dataset. J. Climate, 19, 446-469.
  
• Rayner, N.A., Parker, D.E., Horton, E.B., Folland, C.K., Alexander, L.V, Rowell, D.P., Kent, E.C. and Kaplan, A., 2003: Globally complete analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice and night marine air temperature, 1871-2000. J. Geophysical Research 108, 4407, doi:10.1029/2002JD002670
  

All of which has been confirmed, in the main, using different methods, by the BEST analysis.

If you really want to be pedantic, I got the picture from Roy Spencer's site - http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/

Whilst I commend your efforts, you don't win any extra Brownie points for them and it certainly doesn't mean your hand-drawn graph is a rebuttal for the official one from Roy Spencer.