Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[mikeworst]

Cool it with the insults lads, It does not do your religion any favours. There see, I can do it as well. 

[Gray-Wolf]

I think that the devastation wrought by the Typhoon goes a long way to highlighting the issues of a world were such natural disasters are ever common. It is true we , on this side of the house, have not sought to link the typhoon with the impacts of warming apart from the obvious 'facts of the matter' such as elevated ocean temps and atmospheric moisture content.

 

This is the 3rd major incident in the Philippines this year so far. How much money does the world have put aside to deal with such? How many 'events' a year are the public able to stump up for?

 

This is the lesson we can take from the incident (IMHO). When we read the papers highlighting the impacts of a warming planet on population we cannot ignore climate disasters and forced population movement driven by worsening conditions on the ground. Is this another area where some folks best shot at mitigation is "wait and see"?

[Methuselah]

Can you name anyone on here who actually stated that the storm was caused or even enhanced by Global Warming. I certainly didn't and actually said that the priority was the human tragedy unfolding and that we shouldn't stoop to the level of Watts and Goddard who managed to reach an all time low with their callous disregard of the truth. I'm surprised, or am I, that they have followers on here as most of their acolytes are right wing fruitcakes.

That's the point...the loons at WUWT were all up-in-arms, in denial, about something no-one's even said. Talk about being too quick to complain.

Edited November 13, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[Gray-Wolf]

That's the point...the loons at WUWT were all up-in-arms, in denial of something of something no-one's even said. Talk about being too quick to complain.

 

Hi Pete!

 

I too was shocked at how they went about things but then I realised we were on the eve of a global climate conference in Warsaw and that we have had none of 'climategate' type scandals that normally appear to proceed such events?

 

The spectre of a big weather disaster unfolding on the eve of the conference may have been what drove them to try and both belittle the event and unlink it from the spectre of climate change and future weather related disasters that will have the hallmark of AGW on them? ( we are constantly warmed to expect such in the future?).

 

I do not think they could have expected it to be the scale of disaster it has turned into but , that said, they have not flinched in their position which has upset many folk including some of their own?

[Gray-Wolf]

 

From ;

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/nov/13/global-warming-underestimated-by-half?

 

This will recieve a few moans I'm sure! So the globe ,since 1998, has been warming at 2.5 times the speed that the metO data shows us.......... now where was that 'slowdown' we heard so much about?????

 

this work also has implications as to how 'sensitive' the climate is and must therefore raise concerns about the future changes we ought to expect.

 

It has irked me , in recent years, that such big temp changes that the loss of sea ice drives are missed out from our temperature data sets and this new methodology does finally bring those changes back to the fore.

 

EDIT: I would expect a lot of folk will be checking the methodology used by the team to check their findings and , sadly, certain factors calling it a 'cheat'. If they found , when removing data points and seeing how their methodology dealt with them, that there was a good correlation between the real data and the 'hybrid' data  does this not show that their new approach to missing data points works?

 

The worry ,for me, has been how much of the energy 'freed up' once the ice/snow has melted goes into heating the atmosphere ( if we know 90% of our energy heats the oceans and only 2% goes into heating the air then 8% is left over heating land and melting ice?) Unlike 'heating land surfaces' I guess that when melting ice/snow all your energy is being used ( surely there is a drop off in heating a land surface once it's temps are up?) right up until the point the ice/snow is melted? In the past vast areas gobbled up the enrgy right through summer as the ice/snow never got to melt out. These days we see large areas either 'snow free' earlier than the historic average ( freeing up energy for that excess period) or becoming 'ice free' when it used to remain ice covered ( freeing up that energy for that period).

 

If we are already seeing an imbalance in our energy budget what do such sudden increases do on top of the imbalance?

Edited November 13, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-37#entry2832623

 

Unfortunately what was less pleasing to see was the disgusting knee-jerk reaction by certain bloggers and their camp followers of the other persuasion.

Edited November 13, 2013 by knocker

[Devonian]

Cool it with the insults lads, It does not do your religion any favours. There see, I can do it as well. 

 

I already knew that and please keep such views to the scepticism thread where they belong.

[Gray-Wolf]

Just read a piece on Haiyan that linked a lot of factors together that went into making the storm as potent as it was; 

 

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/11/13/haiyun-is-this-a-trend/

 

and it makes for pretty disturbing reading. It seems we can see a link between the heat going into the oceans and the formation of these 'super storms'. It makes plain sense when you think on it. We know that such storms 'milk' the heat out of the surface of the ocean (making it less likely for other storms to form over that track as the sst's won't sustain it's formation) but if the warmth goes down into the surface waters then all of that churning just throws up more water at a temp to feed the storm.

 

This appears to be what happened with Haiyan ( and Katrina).

 

EDIT: I'd just like to emphasise here that searching for mechanisms that help explain events should not threaten anybodies 'world view' if we accept the data used in drawing the conclusions?

 

However I do tend to agree with the end sentiments about the reluctance of some folk to accept that the oceans have been taking up a lot of our current energy imbalance if we are then able to show how this energy can influence the formation and ferocity of individual storms and the impacts they bring with them?

 

EDIT:EDIT: running out of my daily ration of posts Dev so I'll stick this here.

 

I saw studies looking at the depth Pacific swells disturbed the water column off Hawaii and they went down 200m!!! If a 'swell' is the top of a circle then the bottom will be a fair way down? 20m swells must churn down quite a way but the temps they link to in the article put an awful lot of heat all the way down to 100m???? thats a heck of a lot of stored energy!

Edited November 13, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Devonian]

Just read a piece on Haiyan that linked a lot of factors together that went into making the storm as potent as it was; 

 

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/11/13/haiyun-is-this-a-trend/

 

and it makes for pretty disturbing reading. It seems we can see a link between the heat going into the oceans and the formation of these 'super storms'. It makes plain sense when you think on it. We know that such storms 'milk' the heat out of the surface of the ocean (making it less likely for other storms to form over that track as the sst's won't sustain it's formation) but if the warmth goes down into the surface waters then all of that churning just throws up more water at a temp to feed the storm.

 

This appears to be what happened with Haiyan ( and Katrina).

 

Well, it looks to me that what is does is, to partly used the words, 'that churning threw up water not cool enough to subdue the storm'? Or perhaps that, even if a super storm churned up water down to 100m it would still not subdue it. Which makes me wonder how deep down such storm churn water normally? I'd guess not 100m but I've no real idea.  Indeed, I'm amazed that 100m down in the tropics it's that warm - I never knew that...Still, lot to learn here or, (in the other thread I hope) dismiss

Edited November 13, 2013 by Devonian

[knocker]

I don't know why but I felt in need of some light entertainment,

 

How's that Polish exaggeration going, Anthony Watts?

 

 

I thought the speech from the chappy from CFACT a tad mind boggling.

 

We in America watched as brave Polish workers took to the streets to demand political and economic freedom. Today on my first visit to your wonderful country I am proud to stand with you in a new battle for freedom against those who would use environmental and climate alarmism to steal away our liberties and to give international bureaucrats control over our energy sources, our daily lives, our prosperity and our national sovereignty. Last year the head of the UN climate conference said that the goal of the United Nations was a complete economic transformation of the world. That is what they desire. But that is not good news for those of us who love freedom. And it is not good new for the people of Poland. The Old Testament Book of Proverbs it says that the wicked flee they run away.  The wicked run away. Even when no-one is chasing them. But the righteous good people they are bold as a lion. The environmentalists and the bureaucrats they don't want to debate these issues. Because they know they are deceiving the world. There hasn't been any global warming in more than 15 years and this is simply an excuse for more government oppression. But thankfully you and I are not deceived. We stand for freedom. We stand for opportunity. We stand for our families. And we stand for a strong and prosperous future. Together let us be bold as a lion. Thank you for the privilege of speaking here today. And may god bless Poland.

 

 

I swear you couldn't make it up.

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/11/hows-that-polish-exaggeration-going.html?spref=tw

[Methuselah]

I don't know why but I felt in need of some light entertainment,

 

 

I thought the speech from the chappy from CFACT a tad mind boggling.

 

 

I swear you couldn't make it up.

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/11/hows-that-polish-exaggeration-going.html?spref=tw

I take it Watts is still struggling with his Trophim Lysenko text!

[knocker]

Acidity levels soar in world's oceans - study

A new report says the world's oceans are becoming more acidic at an unprecedented rate.

 

Scientists from the International Biosphere-Geosphere programme say they are confident that human emissions of carbon dioxide are to blame, and that acidification could increase by 170% by 2100.

 

They say that some 30% of ocean species are unlikely to survive in these conditions.

 

The researchers conclude that human emissions of CO2 are clearly to blame.

 

 

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/227740/acidity-levels-soar-in-world%27s-oceans-study

[knocker]

Jeff Masters looks at intensification, warm sub-surface water & Walker Circulation.

 

A remarkable warming of the sub-surface Pacific waters east of the Philippines in recent decades, due to a shift in atmospheric circulation patterns and ocean currents that began in the early 1990s, could be responsible for the rapid intensification of Super Typhoon Haiyan. Hurricanes are heat engines, which means they take heat energy out of the ocean, and convert it to kinetic energy in the form of wind. It's well-known that tropical cyclones need surface water temperatures of at least 26.5°C (80°F) to maintain themselves, and that the warmer the water, and the deeper the warm water is, the stronger the storm can get. Deep warm water is important, since as a tropical cyclone tracks over the ocean, it stirs up cooler water from the depths, potentially reducing the intensity of the storm. When both Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita exploded into Category 5 hurricanes as they crossed over a warm eddy in the Gulf of Mexico with a lot of deep, warm water, the concept of the total heat energy available to fuel a hurricane--the Tropical Cyclone Heat Potential (TCHP)--became one that gained wide recognition. The Pacific Ocean east of the Philippines has the largest area of deep, warm water of anywhere on Earth, and these waters have historically fueled the highest incidence of Category 5 storms of anywhere on the planet. Super Typhoon Haiyan tracked over surface waters that were of near-average warmth, 29.5 - 30.5°C (85 - 87°F.) However, the waters at a depth of 100 meters (328 feet) beneath Haiyan during its rapid intensification phase were a huge 4 - 5°C (7 - 9°F) above average, judging by an analysis of October average ocean temperatures from the Japan Meteorological Agency (Figure 1.) As the typhoon stirred this unusually warm water to the surface, the storm was able to feed off the heat, allowing Haiyan to intensify into one of the strongest tropical cyclones ever observed.

 

 

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2579

[Methuselah]

Its a good article, Malcolm, though I'm not sure how it relates to AGW. Then again, I can see how it might.

[knocker]

Its a good article, Malcolm, though I'm not sure how it relates to AGW. Then again, I can see how it might.

 

I thought it worth a  read Pete and was struggling to find a thread to post.it. The fact that I posted it here doesn't mean I think it particularly relevant to AGW, just it's worth a read from a meteorlogical viewpoint.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/13/climate-change-red-state-opinion-america-study

 

so just who is posting the comments to WUWT?

 

http://climatepublicopinion.stanford.edu/sample-page/research/does-the-american-public-support-legislation-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions/

[knocker]

Glaciers in South America are melting at unprecedented rate. It's difficult to understand this as warming is no more.

 

Latin America is already preparing for climate change adaptation - ahead of the U.S.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amaxwell/latin_america_is_already_prepa.html

[knocker]

so just who is posting the comments to WUWT?

 

 

Good question GW. Here is the latest contribution from one of the literati. I think there is a good case for cancelling  their weekend passes. Still it proves there is life on other planets. Do not despair.

 

While Tuduri suffers extreme confirmation bias softened by a whiff of self-awareness and says (excerpt):

November 14, 2013 at 3:39 pm

I’m a criminal investigator, not a scientist. But my training and nature compel me to question any proffered theory, especially when it effects my pocket book. This is why I’ve never bought into the CAGW. I’ve always wondered,’ where is the evidence’? What is the mechanism? Haven’t we been warming ever since the last ice age, etc.

Then when I did a little research and started to read WUWT, I began to see more clearly the absence of proof for CAGW and the ever increasing data showing the opposite: Things like the absence of warming in 17 years, the increasing ice in the Antarctic, the upswing in Arctic ice, and much other informative and even entertaining information from articles written by Anthony and other real scientists on this blog.I admire the rational thinking and argumentation. The marshaling of facts and drawing to solid conclusions. The absence of name calling and histrionics. The empiricism, if you will, the thoughtful contemplation of evidence.

‘ Following where the evidence leads’ is an expression in my line of work. I can’t necessarily assume that ‘ the butler did it’ when the evidence leads elswhere. Lol. lMy doubtin the CAGW theory increased after outed emails being exchanged between some the the leading scientists supporting AGW. These emails showed these AGW scientists’ mendacious and duplicitous nature in hiding information from the public and presenting false information to the world about Global warming or as they currently put it ‘climate change’. The revelation of their efforts to malign and discredit scientists who disagreed with them didn’t enhance their credibility in my eyes. . They commited crimes of omission and commission in my view.

I guess that the above falls within a demand for representeational certainty. But my questioning, and cynicism of the Warmists, I must admit, is also emotional and ideological. I happen to be a conservative minded person. I am reflexively suspicious of policy, theory, etc offered by the left. Now I am open to being dissuaded by being shown proof of CAGW. But all I’ve seen are broken hockey sticks, faulty computer models and ….no warming.

Edited November 15, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-24950487

 

It's good to see we're on the right track.............not!

 

I grew up with tales of what we were doing to the Amazon....the 'Lungs of the planet'........ Why can we give areas of our planet names to show their importance to us and then sit idly by as the are destroyed?

 

Thats our 'Air conditioner' and 'Lungs'.......anything else in our House on the fritz??? 

 

EDIT: I was pondering the new paper on global temps and the inclusion of the Arctic/Antarctic heat there. I got to thinking about the other measures we could use to witness the scale of warming. I thought about the 'oceans' and their capacity to take in energy and then remembered sea level rise.

 

If the planet had really slowed down it's warming should we not see that reflected in sea level rises esp. those down to 'thermal expansion'? We seem to have a pretty good handle on the amount of the year increase down to ice melt from both Greenland and Antarctica so would the remainder ,representing 'thermal expansion' not be a good indicator to global temps that year or are we looking at a slow response system with the depths still responding , and expanding, due to contact with previously warmed upper layers? Either way would not a 'slowdown' in the rate of warming eventually show up in reduced thermal expansion for the year? WMO places sea level rise at a record high last year so something is obviously occurring?

Edited November 15, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-37#entry2835348

 

Antarctica is melting, not growing. In fact the ice mass is dropping at an accelerating rate due to multiple factors including accelerated glacial ice calving rates. The loss of sea based ice allows the Antarctic ice to move faster towards the ocean resulting in an increased rate of loss of the Antarctic ice.

 

Antarctica is losing ice mass while gaining ice extent. This is a confusing point to some. There are a few keys that can help us understand what this means in the context of global warming.

 

Land ice is different than sea ice. Antarctica is losing ice as illustrated below in the ice mass chart from the GRACE satellite.

 

The sea ice-extent is increasing as expected based on observations and model studies. Context is important here. While it is warming in the Southern Hemisphere (SH), there are other things changing that influence Antarctic Sea Ice Extent. While it is warming in and around Antarctica, It remains cold during winter which allows ice extent to grown each winter. The growth of Antarctic Sea Ice is likely due to changes in ocean and wind circulation combined with changes in moisture levels and related factors that are related to the ice extent increase.

 

There is indication that changes in stratospheric ozone may also play a role.

 

Some models and studies hypothesized this would occur, so the observations are in line with such expectations. Further attribution studies will help confirm the degree of connectivity to current climate change.

 

The key to understanding simultaneous warming in the Antarctic region and increases sea ice extent is well explained in Zhang 2007:

 

The model shows that an increase in surface air temperature and downward longwave radiation results in an increase in the upper-ocean temperature and a decrease in sea ice growth, leading to a decrease in salt rejection from ice, in the upper-ocean salinity, and in the upper-ocean density. The reduced salt rejection and upper-ocean density and the enhanced thermohaline stratification tend to suppress convective overturning, leading to a decrease in the upward ocean heat transport and the ocean heat flux available to melt sea ice. 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.

 

Generally, in SH winter, ice extent can grow more than usual, while in summer the overall satellite observations show that ice mass of Antarctica is decreasing.

With more snow precipitation in Antarctica one might expect that the ice mass would grow as well, but at this time the ice discharge (calving) rates are increasing.

Data confirms these three factors:

• Antarctica is warming
• Antarctic sea ice extent is increasing
• Antarctic land Ice mass is decreasing

A warmer world seems to translate to more snow but faster loss of that snow in the spring/summer months.

 

The Arctic, in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) acts in the opposite direction regarding ice extent, and is also losing ice mass. The main reason that the NH is not gaining ice extent like Antarctica is the Northern or Polar Amplification Effect. This is due to the fact that the NH is mostly land, while the SH is mostly water and ice. So the two hemispheres behave quite differently.

 

 

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/antarctic-ice-melt

 

[knocker]

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/

Edited November 16, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

I find it odd to see this thread posting the outlive of the paper on the day it was released and no rebuttal from the other thread then, as soon as WUWT runs a piece on it they're all over it? Other sites have been discussing it for days but here on netW it appears the other side will not move until Watts gives permission?

 

What is wrong with trawling through the science outlets and forming your own opinions?

[UV-RAY]

I find it odd to see this thread posting the outlive of the paper on the day it was released and no rebuttal from the other thread then, as soon as WUWT runs a piece on it they're all over it? Other sites have been discussing it for days but here on netW it appears the other side will not move until Watts gives permission?What is wrong with trawling through the science outlets and forming your own opinions?

Lol, I rarely view WUWT so I need no prompting, I'm a rare breed a true sceptic and can whiff out bull manure in a instance and I certainly don't fall into the climate scientist have all the answers catergory either, unlike most who post here. Edited November 16, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[BornFromTheVoid]

Lol, I rarely view WUWT so I need no prompting, I'm a rare breed a true sceptic and can whiff out bull manure in a instance and I certainly don't fall into the climate scientist have all the answers catergory either, unlike most who post here.

 

We're all sceptics SI, some are purely AGW sceptics, others have a more general sceptical approach to things. Whatever the case, you'll find nobody that thinks climate scientists have all the answers, that kind of broad and false generalisation isn't befitting of a sceptical inquirer!

Edited November 16, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[knocker]

Lol, I rarely view WUWT so I need no prompting, I'm a rare breed a true sceptic and can whiff out bull manure in a instance and I certainly don't fall into the climate scientist have all the answers catergory either, unlike most who post here.

 

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?