Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[VillagePlank]

http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/index.html

 

I realise a lot of your concerns are covered in the paper itself Sparks esp. the expanded FAQ section?

 

Errr. Have you read it? And if you have, did you understand it?

Interesting questions.

 

Firstly I've not read the paper. However, Aiui,  the satellites measure something rather different to the surface record - the temperature at a few thousand feet. Secondly the satellite record is not global either, but they do cover more of the globe than Hadley. So, you do some math to bring the two data sets together, a few gaps are filled and a new trend established. If that's what they did it seems fair enough to me.

 

I don't know if there is confirmation bias, again I've not read the paper so I can't tell that. But I can readily see how the questions asked by the authors ('Can we improve the surface record by finding some way to combine various observations?', or something similar?) are not CB. Otoh, I don't see evidence, in what I've read here or elsewhere, they asked the question 'Can we find a way of making the surface temperature trend greater?'.

 

Goods points made, Dev

Edited November 18, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Gray-Wolf]

Still, with the the consensus continuing to get stronger, and Climategate becoming but a distant memory, we await the next big fabricated scandal to be unleashed...

 

I'm more concerned about the switch back to natural drivers that favour warming than anything that the 'misleaders' could try and do to 'sway' public understanding of the changes that we see occurring?

 

Should we find this latest paper on filling in the 'missing data points' proving to be in the ball park then then we have even more of an issue with temps that the climate models currently predict? If the heat going into the oceans presently does cover the shortfall in the 'predicted atmospheric warming' then the data that is being reconstructed over the Polar regions shows that the Polar amplification is far greater in it's impacts than we can currently see? Change the oceans behaviour back to that during the last 'accelerated warming phase' and we get a similar rate of temp change PLUS this heat now emerging from the Poles?

 

Obviously any return to elevated rates of warming will bring with it more potential change to the Polar regions further amplifying the issues there?

 

Should the measured increase in extreme weather events over the past decade have been driven by this reduced rate of atmospheric warming then what should we expect from a resumption in warming that is even stronger than the last 'accelerated warming'?

[knocker]

Oh boy! They really are a sad desperate bunch of scallywags, aren't they.

 

Science deniers use a flawed discarded IPCC chart, but accept Cowtan and Way (for the most part)

Science deniers have resorted to once again using a flawed discarded chart from an earlier draft of the AR5 IPCC report.  This time to consider the new paper by Cowtan and Way, which I've already written about here.

The denialati didn't have to use a flawed, discarded chart.  Though it's kind of cute that they've finally found something produced by the IPCC which they like.  Most of the time science deniers reject everything from the IPCC but when it comes to something the IPCC has rejected, they suddenly decide they'll embrace it.

Which discarded IPCC chart do science deniers hang onto so tenaciously? No, it's not the discarded chart showing short term projections (to 2015) for "Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature (in °C) since 1990 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments".  It's the discarded IPCC chart showing short term projections (to 2015) for which "the focus is now on the range of selected scenario projections from AR4".

Not only do the deniers want to use a discarded chart, they want to use a discarded chart that uses older AR4 CMIP3 models (see below), not the discarded chart using CMIP5 models used by AR5.

One thing though, it looks as if some of the deniers have accepted some actual climate science.  Anthony Watts and Stephen McIntyre seem to have accepted Cowtan and Way.

 

Edited November 19, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

As I posted above Knocks the organised misleaders have already delayed any meaningful action being insisted upon by the public by leaving them both confused and assured they have nothing to worry about ( for well over ten years .......allowing the problem to inch toward being out of our hands anyway?).

 

As such it is now the 'reality' that will drive the public in it's concerns and not the warnings from their scientists? Runs of weather extremes that are constantly making the news ( late tornadoes in the mid west, giant typhoons, record breaking Australian winter with early starts to fire seasons, Mediterranean cyclones, droughts,floods, changing seasons etc,etc) will turn more and more heads in the direction of the science that have been warning them that this was what we should expect under AGW forcings.

 

Should this be what occurs then they will not be best pleased with the folk who had assured them it was all just a scam and that scientists were 'fudging' their data just to look after their faculty funding.

 

When it becomes apparent that any changes that 'could' offset the worst we ought to expect will now need to be more draconian because of the delay in acting on what science was telling us all along will also not please the folk who chose to believe the 'good news' in favour of trusting the majority of scientists and their warnings?

 

The paid misleaders may well have 'won' what their paymasters wanted ( delaying action on better using our fossil fuels and reducing demand) but only at the price of making the the 'extreme' predictions they so took issue with in the late nineties/early noughties more likely to prove real?

[knocker]

Some more thoughts on the C & W paper.

 

http://moyhu.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/seasonal-trends-for-infilled-hadcrut.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Edited November 19, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-39#entry2839924

 

Oh the wonders of skeptic magic never cease to amaze me. Almost like a double fudge without the cream.

 

No warming in Arctic since 1998, dubunks AGW study to get rid of the "pause", says Keith

 

New paper finds warming has also 'paused' in the Arctic; debunks warmist study that claimed to get rid of the 'pause'

Says the blog.

 

Problem is I ask myself how can a paper received on the 17th July 2013 and finally be accepted on the 22nd October 2013 debunk a paper published after that date? The answer is of course, magic.

 

Actually the real answer, If you read the paper, is that the authors are using reanalyses referenced in the paper when saying extreme caution should be used and nothing to do with the C & W paper which again has been looked at in some detail in the post above. Anyway the direct link to the paper discussed here to ensure no debunking, or even dunking to go with the fudge.

 

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/11209/2013/acp-13-11209-2013.pdf

Edited November 19, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

A finger of fudge is just enough is give WUWT a treat? 

[Gray-Wolf]

Do you think they just pretend to be dumb over on the other thread ( so they can plead such when the reality of all we have set into motion becomes even more visible in our day to day living?)? They seem to be labouring under the impression that folk have now 'ditched' the evidence from the oceans in favour of the attempt to include the 'missing data points' in our global temp records ( which shows just how small the 'slowdown' from the oceans phase has proved to be?) and miss the point that it is a very worrying indication of where our 'warming' is at currently?

 

They know that each year that passes is a year closer to the time where our 'natural drivers' stop being a force for cooling and again turn into one that favours warming. If we look at things in that way then surely this new attempt to include the Arctic's recent changes paints a very worrying picture of a planet warming far faster than we thought? If , during a 'natural slowdown' the Arctic has seen such dramatic changes then what should we expect to see when the planet is back in a 'warming' mode? Surely this would just compound the changes there and bring forward a time for a seasonal ice pack and rapid drop in surface albedo across Greenland?

[knocker]

So the missing heat was first in the oceans then it absconded to the ice and now rumour has it it's waiting at Cape Canaveral  in order to be launched into space.

 

 

Is it bound for your planet?

[VillagePlank]

Do you think they just pretend to be dumb over on the other thread ( so they can plead such when the reality of all we have set into motion becomes even more visible in our day to day living?)? They seem to be labouring under the impression that folk have now 'ditched' the evidence from the oceans in favour of the attempt to include the 'missing data points' in our global temp records ( which shows just how small the 'slowdown' from the oceans phase has proved to be?) and miss the point that it is a very worrying indication of where our 'warming' is at currently?

 

They know that each year that passes is a year closer to the time where our 'natural drivers' stop being a force for cooling and again turn into one that favours warming. If we look at things in that way then surely this new attempt to include the Arctic's recent changes paints a very worrying picture of a planet warming far faster than we thought? If , during a 'natural slowdown' the Arctic has seen such dramatic changes then what should we expect to see when the planet is back in a 'warming' mode? Surely this would just compound the changes there and bring forward a time for a seasonal ice pack and rapid drop in surface albedo across Greenland?

 

You haven't answered any of my questions. Failure to answer reasonable questions might be seen as baiting and or trolling which might see you banned. I will try again: do you think that all previous temperature series are wrong or flawed?

Edited November 19, 2013 by Sparkicle

[knocker]

I've posted the paper in New Research although not strictly necessary

 

Old and new warming in the Eurasian Arctic and denier weirdness at WUWT

 

 

 

Anthony Watts seems to have put his foot in it again, but has pulled it out just a little (archived here - updated here).

Today he posted an article about a new paper with some analysis of an ice core from the Eurasian Arctic, in the vicinity of the Kara and Barents Seas. Going by his note at the bottom, perhaps Anthony originally tried to use the paper to "prove" something about Cowtan and Way - maybe that it was wrong.  His note reads:

[Note: this original post was written during my workday and making a comparison to the Cowtan and Way paper, and like sometimes happens during my day, I got interrupted, and then got off on a tangent that wasn't correct. To correct my mistake, I've republished this post sans that tangent. Later I'll get back to my original idea when I have more time.  - Anthony]

 

Baited  breath doesn't come into it. Keep still my beating heart. As usual the comments from the foot soldiers displays wisdom and insight.

Edited November 20, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Good job we are in a cooling period.

 

Globe’s Unbroken Warm Streak Approaches 29 Years

The globe’s unbroken hot streak is inching closer to 29 years, with new data showing that October was the 344th consecutive month with global average surface temperatures above the 20th century average. 

 

According to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released on Monday, the global average surface temperature for the month of October was 1.13°F above the 20th century average (1961-1990) for the month. That’s enough to make this the seventh-warmest October on record in what is also likely to be the seventh-warmest year on record, according to a recent report from the World Meteorological Organization. The last time the globe had a cooler-than-average month was February 1985, and the last cooler-than-average October occurred in 1976, shortly before Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford in that year's presidential election.

 

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/globes-unbroken-warm-streak-approaches-29-years-16758

Edited November 20, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

You haven't answered any of my questions. Failure to answer reasonable questions might be seen as baiting and or trolling which might see you banned. I will try again: do you think that all previous temperature series are wrong or flawed?

 

I believe I did Sparks? The records are 'incomplete' so we currently do not know but , by the time we have an agreed methodology to enable us a contiguous global temp series then I would expect them to be as 'good' as we can have them?

 

The other thing is why, when all the records should be taken on a 'level playing field' over time, is an 'absolute measure so important when surely their relationship to one another brings us our understanding of 'change'?

 

Though this duck's back is fairly weather proof if you really wish to study 'baiting' or 'trolling' I'd suggest you focus over on the other thread and , as it troubles you so?, raise it also with offenders over there (reminding them of the penalties of such behaviours)?

[knocker]

Some perspective from Simon Donner

 

This old post about the quiet 2006 hurricane season relevant to all the talk of change

 

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

The hurricane season

I’m in New Orleans for a meeting. Naturally, it has me thinking about hurricanes, climate change, and just how toxic the subject has become.

 

Edited November 20, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

It appears that some areas of the debate have now expanded the UHI meme into a full global thang......... 

 

" Someones got it in for me

 they're planting stories in the pre....essss.........."

 

Truely is a wonder "we can even feed ourselves" considering just how backward a planet we were as little as back in the 1860's.........

 

Next we'll be hearing how unreliable the accounts of the warming spurt in the 30's and 40's was........

 

And then maybe we shouldn't trust the records of an 'ice age' nor that folk build monuments in turkey in 10.000bce ( as we're all only 3 and a bit thousand years away from the creation of the universe......seeing as we had no 'modern instrumentation' recording things back then to give us 'accurate data'......... )

 

And that typhoon truly was an 'idiot Wind' if it though itself anything other than a run of the mill storm........

 

Without our side of the debate receiving any support from the fossil fuel funded funnymen's  fanciful  factorium of bifactual advice "it's a wonder that we still know how to breathe".......

[VillagePlank]

The facts of the matter are, GW, if you accept that the missing heat is in the Arctic because of incomplete records and despite the fact that the satellite record has global coverage and agrees with the thermometer record (more or less), somehing really is rather amiss. Both things cannot be true, and to peddle it as a tautology really is the epitome of misleading.

[Methuselah]

Personally, I more minded to seek a proper explanation for the 'pause', real or apparent...

[VillagePlank]

The 'real' explanation, given the science, is that this is simply natural noise with a concurrently increasing temperature trend underneath, Pete. There is *no* hidden warming - perhaps in the oceans, but if that's the case the autocorrelated lagtime of thermal oceanic inertia is in serious need of revision.

 

This is science in progress. Get a theory, see if matches observations (it does at the minute) and alter theory if it doesn't. Given the width of standard errors and natural variance, we should really only have to wait a year or three to see if the actual temperature line falls outside the -5st dev, therefore highly unlikely, and thus falsifying the theory. Whether it will, whether it won't only nature can tell us that.

[knocker]

Since the first major United Nations report into climate change was released in 1990, annual emissions of carbon dioxide from human activities have gone up by 58%.

 

Warsaw's widening climate chasm could lead to 4C warming

 

Scientists say countries attending United Nations climate talks are going backwards on policy and risking 4C of global warming

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/nov/21/warsaw-climate-change-conference-global-warming?CMP=twt_gu

Edited November 21, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Confirmed: 97% consensus that in utter nutter week there are a few roos loose in the top paddock at WUWT

 

The descent into utter nuttery continues at WUWT.

Edited November 21, 2013 by knocker

[VillagePlank]

Since the first major United Nations report into climate change was released in 1990, annual emissions of carbon dioxide from human activities have gone up by 58%.

 

Warsaw's widening climate chasm could lead to 4C warming

 

Scientists say countries attending United Nations climate talks are going backwards on policy and risking 4C of global warming

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/nov/21/warsaw-climate-change-conference-global-warming?CMP=twt_gu

 

Crucially, they're also *slowing* down

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24742770

[Coast]

 

Climate talks: wealthy countries urged to foot bill for weather-related disasters

 

Developing countries threaten to walk out of UN talks in Warsaw over failure to reach agreement on financial recompense

 

The proposal by developing countries that their wealthier counterparts be held financially responsible for the damage incurred by extreme climate events such as typhoon Haiyan and droughts in Africa has become the most explosive issue at the UN's climate change conference in Warsaw. With neither side prepared to give way on the principle of "loss and damage", confrontation looms at the close of the talks on Friday.

 

Earlier this year, governments agreed to resolve the issue of possible recompense. But with only two days of high-level negotiations remaining, positions have hardened. Some of the least developed countries have threatened to quit the talks over the situation.

 

"This is a red line for us," said Munjural Khan, a spokesman for the Least Developed Countries (LDC), a coalition of 49 nations that, though the most vulnerable to climate change, claim to have contributed the least to the problem. "We have been thinking of ways to harden our position, to the point of walking out of the negotiations." "I expect this to go to the wire, to the last minute of the last hour. It's all or nothing," added Saleemul Huq, the Bangladeshi scientist whose work on loss and damage with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) in London helped put the issue of compensation on the conference agenda.

 

Huq said the G77 coalition of developing countries was united behind the LDC and Alliance of Small Island States, a group of low-lying coastal countries that have similar development challenges and concerns about the environment. "I see unprecedented unity among the developing countries. It is a win-or-lose issue. If they get a mechanism, the developing countries will win." Developed countries have been reluctant to address the issue, blocking calls for a full debate and delaying negotiations. They dismiss the idea of setting up a new global body as "pointless".

 

But the G77 and other countries say their wealthier counterparts have only themselves to blame if the loss and damage issue has become central to the Warsaw talks. "They have consistently delayed helping developing countries adapt to climate change and have not reduced emissions, as agreed. It's because of a failure of mitigation and adaptation, that we need to talk about it," said Huq. "Agreed liability is better than unagreed. It's in their interests to address loss and damage now."

 

The high cost of delaying action on climate change adaptation was illustrated on Tuesday with the publication of a UN environment report suggesting that it will cost African countries about $50bn a year to adapt by 2050, but $350bn a year if it is delayed until the 2070s. Typhoon Haiyan, which is expected to cost tens of billions of pounds, has concentrated minds on the rising cost of environmental change, according to Khan.

 

"We see the impacts of climate change are happening now," he said. "We cannot wait to adapt in 2020, or some time in the future. But we have no resources. If rich countries had helped us with resources years ago, this would not have happened."

 

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/19/climate-talks-wealthy-countries-bill-weather-disasters-un-warsaw

[knocker]

Crucially, they're also *slowing* down

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24742770

 

There does seem to slight difference of opinion though.

 

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production increased by 2.1% in 2012, with a total of 9.7±0.5 GtC (billion tonnes of carbon) emitted to the atmosphere, 58% above 1990 emissions (the Kyoto Protocol reference year). Emissions are projected to increase by a further 2.1% in 2013. In 2012, the ocean and land carbon sinks respectively removed 28% and 23% of total (fossil fuel and land use change) CO₂. The land sink in 2012 was much less than in 2011, a year of a strong La Niña weather pattern.

 

 

http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/

[VillagePlank]

Yes, that's right. The rate of increase is reducing.

[knocker]

Yes, would be faster of course without the increase in the east. A fine balance with the decrease in the west.