Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2014 - 12:17am PT
|
Sorry, Chief, you have poor reading comprehension. Human emitted GHG gasses are included in that model, so they did play a role.
BTW, if you hadn't figured it out Chief, most climate scientists agree that natural forcing and internal variability dominated the early 20th century, but human activity did play a role.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2014 - 12:24am PT
|
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000JD000028/abstract
Our analysis suggests that the early twentieth century warming can best be explained by a combination of warming due to increases in greenhouse gases and natural forcing, some cooling due to other anthropogenic forcings, and a substantial, but not implausible, contribution from internal variability.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2014 - 01:26am PT
|
Damn that Chief must be a hell of a climber. Even Bruce says 5.12 was just like 5.2 to him. The amazing thing is that he is even better Eco Freak ass kicker.
Anyway getting back to that transition into regional forecasting-WTF, why didn't the industry give us a heads up on this west coast drought?
I have a question for you CAGW geniuses. What conditions of a cool phase PDO causes the sustained high pressure ridge in the eastern pacific off our west coast and how in the hell will CO2 be twisted into causation?
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2014 - 11:04am PT
|
The amazing thing is that he is even better Eco Freak ass kicker.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 27, 2014 - 11:35am PT
|
“Fortunately for me, I did not take any science classes in college,”
Ho man ...
I wonder if Bachmann ever took a pill from a pharmacy. If so, she trusted her life to a scientist.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2014 - 11:39am PT
|
“Fortunately for me, I did not take any science classes in college,”
You do all realize that the "article" is a spoof/satire/made-up-bullsh#t?
And you're pretending it's real?
Who exactly are the morons again?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2014 - 12:52pm PT
|
Fortmental I have Dixie Sketch at #3.
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2014 - 02:10pm PT
|
sketch wrote:
Well looky here.
Bitch 1 and Bitch 2 just showed up.
Howdy girls.
I've been climbing 30 years, sketch. In that time I've seen and heard my share of sexist putdowns masquerading as humor. It's not funny. It wasn't funny 30 years ago. It isn't now.
How did it go, last time you tried to free the Nose of El Cap?
I'm sorry you feel so frightened that you never have the confidence to actually say anything, to contribute anything, to speak from the heart.
I hope you do better in real life.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2014 - 02:10pm PT
|
Well looky here.
Bitch 1 and Bitch 2 just showed up.
Howdy girls.
Hey, it's not our fault you're a fooking idiot.
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2014 - 02:16pm PT
|
On a more positive note, here's a fascinating article about scientists modeling future volcanic "super" eruptions and the potential effect of such eruptions on climate.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/06/geologists-trigger-super-eruptions-volcanic
So, my question, to sketch, The Chief, rick sumner, is whether these volcano scientists are part of the same vast climate/doomsaying/moneygrabbing conspiracy as the climate modeling scientists?
Or is research on future behavior of volcanoes OK because volcanoes are a "natural" forcing effect?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2014 - 02:20pm PT
|
now THAT was a thing of beauty
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2014 - 02:47pm PT
|
Funny how you didn't take exception to the preceding posts.
I was out of town, climbing over the weekend.
Hope you got some climbing in, too.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2014 - 03:41pm PT
|
Lo and behold, it's Chief Motor Mouth, AKA, #1.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2014 - 04:10pm PT
|
The recent paper by Cowtan and Way (2013), Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends, advanced research on global temperature trends by demonstrating (and reducing) a bias in existing temperature indexes.
Incomplete global coverage is a potential source of bias in global temperature reconstructions if the unsampled regions are not uniformly distributed over the planet's surface. The widely used HadCRUT4 dataset covers on average about 84% of the globe over recent decades, with the unsampled regions being concentrated at the poles and over Africa. Three existing reconstructions with near-global coverage are examined, each suggesting that HadCRUT4 is subject to bias due to its treatment of unobserved regions.
Two alternative approaches for reconstructing global temperatures are explored, one based on an optimal interpolation algorithm and the other a hybrid method incorporating additional information from the satellite temperature record. The methods are validated on the basis of their skill at reconstructing omitted sets of observations. Both methods provide superior results than excluding the unsampled regions, with the hybrid method showing particular skill around the regions where no observations are available.
Temperature trends are compared for the hybrid global temperature reconstruction and the raw HadCRUT4 data. The widely quoted trend since 1997 in the hybrid global reconstruction is two and a half times greater than the corresponding trend in the coverage-biased HadCRUT4 data. Coverage bias causes a cool bias in recent temperatures relative to the late 1990s which increases from around 1998 to the present. Trends starting in 1997 or 1998 are particularly biased with respect to the global trend. The issue is exacerbated by the strong El Niño event of 1997-1998, which also tends to suppress trends starting during those years.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2014 - 04:16pm PT
|
Following up on their paper, Cowtan & Way have updated and published their new index using data through December 2013. I thought it would be interesting to compare these new data with the NOAA/NCDC temperature index we have often seen graphed here. To make the two series somewhat more comparable I first re-centered the NOAA data by subtracting monthly means for 1961-1990. Over 1880-2013 (the full run of the NOAA series, although Cowtan & Way go back to 1850), the two look very similar. Their correlation is r = +.97.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2014 - 04:21pm PT
|
20th century warming accelerated in about 1975, and satellite data (UAH and RSS time series) start with 1979, so we often look at this more recent period. Here are NOAA and Cowtan & Way anomalies since 1975. Over this period trends for CW13 are a bit steeper than NOAA (+.18/decade vs. +.16/decade):
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2014 - 04:24pm PT
|
Let's not forget the Chefs substantial contributions, i.e.
they ALL repeatedly claim this has absolutely nothing to do with their extremist political ideological standing.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Whhooooooooooooooa!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! It is COOLING..
OK... so it's warming.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! It is COOLING..
OK... so it's warming.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! It is COOLING..
OK... so it's warming.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! It is COOLING..
OK... so it's warming.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! It is COOLING..
OK... so it's warming.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! It is COOLING..
OK... so it's warming.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! It is COOLING..
OK... so it's warming.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! It is COOLING..
OK... so it's warming.
A 1 million year old piece of petrified rat shet could have figured that out.
Ah, like you all redundantly proclaim when all the record low temps and snow stats are posted....HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Come to think of it, was it not a bunch of scientist and engineers that got us into this mess in the first place?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2014 - 04:28pm PT
|
Looking at the 1975-2013 graph above you'll notice the two series start to diverge more since about 1999. That coincides with the period when Arctic warming steepened, but Arctic warming is poorly represented in the NOAA and HadCRUT data (a big part of the "coverage bias" CW13 write about).
So here is what it looks like if we restrict analysis just to the past 15 years, 1999-2013. Over this period the CW13 trend (+.13/decade) is almost twice that of NOAA (+.07/decade).
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2014 - 05:04pm PT
|
A ways back on this thread, I described a time series regression model that fits observed global temperatures pretty well, predicting them from Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD), Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), the multivariate ENSO index, and global mean CO2. I showed such models for NOAA and UAH temperature series, and estimated but did not show them for NASA and RSS series as well.
The approach works equally well, and reaches basically the same conclusions, applied to the new CW13 global temperatures. That is, it confirms that AOD, TSI and ENSO each have significant net effect, but CO2 effects are stronger than those, and needed to explain temperature's upward climb.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2014 - 05:20pm PT
|
What's the interpolation method used to "fill in the blanks"? 5 degrees is pretty huge. Fortmental, a good overview also encompassing the new CW13 data has just been posted at Realclimate, where Stefan Rahmstorf offers the following:
How good is the interpolation into regions not regularly covered by weather stations? In any case, of course, better than simply ignoring the gaps, as the HadCRUT and NOAA data have done so far. The truly global average is important, since only it is directly related to the energy balance of our planet and thus the radiative forcing by greenhouse gases. An average over just part of the globe is not. The Arctic has been warming disproportionately in the last ten to fifteen years.
But how well the interpolation works we know only since the important work of Cowtan and Way. These colleagues have gone to the trouble of carefully validating their method. Although there are no permanent weather stations in the Arctic, there is intermittent data from buoys and and from weather model reanalyses with which they could test their method. For the last few decades and Cowtan & Way also make use of satellite data (more on this in our article on underestimated warming). I therefore assume that the data from Cowtan & Way is the methodologically best estimate of the global mean temperature which we currently have. This correction is naturally small (less than a tenth of a degree) and hardly changes the long-term trend of global warming – but if you look deeper into shorter periods of time, it can make a noticeable difference.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!