Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 08:17am PT
|
...post up anywhere where I once "ever" disputed that it IS NOT WARMING. Just one!!!
and the last 17 years? what have you said about that? or are you assuming some time period over which k-man is referring too?
you have definitely said there has not been warming over the last 17 years.
as for Judith Curry's choice of what papers to appear as a co-author on with the BEST collaboration, she has chosen not to be on one... here's their list:
Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 2013, 1:1
A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011
Robert Rohde, Richard A. Muller, Robert Jacobsen, Elizabeth Muller, Saul Perlmutter, Arthur Rosenfeld, Jonathan Wurtele, Donald Groom and Charlotte Wickham
Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 2013, 1:2
Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process
Robert Rohde, Richard Muller, Robert Jacobsen, Saul Perlmutter, Arthur Rosenfeld, Jonathan Wurele, Judith Curry, Charlotte Wickham and Steven Mosher
Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 2013, 1:2
Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications
Wickham C, Rohde R, Muller RA, Wurtele J, Curry J, Groom D, Jacobsen R, Perlmutter S, Rosenfeld A and Mosher
Abstract
The effect of urban heating on estimates of global average land surface temperature is studied by applying an urban-rural classification based on MODIS satellite data to the Berkeley Earth temperature dataset compilation of 36,869 sites from 15 different publicly available sources. We compare the distribution of linear temperature trends for these sites to the distribution for a rural subset of 15,594 sites chosen to be distant from all MODIS- identified urban areas. While the trend distributions are broad, with one-third of the stations in the US and worldwide having a negative trend, both distributions show significant warming. 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 is consistent with no urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 ± 0.24/100yr (95% confidence).
J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 11, 5286 (2013)
Decadal variations in the global atmospheric land temperatures
Richard A. Muller, Judith Curry, Donald Groom, Robert Jacobsen, Saul Perlmutter, Robert Rohde, Arthur Rosenfeld, Charlotte Wickham and Jonathan Wurtele
Abstract
[1] Interannual to decadal variations in Earth global temperature estimates have often been identified with El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events. However, we show that variability on time scales of 2–15 years in mean annual global land surface temperature anomalies Tavg are more closely correlated with variability in sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic. In particular, the cross-correlation of annually averaged values of Tavg with annual values of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index is much stronger than that of Tavg with ENSO. The pattern of fluctuations in Tavg from 1950 to 2010 reflects true climate variability and is not an artifact of station sampling. A world map of temperature correlations shows that the association with AMO is broadly distributed and unidirectional. The effect of El Niño on temperature is locally stronger, but can be of either sign, leading to less impact on the global average. We identify one strong narrow spectral peak in the AMO at period 9.1 ± 0.4 years and p value of 1.7% (confidence level, 98.3%). Variations in the flow of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation may be responsible for some of the 2–15 year variability observed in global land temperatures.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 08:25am PT
|
so you are shown to be wrong, you did say that there has been no warming over the last 17 years, yet you also asserted that no one could show that you ever claimed there was no warming...
you assumed something, didn't you The Chief...
and you are shown to be wrong.
admit it and move on...
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 09:00am PT
|
How much warming have we had over the last 17 years?
How much warming of what?
You treasure that talking point, how many times have you raised it? But can you read, write or think for yourself at all? Haven't showed signs of that yet.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 09:22am PT
|
Hmmm... look at them temps. Up and down and all around. They have yet to reach the high point set back some 5-600 or so years before the Industrial Revolution actually began
Chief shows once more he can't read the graphs that he copies. He's posted similar graphs, made similar mistakes, and been told what the matter is many times before, so there's no point in telling him again.
But for others -- a trick often used to pretend proxy temperature reconstructions show something they don't is to be fuzzy about the end point (final year). Limitations of data sources commonly make the proxy reconstructions end well before the present. For example, the Moberg northern hemisphere reconstruction copied by Chief ends in 1979. The authors are quite clear about that, but you can't see it from a 2,000-year graph (particularly one trying to hide this difference). What serious people do when they want to compare past temperatures with the present is to (carefully) fit the modern instrumental record into the proxy-temperature picture.
Another trick often played with proxies, on denialist websites, is to be vague about spatial coverage. For example, the Moberg reconstruction Chief copied is for Northern Hemisphere only. The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were both most pronounced in the NH, and some other places do not even show up. Moberg subsequently built a global proxy, and a number of sources draw comparisons between that and other reconstructions, with their uncertainties and the modern record shown as well. I won't go there now but here's a more reality-based Northern Hemisphere reconstruction, from the IPCC AR4.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 09:27am PT
|
The global (land & ocean) mean surface temperature.
Of course you are. But what else might be warming? What has been posted about that so many times here? Come on Sketch, can you think at all?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 09:37am PT
|
Why doesn't the C02 levels indicator go beyond 1500 in your recent graph, Larry?
It's sad, you really can't read even a one-line graph.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 09:43am PT
|
It is also sad that he asked of others what he is not capable of. A real mental case.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 10:01am PT
|
Hum, maybe The Chief thinks CO2 is lagging because of the way CO2 data was placed in the graph.
Chief, mentally move the CO2 line up in the graph and see if it still lagging.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 10:44am PT
|
"A new U.N. report shows levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rising at a record-breaking rate, and scientists believe the record high levels are the result not only of emissions, but also of oceans' and plants' increasing inability to absorb excess CO2.
From the Washington Post:
...The WMO’s data for 2013 shows the global average level of atmospheric carbon at just under 400 parts per million, about 40 percent higher than in pre-industrial times and higher than in any other period in at least 800,000 years. The symbolically important threshold of 400 parts per million — described by scientists as the level at which more dramatic climactic impacts become likely — will probably be crossed in the next two years, the report said.
And from liberal news site ThinkProgress:
As the WMO notes, the ocean currently soaks up about a quarter of human-caused CO2 emissions, which has reduced the amount of observed carbon in atmosphere. However, the WMO report says the ocean’s capacity for absorbing carbon is decreasing, which will eventually lead to a speed-up in atmospheric warming. Indeed, the ocean’s ability to hold carbon is only 70 percent of what it was at the beginning of the industrial revolution. By the end of the twenty-first century, it could be reduced to 20 percent, the WMO said.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels aren't the only thing that increased this year: This January, the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication found that 23 percent of Americans do not believe that global warming is happening, up 7 percent from April of 2013.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 11:13am PT
|
I wonder why the first, second and third assessment reports barely mentioned ocean heat absorption
C'mon Sketch, try some thinking. Nada so far, nor any sign you can. Maybe someone else will help you figure out why the first (1990), second (1996) and third (2001) IPCC assessment reports forgot to mention the Argo floats data.
Anyone have the annual rate of change for the last 50 years?
Sure, I do and so do thousands of others. Can you articulate an idea?
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 11:17am PT
|
Wow that was hard to find...
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 11:26am PT
|
If that's the case, where'd the data come from for those ocean temperature charts going back to 1960?
If that was a real question, how could you learn about the answer?
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 11:34am PT
|
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 11:48am PT
|
Sketch wrote: Well, pat yourself on the back for a job well done.
Oh Sketchy so predictable.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 11:56am PT
|
Poor little Sketch needs the ST bully to come in and answer for him. Go chuff, go.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 12:07pm PT
|
Completely OT even for this godforsaken thread, I'll take a second to flag a new paper in PNAS that aims to overthrow scientific orthodoxy in another field that I sometimes follow, plate tectonics. And in that field my sympathies are with the rebels.
This new paper by Anderson and Natland argues that mantle plumes, those cute little upwellings that cause so many cartoon volcanoes, do not exist and never have. If the authors are right (and there is a "small but vocal" group of other geologists and geophysicists who have been making this argument for years) then much of mainstream geology has been badly off track for the past several decades.
The PNAS abstract and complete paper are here. From the more colorful Huffington Post writeup,
Have scientists had volcanoes all wrong?
A popular theory has it that, at least in certain types of volcanos, eruptions occur when molten rock known as magma gushes up from deep inside the earth via narrow jets known as mantle plumes. But a new study of seismic data has identified one very big hole in the theory:
Mantle plumes don't exist.
"Mantle plumes have never had a sound physical or logical basis," study co-author Dr. Don L. Anderson, professor emeritus of geophysics at Caltech in Pasadena, California, said in a written statement released by the university. "They are akin to Rudyard Kipling's 'Just So Stories,' a reference to the British author's tales offering silly explanations for how giraffes and other animals got their peculiar anatomies."
Mantle plumes were first hypothesized in 1971 and widely adopted among geologists around 1990, Anderson told The Huffington Post in an email. But despite significant research activity over the past couple of decades, the seismic data available to researchers were too spotty either to prove or disprove the existence of the plumes.
According to the new study--co-authored by Dr. James Natland, a professor emeritus of marine geology and geophysics at the University of Miami--robust new data and improved theory show once and for all that those plumes are nowhere to be seen.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 12:09pm PT
|
Rick Poedtke, the man child of ST.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!