Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog |
|
| Posted by: Dr. Ricky Rood, 25. maaliskuuta 2012 klo 15:19 (GMT) | +15 |
| Permalink | A A A |
|
I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles include ideas from the course. And no tuition!
|
Tropical Blogs
Tropical Weather Stickers®
 |
54 °F
Täysin pilvistä
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Hae ilmainen Weather Sticker® |
 |
Lataa valokuvia |
 |
Weather API for Developers NEW! |
 |
Tule sivuston jäseneksi |
 |
Löydä meidät Facebookista |
 |
Seuraa meitä Twitterissä |
| Copyright © 2013 Weather Underground, Inc. | Tietoja meistä - Ota yhteyttä - Tuki - Employment - Lehdistötiedotteet - Käyttöehdot - Privacy Statement |
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index
I am curious about the past, this illustrates either
Humanoid intervention (we did use fire a millions ybp)
or some rather large energy input especially 210-190 ybp for a 6 degree jump up and back down 8. Very likely solar, but I'll be open for any suggestions.
Don'tcha just love that. I've taken to doing the long posts in Notepad, saving them, and then C&Ping them. I've lost too many long posts to board quirks or my clicking the wrong thing.
Collecting and interpreting environmental indicators play a critical role in our understanding of climate change and its causes. An indicator represents the state of certain environmental conditions over a given area and a specified period of time. Examples of climate change indicators include temperature, precipitation, sea level, and greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
Are you sure that you didn't Glieck yourself?
So quoting scientists who don't agree with your predetermined opinion makes me a denier? A denier of what? Quoting scientists who possibly cast doubt on the notion that Greenhouse Gases are not the primary driver of Climate Change makes me a denier? Solanki is a knowledgeable scientist. He's simply mistaken on this issue. Of course, I don't think I'll ever see you type up a response that praises any skeptical scientist, because that will make you a "denier" too won't it?
You have clearly not checked out any of my peer reviewed papers I posted. Point to me where the pictures I posted are not in the peer reviewed paper that I posted. Otherwise, you're just making baseless assumptions.
And they are in line with the most accurate Cloud Cover satellite data that we have from ISSCP, all confirming a decrease in Cloud Cover over the last 30 years, suggesting an increase in Solar Activity, because of the remarkable correlation between direct solar activity variations and Cloud Cover changes, and the ACRIM composite could be validated.
Quoting paper:
To investigate whether galactic cosmic rays (GCR) may influence cloud cover variations, we analyze cloud cover anomalies from 1900–1987 over the United States. Results of spectral analyses reveal a statistically significant cloud cover signal at the period of 11 years; the coherence between cloud cover and solar variability proxy is 0.7 and statistically significant with 95% confidence. In addition, cloud data derived from the NCAR Climate System Model (CSM) forced with solar irradiance variations show a strong signal at 11 years that is not apparent in cloud data from runs with constant solar input. The cloud cover variations are in phase with the solar cycle and not the GCR. Our results suggest that cloud variabilities may be affected by a modulation of the atmospheric circulation resulting from variations of the solar‐UV‐ozone‐induced heating of the atmosphere.
The ISSCP Cloud measurements confirm a Global decrease in albedo.
Isn't that what scientists do on a daily basis? By making hypotheses off of the evidence?
However, some things cannot be subject to one's interpretation, like a negatively sloped Cloud Cover change.
No, you evidently have not, or else you wouldn't have made such blatantly false statements about the images like this one: "Poorly made graphs which one can see directly is not taken from a scientific paper."
Here you are assuming that Lockwood's proxy is correct, ahd therefore the one closest to the proxy has to be right.
Poor and circular reasoning at the very best is what's going on here.
You have yet to prove that.
You also have to disprove that...
1) The diurnal temperature range has not changed over the last 100 years and the last 30 years at the best sited weather stations.
2) Cloud Cover is decreasing.
3) TSI is increasing at portions of Earth's Surface.
4) There is a significant correlation between the sun's output and Cloud Cover.
So let's hear it.
Cosmic Rays don't directly cause temperature changes... they modulate the Cloud Cover and Ozone Layer to create Climate Change, so attempting to correlate GCRs to temperature change is useless.
Right, and that is because they create changes with the change in the Cloud Forcing.
NASA agrees with me that simply changes in the PDO and changes in CO2 alone mean that a -PDO can mask Gloal Temperature changes caused by CO2 (if Co2 were causing the warming.)
Quoting article:
“The comings and goings of El Niño, La Niña and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are part of a longer, ongoing change in global climate,” said Josh Willis, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist. Sea level rise and global warming due to increases in greenhouse gases can be strongly affected by large natural climate phenomenon such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation. “In fact,” said Willis, “these natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”
I've already gone through with this in depth with Birthmark, but you appear to just want to repeat this falsehood and misrepresent the paper's question to which 97% replied "yes" to.
ANOTHER falsehood?
Quoting Paper:
Surface snowmelt is widespread in coastal Antarctica. Satellite-based microwave sensors have been observing melt area and duration for over three decades. However, these observations do not reveal the total volume of meltwater produced on the ice sheet. Here we present an Antarctic melt volume climatology for the period 1979–2010, obtained using a regional climate model equipped with realistic snow physics. We find that mean continent-wide meltwater volume (1979–2010) amounts to 89 Gt y−1 with large interannual variability (σ = 41 Gt y−1). Of this amount, 57 Gt y−1 (64%) is produced on the floating ice shelves extending from the grounded ice sheet, and 71 Gt y−1 in West-Antarctica, including the Antarctic Peninsula. We find no statistically significant trend in either continent-wide or regional meltwater volume for the 31-year period 1979–2010.
But thank you for your insight.
"Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, all of the deaths in this town historically have been due to natural causes. Therefore, it is impossible for my client to have murdered the deceased in this case. Pay no attention to the knife in his chest. The deceased probably died before that happened. I rest my case."
Which way would you vote if you were on that jury, ice?
I think I accidentially hit one of my function keys... it really sucks when stuff like this happens, because then it's not as motivating to get back to your original response.
I will try and definitely get to your response, tomorrow, though.
Take as long as you need to respond...unless your response is "Al Gore is fat." 8^D
I noticed that the graphic was more than likely from a wordpress blogger and that they obtained this graphic from WUWT. Is there any accreditation that goes with this graphic?
Well that's what they did. There's no other way around a circular conclusion.
The Arctic being close to normal levels right now is deceiving. The ice is in terrible shape right now, because a lot of the thicker ice was flushed out of the Arctic Circle because of a stronger Beaufort Gyre and a strong +AO that stayed in the Arctic for the majority of this winter. If we had a -AO through most of the Arctic winter, that would definitely have helped the ice, but I'm thinking this summer is definitely going to have some big melting going on in the Arctic. Probably close to 2009 or 2008 standards.
I don't think that the Arctic will see ice free coniditions by 2017 though... that seems a little bit extreme, considering it's only 5 years away.
We could see a few more record low extents in the Arctic before the AMO regime shifts to it's negative state. Once that happens, I think extent should increase until the AMO shifts to it's positive state. Chylek et. al clearly demonstrated a multidecadal correlation between the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Arctic Temperatures.
Quoting Paper:
Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale.
The PDO and AMO are oscillations as many have agreed here, and they cause cyclical changes in Earth's temperature through a change in Cloud Cover. Changing indicies indicate changing weather patterns, since the PDO and AMO are indicies of the Global Weather Patterns.
If the sun is inactive for a longer period of time, and if the TSI decreases even further, we may see some cooling going on. The anthropogenic forcing cannot be ignored, however, even though the climate is insensitive to the anthropogenic GHG forcing and is sensitive to solar variability.
How so?
It should be noted that the raw data showed a statistically significant INCREASE in the diurnal mean temperature, while adjusted, it shows no change for those weather stations.
You're going to have to provide evidence for this claim that scientists knew that "do you think human activity is a significant contriutor to Global Warming?" means "Do you think GHGs are the primary (x>50%) factor in Global Warming?"
I'm not sure, actually. Scafetta's analysis is definitely compelling that there are some flawed components to Benestad and Schmidt 2009.
The sensitivity parameter to TSI would not go down if TSI goes up, regardless of what parameters are chosen.
Nope, Cancer. It explains my love for crabbing :P
The widget shows the Globally averaged temperature falling out of the IPCC confidence range. This has been published in peer review, and it has significant implications if it is correct. It means that the IPCC attributation may be off, which of course has significant implications for the scientific community in the field of Climate Change.
You still have yet to address my critiques about the Skeptical Science link.
So it's simply a coincidence that hundreds of weather stations with the same population concentration display the same trend? It's just a coincidence that the higher the population density is, the higher the trend is? Over 400 weather stations demonstrating this same process is a coincidence?
I don't buy that.
And this may be another product of the atmospheric circulation changes from the ozone hole that recently developed in Antarctica. You can't use this as evidence of a CO2 effect on Antarctica, when the causes are unknown. It might not even be legitimate, considering that the so-called warming over Antarctica is evidenced by a re-analysis, which is NOT actual observations. The fact that this reanalysis showing warming disagrees with the MSU observations casts some pretty serious doubt on the legitimacy of the re-analysis.
My point exactly.
Uncertainty surrounding climate science is still very high.
I don't understand your thought process in this paragraph.
Where's your evidence that the extra energy being received at the tropical surface is not being transferred all throughout the globe, so that little temperature change occurs at the Tropics?
Wild et. al 2005 found that the dimming of the Earth's surface associated with Global Cooling until the 1980s switched to Global Brightening in the 1980s, and has brightened since then. This indicates a clear solar influence on Climate, with more radiation reaching Earth's surface since the 1980s. Solar feedbacks associated with decreasing Cloud Cover may also be responsible for this increase in TSI reaching Earth's Surface.
Variations in solar radiation incident at Earth's surface profoundly affect the human and terrestrial environment. A decline in solar radiation at land surfaces has become apparent in many observational records up to 1990, a phenomenon known as global dimming. Newly available surface observations from 1990 to the present, primarily from the Northern Hemisphere, show that the dimming did not persist into the 1990s. Instead, a widespread brightening has been observed since the late 1980s. This reversal is reconcilable with changes in cloudiness and atmospheric transmission and may substantially affect surface climate, the hydrological cycle, glaciers, and ecosystems.
Pinker et. al 2005 also found an increase in Solar radiation reaching Earth's Surface through Global satellite measurements. They found that from 1983 to 2001, the average irradiance reaching Earth's Surface INCREASED by 0.16 w/m^2 per year. This indicates that significant solar feedbacks from decreasing Cloud Cover are probably amplifying this increase in Solar Activity and irradiance.
Quoting Paper:
Long-term variations in solar radiation at Earth's surface (S) can affect our climate, the hydrological cycle, plant photosynthesis, and solar power. Sustained decreases in S have been widely reported from about the year 1960 to 1990. Here we present an estimate of global temporal variations in S by using the longest available satellite record. We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year; this change is a combination of a decrease until about 1990, followed by a sustained increase. The global-scale findings are consistent with recent independent satellite observations but differ in sign and magnitude from previously reported ground observations. Unlike ground stations, satellites can uniformly sample the entire globe.
So what's causing this increased Solar Irradiance reaching Earth's Surface?
The polar temperatures in the Arctic (Antarctic I have already discussed) aren't increasing the fastest during the winter months. They are increasing the fastest in the spring months due to increased and faster albedo decreases associated with rising temperatures.
What's wrong with Lindzen's Iris hypothesis?
No, it's not. But it appears that discussion of this is played out. In the event that any such criticism appears in the peer-reviewed, reputable science literature don't hesitate to let me know.
Whoa up there! Are you saying that the TSI is decreasing? In post #201 you quoted S&W 2008: "We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature, depending on the TSI reconstruction used." So, which is it? Is TSI increasing or decreasing?
If we don't know the effects of GHGs in our current climate, then we don't know the effects in prior history. That means that every reconstruction --indeed every statement-- about paleoclimate is either dead wrong or a lucky guess. Facts do not exist in a vacuum in science. Scientific facts have to not only explain what you are observing, they have to fit in with other science facts. We can't have "laboratory effects" of CO2 and "real world effects of CO2" unless we have a pretty thorough and convincing explanation of why. In this case, no such explanation exists, nor is one needed.
This should do you.
It might be compelling to you, but it is not to me. It probably isn't very compelling to Scafetta, either, since he hasn't seen fit to subject his criticisms to peer-review.
It does when you use Scafetta's nonsense...which is a pretty good indication that he was wrong. It also neatly explains why only blog whining is coming Scafetta on this one.
What it shows is that if you play with statistics enough, that you can say anything you want to say, no matter how ridiculous. I guess Scafetta gave up after only being able to show the temperature fell outside a 1-sigma range, not the 2-sigma that is generally used. IOW, he showed nothing.
Your critiques of SkS is without foundation and amount to nothing more than wishful thinking.
Coincidence? No. That's the purpose of cherry-picking.
This is the kind of stuff that can lead one to question your "skepticism." Here you are posting link after link to new (and unconfirmed) papers and blog posts in support of something else besides CO2 being the primary culprit in the current warming. Then when you come up against a piece of established non-controversial science that is well-supported in peer-review, you dismiss it with nothing but speculation and appeal to the unknown.
You might want to work on that if you really want to be a skeptic and especially if you want to be a scientist --a good one, anyway.
In some areas, that's true. However, that's not the case in a wide variety of areas. It seems like the only thing you are certain of is that the primary cause can't be CO2.
Where's your evidence that any "extra energy" is arriving in the tropics? If it's that Pinker paper...well, there are other possible explanations for their findings besides the Sun actually brightening. Aerosols come to mind.
Here is what I said: "The albedo of the high latitudes in winter doesn't matter. Yet they are displaying some of their most dramatic warming in months when the Sun isn't visible." So I didn't claim that "polar temperatures in the Arctic" were increasing fastest in the winter.
Here is a map of the polar anomalies during Nov-Apr:
Link
This map covers the winter and early spring in the Northern Hemisphere. You'll not that the anomaly in the high northern latitudes is very warm. That is impossible if the Sun is the primary cause. But it is exactly what was expected if CO2 is the culprit.
Further, you'll note that the Antarctic didn't warm very much at all even though this map covers SH summer. This is not at all what it should look like if the Sun is the cause. Again, it is exactly what was predicted if CO2 was the primary cause.
Score, GHGs 2; Sun 0
Here is a map the polar anomalies during May-Oct:
Link
Here we see that in the time-frame that includes NH summer, the high latitudes are indeed warming, but the anomaly isn't as great as the winter anomaly.
In the Antarctic we see some warming and a fair amount of cooling, even though it's winter occurs during this time period. Again, in good agreement with predictions of what we'd expect in the Antarctic.
Final score - GHGs 4, the Sun 0.
Nothing aside from the fact that there is no observational support of any merit, no historical support of any merit, didn't stop previous episodes of warming and cooling, and maybe eight or ten other reasons. In short, it's silly.
TSI increased from the 1980s to the early 2000s, and it has dropped slightly since the early 2000s. I was saying if it decreases in the future, then we could see some climatic cooling take shape.
If we didn't know how GHGs impacted the climate, that means that the temperature proxies are somehow flawed?
We know GHGs cause warming. The fact of the matter that the diurnal temperature has not decreased in the best sited weather stations, indicates that they are not the driver of recent climate change. There is a difference between not having an effect and not a driver.
CO2 never lead temperature (despite what one recent study proclaims to suggest) it follows temperature, because of the large lag time between temperature increases and CO2 releases from the temperature changes of the ocean.
It says the content is temporarily unavailable.
How is it nonsense? How can the sensitivity parameter go down for TSI when TSI increases over the same timeframe?
Provide support that the 2-Sigma range is generally used instead of a 1 sigma range.
So you're not going to address my critiques then.
I see.
400+ weather stations is not cherry picking and not a coincidence. The rest of the stations did not meet the requirements for this experiment.
I bring those papers to discussion to highlight the possible uncertainties in AGW and to bring these papers up for discussion.
Where did I say the primary cause can't be CO2? I'm saying there's enough uncertainty where you cannot make definitive statements that CO2 is the driver of the warming over the last 50 years.
The Pinker et. al and Wild et. al papers both document an overall increase in TSI reaching Earth's surface, which would include the Tropics.
Daresay, how do aerosoles cause an increase in TSI at Earth's Surface if they reflect solar radiation?
Their results show such a strong trend in TSI reaching Earth's Surface, that I think that some solar feedbacks are occuring, where the Cloud Cover is decreasing in response to Solar warming. The Cloud Cover and TSI link is well established.
Now here you're trying to find anything else other than the sun being the cause of the warming.
That's a poor timeframe to choose, because it combines parts of NH Spring and Winter, so it's not a good sample if "temperatures are increasing during the coldest months where the sun isn't visible" and my graph would be more suitable to show trends occuring in the Arctic.
Your GISS links do not work, and GISS does not have data in the Arctic or Antarctic. they extrapolate data from nearby stations over parts of the Arctic where they have no data.
These too are not accurate observations.
I see.
Can you provide evidence for these claims?
Thank you.
Nah, your fifth-grade taunt notwithstanding, I'm rather enjoying the spectacle of watching Birthmark handily return each of Snowlover's "skeptical" lobs with a solid scientific backhand. I suggest you watch; you may just learn something.
Link
--Stripping CO2 from air requires largest industry ever For those clinging to the hope that technology will save us from ourselves, there's this wake-up call: to get rid of the 30 billion metric tons of CO2 we humans produce ever year would mean the creation of the largest industry ever.
--Warming Climate Reveals Links to Infectious Disease " Diarrhea, cholera and tick-borne illness: As the climate changes, a host of health threats are predicted to escalate, experts say. Environmental changes already underway are allowing public health experts to establish stronger links between global warming and infectious disease."
--How Murdoch's Aussie Papers Cover Climate Change If you rely on any of the Murdoch's "news" outlets--Fox, the Wall Street journal--for your science coverage, you're bieng lied to most egregiously.
--Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost It's probably going to be a lot worse--and happen much quicker--than we imagine.
--Global Warming Denialism 'Just Foolishness,' Scientist Peter Raven Says Institutionalized denialism in the United States will help China (for one) overtake America on the world stage (which is why I've predicted that some obvious liars will eventually be prosecuted for treason).
--Fox News Again Turns To Tabloid For Climate Science If you rely on any of the Murdoch's "news" outlets--Fox, the Wall Street journal--for your science coverage, you're bieng lied to most egregiously. Oh, wait; we already said that above, didn't we?
--Tornado risk is growing and spreading, study shows "It's not just the "Tornado Alley" any more. Tornadoes are striking in more parts of the U.S., more often, a new study shows. Experts are enlarging the area of the U.S. they believe is regularly in the path of severe storms, tornadoes, and hail damage, according to a report from CoreLogic. Tornadoes and the storms that generate them account for 57% of insured catastrophic losses in the U.S. each year. New analysis by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association shows that these storms are probably increasing in frequency, and the region of the country where they strike is growing as well."
--Huffing and puffing "Climate change deniers used to ask, 'Where’s the evidence of change?' This was the trump card in their thin deck. 'Where’s the evidence of change? If the climate were warming, we’d see evidence of it by now. Where’s the evidence?' This is what they said. Go back and look. They represented the question as telling. Now the evidence is in. And everywhere. And ferocious. And what do the deniers say now? 'Climate changes all the time, all by itself!'"
--Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection To those who repeatedly claim that climate predictions are always wrong, here's yet further proof that, no, they weren't wrong--and, in fact, almost always seemed to have underestimated the amount of warming that would take place.
--The Future is Now for Sea Level Rise in South Florida This one is of special concern to me, since I live in South Florida--though anyone who either lives here, visits here, or has relatives here should also be concerned. And that's probably 85% of all Americans.
Look at this mess in the Barentsz Sea:
Meanwhile, here's a new chart I just ran across. I call it "The Death Spiral".
Not according to this chart.
(As has been noted many times in both this forum and others, the "excess" area and extent observed this year is primarily ice that's extremely thin and fragile; experts expect a record level of melting over the next five months or so.)
I stand by my prediction: the Arctic will have at least one officially "ice free" day by September of 2016.
Still not massive meaning we are walking on thin ice.
This prevents
that.............
PIOMAS is a model cyclonebuster, not actual observations.
Computer models are very accurate perhaps more so than actual observations these days. So what's your point?
Claiming PIOMAS is invalid because it's "just a model" is like claiming a dental X-ray is invalid because it's "just a picture".
Correct!
Show me the peer reviewed paper that belongs to this image, this image, this image and this image.
Gravity data collected from space using NASA’s Grace satellite show that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate.
Quoting this article:
"How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting"
Btw, you're not just a denier - you are a hardcore denier.
Yep. They either give the wrong temperature or the attribution of that temperature to the GHE of CO2 must be attributed to some other factor. No logical way around it.
That is simply untrue according to the science: Braganza 2004
Alexander 2006
Zhou 2009
all find more night time warming. What you claim is not representative of the body of scientific work on the topic.
You are exhibiting a double-standard. You dismiss a new study that goes against what you believe while citing as evidence papers that agreee with your belief that are as little as two weeks old.
The fact is that it doesn't matter if CO2 ever led warming before. It leads this time. It leads because we are pumping outrageous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. That *has* to produce warming. (I'm rather surprised to see you using such a weak (non-existent and non-relevant) argument.
Sorry. Here is the link: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003 187107
That apparent paradox is the direct result of Scafetta's shoddy work. IOW, when Scafetta's technique is applied to the real world it just doesn't work. (That's probably why he never got around to rebutting B&S 2009 as he said he would.)
Why? Do you have some need for me to waste my time proving what anyone who has been interested in CC and AGW learns very quickly? LOL
It's picking nits anyway since Scafetta has been completely refuted.
Your "critiques" were without substance. IOW, they were a statement of your feelings. You are allowed to feel anyway you choose. You don't need my input.
Oh, I'm sure that they didn't meet Spencer's requirements. LOL But that's not the issue. The issue is if they are a fair representation of the data as a whole. The answer is no, they are not.
Parker 2006
Peterson 2003
Says who and with what evidence?
Anyway, here are the graphics again, hosted elsewhere so they don't disappear:
It is as I said, the high northern latitudes are warming dramatically at a time the Sun isn't even visible. Even Antarctica is warming somewhat during its winters. That alone puts solar forcing out of the running as a major cause of the current warming.
Yes, I can.
Perhaps you misunderstood.
I have not claimed those were from peer reviewed papers.
I claimed that specific images were from peer reviewed papers, which you said MUST have come from blogs because you thought they looked poor in quality.
How do you know these gravity changes are reflecting ice changes and not isostasic changes occuring with the crust of the Earth? It's hard to tell because this is such a short record. The Antarctic snowmelt observations are a better way of determining any long term trends in Antarctica.
Take a look at this graph again.
If you were to choose a similar timeframe to how long the GRACE satellite has been in operation, you could claim that there was a trend upward in snowmelt from 1986 to 1997. Of course, it's over a longer no trend period.
We don't know if that's the case or not for GRACE, and if it's even measuring ice mass changes.
Thanks for the promotion.
From the abstract: "Here we present an Antarctic melt volume climatology for the period 1979–2010, obtained using a regional climate model equipped with realistic snow physics."
Earlier in this thread you objected to PIOMAS because, "PIOMAS is a model cyclonebuster, not actual observations."
This appears to be another double-standard. Please explain the criteria for you accept one model and not the other.
It's not that it is a criteria it is however called
Thanks!
Link
I'm not sure how a flat line in the diurnal temperature range can allow you to come to this conclusion.
As I said, a lot of the diurnal temperature change decreases have occured due to the fact that increased urbanization rates have occured by many stations, thus reducing the diurnal temperature range. This is what Fall et. al 2011 documented.
Zhou et. al 2004
This image from Zhou et. al shows that as the urbanization concentration increases, the diurnal temperature trend becomes more and more negative, thus proof that urbanization has a significant impact on the diurnal temperature range.
Liu et. al 2007
Quoting Paper:
UHI intensity for minimum temperature has a strong positive correlation with the increase in the urban population and the expansion of the yearly construction area. Seasonal analyses showed the UHI intensity is strongest in winter.
Gallo et. al 1996
Quoting Paper:
Those stations that were associated with predominantly rural land use / land cover (LULC) usually displayed the greatest observed DTR, whereas those associated with urban related land use or land cover displayed the least observed DTR. The results of this study suggest that significant differences in the climatological DTR were observed and could be attributed to the predominant LULC associated with the observation stations. The results also suggest that changes in the predominant LULC conditions, within as great as a 10 000 m radius of an observation station, could significantly influence the climatological DTR.
Remar 2010
Quoting Paper:
Las Vegas’ urban minimum temperatures have been increasing at a substantial rate, while minimum temperatures in its rural surroundings have shown no statistically significant changes or trends. … these unnatural increases in minimum temperatures have reduced the diurnal temperature range of Las Vegas’ urban areas by 3°F more than its rural surroundings.
So it seems that urbanization has a profound impact on the DTR ranges, and those least contaminated with the effects of Urbanization show positive and flat trends in the DTR.
And yes, these papers are from the peer reviewed science.
Because it is disagreeing with a basic fact of paleoclimate science which is that CO2 follows temperature changes.
Indermuhle et. al 2000
Quoting Paper:
The lag was calculated for which the correlation coefficient of the CO2 record and the corresponding temperatures values reached a maximum. The simulation yields a lag of (1200 ± 700) yr.
Monnin et. al 2001
Quoting Paper:
The start of the CO2 increase thus lagged the start of the [temperature] increase by 800 ± 600 years.
Fischer et. al 1999
Quoting Paper:
"High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations."
Stott et. al 2007
Quoting Paper:
"Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2C between 19 and 17 ka B.P. (thousand years before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years."
Mudelsee 2001
Quoting Paper:
"Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3±1.0 ka"
etc. etc. etc.
That's why when a radical new hypothesis is introduced, that disproves years of climate science, it is likely untrue, because it is unlikely scientists have made such a serious error for so long.
This also applies to the GHE Skeptics.
I didn't say that the CO2 did not lead temperature. I said that the paleoclimatic record (the one that you said can't follow a logical trend if there is no trend in the DTR range) the CO2 follows temperature changes.
Okay, thanks. This link actually works this time.
I did a search up of the paper and I found the actual PDF file for the entire paper.
This is the PDF file:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003 187107.full.pdf
They used Google Scholar to search up the names of researchers who have contributed in the field of climate science. This is a poor method to try and compile a list of names, because of the fact that Google Scholar includes newspapers and books, which are not peer reviewed scientific pieces of literature.
Their technical definition of a climate "expert" was anyone who had over 20 publications in this field. Just because they didn't publish 20 publications doesn't mean they're not an expert. From the paper: "we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher." They clearly tried to get a predetermined conclusion because they state in their paper, "researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group."
So they purposely excluded skeptic scientists just so they could come to an imaginary consensus.
The discrepency itself is in the actual Benestad and Schmidt paper, Scafetta didn't come up with the discrepency in his analysis.
So in other words, you don't have an answer other than the fact that it's what Skeptical Science said.
So in other words you don't have an answer for my critiques.
They didn't include all of the data, but that's not to say that it wasn't a fair representation of all the data.
DeFreitras 2002 found that as the population density increased, the rate of temperature change also increased.
This study also found that with 93 stations, (Quoting Paper): “Counties with large populations show more warming than rural counties due to the urban heat island influence.”
LaDochy et. al 2007:
Quoting Paper:
Most regions showed a stronger increase in minimum temperatures than with mean and maximum temperatures. Areas of intensive urbanization showed the largest positive trends, while rural, non-agricultural regions showed the least warming. Strong correlations between temperatures and Pacific sea surface temperatures (SSTs) particularly Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) values, also account for temperature variability throughout the state. The analysis of 331 state weather stations associated a number of factors with temperature trends, including urbanization, population, Pacific oceanic conditions and elevation. Using climatic division mean temperature trends, the state had an average warming of 0.99°C (1.79°F) over the 1950–2000 period, or 0.20°C (0.36°F) decade–1. Southern California had the highest rates of warming, while the NE Interior Basins division experienced cooling. Large urban sites showed rates over twice those for the state, for the mean maximum temperatures, and over 5 times the state’s mean rate for the minimum temperatures.
My own independent research.
I have replicated your exact images, except I used a 250 km smoothing radius to plot the data instead of a 1400 km smoothing radius which you have in your charts. This will show the areas that GISS extrapolated, if they didn't have data for this region.
Let's start with NH Summer.
Here we can see that there are large amounts of data missing from the Arctic and Antarctic, specifically what you had claimed was warming the fastest.
Now let's look at the Winter months.
The same large areas of data missing are still present.
Urbanization can actually be responsible as to why the higher latitudes are "warming" faster, in the places where GISS has surface data, and why the trophospheric temperatures are not warming quite as fast in the Polar Regions in Winter time. Barrow, which is a very far north city, is used as an example. Urbanization has turned reflective white albedo into black absorbing albedo, making it warm the fastest.
Quoting Paper:
Here, we demonstrate the existence of a strong urban heat island (UHI) during winter. Data
loggers (54) were installed in the ∼150 km2 study area to monitor hourly air and soil temperature, and daily spatial
averages were calculated using the six or seven warmest and coldest sites. During winter (December 2001–March 2002),
the urban area averaged 2.2 °C warmer than the hinterland. The strength of the UHI increased as the wind velocity
decreased, reaching an average value of 3.2 °C under calm (<2 m s−1) conditions and maximum single-day magnitude of
6 °C. UHI magnitude generally increased with decreasing air temperature in winter, reflecting the input of anthropogenic
heat to maintain interior building temperatures. On a daily basis, the UHI reached its peak intensity in the late evening
and early morning. There was a strong positive relation between monthly UHI magnitude and natural gas production/use.
Integrated over the period September–May, there was a 9% reduction in accumulated freezing degree days in the urban
area. The evidence suggests that urbanization has contributed to early snowmelt in the village.
Um, this is probably one of the most controversial studies out there in the climate science field, and nothing in this paper is definite, especially because Dr. Spencer is getting a rebuttal published in GRL, probably this year.
I will say this again.
There is no human fingerprint as being responsible for most of the warming that took place.
Computer models are not more accurate than observations.
No idea how that thought could cross your mind.
It's not a double standard.
PIOMAS has been shown to be too low based off of actual observations.
The Cryosat-2 satellite gave observations with ice thickness for January and February 2011.
These observations are compared to the PIOMAS simulation in March 2011. PIOMAS should have slightly thicker ice than the Cryosat observations because the image is for March, and more freezing was allowed to take shape.
We don't observe that.
With the estimated thicknesses for Cryosat and PIOMAS.
PIOMAS overall averaged much lower than the actual observations, hence why its datapoints are questionable.
Well, since the DTR isn't flat according to the overwhelming majority of the peer-reviewed literature, this isn't really much of an issue. However, the fact is if we don't understand the effects of CO2 then we don't understand the effects of CO2. That applies to the past as well as the present. Therefore, every bit of our understanding of climate is wrong.
But, as I said there really isn't an issue here according to the evidence.
Perhaps you misunderstand the situation? No one contests that there is an urban heat island effect. But UHI is adequately accounted for in the data processing. So you pored through a bunch of papers for nothing.
And the reason it disagrees is a very good one, based on sound observation: human activity. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in less than 200 years. That has probably never happened before. We humans have given CO2 it's big chance to lead temperature, and CO2 is taking advantage of that chance. That's no surprise since it's basic physics.
So what? Do you think that in reality it's a 50-50 break between "skeptical" and "mainstream" papers? Of course it isn't! If the real percentage is "only" 95% or 92% is that some sort of moral victory? LOL
That's the point. Had Scafetta considered the implications of his assertions, he would have quickly seen that they were wrong. There's a reason he never addressed the criticisms in peer-reviewed publications and went straight to blogs. ;)
No answer is required since the paper in question was refuted in the peer-reviewed literature.
Your critiques lacked any real substance. They were bald assertion based on nothing more than your personal feelings. Those assertions have no effect upon the issue.
Well, that's not very skeptical of you, is it? You just assume that Spencer's data is representative based on nothing substantive, even though his conclusions conflict with the body of work already done on this topic.
Seriously? A paper published in BULLETIN OF CANADIAN PETROLEUM GEOLOGY VOL. 50, NO. 2 (JUNE, 2002), P. 297-327? (Caps not mine). A paper edited or run by his brother, as I recall. Yeah, see? That's not peer-reviewed science. That's brother published nonsense that even if taken at face value shows a correlation and not a causation. Nor does it demonstrate that the AGW-caused warming trend is in the slightest error.
Again, what has this to do with anything? The UHI is reasonably well-known and accounted for.
Well that may be good enough for you, but many of us prefer a more stringent criteria before dismissing something like GISS, which is held in high regard by climatologists around the world. It should also be noted that the recent BEST paper agrees with GISS. In fact, all of the major data sets --including satellite-- show similar trends when MoE is included.
That should have turned up in your research.
Your maps also show that that is the case! I was exactly correct. Those maps show that the Sun cannot possibly be causing the warming.
As for the "missing data"...those maps are for thirty years, not the day before yesterday. They are not measuring weather. They are measuring climate and the changes in that climate. Having a thermometer on every point of the Earth's surface isn't necessary (thank goodness!) to measure climate. You might notice, however, that even at the 250 km smoothing there is warming all the way to the North Pole.
As I, and now you, have demonstrated, the high latitudes are warming during winter. The Sun simply cannot be causing that.
I understand that you really, really want the UHI to be the cause. However, until you can show some work published in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal that demonstrates that the UHI is the cause for the trend, you are simply wrong. And you are very unlikely to find such papers since land measurements and satellite measurements show almost identical trends.
Well, it might be controversial among denialists, but among scientists it is merely interesting and expected. Very, very few took Lindzen's hypothesis seriously, so it was unsurprising that it was rebutted. That said, there is still a lot of uncertainty about clouds, however, there is absolutely no reason to imagine that they play enough of a role to mitigate the warming very much. If they could they would have prevented the ice ages and very warm periods of the past.
I'll believe that Spencer will respond in the peer-reviewed literature the moment it happens. I've heard this song before --and it usually ends in silence. :)
No matter how many times you say it, you are wrong. The evidence is against you. So you are merely stating your feelings about the evidence, not showing the evidence is wrong in any real way.
Or maybe Cryosat's observations are wrong. It's still relatively new.
But that's all misdirection, anyway.
The fact is that the Arctic Sea Ice is thinning extremely rapidly --no matter what method you use to measure it. The old ice which used to account for 25% of the ice cap now comprises around 2%.
That's mistaken.
I have posted study after study which show that less urbanization causes a positive diurnal trend, which indicates that the rate of urbanization plays a very large role in the diurnal temperature change, and has little to nothing to do with changes in the atmospheric content of Carbon Dioxide. Had it not been for urbanization, there would probably be no trend in the diurnal temperature range, since it has such a profound impact on the rate of temperature changes, moreso than CO2. This is because in the least populated areas, the diurnal temperature range is INCREASING, which is inconsistent with the CO2 theory. The large differences between the diurnal trends of urbanized cities and rural areas leads me to believe that it has much more of an impact on the DTR than CO2 does.
So my peer reviewed studies don't count as evidence, but your's does? Interesting double standard.
How do you know the UHI signal is adjusted correctly in the datasets?
And the sun has been the most active it has been over the past 10000 years. That's more than a plausable factor, because solar activity has ALWAYS controlled temperatures in the past, and it is likely to have controlled most of the warming that took place during the industrial revolution and the warming from 1970-2000. It's basic physics that when more solar radiation reaches the Earth than what is being radiated out of Earth, the Earth warms.
At least you admit that the paper you posted has some serious flaws with it.
I don't think it's split 50-50. It's probably 70-30 where the AGW Advocates being the 70 in the 70-30 ratio.
Why is "that the point" that B & S 2009's data disagreed with itself?
This is the paper which Skeptical Science tried to refute, but there is no rebuttal that has been published in the peer reviewed literature, or else it would have been cited by other researchers and so far it has not, because the paper is VERY new.
Why don't you show where my 'assertions' were wrong?
Note, Bolded sections indicate sections quoted from the SKS article,
A 2-sigma envelope would cover about 95% of the observations, and if the observations lay outside that larger region it would be substantial cause for concern. Thus it would be a more appropriate choice for Scafetta's green envelope.
Why not include a 6 sigma range, so we can claim that the IPCC was correct even with a negative trend in temperatures over the next few decades?
Second, while the IPCC envelope (Scafetta's green) is based on annual data, in his widget Scafetta plots monthly data, which has greater variability and thus is much more likely to fall outside of the envelope.
If the IPCC were correct with their overall mean temperature predictions, then the monthly temperature variability would be higher and lower than the IPCC range, but making it still consistent with the IPCC predictions.
We don't observe that.
Third, Scafetta has used HadCRUT3 data, which has a known cool bias and which will shortly be replaced by HadCRUT4.
Yeah, throw out the temperature data because it doesn't fit the predetermined conclusions of rapid warming in the near future due to mankind.
Fourth, although the widget itself only shows post-2000 data, Scafetta has used a 1900-2000 baseline.
Here is Dr. Scafetta's reply to that:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/scafet tas-solar-lunar-cycle-forecast-vs-global-temperatu re/#comment-890590
The base line for the temperature record and the average IPCC simulation is exactly the same. The period used for the baseline is 1900-2000 because the model simulation starts in 1900 and it is supposed to reconstruct the temperature during the 20th century. Thus it needs to be optimized against the temperature by using as common baseline the period 1900-2000.
No baseline errors are in the graph.
By using as baseline the period 1960-1990, the GCM simulation will need to be shifted down by just 0.022 C. This is not a big deal. In any case, it is more appropriate to use the 1900-2000 baseline as I did.
That was a pretty weak attempt at a rebuttal from Skeptical Science.
I never said it was.
I said that your dismissal of the Spencer analysis is unsubstantiated because you don't know if it is a fair representation or not.
I assume that since you didn't bother to critique what's actually in the paper, you couldn't find anything wrong with it, so you now accept that Urbanization creates a steeper temperature slope than otherwise would have been.
GISS shows warming like all of the other datasets. That doesn't mean it's data is 100% accurate, when it has substantial holes of data by the polar regions.
So increased solar radiation during the other seasonal months does not have an impact on the winter temperatures with more energy than otherwise would have been there in the winter months?
I have posted paper after paper which documents UHI's strong impact on the temperature record, and you still dismiss it as if I didn't post anything substantial.
Land measurements and satellite measurements are NOT "almost identical" by the way.
Klotzbach et. al 2009
Quoting Paper:
This paper investigates surface and satellite temperature trends over the period
from 1979 to 2008. Surface temperature data sets from the National Climate Data
Center and the Hadley Center show larger trends over the 30-year period than the
lower-tropospheric data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Remote
Sensing Systems data sets. The differences between trends observed in the surface and
lower-tropospheric satellite data sets are statistically significant in most comparisons,
with much greater differences over land areas than over ocean areas. These findings
strongly suggest that there remain important inconsistencies between surface and satellite
records.
...
The differences between
surface and satellite data sets tend to be largest over land
areas, indicating that there may still be some contamination
because of various aspects of land surface change
Yes, that would include urbanization.
Lindzen's original 2001 paper got 278 citations.
That means the scientific community is taking this hypothesis seriously.
I will say it again.
There is no (known) fingerprint that AGW is responsile for most of the warming over the last century and over the 1970-2000 timeframe.
Viewing: 301 - 351
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index