Global warming discussion III

[Arnold Martin]

Global temperature change observed over the last hundred years or so is well within the natural variability of the last 8,000 years, according to a new paper by a former Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) lead author.

Dr. Philip Lloyd, a South Africa-based physicist and climate researcher, examined ice core-based temperature data going back 8,000 years to gain perspective on the magnitude of global temperature changes over the 20th Century.

What Lloyd found was that the standard deviation of the temperature over the last 8,000 years was about 0.98 degrees Celsius– higher than the 0.85 degrees climate scientists say the world has warmed over the last century.

“This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations,” Lloyd wrote in his study.

http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417

 

[macdoc]

You should learn how to quote - you should also learn the difference between 8000 years and one century and what the Holocene optimum was.

Where it IS, is causing enough issues already.
Where it is GOING is the issue.

Who HE is also is critical, he's a petro-chemical engineer - not a climate scientist.
No conflict there ....nah.

Dismembered thoroughly here
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/11/resurrecting-inhofe-science-denier-at.html

Still trolling the denier sites AM ?? nothing new there.

 

[bit_pattern]

Global temperature change observed over the last hundred years or so is well within the natural variability of the last 8,000 years, according to a new paper by a former Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) lead author.

Dr. Philip Lloyd, a South Africa-based physicist and climate researcher, examined ice core-based temperature data going back 8,000 years to gain perspective on the magnitude of global temperature changes over the 20th Century.

What Lloyd found was that the standard deviation of the temperature over the last 8,000 years was about 0.98 degrees Celsius– higher than the 0.85 degrees climate scientists say the world has warmed over the last century.

“This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations,” Lloyd wrote in his study.

http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417

Let's get out the ol' crank-o-meter checklist:

Published in a bottom-rate journal, with a bottom rate impact factor and dubiously opaque peer review standards, famous for publishing junk science? Check

Authored by a non-expert engineer who is unknown outside of the denial-o-sphere, with strong links to the fossil fuel industry? Check.

Declaring that it is a "strong likelihood" that observed warming was caused by "natural" variation without defining what's supposedly driving the variation? Check.

I don't think we even need to wait for this to be dissected by the experts before pointing and laughing

 

[bit_pattern]

Who is Philip Lloyd?

Philip Lloyd is Managing Director at Industrial & Petrochemical Consultants (Pty) Ltd (profile archived here). He also lists himself as a Professor at Cape Peninsula University of Technology. This latter may be just an honorary post. My research suggests so but is not definitive.

Philip Lloyd describes himself as a "senior engineer" with the following specialties: Energy, petroleum industry, mining industry, extractive metallurgy, climate change.

Climate change you might ask? It turns out that, outside of his home country at any rate, the closest he has brushed with fame when it come to "climate change", apart from his two WUWT articles, is as Coordinating Lead Author of a chapter of an IPCC report.

Which report? Well it's a 2005 report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage.

Which chapter was he coordinating lead author of? It's not exactly a chapter, it's an Annexe. And it's not the first Annexe, it's Annexe II: Glossary, acronyms and abbreviations

Read on for more...

 

[macdoc]

more on the Arctic Dipole

New evidence links Arctic warming with severe weather
May 20, 2015 by Clare Parkin
New evidence links Arctic warming with severe weather
Credit: British Antarctic Survey

Professor Edward Hanna and PhD student Richard Hall, from the University of Sheffield's Department of Geography, are part of a select group of international climate scientists investigating links between Arctic climate change and extreme weather in the northern mid-latitudes.
They have found that while it is too soon to know for certain whether the Arctic played a role in persistent cold events during the extreme wet UK winter of 2013/14 and recent USA East Coast winters, new studies are adding to the growing weight of evidence linking increased Arctic temperatures with changes in mid-latitude weather patterns.The research published in the Journal of Climate by Professor James Overland of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and authors from North America, Asia and Europe, including Professor Hanna and Richard Hall, paints a picture of links that vary by region and season.
Arctic temperatures are increasing two to three times faster than those at the mid-latitudes. Some scientists have suggested that warming Arctic temperatures contribute to weaker upper level westerly winds and a wavier jet stream. This wavier path may have caused cold weather conditions to stall over the eastern seaboard and midwest United States during recent winters, according to these theories.

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-evidence-links-arctic-severe-weather.html

 

[Reality Check]

Arnold Martin provides evidence for global warming

.

"Never seen before" .... Lake Superior Ice cover almost 100% in 2015
http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2015/05/12/lake-superior-ice-amazes-this-year/

.

Thank you for this evidence of global warming, Arnold Martin !
Global warming means more severe summers and winters. Winters get colder with more precipitation including snow. Thus lakes freezing more is expected.
As macdoc points out the Arctic dipole anomaly needs to be considered as well.

.

 

[The Atheist]

Lame. Better would be "with May snowfalls never seen before". Don't let the truth cramp your style.

Damn, I never could get the hang of disinformation.

However, yesterday's noon temperature was the lowest ever-recorded in South Auckland and a few other places in NZ.

How's that?

I have been my whole life and it's never done me any harm.

We're talking about the climate, not your love life.

 

[Reality Check]

...http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417

Why point out ignorance by citing the ignorance of a climate change denier, Arnold Martin?

There we have Dr. Philip Lloyd , a nuclear physicist and chemical engineer stupidly thinking that the modern global warming can be explained by natural variation. 97 per cent of the scientific literature that expresses an opinion on climate change endorses the expert consensus view that it is man-made !

The ignorance is epic in that paper even according to the abstract. Climate scientists know that natural variations exist. Climate scientists have looked at the records over the last 8000 years (and further back), including ice core data. The hockey stick graph started looking at the last 1000 years and has been extended back in time with more research.

And where do we find even more ignorance from Dr. Philip Lloyd - on WUWT from 2013! Here we have multiple bits of climate change denial, e.g.

1. climate scientists cannot distinguish between CO2 and other causes of climate change.
2. proponents claim" climate sensitivity is "over 3 °C".
   Climate scientists measure a range of climate sensitivity as in AR4 : "2-4.5 °C is "likely", = greater than 66% chance of being correct" with a likely value of 3 °C (not over 3 °C).
3. It results from arguments about the effect of water vapour in the atmosphere"
   Wrong - climate sensitivity measurements are results from multiple sources of responses of climate to CO2 changes.
4. Every citation seems to be to a WUWT article by Christopher Monckton! But they are just broken - the references are at the end of the blog.
5. Figure 10.7 from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is used to talk a "blob". The figure is a projection into the future and he idiotically goes on about past, unattributed measurements!
   What he is really talking about is the tropical upper troposphere (he does not even know the proper term!) which is predicted to warm - the "tropospheric hot spot".
6. He lies about measurements of the tropical upper troposphere showing no warming: "Examination of the temperature records has failed to reveal any heating whatsoever"
   The actual situation was that the existing data was not good enough to tell if the tropical upper troposphere was warming or not. There's no tropospheric hot spot
   

   Satellite measurements match model results apart from in the tropics. There is uncertainty with the tropic data due to how various teams correct for satellite drift. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program conclude the discrepancy is most likely due to data errors.

   And now we have Hotspot Found Again: Warming of the Tropical Troposphere Confirms Climate Model Prediction
7. Lloyd goes on about the rainfall record in England (which has been fairly consistent) without citing any climate science predications for the rainfall in England!
8. Lloyd lies about sea levels rising steadily by cherry picking one dataset (tide gauge data from New York).
   How much is sea level rising?
   

   Sea levels are measured by a variety of methods that show close agreement - sediment cores, tidal gauges, satellite measurements. What they find is sea level rise has been steadily accelerating over the past century.

9. That leads to a little lie about the rate of sea level rise.
   Since the 1990's it is "3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year" and accelerating.
   How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?
   

   Observed sea levels are actually tracking at the upper range of the IPCC projections. When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres.

10. Lloyd seems deluded about the effects of sea levels rising.
    The effects are not trivial. He seems to think that countries such as Bangladesh are surrounded by sea walls that just need a "additional brick every 30 years or so" to protect them!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Global temperature change observed over the last hundred years or so is well within the natural variability of the last 8,000 years, according to a new paper by a former Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) lead author.

Dr. Philip Lloyd, a South Africa-based physicist and climate researcher, examined ice core-based temperature data going back 8,000 years to gain perspective on the magnitude of global temperature changes over the 20th Century.

What Lloyd found was that the standard deviation of the temperature over the last 8,000 years was about 0.98 degrees Celsius– higher than the 0.85 degrees climate scientists say the world has warmed over the last century.

You shouldn't try to use words and phrases you don't understand.

If the "standard deviation of the temperature over the last 8,000 years" refers to the standard deviation of temperature considered as a time series sampled hourly, for example, then 0.98 degrees Celsius greatly understates the standard deviation caused by changes between night and day.

If we interpret your phrase as referring to temperatures sampled monthly, your statistic greatly understates the natural variance between summer and winter temperatures.

My first impression of your post, therefore, is that you don't have the slightest idea of what Lloyd is actually reporting.

Looking at the abstract of the paper, it appears Lloyd is talking about standard deviation of temperature considered as a time series sampled at hundred-year intervals, and is not talking about the standard deviation of temperatures averaged over those centuries. If so, then he's talking about weather, not climate, and his statistics are no more relevant to climate change than the fact that temperatures tend to vary over the course of a day, month, year, or decade.

Lloyd's paper seems to be behind a paywall. I'm not going to spend money just to confirm my impression that Arnold Martin hasn't read the paper. If Arnold Martin thinks the value of some as-yet-unexplained standard deviation matters more than the difference between night and day, then he needs to explain the time series or samples from which that standard deviation was derived.

 

[CapelDodger]

We're talking about the climate, not your love life.

The prospects for both are equally dismal.

 

[The Atheist]

 

[Trakar]

...Lloyd's paper seems to be behind a paywall. I'm not going to spend money just to confirm my impression that Arnold Martin hasn't read the paper. If Arnold Martin thinks the value of some as-yet-unexplained standard deviation matters more than the difference between night and day, then he needs to explain the time series or samples from which that standard deviation was derived.

Personally, the fact that it was published in Energy & Environment took most of my interest away. Anyone that is interested can PM me a valid email address and I'll be happy to send them a .pdf copy of the paper, its a bit larger than forum defaults will allow me to attach to posts.

This actually looks like Arnold may have found a true crank this time around.
I haven't spent much time with it, but will look at it a bit more closely.

 

[Arnold Martin]

.

Attacking me will not make the globe warm up .... nature is on my side and the planet will never be obedient to fantasy computer models.


Why do you folks never fault Rajendra Pachauri ... the so-called IPCC "Top Climate Scientist" for being just a railroad engineer ?

.

<snip>
Who HE is also is critical, he's a petro-chemical engineer - not a climate scientist.
No conflict there ....nah.
<snip>
.

.................................

Who is Philip Lloyd?

Philip Lloyd is Managing Director at Industrial & Petrochemical Consultants (Pty) Ltd (profile archived here). He also lists himself as a Professor at Cape Peninsula University of Technology. This latter may be just an honorary post. My research suggests so but is not definitive.

Philip Lloyd describes himself as a "senior engineer" with the following specialties: Energy, petroleum industry, mining industry, extractive metallurgy, climate change.

Climate change you might ask? It turns out that, outside of his home country at any rate, the closest he has brushed with fame when it come to "climate change", apart from his two WUWT articles, is as Coordinating Lead Author of a chapter of an IPCC report.

Which report? Well it's a 2005 report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage.

Which chapter was he coordinating lead author of? It's not exactly a chapter, it's an Annexe. And it's not the first Annexe, it's Annexe II: Glossary, acronyms and abbreviations

 

[Arnold Martin]

.

Rajendra Pachauri the former head of the IPCC Global Warming Agenda has now reverted to Conspiracy Theory to explain his current predicament

Seeing as his attempts to block all media coverage did not work.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/05/10/pachauri-tries-to-ban-sex-scandal-reporting/

.

 

[Trakar]

.

Rajendra Pachauri the former head of the IPCC Global Warming Agenda has now reverted to Conspiracy Theory to explain his current predicament

Seeing as his attempts to block all media coverage did not work.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/05/10/pachauri-tries-to-ban-sex-scandal-reporting/

.

Remind me again, this is relevant to climate science or climate change, how?

 

[Reality Check]

.
...

.

.

A rather paranoid rant on a blog run by a journalist seemingly obsessed by Pachauri has relevance to climate change how, Arnold Martin ?

.

 

[Arnold Martin]

Remind me again, this is relevant to climate science or climate change, how?

Rajendra Pachauri , as head of the IPCC , surveyed climate research and wrote reports about what it all means.

Those reports get cited by governments around the world and are the reason trillions are being spent on climate change measures.

The IPCC is an unprofessional, scandal-plagued organization. It is led by people with low standards and impaired judgment. We need to stop taking it seriously.

 

[Arnold Martin]

.

A rather paranoid rant on a blog run by a journalist seemingly obsessed by Pachauri has relevance to climate change how, Arnold Martin ?

.

It appears to me you are the one suffering from Paranoia

You are terrified the planet will not support your views

You seethe with anger and resort to personal attacks

A reporter covers the sex scandal of Pachauri and you attack the reporter

It is like blaming the glaciers for Pachauri's GlacierGate scandal from years gone by.

 

[Trakar]

Rajendra Pachauri , as head of the IPCC , surveyed climate research and wrote reports about what it all means.

ROFLOL, and what relevance does this have to climate science or climate change?

Pachauri is the administrative head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This job requires very little writing and even less research. The paper reviews and general summaries are prepared by teams of climate scientists who survey the published science of the relevant fields of understanding and fit all the pieces together. Pachauri doesn't decide the science and he isn't even a climate scientist, before he retired earlier this year, his position was largely administrative as is fitting for an economist by academic training. On Feb. 20th this year he was accused of sexual harassment, on Feb. 24, he denied the accusation and resigned from his responsibilities with the IPCC,...again, exactly what relevance does this have to climate science or climate change?

 

[Ambrosia]

You are terrified the planet will not support your views

actually I am worried the planet is going to warm by ~3+C over the next century.

Arnold, can I ask what your issue with climate change is?

There is reams of actual data for the past 50+ years of accurate temp readings showing a clear warming trend. If you look at weather reports for the past 20 years every year we have a hottest this, wettest that and more extreme weather events than we have had recently.

Is your position that the warming up is natural and there is little we can do about it?

We do have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels at some point. There is only so much of the stuff available and it takes millions of years to make more.

What's wrong with pushing to increase our use of renewable energy, to reduce the amount of energy we use in total? - even if the current prevailing view of AGW is wrong.

Shouldn't we aim at discovering new technology, find a way to produce enough energy for everyone on the planet to live a comfortable life that doesn't burn fossil fuels?

There's stuff like Thorium based nuclear power sitting on a shelf somewhere we could use, we could finally crack fusion power in the next 30 years, we could build cars with much more efficient hybrid engines, figure out a way to use bacteria or algae to produce petroleum oils efficiently, figure out much more efficient solar cells or wind turbines.

I think the climate scientists are right, and that human CO2 emissions are largely to blame for the increasing temperature and that the temperature is likely to increase further in the coming century. I want my grandkids to have largely the same opportunities in life I had at least, and hopefully better. A 3C increase in average global temperature would mean that was unlikely.

I don't understand the opposition to AGW (apart from the winning an argument bit, that is), what's the downside? What do we lose by following policies that reduce our CO2 emissions?