Global warming discussion IV

[Haig]

So we can assume whenever you use a smiley you are talking crap? That kind of works because you do use a lot of them.

Nope, you should never assume

If you do you will make an ass/u/me

Think on this and look NO smilies
Antarctica is Melting Faster Than Ever but is it ? SPECIAL REPORT | S0 News May 30, 2015

 

[Trakar]

What about bit_pattern's source for his graph ?

Double standards !

Not at all. I require the same quality of supporting data for any that argue against the understandings I have already vetted and come to hold. Those that provide such in compelling volume and presentation often successfully convince me that their positions hold weight and refine my understandings of the world.

Text of Professor Christy's Testimony

What would you have us do, sue Christy for fraud for allowing his political beliefs shape to his science perspective? Charge him with negligent manslaughter for stating personal positions without the weight of compelling supportive evidences, which might sway policy decisions that will result in the harming and prematurely ending the lives of tens of millions of Americans or more over the course of the next century or so? Luckily, Christy's confusions do not weigh in significantly with regard to actual climate science and are increasingly irrelevant in public policy decisions as well. It won't be long before all that's left of his career are the head-shaking mocking fragments that he has turned it into.

 

[Haig]

There was no “Hiatus”
Most of the climate scientists I read and communicate with have been making this case since the idea of a “hiatus” was first discussed 5 years ago. It has taken this long, however, to gather enough published support for them to compellingly make the case that has been discussed and debated among the climate science community for at least the last half decade.
http://www.reportingclimatescience....revision-eradicates-global-warming-pause.html


Full text of paper: "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus" available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632.full

Problems ahead for this paper Trakar


More Curiosities about NOAA’s New “Pause Busting” Sea Surface Temperature Dataset

the preliminary investigation that shows the HadNMAT2 data do not support the claims of no hiatus is a bad sign for the results of Karl et al. (2015), a very bad sign.

I suspect that the editors of the journals that published the three ERSST.v4-based papers (Huang et al. (2015), Liu et al. (2015) and Karl et al. (2015)) will soon be informed of this problem as well.

When the HadNMAT2 data are finally published online by the UKMO, that reference data for the NOAA ERSST.v4 data will very likely put NOAA and the publishers of the Huang et al. (2015), Liu et al. (2015) and Karl et al. (2015) papers in very awkward positions. Time will tell.

Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature Version 4 (ERSST.v4).
Part I: Upgrades and Intercomparisons
BOYIN HUANG et al

Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature Version 4 (ERSST.v4):
Part II. Parametric and Structural Uncertainty Estimations
WEI LIU et al

Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus
Thomas R. Karl et al


Lies, damned lies and mainstream climate science!

 

[Trakar]

Problems ahead for this paper Trakar

evidently not, but it is not unexpected that you should have that impresswion after trying to learn and understand science by reading hyperpartisan political rhetoric from a political blog.

The following two articles are based upon the distortions inherent to the improperly aligned data sets. They do not dispute or discount anything about the paper under discussion, they are simply discussing the distortions in the improperly calibrated older dataset, while laying the ground work for the dataset that the paper we are talking about applies and which you are seemingly trying to argue against?

Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature Version 4 (ERSST.v4).
Part I: Upgrades and Intercomparisons
BOYIN HUANG et al

Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature Version 4 (ERSST.v4):
Part II. Parametric and Structural Uncertainty Estimations
WEI LIU et al

Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus
Thomas R. Karl et al

This paper looks at the results of the bias corrected dataset.

This is the official, properly aligned dataset after the biases in the old dataset have been removed from the data via the ERSST.v4 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00006.1) which NOAA approved and adopted to correct numerous known biases and flaws in the oceanic data records, and the replacement of the incomplete GHCN weather station data set with the improved and enhanced, larger International Surface Temperature Initiative (ISTI) weather station database (http://www.surfacetemperatures.org/). NOAA and most other major weather and climate institutions (national and international) have been working towards implementing this adjustment to a more bias free data set in an ongoing process over the last few years. This over all correction replaces many of the Band-Aids that were applied when issues such as the transitions in data from when canvas buckets were scooping water out of the oceans to get surface temp readings. The primary problem with the old dataset is that there was a variety of methods applied to different parts of the sea surface temp. record attempting to meld all of these various records collected over a century or more from all manner of vessels using a large variety of different sampling and measuring technologies. After several years of work, a method has been developed to align these various datasets and account for the individual biases generated by all of these differences. A similar problem exists in the land weather station data which is the reason that ISTI has supplanted the GHCN.

The paper you refer to, does not make this change, it merely looks at the consequence of what happens to data trends when these exceedingly minor corrections of all of these various problems looks like (I don't think that any of the adjustments resulted in more than a couple of hundredths of a degree and in most cases no more than a few thousandths of a degree of change to any of the data points in the overall dataset). The PDO/ENSO variation jiggle is still visible in the data, and this accounts for much of the natural variation factor, it just doesn't take the mysterious slump that the artifact of all the known biases presented in the older, flawed dataset. These are all minor adjustments.

I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the most surprising effect of this dataset, the revised trend of the increases over both previous decades and currently is actually slightly lower than the same trends using the older dataset.

 

[Haig]

I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the most surprising effect of this dataset, the revised trend of the increases over both previous decades and currently is actually slightly lower than the same trends using the older dataset.

I don't think you are surprised at that Trakar

Anyway, time will tell very soon

 

[Pixel42]

Time has already told.

 

[The Atheist]

That is a peculiar reading of the study, seemingly at odds with what the abstract states as well as the review by working climate scientists as I presented initially in response to your link to the abstract.

This is why I feel like I'm typing Martian in this thread, because what I said is 100% consistent with what the article says.

It says:

...our results suggest that the recent recovery in Sahel rainfall amounts is most likely to be sustained or amplified in the near term.

"Most likely to be sustained" seems obvious to me, and I said:

he warming climate has brought more rain to that reason region, possibly on a permanent basis.

(error corrected)

What is at odds? What on earth is contradictory about it?

The area had historically had better rainfall, but in the past century, pre-AGW, had been arid.

 

[greybeard]

This is why I feel like I'm typing Martian in this thread, because what I said is 100% consistent with what the article says.

It says:

...our results suggest that the recent recovery in Sahel rainfall amounts is most likely to be sustained or amplified in the near term.

"Most likely to be sustained" seems obvious to me, and I said:

he warming climate has brought more rain to that reason region, possibly on a permanent basis.

(error corrected)

What is at odds? What on earth is contradictory about it?

The area had historically had better rainfall, but in the past century, pre-AGW, had been arid.

Surely in the near term is not the same as permanent (or maybe it is to a Martian)?

and from Trakar's link.

The scientists added that while these results suggest that climate change has had some beneficial effects for this part of Africa in the short term, the long-term impacts will be very different as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere.

 

[Trakar]

This is why I feel like I'm typing Martian in this thread, because what I said is 100% consistent with what the article says.

It says:

...our results suggest that the recent recovery in Sahel rainfall amounts is most likely to be sustained or amplified in the near term.

"Most likely to be sustained" seems obvious to me, and I said:

he warming climate has brought more rain to that reason region, possibly on a permanent basis.

(bolding mine)

Do you not see the diametric opposities in these boldened sections?

(error corrected)

What is at odds? What on earth is contradictory about it?

The area had historically had better rainfall, but in the past century, pre-AGW, had been arid.

Did you miss this from the paper? we have a pretty good map of climate in this area covering at least most of the last millennia and it has been a agricultural center pretty much since agriculture came into being.

Since the 1980s, there has been some recovery of Sahel rainfall amounts, although not to the pre-drought levels of the 1940s and 1950s

I boldened this previously to show you the differences between what you said and what the paper stated, but you still seem to be missing the distinction. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10693933&postcount=24

These differences are even more exaggerated when you include the analyses I provided from both the study's lead researcher and independent working climatologists who have reviewed the paper

 

[The Atheist]

(bolding mine)

Do you not see the diametric opposities in these boldened sections?

Seriously, I am really struggling to see what you want to argue about here.

First off, the article doesn't offer a longer term analysis, so the statement is just saying what they expect in the near term.

And since you read the article, I assumed you'd have seen the title:

Dominant role of greenhouse-gas forcing in the recovery of Sahel rainfall

Recovery implies something that is ongoing.

Did you miss this from the paper? we have a pretty good map of climate in this area covering at least most of the last millennia and it has been a agricultural center pretty much since agriculture came into being.

Ok, let's take this in easy stages:

The climate changes.This we know from science being able to investigate the past.What happened millennia ago is not helluva relevant to the 21st century.

The climate in that part of Africa had already changed from that agricultural past.

Again, the article is entitled "recovery". That tells you that there is something to recover from.

This is why I posted the article without comment - what on earth are you arguing about?

 

[Trakar]

Seriously, I am really struggling to see what you want to argue about here...

I think I'm beginning to understand why your take away from climate science is what it is, and why you have the perspective that you do.

 

[bit_pattern]

Ouch!

 

[bit_pattern]

Think on this and look NO smilies
Antarctica is Melting Faster Than Ever but is it ?

Yes. My research paper trumps your YouTube video.

http://www.reportingclimatescience....ic-ice-mass-loss-accelerating-says-study.html

During the past decade, Antarctica's massive ice sheet lost twice the amount of ice in its western portion compared with what it accumulated in the east, according to Princeton University researchers who came to one overall conclusion — the southern continent's ice cap is melting ever faster.

The researchers "weighed" Antarctica's ice sheet using gravitational satellite data and found that from 2003 to 2014, the ice sheet lost 92 billion tons of ice per year, the researchers report in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters. If stacked on the island of Manhattan, that amount of ice would be more than a mile high — more than five times the height of the Empire State Building.

The vast majority of that loss was from West Antarctica, which is the smaller of the continent's two main regions and abuts the Antarctic Peninsula that winds up toward South America. Since 2008, ice loss from West Antarctica's unstable glaciers doubled from an average annual loss of 121 billion tons of ice to twice that by 2014, the researchers found. The ice sheet on East Antarctica, the continent's much larger and overall more stable region, thickened during that same time, but only accumulated half the amount of ice lost from the west, the researchers reported.

Abstract
While multiple data sources have confirmed that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, different measurement techniques estimate the details of its geographically highly variable mass balance with different levels of accuracy, spatio-temporal resolution, and coverage. Some scope remains for methodological improvements using a single data type. In this study we report our progress in increasing the accuracy and spatial resolution of time-variable gravimetry from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). We determine the geographic pattern of ice mass change in Antarctica between January 2003 and June 2014, accounting for glacio-isostatic adjustment (GIA) using the IJ05_R2 model. Expressing the unknown signal in a sparse Slepian basis constructed by optimization to prevent leakage out of the regions of interest, we use robust signal processing and statistical estimation methods. Applying those to the latest time series of monthly GRACE solutions we map Antarctica's mass loss in space and time as well as can be recovered from satellite gravity alone. Ignoring GIA model uncertainty, over the period 2003–2014, West Antarctica has been losing ice mass at a rate of −121±8 Gt/yr−121±8 Gt/yr and has experienced large acceleration of ice mass losses along the Amundsen Sea coast of −18±5 Gt/yr2−18±5 Gt/yr2, doubling the mass loss rate in the past six years. The Antarctic Peninsula shows slightly accelerating ice mass loss, with larger accelerated losses in the southern half of the Peninsula. Ice mass gains due to snowfall in Dronning Maud Land have continued to add about half the amount of West Antarctica's loss back onto the continent over the last decade. We estimate the overall mass losses from Antarctica since January 2003 at −92±10 Gt/yr.

Citation
Accelerated West Antarctic ice mass loss continues to outpace East Antarctic gains by Christopher Harig and Frederik J. Simons published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 415, 1 April 2015, Pages 134–141, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2015.01.029

 

[macdoc]

Athesist opined incorrectly

What happened millennia ago is not helluva relevant to the 21st century.

Actually it is very relevant as at one point the Sahara wias very green and is underlain with a huge aquifer.
Ground penetrating radar has shown extensive riverine systems underlaying what is desert today.

The Sahel regreening means the climate bands are moving north and perhaps a response to NAO.

Why is it relevant???? did you miss post on desertification of Southern Europe or choosing to be obtuse?

In addition ...the NAO has an impact on the Sahel as well....so we have natural variation like the NAO overlaying the anthro induced global temperature rise AND the land use issue both in the Sahel and S Europe...fertile ground for climate science discussion as both areas are changing and science can give guidelines as to expected changes over time....and is.

 

[macdoc]

Atheist

This is why I posted the article without comment

sure..

 

[Reality Check]

Not so fast Trakar

Not so fast, Haig - you still do not know that WUWT often lies to its readers (see the articles by Monckton for example).

Here we have yet another non-science WUWT blog entry ranting about everything except the science !
This is S. Fred Singer with
* the impression that satellite data is always more reliable than surface data. Obviously he does not know how satellite data is collected!
* the delusion that "IPCC-4 [2007] and IPCC-5 [2013]" contained more surface data from before 2000 (150 years of data!) than after (at most 7 and 13 years of data) somehow invalidates them.
* a lie of "satellite results of near-zero warming trend" - it is only "near-zero" for RSS, it is positive and non-zero for UAH.
* The main point of the paper was that we know enough about the sea-surface temperature measurements to adjust them for changes in techniques. So any remark about "Sea-surface temperatures (SST) show only a slight warming" is wrong. The paper shows that since 2000 SST have increased with the same trend as before 2000.
* Paranoia about Mann not releasing "post-1979 proxy data" because they would show no warming.

S. Fred Singer goes totally off the rails in the conclusion: The answer for any rational person to "So, has global warming really stopped?" is yes because we see it in the oceans where most of the heat content is !

 

[Reality Check]

Actually it's ON topic Trackar

Wrong, Haig - any denial rant from WUWT without valid science is not on topic for a thread about climate science.

For that matter neither is a random, ignorant comment in that WUWT blog entry, Haig. This is some ignorant person thinking that the increase in CO2 measured at Mauna Loa is not correlated with the measured increase in global surface temperatures because they have not been spoon fed a graph showing it . Let us see:
* We measure CO2 increasing .
* We measure tempterure increasing.
* Even without a graph we know there is a correlation!
They go onto the typical denial idiocy of cherry picking decreasing short-term trends of temperatures . Well Duh - natural variability in climate exists! That is why rational people try to look at long term temperature trends, e.g. over 30 years.

 

[Reality Check]

You know ... a source ... like for this graph from

We know where that obviously lying graph comes from, Haig:
2 June 2015 Haig: And now I see where that lying image came from - WUWT is repeating a graph that John Christy presented to the House Committee on Natural Resources.

You do know that the House Committee on Natural Resources is not a scientific journal, Haig ?

 

[Reality Check]

...

Haig - this is a thread about climate science, not obviously invalid and biased personal testimony of climate change deniers at political hearings.

 

[Reality Check]

Global Warming Pause?

A pity that you quote mined that page a bit to remove the sources, Haig.
We have two sources.
A Pause, Not an End, to Warming - a New York Times Op-Ed by Richard Muller in September 2013 with Memo: Has Global Warming Stopped? (PDF) - by Richard Muller (more about his op-ed)

“In this memo I give my personal perspective on the widely discussed slowing of global warming over the past decade. My Op Ed on this subject appears in the New York Times on 26 Sept 2013. However, that Op Ed does not include the data plots that I find more compelling than a thousand words

(my emphasis added)

Memo: Examining the Recent "Pause" in Global Warming (PDF) - by Zeke Hausfather. He looks at various datasets, e.g. the first is

Global Surface Temperatures 1970 - 2013
As shown in the figure above, all three series agree quite well on global temperatures. The dashed grey line shows the trend in temperatures since 2001, while the dashed black line shows the long-*-term trend since 1970. While the rise in global temperatures has slowed in recent years, it is not obviously divergent from the underlying long-*-term trend.

Then various possible causes.
Then Model-Observation Comparisons, 1970-2020 which is basically what we already know - observations since ~2000 have been falling below the average but within the 2-sigma (95% confidence) range of model runs.
That graph is why Christy's graph is obviously a lie since Christy does not have the confidence limits.