Global Temperature Change, baseline in History

[Megalodon]

Nope, but I expect that you can verify this is quite easily. No doubling of sea level rise past 1990.

Verify what? what are you talking about?

Given that the text, graphic and references quote IPCC 2001, they must hare been trying to get this published for quite a while indeed.

Given that the paper compares predictions with observations, and has observations from mid-2006, I would say you are wrong... again...

Has sea level rise doubled since 1990?

I said: "An interesting result from Rahmstorf et al is the apparent doubling of the rate of sea-level rise from 1990, related to the period between 1970 and 1990."

Plain english.

 

[mhaze]

Verify what? what are you talking about?

Given that the paper compares predictions with observations, and has observations from mid-2006, I would say you are wrong... again...

I said: "An interesting result from Rahmstorf et al is the apparent doubling of the rate of sea-level rise from 1990, related to the period between 1970 and 1990."Plain english.

An interesting result which appears wrong. Plain english. Shouldn't take you long to look into that.

How about the middle graph? Any claims you'd like to make based on the non conclusion found therein?

 

[Megalodon]

You claiming it doesn't make it so, hazy... put up, or shut up.

And in the meantime, go answer the questions you've been evading in the other thread.

 

[mhaze]

You claiming it doesn't make it so, hazy... put up, or shut up

And just because I enjoy seeing the delayers ignoring these results time and time again, here's Rahmstorf et al, 2007:

What do you claim are the "results?" Put up or shut up, it is you who keeps posting this graph set.

 

[Dancing David]

An interesting result which appears wrong. Plain english. Shouldn't take you long to look into that.

How about the middle graph? Any claims you'd like to make based on the non conclusion found therein?

You claiming it doesn't make it so, hazy... put up, or shut up.

And in the meantime, go answer the questions you've been evading in the other thread.

And just because I enjoy seeing the delayers ignoring these results time and time again, here's Rahmstorf et al, 2007:

What do you claim are the "results?" Put up or shut up, it is you who keeps posting this graph set.

Time to stop gentle people, nanny nanny boo boo does not make a discussion. I will request a split of this next time.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Baseline history of GCC......hard stuff. Look at Briffa 2008 and then it's discussion at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3266

 

[mhaze]

Baseline history of GCC......hard stuff. Look at Briffa 2008 and then it's discussion at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3266

Rejected, not verifiable or repeatable:

Briffa et al (Phil Trans Roy Soc London 2008) is a relatively new emanation from the Team, not previously discussed here,....AGU journals (for example) have a category for “data” papers in which data sets are published, this cannot be said to be a data paper since no data is archived.
​

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

That's why I said to look at the actual discussion, to show how problematic are some approaches to the subject.

 

[mhaze]

That's why I said to look at the actual discussion, to show how problematic are some approaches to the subject.

Will do, but if amateurs on the web in three seconds can say-

Rejected, not verifiable or repeatable:
​

These guys hardly deserve the title of "scientist".

 

[Dancing David]

Will do, but if amateurs on the web in three seconds can say-

Rejected, not verifiable or repeatable:
​

These guys hardly deserve the title of "scientist".

people on the web can say whatever they want, it means little.

What are the errors in Briffa 2006, I am open to reading about them.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/osborn-briffa.html

 

[mhaze]

06 or 08?

 

[CapelDodger]

What are the errors in Briffa 2006, I am open to reading about them.

Here's one :

"In contrast, the fraction of sites with temperatures much warmer (greater than one standard deviation) than the long-term mean is greater over almost the entire 20th century than at any time in the past 1200 years, inferring warm conditions across the Northern Hemisphere over much of the 20th century."

Incorrect use of "inferring". That should be "implying".

As to Briffa 2008, apparently there's good stuff at ClimateAudit. Pages and pages of it, I've no doubt. A few salient points picked out and presented by mhaze or the other chap would be nice, but they're under no obligation.

Briffa 2006 is very interesting, and very salient . The graphic representation is particularly good (worthy of Megalodon). It points up the way there's a "zero-sum game" element in the regional experience of global climate change (one region's colder is another's warmer) while also conveying the big picture. The MWP and LIA are there; I'm not sure what the c1400 spike is called, but there it is; the vulcanism spike c1800 is there; and our recent experience is there.

 

[CapelDodger]

"AGU journals (for example) have a category for “data” papers in which data sets are published, this cannot be said to be a data paper since no data is archived."

So what? The data still exists. You could probably find it if you looked. Try "Google", I hear it's very good. Or Google "Google Scholar" to find something a bit more focused.

 

[CapelDodger]

An interesting result from Rahmstorf et al is the apparent doubling of the rate of sea-level rise from 1990, related to the period between 1970 and 1990.

Will be interesting to see it confirmed or refuted by subsequent publications.

Of course, depending on events, it may turn out to be a blip. Time will tell. A sustained El Nino of '98 proportions would shed a lot of ocean heat, which the recent La Nina has been storing up.

The ocean is (to a great extent) its own thermometer; it integrates global temperature infinitely better than any other conceivable instrument; and it has the gravitas to shrug off mere weather events. "Freak Snow in China This Week" doesn't rattle its cage.

 

[Dancing David]

I have decided to ignore Mhaze for a while, they can't even keep threads straight. A true waste of talent spent in vitriol rather than intelligent discussion, stupid fool, I can agree with a lot of what they say but they are so patheic. Thanks you i have had my fill of mind games. Mhaze join Nicck 227 on IGNORE.

 

[mhaze]

Of course, depending on events, it may turn out to be a blip. Time will tell. A sustained El Nino of '98 proportions would shed a lot of ocean heat, which the recent La Nina has been storing up.

The ocean is (to a great extent) its own thermometer; it integrates global temperature infinitely better than any other conceivable instrument; and it has the gravitas to shrug off mere weather events. "Freak Snow in China This Week" doesn't rattle its cage.

Given that NASA says PDO flipped, you won't see any biggie El Nino for quite a while.

So what? The data still exists. You could probably find it if you looked. Try "Google", I hear it's very good. Or Google "Google Scholar" to find something a bit more focused.

Apparently not, as one who read Lucifuge's reference would know.

Briffa 2006 is very interesting, and very salient . The graphic representation is particularly good (worthy of Megalodon). It points up the way there's a "zero-sum game" element in the regional experience of global climate change (one region's colder is another's warmer) while also conveying the big picture. The MWP and LIA are there; I'm not sure what the c1400 spike is called, but there it is; the vulcanism spike c1800 is there; and our recent experience is there.

Too bad that my challenge to Dancing David to analyze this article seemed to drive him away, I agree with you as do others that there is some actual material there.

 

[CapelDodger]

Given that NASA says PDO flipped, you won't see any biggie El Nino for quite a while.

Let us know how that prediction works out for you.

Apparently not, as one who read Lucifuge's reference would know.

How so?

Too bad that my challenge to Dancing David to analyze this article seemed to drive him away, I agree with you as do others that there is some actual material there.

You haven't driven Dancing David away, he's just not dancing to your tune. And why should he, after all?

 

[CapelDodger]

I have decided to ignore Mhaze for a while, they can't even keep threads straight.

Thread-hopping's one of his standard tactics, and he can't even get that right .

A true waste of talent ...

A waste of space and bandwidth, to my mind, but best we agree to differ on that. He operates in only two modes : antagonistic, or sycophantic. You'll have noticed how determinedly he antagonised you, for no good reason. The concept of "a discussion" is alien to him.

Getting back to the baseline, the Briffa 2006 approach strikes me as very good. The underlying problem is in integrating all the local time-series to get a global picture. Ocean volume is good for that too.

 

[Dancing David]

That seems to be a real sticking point of all the models, such limited local data in many cases and then the large time scale of the wider spread proxies makes it a real bite.

As I have stated in another thread there are so many input variables that any model we have now will look fairly primitive at any time in the future. I think that these first set of forays are interesting and that they do seem to indicate a possible trend. But in twenty years the modeling should be a whole lot better, I am not sure historical proxies will.

It would take a realy wide number of pollen samples and good stratigraphy to begin to get a picture of the areas of climate dispersion and change over time. Having know people who did pollen analysis, I think that even one good core that covered five hundred years could take years to analyze.

And that will give you mainly land based indications of climate.