Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Alpine & Southern' started by Falls expat, Jun 30, 2015.
There's nothing wrong with questioning the methodology of those posts.
############### Moderator's Note ###############
Deleted. Off topic.
This is the Weather Forum. Any discussion about "FUD", skeptics, etc, and not about the topic which is "Global Warming Discussion", will be deleted.
Post that in CV instead.
I listed the areas where manipulation of the data for a desired outcome were possible and the fact that by Karl's own paper they have changed the infilling process of sparse data areas to a new method and adjusted for the now cooler more accurate Argo SST buoys. Temperature reconstruction has been looked at very closely by multiple agencies before, many times over yet lo and behold we have one paper that changes multiple aspects of the temperature data re-construction which just happens to show a warming trend in the naughties which was not evident before. If this does not smell to high heaven of data manipulation with a desired outcome I don't what does.
If this paper is then backed up by multiple other papers with similar findings then I am willing to accept it....and that is when they should apply to the current temperature data sets and not before. This has been rushed into use way way too quickly for my liking and that is my issue.
I have no problem with global warming happening or the science behind it, but there is some dodgy science going on around it which is the reason for this discussion.
For example if someone released a single peer reviewed paper that found evidence that Asprin cures Autism or cancer, would govts immediately approve it for use? The answer is an emphatic NO. This is because they need further studies to prove it being correct. Why is it that everyone is ready to accept a single paper on temperature reconstruction so rapidly? The answer is that it gives the desired outcome. This is not science...this is herd mentality.
I am going to leave this discussion here. I think it has achieved most of what I hoped it could and there is not much more that can be gained from it. I have at least learned some things that I did not know before and I have learned there are others in the climate/weather field that also share some of the frustrations that I/we face almost every day from the false reporting, bad science and exaggeration of the AGW science on both sides of the argument. If only we lived in a world where facts were reported, but then I guess it would be a boring place to be.
I'm posting these links here as they are relevant to the discussion.
A question for those with more insight than myself:
In the northern hemisphere, harsher winters as a result of global warming have been attributed to a loss of sea ice - more heat absorption in the ice-free sea evidently alters high altitude air currents which produce most of the experienced weather on the continent(s).
So my question: is there any evidence for a similar phenomenon in the Antarctic/southern hemisphere that might explain some interesting weather this southern winter in Oz and the Andes?
I can't find any.
This relationship is pure speculation as to a "possible" process for harsher winters, but interestingly since they made these statements winters have been mild in Europe and many parts of Asia with only parts of N America seeing strong cold. Something similar was said about a run of 5 cool wet summers in Europe then we have had hotter drier summers since.
Last winter was supposed to be harsh and cold in Europe due to snow cover advance in Siberia and a -ve QBO. Albedo changes were the reason put forth re snow cover. Wrong again.
There is endless speculation about why there are harsh winters or extremes in a global warming environment. The only realistic one that makes sense in my opinion is a simple one.
The warming in the polar regions particularly the Arctic is much greater than the equator. This means a weaker thermal gradient and therefore a weaker polar westerly Jet. This leads to a slower moving more wavy meridional pattern rather than fast moving zonal (west to east) flow. The net result is greater longer lasting extremes of warmth and cold as the Jet meanders deeper into both the warmer tropics and colder polar regions.
The comments section of these is the best part to read. This is where true discussion takes place and were questions are answered or not answered.
Actually my Q was pertaining to the southern hemisphere.
Yes but the same applies. It is just another unproven theory that loss of sea ice will alter the jet stream and this applies both N and S hemispheres.
The interesting weather this winter is almost certainly down to the strong El Nino in the Pacific not the Antarctic sea ice.
Max temp obs for Budapest. Shows 7 days of above 30 deg C.
Re Budapest summers..... from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Budapest
In the summer, prolonged hot periods with highs between 32–35°C interchange with short cooler and wet periods following cold fronts from the West with highs between 18–25°C.
Hot temperatures for a couple of weeks or longer is not a conclusive indicator of global warming, just as the coldest July in Victoria in 20 years(or below normal 3 months in UK) for is not an indication that that there is no global warming.
That means it is NOT Global Warming discussion. Please stick to the topic.
Your post would be a sound justification for adopting a sceptical position on the paper especially if like myself you lack the understanding to rigorously analyse the paper. However your justification does nothing to prove the paper is biased since you have failed to demonstrate that any of the factors you mention are actually incorrect. You've only pointed out that they could be incorrect, which is hardly a startling observation. Due to the uncertainty of global temperature reconstructions I'm sure this one will be revised as methodologies and data improves, just like all of the other reconstructions.
Well, you can now exclude Sunspots as causing GW
New sunspot analysis shows rising global temperatures not linked to solar activity
A recalibration of data describing the number of sunspots and groups of sunspots on the surface of the Sun shows that there is no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, contrary to what was previously thought. Indeed, the corrected numbers now point towards a consistent history of solar activity over the past few centuries, according to an international team of researchers. Its results suggest that rising global temperatures since the industrial revolution cannot be attributed to increased solar activity. The analysis, its results and its implications for climate research were discussed today at a press briefing at the IAU XXIX General Assembly currently taking place in Honolulu, Hawaii.
Please refrain from playing the man directly. You are addressing the topic, but playing the man. Your posting style is the same style that's used by most posters in CV.
For example, the posting style is:
- "You fail to address......."
- "This post fails to address......"
I was just after some links to any research linking AGW/climate change to altered winter weather patterns.
If you have none then never mind.
This may help answer your questions.
Effectively it appears the storm track over S parts of Australia is retracting southwards leading to lower rainfall trends. Is this due to AGW? Probably as it fits in with temperature gradient changes between the equator and polar regions.
Not an ad, just a link to reviews.
This book really does show up the bad scientific practices associated with the much used Mann Hockey stick temperature graph.
Some astonishing quotes in there about how flimsy and unreliable the proxy data used by Mann was, even by people who helped him create it.
One point that stands out is that the tree ring data that Mann uses to justify no major climate shift in the last 1000 years also shows no warming since 1980 but rather cooling. So why believe it is right to use it for past data?
I think the IPCC and climate scientists have to make a stand and say this temperature graph is unreliable and almost certainly wrong, but instead I guess they will roll it out again for the Paris summit.
Before anyone responds, make sure the conversation is about the climate data, not any agenda authors may have, the Mann hockey stick controversy or IPCC policy.
Thing is there has been many studies since the original Mann Hockey stick temperature graph that confirm it is a valid reconstruction of past Northern Hemisphere temps.
There really is no disputing that temps have risen so I don't see what all the fuss is.
This is difficult to adhere to of course because the Mann Hockey stick is so deeply entwined with everything about the climate debate and shows how despite multiple misgivings about the methods and proxy data used by Mann, to this day it is still used as a accurate representation of how the global climate has changed in the past 1000 years compared to modern times. It is not and is about as good example of how science can go horrible astray.
We could swap graphs all day long showing one side or the other, but the important aspect here is that it appears from this book, which just lists quotes from leading scientists, that the climate science community knew the Mann temp reconstruction was erroneous and should never have been used. Yet to this day it is defended. This places the credibility of whole AGW science under the spotlight and in a defensive mode. So when someone comes along and asks the question "Why are the observed temps diverging from IPCC model predictions?" Then those desperate for the AGW message to get across, fore go normal scientific principles to quash this type question.
No one is banging on about Mann 1998 anymore, it's ancient history - the science has well and truly moved on.
Even Mann has moved on to more robust reconstructions - weren't you aware of Michael E. Mann, Zhihua Zhang, Malcolm K. Hughes, Raymond S. Bradley, Sonya K. Miller, Scott Rutherford and Fenbiao 2008?
It's weird isn't it that sceptics ignore the more recent studies, I wonder why that is?
Stay on topic.
Learning from past mistakes is what science is all about. Below are the IPCC 1-5 published temp reconstructions. Please note the IPCC 1 construction from Lamb (from 1965) compared to the most recent IPCC 5 construction. Note how the Medieval warm period was lost and then found again. Add the considerable error bars on to the IPCC 5 graph and then it is impossible to say for sure that the current warm period is warmer than the Medieval warm period given the limits of the data that far back in time.
You can not deny there has been recent warming. I think no one who looks at the data and science can deny there is human influence on this warming. However, with help of some colourful statistical manipulation of past proxies the climate community have latched on to the warmest temps in 1000 years mantra without proper scientific justification or proper review of procedures or data.
This this gets back to the original discussion at the start of the topic. Observations have not followed computer projected temperatures in the last 15-18 years. A bit like the Mann hockey stick fiasco which effectively eliminated a problem period in climate history (Medieval warm period), NOAA are eliminating the observed divergence of observations from forecast models with the Karl et al paper.
It took over a decade for the climate community to accept that the Mann hockey stick graph was garbage, but Karl et al creates one paper that shows the temperature observation pause doesn't exist and the changes are immediately implemented. This is an oddity in its own right.
The link to the Steyn Book I posted previously, shows that there were many scientists, even those on the IPCC committees, who questioned the validity of the Mann graphs and methodology, but they all stood by and let it happen. This is a blight on scientific good practice and brings into question anything that is now produced by the IPCC scientific community.
As an aside, I discussed these concerns with my wife (Cambridge Graduate) and she asked does it matter about the pedantics of the detail, if we know we are affecting the earth's climate, then we should do something about it and move away from the fossil fuel economy is a good thing?
Sound common sense and the doing something about it and moving away from fossil fuels I agree with totally. However, I object strongly with the likes of Greenpeace coming out and saying we are all doomed when there is no evidence to back this up and when they use information like the Mann Hockey stick as proof then it winds me up ever further. If this is pedantic then so be it. If science is conducted elsewhere like it has been in the AGW arena then we are in for some horrible disasters in medicine, chemistry, physics etc.
Scientists did not try to hide the Medieval warm period. A search of Google Scholar brings up 161,000 papers on it!!
Trying to use one paper done back in 1998 by one man to discredit all of climate science is a bit much...
What did you think of the more recent Michael E. Mann, Zhihua Zhang, Malcolm K. Hughes, Raymond S. Bradley et al 2008 paper?
Did you find anything wrong with that?
Stay on topic. Do not play the man.
161,000 papers on it (Medieval Warm period) yet the Mann 1998 construction (with no MWP) made it in to the IPCC report and became a global icon for the AGW cause? What went wrong?
10 years to come to the conclusion that there was in fact a Medieval Warm Period that was warmer than the 61-90 temp average. I think an apology might be in order from these authors for misleading the world at large for over a decade.
I refer back to the original IPCC temp reconstructions from 1-5 above. Lamb in 1965 knew there was a warmer Medieval period. I was taught that during my degree course. Yet this was erased from history for a period by some very dodgy temperature proxy analysis.
So you ask what I think about this paper? I think it is too little too late. I suspect when the Steyn v Mann law suit finally comes to a conclusion, then Mann will be finally discredited and when he is, then who goes down with him and what will the consequences for the AGW cause be? It could be messy.
Below from the paper you listed. Put the Error bars on here and they will extend higher than current day temps. It is also worth noting that the Medieval Warm Period saw an almost unbroken period of record crop harvests and prosperity unlike during the Little Ice Age which saw famine and hardship. Is a warm planet so bad? Skiing aside of course.
Umm, it's the Mann vs Steyn law suit. It is Steyn who is on trial for defamation.
My final words on this hockey stick topic...
More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original hockey stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.
Stay on topic
So why does the latest IPCC temperature reconstruction and Mann et. al. latest construction now show a Medieval warm period? Have they ignored the 2 dozen reconstructions that proved their flat hockey stick shaft? Steyn is counter suing Mann by the way and he did this so that Mann could not opt out of the legal process.
Let's leave the legal process out of it. Will be deleted.
Here's the latest update to surface temps versus climate models. Looks to me like the observations have followed computer projected temperatures very well and they are on an upwards trajectory at the moment too.
Q. How do you know when a thread should be closed?
A. When the moderators are doing most of the b!tchting...
I guess this is the glass half full argument. Any free thinking person would look at this graph and go hmmm...not quite going to plan. For those who created it or believe in it, they would say yes still withing expectations.
I look at this graph and see it barely hanging on inside the model forecast ensemble spread and it has been on the lower side of this spread since the late 90s. This forecast is the Titanic and going down fast. It will be replaced with a cooler forecast in the next IPCC update.
What makes this lower move even more interesting is that the Obs were on the warmer side of forecasts until 1997-98 then dropped and never recovered. Yes the temps are rising as we are heading into a 20-50 year(possibly longer) warm El Nino event. However, as sure as night follows day there will also be a follow up strong cool La Nina just like in 98-2000. Judging by the amount global temps dropped then, I would imagine that the Obs will be threatening to drop out side the model forecast plume. What will you be saying then? Probably nothing because Karl will have devised a way that eliminates the existence of La Ninas by then. Even the Indicative IPCC AR5 assessed likely range drops out of the forecast by 2018. What does this tell us? It tells me they no longer have any confidence in current forecasts and will revise it downwards on IPCC 6.
In fact the temps were smack bang in the middle of the forecast ensemble spread in 2005 and are heading back to the middle today. This thread is full of good relevant info that explains why the past decade or so has been on the cooler side of projections so there's no point going over all that again.
Now that the PDO cool phase is shifting back to warm look out!
It is a funny old game this. Once again you post a chart which is just showing the current warm El Nino. The PDO is directly affected by ENSO events. Who would have thought seeing they both occur in the Pacific. Most PDO watchers expect cool to return for many more years after this Nino event. Judging by the pure Obs it is hard to argue against this. See the graphs below which show regular warm blips in cool PDO phases associated with Nino events.
So I ask this. If the Global temps cool again as expected after this Nino and the PDO goes back to a cool phase and the global temps fall out of the forecast spread in say 2018, then will you think it is time for a new series of forecast projections?
If we look at the probable long term natural climate drivers then we are likely to see a rapid cooling from a post Nino La Nina like 98-2000 which will start mid next year 2016 through until possibly 2018 and by that time we will be in the next solar sunspot minimum (see below) now known to cool global temps, albeit mainly in the Northern Hemisphere. So AGW has a lot to fight against to rise in line with IPCC expectations. This is why this thread was started. The IPCC has not allowed enough for natural variations in climate for their forecasts or for that matter in their past proxy temperature reconstructions e.g. Mann et al. Yet when someone who believes in AGW tries to point this out, they are immediately attacked as a denier or skeptic. This is what is wrong with the whole scientific debate about AGW. It is not science. It is political or even has adopted a religious like behaviour.
Up to 2014.
Throw in the possible period of low sunspot activity for the next 25-50 years and you end up with another cool natural driver.
Judging by the current low sunspot maximum the following prediction is holding true for the time being.
Thing is that when the PDO is in a warm phase El Niños tend to dominate. In a cool phase, La Niñas dominate which is what we've just been through. If we have already entered a warm phase, then none of us are likely to get much relief from the next La Niña. Even in the cool phase when La Niñas dominated, since around 1999, each one has usually been warmer than the previous.
It's called AGW and we are causing it.
"Is a warm planet so bad?"
Be careful what you wish for...
Scientists unearth ancient, giant virus from Siberia's frozen wasteland
Scientists say they will reanimate a 30,000-year-old giant virus unearthed in the frozen wastelands of Siberia, and have warned climate change in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions could awaken dangerous microscopic pathogens thought to be eradicated.
Reporting this week in the flagship journal of the United States National Academy of Sciences, French researchers announced the discovery of Mollivirus sibericum, the fourth type of pre-historic virus found since 2003 — and the second by this team.
That's interesting, but it's off topic.
Further off topic posts will be deleted.
This is interesting and on topic.
Off topic I know, but it is an intriguing aspect of the AGW debate that you almost never hear the possible benefits of AGW, only the negatives. Why is that? I think it is the "We're Doomed" character in human nature.
You were warned.