A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.
Reader Interactions
2040 Responses to "The Bore Hole"
BaitedBreathsays
(Sorry – was happy to continue this in the Borehole, but can’t get a Reply box??)
My basic question : how can the observed warming of oceans be a consequence of CO2 warming of the atmosphere, when as now the atmosphere is itself not warming ?
Eric’s answer is that on multi-decadal timescales, atmosphere and ocean warming are indeed coupled, but there can be short-term variability in the oceanatmosphere heat exchange.
This seems to imply that
– in the *long* term, oceanatmosphere heat exchange *is* related to oceanatmosphere temperature difference
– but in the *short* term it needn’t be.
How is that possible? What factors other than their relative temperatures are at work here?
BaitedBreathsays
Here’s a naive suggestion. In the interests of science and openness, why can’t scientists just forget about FOI, regulations, publication dates, unused data, etc etc, and JUST ANSWER THE REQUESTS that people make for data and other info ?
This would straightaway completely remove all suggestion of impropriety or bias. We are after all talking about something that is both publicly funded, and that that one way or another will have a massive impact on the general public – some combination of the climate itself, and the costs and social implications of political actions taken on the back of the science.
So how about it? We could call it JATQ – Just Answer The Question.
Dan H.says
Jim,
Since you asked. I got my degrees in Chemistry; undergrad at the Univeristy of Michigan, and graduate at the University of Detroit. I have been working as an environmental and nuclear chemist for the past 30 years. I know which folks here possess greater and lesser subject knowledge than myself.
I could limit my posts, as you suggest, but since my opinion differs from many here, I tend to get a greater deal of respondents, some of whom have been rather abusive. Also since I differ, many are requiring a higher burden of proof regarding my comments, and allowing other statements to skate unsubstantiated.
Your comment about irrelevent thread comments (which includes my response to you) is dead on. Look at the past 20 comments on this thread alone. Tim and I have had the only relevent conversation regarding the topic of Greenland ice mass. The rest have been verbal attacks and attempts to diminish dissidents. This is repeated on other threads. Whenever someone posts an opposing view, they are bombarded with negative attacks, often without any supporting arguments. Other websites get similar abusiveness, but few to the extent here. With regards to large threads, perhaps RC could move to a CLimate etc. type posting, whereby comments are imbedded in streams. That way, someone could bypass an entire discussion within the thread, to respond to one of greater interest. Just a thought.
Mertonian Normsays
Eric, Ray, Radge, fair enough, and I appreciate both your responses and your resistance to consider constructive engagement with someone whom you so deeply revile. I’ve made my point here, I acknowledge the low likelihood and the impracticality of trying to bridge such a damaged relationship if you can even call it that, especially if it’s already been attempted, and it’s time for me to move along and leave you to the climate science, which is far more important than these sort of ancillary issues anyway.
I certainly don’t want to bore you any further with “false balance tone trolling”, whatever that is, though I can guess! I’ve enjoyed my visit.
Davesays
… a layman here again.
I have been trying to follow the issue regarding the efficacy of the data used in the production of the “Hockey Stick” graph.
As a reasonably intelligent individual with nothing more than a basic understanding of graphs, stats, data collection, etc – you may be interested to learn that I find it impossible to reach any conclusions!
Clearly the experts that contribute to Realclimate are very knowledgeable and learned on many subjects. The responses here range from carefully argued debate as to the correctness and/or relevance of data sets and their potential impact on any subsequent graph – through to sometimes dismissal, or insults, regarding McIntyre’s knowledge, ability and logic and a characterisations that suggests that he is in the pay of “big oil” and that his raison d’etre is to confuse and obfuscate.
Similarly, there are a range of themes suggested by Climate Audit commentors. These range from cherry picking to achieved preconceived results based on political “beliefs”, poor understanding of statistics and the relevance, or otherwise, of all the known data – through to accusations of grant grubbing, personal ambition, poor ability, scare mongering, left wing idealism and one world government conspiracy.
Specifically, in this case, the debate is simply about whether the Hockey Stick graphs are a fair representation of all the known data – and are therefore additional evidence of accelerating global warming – which then leads on to what we (earthlings!) should do about it – or not.
In the naïve world that I live in, it seems to me that this really should be solvable and agreement on data to produce a graph should be possible!
The question that I would ask of RealClimate contributors is – given that the specific issue here is whether the Hockey Stick graph is a fair representation of all known data, and is clearly a key element of the larger debate – Can we please have, in the public domain, all of the data, all of the logic, reasoning and thought processes and variations of the graph if different data sets are used?
At Climate Audit, I would ask to see a graph that uses data sets, that are accepted by RealClimate contributors as being fair and representative – that show alternative conclusions – i.e. no Hockey Stick.
Again, given the importance of the graph, is it really beyond the wit of man to be able to agree a very small panel of relevant people (2 or 3?), that are acceptable to both “sides”, that could independently analyse various data sets, put forward by each side, and then produce relevant graphs with explanation of the logic and assumptions. Whilst this may not ultimately resolve matters for the layman, it would at least move the debate forward to issues specifically to do with why one data set or another is more representative – rather than each side calling “foul” against the other.
The debate would then be more “open” with no room left for accusations, either way, regarding motives, etc.
Titussays
Please take note that Tom Scharf’s post reflects the thinking of an increasing number of Joe Public on this issue. The replies to him appear to agree that we do not understand climate sufficiently and a margin of error is expected with such a system. So it looks like we have agreement but the interpretations and implications appear to differ.
Joe Public do not have to look far to find that temperatures and sea levels are not rising, that storms are not increasing (etc. ad nauseum ) in fact there are many where the reverse is true.
Can I suggest that future predicitions are published alongside all previous predictions of the same for the last 15 years. This would be a positive with getting folks to at least take note of how difficult this issue is, just like in your replies made to Tom’s post.
Comparing your 2010 and 2012 (and some other) graphs, it seems to me linear (exponential, or whatever else) extrapolations are only “suitable” if they either appear to match reality, or have no reality to compare to. Maybe it would be better to stop extrapolating altogether, even with newer model runs.
Kasuhasays
Regarding the “figure 4”, it only resembles “hockey stick” if you just follow the mean line – but I can see at least one very similar event to today’s warming at around 1300 and potential room for about three more of such in various places of the graph (~1150, 1400, 1500). The uncertaininty interval is the problem, people usually tend to think that temperature was in the middle all the time, but the reality is always different. Actually the 95% certainity interval means real values were out of it 5% of the time. Even comparison of HadCRUT values with the reconstruction shows that temperature can really go way over or below for considerable time. Yes, I think this is how good science results should be presented.
MMMsays
“This doesn’t make any sense. No statistical fiddlings are going to wind up with the conclusion that two distributions with identical means (mine and Orsi’s) being LESS likely to be the same than two distributions with means separated by a full standard deviation O’Donnell’s and Orsi’s)!”
Sorry, my statement was not very clear. What I meant was to take the integral of the Orsi curve to the left of where O’Donnell is higher than Steig (1.6) and compare that to the integral of Orsi to the right of 1.6. The integral of Orsi to the left is probably about 20% (eyeballing), and to the right is 80%, which gives a 20% chance that O’Donnell has better predicted reality, and an 80% chance that Steig has better predicted reality.
(to take another artificial example: take a 3rd researcher, MMM, who claimed that the true rate is .23/decade, but with only a +/- 0.0001 range. Then, if reality is 0.23 exactly, the MMM pdf could be considered to be better, but if reality is more than 0.0001 less than or more than 0.23, Steig was better. And based on Orsi, the chances are very high than Steig is better than MMM, even though Steig, MMM, and Orsi all have identical means)
(okay, thinking about this more, my method can’t be right, in that I can construct a pdf which would beat an Orsi clone when comparing to the Orsi original… basically, something which is slightly more probably than Orsi over 51% of distribution, and slightly less for the other 49%)
RomanMsays
The borehole data is a direct measure of the true value.
I find your statement , how shall I put it politely, outrageously over the top. To believe that a single borehole is capable of providing an super-accurate estimate of the temperature trend for a large region is stunning. If I were to take the data collected from a single weather station (with actual thermometers!) and make the identical claim, I suspect that you would probably find some objections. I will assume that I am being had.
I have not read the paper by Orsi, so I will not comment on that. However, I have reservations about many of the assumptions necessary for Bayesian methodology which I assume that they would have used in formulating such results.
Finally, with regard to the differences in the results between your original paper and that of O’Donnell et al., since the same data was basically used, the differences are pretty much all due to the methodologies used. I personally am not a fan of RegEm combined with an EIV-type component, because the latter does not really take account the individual uncertainties that it is supposed to.
Do you have some clever way of somehow showing they are NOT, while maintaining the claim that O’Donnell et al. is different from Steig et al??
Maybe. How about a way to calculate the “SVD” of a matrix with missing values without prior infilling. ;)
Grosjansays
Your words Eric?: “in my view O’Donnell et al. is a perfectly acceptable addition to the literature. O’Donnell et al. suggest several improvements to the methodology we used, most of which I agree with in principle”
[Response:Indeed, yes. I also pointed out that I thought that their trend estimate was low, and I gave my reasons, and they chose not to address this.–eric]
ferd berplesays
225
Jim Larsen says:
25 May 2012 at 10:52 PM
Steve’s work consumes more external resources than the total benefit resulting from his efforts
=======
Quality is one of the most expensive attributes of any product to provide. Testing is a necessary part of any methodology if you wish to be sure of the quality of the end product.
While there are many different approaches to testing, there is a large body of evidence that shows the most successful rely on two factors:
1. The tester must be independent of the developer.
2. The tester must be motivated to find defects.
Testing by its nature is the search for defects. Most developers don’t like having the defects in their work pointed out and thus don’t like testers.
However, without testers the world would be awash in faulty product. Without testers, the consumer pays the hidden cost of defects, while the developer gets the rewards.
ferd berplesays
Indianapolis 500 records
Highest Race Temperatures
Races with air temperatures equaling or surpassing 90°F (32°C)
Year Degrees Race Winner Notes
°F °C
1937 92° 33° United States Wilbur Shaw
1919 91° 33° United States Howdy Wilcox
1953 91° 33° United States Bill Vukovich
With anecdotal, “unofficial” testimony placing air temperature at the track during the race near or surpassing 100°F / 38°C, potentially the hottest race in history, with at least one fatality, United States Carl Scarborough, due to heat exhaustion
1977 90° 32° United States A.J. Foyt
1978 90° 32° United States Al Unser
Note 96°F / 35°C, claimed for the start of the 2010 race, but subsequent data reviews indicate an inaccurate reporting
Coldest Temperature at Start of Race:
51°F / 11°C, 1992
References
^ National Weather Service archives for Indianapolis, up to 26 May 2012.
Richard Goodalesays
How naive are each of these 3X3 attempts at “communication”…..
I did so much better when I was 25 and armed only with degrees from Stnaford and Harvard…..
Sic transit gloria universities……
Richard Goodalesays
Wow! This website is harder to enter than doing the Austrian drunk test in “The Man with Two Brains!”
The 3X3 atempts at “communication” are similarly pitifully naive. I could have done so much better back in the days when my Stanford and Harvard degrees were freshly minted and I was doing energy demand modelling when science inthese areas was refreshingly apolitical.
Jack Maloneysays
“Support for climate science doesn’t increase with science literacy, a survey suggests. Rather, people with technical backgrounds just dig in harder on their views about global warming, finds the study in the Nature Climate Change journal.
“The study sought to test two explanations for the split, said Yale’s Dan Kahan, who led the study, in a statement: “The first attributes political controversy over climate change to the public’s limited ability to comprehend science, and the second, to opposing sets of cultural values.”
“The first notion doesn’t wash, says the study, finding a small increase in the odds of folks seeing global warming as not too serious in the most science literate people in the survey.”
Humbertosays
MapleLeaf, do you and SKS realy have a clue?
Jack Maloneysays
This month, WRI, supported by google.org, launched a pilot project to further build the capacity of the scientific community to more effectively relay their recent scientific findings.
Video is just a medium; if the message isn’t convincing, the medium will make little difference. The WRI pilot project may have little chance of success, according to a recently published study:
“Support for climate science doesn’t increase with science literacy, a survey suggests. Rather, people with technical backgrounds just dig in harder on their views about global warming, finds the study in the Nature Climate Change journal.
“The study sought to test two explanations for the split, said Yale’s Dan Kahan, who led the study, in a statement: “The first attributes political controversy over climate change to the public’s limited ability to comprehend science, and the second, to opposing sets of cultural values.”
“The first notion doesn’t wash, says the study, finding a small increase in the odds of folks seeing global warming as not too serious in the most science literate people in the survey.”
Richardsays
If this is the best you can do, please bring back Al Gore (insert unhappy face here)……. [editor: ok, this stuff is getting even too pathetic for the “Borehole”. This is the last one that even gets that status.]
John Meesesays
Is this MapleLeaf-guy what Real Climate has become?
John Westsays
Ray Ladbury says:
“John West, the fact that you seem to think that reality is subjective speaks volumes. Good luck with that. Let us know if you want to refult the laws of graviation and we’ll film it for Fail Blog.”
Your apparent lack of understanding that reality changes as technology changes and our perception of reality changes as our understanding changes also speaks volumes.
Example 1)
Reality in 1800: It takes months to go from NY to LA.
Reality in 2000: It takes hours to go from NY to LA.
Example 2)
Perception of reality in 1900: Time is constant.
Perception of reality in 2000: Time is relative.
Mertonian Normsays
More context from Howat — NSF press release (May 4): “This study provides more evidence that the rate at which these glaciers can dump ice into the ocean is indeed limited,” said Ian Howat, assistant professor of Earth sciences and member of the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, a co-author on the paper. “What remains to be seen is how long the acceleration will continue — but it appears that our worst-case scenarios aren’t likely.” Relatively good news over all, it would appear.
Iansays
I found this comment particularly interesting “Are the new numbers realistic? I and many colleagues I spoke to have serious doubts. It is a model result which is in stark contradiction to data-based estimates.” Surely models are the fundamental building blocks of the science which this blog so wholeheartedly supports
Anterossays
flxible –
In a similar fashion to Susan Anderson, you’ve made a false assumption. And guessed motive (incorrectly). Further you’ve made a false accusation of cherry-picking [see above, the prediction was for 15 years of cooling in the spring]
What seems a clearer case of cherry-picking is to choose a nearby 15 year period, but only one that suits a your pre-defined belief about the “real world’s warming trend”
Did you try a 15 year period from February or March and reject them because they failed to produce a warming trend with either data set? Any reason for choosing January?
As I explained in my previous comment I have no partisan dog in this fight, but to accuse me of being for the ‘denialators’ gives me pause to ponder your own objectivity.
Anterossays
Steve Fish –
You have a point.
I posted here because Louise comments here, and she ‘appeared’ on two sites to ridicule me for there apparently being ‘no data sets showing 15 years of cooling’, arriving with a ‘Paging Anteros’ which I followed here.
However – and I’m humbled by the apology Susan – there was quite a lot of knee-jerk assumption here about motive and intentionality. Perhaps that’s the nature of the ‘debate’ these days.
Also, I’ve now clearly explained the context and yet Hank Roberts can still say
You are pointing to and interpreting part of what’s available and doing that incorrectly
Well, I’m clearly not – I’m not interpreting what’s available at all, let alone incorrectly. I’m merely showing a graph that fits the prediction I made 7 months ago when asked to by a commenter at this blog.
I should repeat in case it wasn’t clear enough – I make no assessment of the meaning or significance of those graphs at all, and I’m still somewhat surprised by the near universal assumption of what that assessment would have been had I made it [wrongly – I see no cessation of warming at all]
Finally (accepting your point @67 Steve) now that the context is clearer, accusations of cherry-picking (eg by Ray Ladbury @65) can be seen to be not true. Unless of course my wondering in November last year what Louise would say to there being two data sets showing 15 years of cooling this spring was itself cherry-picking rather than a reasonable expectation.
I could indeed have provided more context at the outset – I apologise for that. I do think the assumptions made about the showing of a ‘cooling’ graph are inastructive – for us all.
Iansays
This was not published so I don’t expect it will be published today or any other day. It may raise matters with which the scientists that run this blog might prefer to remain obscured. This comment on the groundwater paper astounded me. The comment is ” I and many colleagues I spoke to have serious doubts. It is a model result which is in stark contradiction to data-based estimates.”
Given that much of the basis of the science underpinning concepts of current climate change is entirely from models how can this criticism of the Pokhrel et al. 2012 possibly be warranted?
Dan H.says
J. Bowers,
Yes, as the chosen start and end dates go further back in time, the slope rises. Compare your dates with Anteros’ and another from three years further back. The rate drops from 0.22 C/decade in the 15 years starting with 1993 to 0.08 C/decade in your graph starting in 1996 to -0.05 C/decade in Anteros graph for the most recent 15 years.
..only interested in demonstrating my false premise
What premise have I demonstrated?
Contrary to almost all the assumptions made above I don’t believe the ’15 years of cooling’ demonstrate anything but noise. As should be clear by now, I showed the graphs because I was asked to (and had predicted them some 7 months ago)
I’m a little confused as to the relevance of your comments about violence and exploiting fear and rage – was that in response to something I wrote?
As I have tried to do before (but the comment was deleted) I do apologise for not giving more context in my original comment. Had I done so, it would have been clearer that I was not indulging in any cherry-picking, and there would have been less cause to make assumptions about motive.
I really didn’t expect that posting the two graphs would get me labelled as being for ‘the denialators’. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Neil Fishersays
Gavin – you ought also to mention…
Why? How extraordinary to expect that generous social scruples be gifted to ClimateAudit and its endless innuendo, insinuations, aspersions.
Perhaps when/if McIntyre & Friends learn the value of keeping a civil tongue they might be accorded punctilious civility?
Juvenile coup counting.
Civil? You want people to be civil? Take a look at some of the comments here! While it’s true that this does not – and should not be taken to – reflect the attitudes of the blog authors, the same applies at CA. IMO, SM has always been unfailingly polite and even generous in his interpretations. I chalange you to provide an example where SM has been uncivil in one of these “arguements” – just one! You will struggle to find it, methinks.
vivendisays
“There is a difference between an error being reported at Climate Audit and being discovered by Climate Audit. It appears that the Journal was aware of the problem before McIntyre posted about it.”
What’s the fuzz? What a childish debate among grown-ups and alleged scientists at that.
The fact is that within a short time after the publication of a peer-reviewed paper, outsiders raised some skepticism. Further investigations on both sides of the “fence” have confirmed that there is indeed a problem.
Had skepticism about the method of the study not been raised by outsiders, the error would have gone unnoticed for ever!
simon abingdonsays
#54 Unsettled Scientist(9 Jun 2012 at 8:44 AM)
“I’ll definitely give credit to the journal and the authors for being good scientists, acknowledging the problems in their own work, and moving forward to address them”. Hasn’t altogether happened yet. Not will but would.
This paper provides a good explanation of the “selecting on the dependent variable” problem inherent in selecting trees that appear well correlated with temperature as a basis for doing temperature studies.
If you only select trees that appear correlated with temperature, you are ignoring the large body of trees that are telling you that trees are not a good proxy for temperature.
For example, say we selected companies that were highly profitable to study why they were profitable. We found that factor X was common to all successful companies. This might lead us to conclude that factor X causes companies to be profitable.
However, by not studying unprofitable companies, we overlooked the fact that factor X was common to unprofitable companies as well, and thus had little or no influence on profitability.
The same situation with trees. The assumption is that temperature (factor X) determines tree growth (profitability). By only studying trees that correlate with temperature, climate science has ignored the large body of trees telling us that temperature (factor X) is also common to trees that show no growth (low profitability) and thus had little or no influence on tree growth (profitability).
vukcevicsays
Re: Response to #114
My ‘analysis’ based on the start point in 1945 and change in the Arctic’s magnetic field since gives approximately 3C for doubling of CO2 http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/00f.htm
as Albert Einstein would say:
“Interesting, and by no means absurd”
Jack Maloneysays
#65 Ray Ladbury says: Dudes, do you think the level of emphasis for the scientific position versus the “skeptic” position even remotely approaches the 97% level of the actual scientific consensus?
The “97% consensus” claim was winnowed out of a poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago. Of 10,257 earth scientists polled, 3,146 responded. The pollsters then sliced and diced the responses, finally focusing on 79 carefully selected climatologists. 76 out of the 79 believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels – not surprising, as the climate is climbing out of the Little Ice Age. And 75 of 77 believed that human activity is “a significant factor” in changing mean global temperatures – without defining what “significant” means. On that basis, the pollsters accomplished their “97% consensus.” Pretty thin statistical soup.
Titussays
The process if ice retreat has been going on since the last ice age. Taking a layman’s approach I’m guessing this process of methane release has been going on for a few thousand years. Have we learnt anything from studying the actual history of this process?
We are now enjoying a much improved climate for our existence so I guess we should be thankful.
Dan H.says
Ron,
Lovelock hase been pro-nuclear for almost a decade now. This position has not changed during his conversion from self-proclaimed alarmist to someone more skeptical (his only admission, is that he is not a “denier”). His pro-fracking stance is new, but may be more based on financial concerns than environmental. However, he has not wavered on his Gaia theory.
Ray,
I agree with your earlier post (#173), that truth doesn’t lie in the middle, but is where the evidence points. However, I have a difficult time with the assessment that climate sensitivity is most likely 3, because it lies in the middle of a mulititude of research. The truth could very well lie at the extreme – either end.
Dan H.says
Gavin,
If you are saying that the paper is in error, then that is one thing. But to make several erroneous assumptions in one long paragraph is something else altogether. The quote in question comes from the original paper cited by Andy above, and references the Karlen paper cited above. These are real papers referenced by the author, not some “googled around” source.
The statements is supported by the reference provided, whether you are getting any enjoyment out of your little game above, I cannot say.
[Response:Uh, no. I’m very familiar with those papers and they support Gavin’s point, not yours.–eric]
Dan H.says
So Eric,
Are you disagreeing with the statements in these paper?
“The major difference between the new record and the earlier summer temperature reconstructions is the timing of the coldest and the warmest century timescale periods in the last 1,500 years: The earlier reconstructions have minimum temperatures around AD 1600 while the coldest period in new reconstruction is centred on AD 1900. This ‘‘late’’ cold period coincides with historical and proxy evidence of maximum Holocene glacier expansion in northern Sweden (Svenonius 1910; Enquist 1918; Karle´n 1988) and marks the culmination of the ‘‘Little Ice Age’’ (Grove 1988). A late ‘‘Little Ice Age’’ period is seen also in pollen and diatom proxy records from northern Fennoscandia (Korhola et al. 2000; Weckstro¨m et al. 2006) although it is less precisely dated. The differences between the new reconstruction and Briffa et al. (1992) are especially significant in the 200-year warm period centred on AD 1000 which coincides with the so called ‘‘Medieval Warm Period’’ (Lamb 1966). A warm period around AD1000 is in line with evidence from other proxy indicators from northern Fennoscandia: Pine tree-limit (Shemesh et al. 2001; Helama et al. 2004b; Kulti et al. 2006), pollen and diatoms (Korhola et al. 2000; Seppa¨ and Birks 2002; Bigler et al. 2006) show indisputable evidence of a ‘‘Medieval Warm Period’’ that was warmer than the twentieth century climate.”
“The climatic deterioration in the twelfth century can be regarded as the starting point of a prolonged cold period that continued to the first decade of the twentieth century.”
These statements were taken directly from the cited literature, and supported with references (as per Gavin’s request) that support the previous statements, although he appears deny that in his previous response. Is this enough to not get “binned?”
Additionally, 1904 is one of the coldest years in the CRU dataset, and JJA temperatures were colder than any except 2003 and 2011. Thus, while temperatures rose from the mid 19th century until about 1880, they fell to a bottom around 1910, before beginning their 20th century rise.
Dan H.says
Gavin,
Just as I suspected. Your comments were just a smokescreen. At least be honest and say that you bore hole any argument which does not fit your own ideology, instead of yuor poor excuse written above. We both know that the statements have been properly cited. Your lame attempt may appeal to the ignorant or the blind, but anyone checking the references will find your rants ring rather hollow.
Mertonian Normsays
A visit to the PCMDI [CMIP5 data source] home page contains some odd language:
The need for innovative analysis of GCM climate simulations is apparent, as increasingly more complex models are developed, while the disagreements among these simulations and relative to climate observations remain significant and poorly understood. The nature and causes of these disagreements must be accounted for in a systematic fashion in order to confidently use GCMs for simulation of putative global climate change.
“Putative global climate change”? Really? I thought we were past that.
Dan H.says
Thomas, et. al.,
At least if conclusions can be supported by peer-reviewed literature, they have a sense of legitimacy (even though peer-reviewed literature if often supplanted by updated results). When conclusions are based on grey literature alone, it had better be fully treated as a special case, to be integrated with greater caution (as per dbostrom above), especially when it contradicts other research. I do not think anyone can deny that the major embarassments (or nutty pronouncements, even after the errors have been pointed out as per Thomas) from AR4 were conclusions based on grey literature, which contradicted other sources. Oftentimes, different research does contradict each other. Ignoring one, in favor of the other, seems to be popular among politicians, but such be avoided by scientists.
vukcevicsays
Since one of my lighthearted ‘CO2’ graphics was posted elsewhere, it has become part of Gavin’s practice to demote my posts to the ‘bore hole’, so I expect this one http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSO.htm
to end up there, but I don’t expect accompanying comment. On the other hand some of the best stuff can be found in the ‘bore hole’.
vukcevicsays
#288 Susan Anderson says: 23 Jun 2012 at 10:42 AM When we think we are too smart to have to pay attention, we are in real trouble.
The article says “Of course, global sea-level rise has already accelerated in the course of global warming”
Actual recorded observations puts sea level rise at a fairly consistent rate of 0-4mm/yr since records began. Recently falling to 0. Just do a Google search to verify.
Towns and cities have always moved inland where ocean erosion is taking place. In Norfolk UK there are many signposts pointing to towns several miles away where the sea is only 1-2 miles. Where did they go? And Southwold (also on that coast) is now a peninsula as the sea defenses have been built up to preserve the town.
In summary: Global sea level rise has declined in recent years and temperatures have been flat. No problem to worry about other than business as usual.
vendicar decariansays
This is why science has lost the argument.
“Truth needs no defense.” – Ray Ladbury
Isotopioussays
Kudos to NC20. Why? Because if the opposite had occurred, there would be policy restrictions on property development, and real estate would be devalued.
Then after a decade, there is a shift in politics (no!!), the law is binned. Why? Because hardly anything at the beach and surrounding areas has changed, except for the newly constructed, republican endorsed concrete fortified Wally’s World built on land bought at a fraction of its original value.
What is it with scientists whose work always has to interfere with peoples lives? If thousands of idiots want to live ridiculously close to the waters edge then let them. I’m sure it all part of the excitement. Tsunamis can strike anywhere, might as well apply the same restrictions to new york city…oh wait….that’s where Gavin is!!!
lol
Mertonian Normsays
Radge,
Let’s stipulate for the sake of argument that I don’t understand the history of science, as you note. Let’s add to the assumptions that my urge to read broadly on the topic of climate change, a topic in which I have no practical expertise, is only to hear a squabble, as you put it.
But surgeons? Really? Surely not the analogy you wanted. Have you ever met one? Talked to one? The analogy actually illustrates why climate scientists should be taken seriously, to be sure, and quite skeptically. Any surgeon worth her stitches will tell you today’s operation is the best we have this year, possibly effective if all goes well, and she will go on to express her frustration that if only we knew more, if only the tools were more precise, if only the patient hadn’t presented with all those other variables… And fifty years from now, we can picture surgeons at a conference, joking with each other: “Honest to God, I’m not even making this up — they used to cut into their patients’ flesh with knives! ‘Scalpulls’ I think they were called. But first, they’d ‘put them to sleep’. No, I’m serious!”
I admit I enjoyed your cartoon of surgeon-skeptics as dead chicken wavers, but I would offer that an attempt to reduce those with whom you disagree to a slapstick O.R. scene is as unhelpful as an over-generalized platitude.
Tide gauges along the Atlantic Coast show significant sea level rise, but satellite measurements in that same region don’t. The only rational explanation is that the land is subsiding.
(Sorry – was happy to continue this in the Borehole, but can’t get a Reply box??)
My basic question : how can the observed warming of oceans be a consequence of CO2 warming of the atmosphere, when as now the atmosphere is itself not warming ?
Eric’s answer is that on multi-decadal timescales, atmosphere and ocean warming are indeed coupled, but there can be short-term variability in the oceanatmosphere heat exchange.
This seems to imply that
– in the *long* term, oceanatmosphere heat exchange *is* related to oceanatmosphere temperature difference
– but in the *short* term it needn’t be.
How is that possible? What factors other than their relative temperatures are at work here?
Here’s a naive suggestion. In the interests of science and openness, why can’t scientists just forget about FOI, regulations, publication dates, unused data, etc etc, and JUST ANSWER THE REQUESTS that people make for data and other info ?
This would straightaway completely remove all suggestion of impropriety or bias. We are after all talking about something that is both publicly funded, and that that one way or another will have a massive impact on the general public – some combination of the climate itself, and the costs and social implications of political actions taken on the back of the science.
So how about it? We could call it JATQ – Just Answer The Question.
Jim,
Since you asked. I got my degrees in Chemistry; undergrad at the Univeristy of Michigan, and graduate at the University of Detroit. I have been working as an environmental and nuclear chemist for the past 30 years. I know which folks here possess greater and lesser subject knowledge than myself.
I could limit my posts, as you suggest, but since my opinion differs from many here, I tend to get a greater deal of respondents, some of whom have been rather abusive. Also since I differ, many are requiring a higher burden of proof regarding my comments, and allowing other statements to skate unsubstantiated.
Your comment about irrelevent thread comments (which includes my response to you) is dead on. Look at the past 20 comments on this thread alone. Tim and I have had the only relevent conversation regarding the topic of Greenland ice mass. The rest have been verbal attacks and attempts to diminish dissidents. This is repeated on other threads. Whenever someone posts an opposing view, they are bombarded with negative attacks, often without any supporting arguments. Other websites get similar abusiveness, but few to the extent here. With regards to large threads, perhaps RC could move to a CLimate etc. type posting, whereby comments are imbedded in streams. That way, someone could bypass an entire discussion within the thread, to respond to one of greater interest. Just a thought.
Eric, Ray, Radge, fair enough, and I appreciate both your responses and your resistance to consider constructive engagement with someone whom you so deeply revile. I’ve made my point here, I acknowledge the low likelihood and the impracticality of trying to bridge such a damaged relationship if you can even call it that, especially if it’s already been attempted, and it’s time for me to move along and leave you to the climate science, which is far more important than these sort of ancillary issues anyway.
I certainly don’t want to bore you any further with “false balance tone trolling”, whatever that is, though I can guess! I’ve enjoyed my visit.
… a layman here again.
I have been trying to follow the issue regarding the efficacy of the data used in the production of the “Hockey Stick” graph.
As a reasonably intelligent individual with nothing more than a basic understanding of graphs, stats, data collection, etc – you may be interested to learn that I find it impossible to reach any conclusions!
Clearly the experts that contribute to Realclimate are very knowledgeable and learned on many subjects. The responses here range from carefully argued debate as to the correctness and/or relevance of data sets and their potential impact on any subsequent graph – through to sometimes dismissal, or insults, regarding McIntyre’s knowledge, ability and logic and a characterisations that suggests that he is in the pay of “big oil” and that his raison d’etre is to confuse and obfuscate.
Similarly, there are a range of themes suggested by Climate Audit commentors. These range from cherry picking to achieved preconceived results based on political “beliefs”, poor understanding of statistics and the relevance, or otherwise, of all the known data – through to accusations of grant grubbing, personal ambition, poor ability, scare mongering, left wing idealism and one world government conspiracy.
Specifically, in this case, the debate is simply about whether the Hockey Stick graphs are a fair representation of all the known data – and are therefore additional evidence of accelerating global warming – which then leads on to what we (earthlings!) should do about it – or not.
In the naïve world that I live in, it seems to me that this really should be solvable and agreement on data to produce a graph should be possible!
The question that I would ask of RealClimate contributors is – given that the specific issue here is whether the Hockey Stick graph is a fair representation of all known data, and is clearly a key element of the larger debate – Can we please have, in the public domain, all of the data, all of the logic, reasoning and thought processes and variations of the graph if different data sets are used?
At Climate Audit, I would ask to see a graph that uses data sets, that are accepted by RealClimate contributors as being fair and representative – that show alternative conclusions – i.e. no Hockey Stick.
Again, given the importance of the graph, is it really beyond the wit of man to be able to agree a very small panel of relevant people (2 or 3?), that are acceptable to both “sides”, that could independently analyse various data sets, put forward by each side, and then produce relevant graphs with explanation of the logic and assumptions. Whilst this may not ultimately resolve matters for the layman, it would at least move the debate forward to issues specifically to do with why one data set or another is more representative – rather than each side calling “foul” against the other.
The debate would then be more “open” with no room left for accusations, either way, regarding motives, etc.
Please take note that Tom Scharf’s post reflects the thinking of an increasing number of Joe Public on this issue. The replies to him appear to agree that we do not understand climate sufficiently and a margin of error is expected with such a system. So it looks like we have agreement but the interpretations and implications appear to differ.
Joe Public do not have to look far to find that temperatures and sea levels are not rising, that storms are not increasing (etc. ad nauseum ) in fact there are many where the reverse is true.
Can I suggest that future predicitions are published alongside all previous predictions of the same for the last 15 years. This would be a positive with getting folks to at least take note of how difficult this issue is, just like in your replies made to Tom’s post.
Northern Hemisphere is mainly under influence of the AMO while the SH is more responsive to the solar input.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-dBzA1.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NvS.htm
For the SH temperature changes the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave (ACW) plays critical role: http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap11/ant_wave.html
I have managed to reconstruct the wave’s periodicity with (wave number of two, identifying possible source/driver), will put more details and data on line soon, but if Dr. Steig is interested I could forward more info.
Comparing your 2010 and 2012 (and some other) graphs, it seems to me linear (exponential, or whatever else) extrapolations are only “suitable” if they either appear to match reality, or have no reality to compare to. Maybe it would be better to stop extrapolating altogether, even with newer model runs.
Regarding the “figure 4”, it only resembles “hockey stick” if you just follow the mean line – but I can see at least one very similar event to today’s warming at around 1300 and potential room for about three more of such in various places of the graph (~1150, 1400, 1500). The uncertaininty interval is the problem, people usually tend to think that temperature was in the middle all the time, but the reality is always different. Actually the 95% certainity interval means real values were out of it 5% of the time. Even comparison of HadCRUT values with the reconstruction shows that temperature can really go way over or below for considerable time. Yes, I think this is how good science results should be presented.
“This doesn’t make any sense. No statistical fiddlings are going to wind up with the conclusion that two distributions with identical means (mine and Orsi’s) being LESS likely to be the same than two distributions with means separated by a full standard deviation O’Donnell’s and Orsi’s)!”
Sorry, my statement was not very clear. What I meant was to take the integral of the Orsi curve to the left of where O’Donnell is higher than Steig (1.6) and compare that to the integral of Orsi to the right of 1.6. The integral of Orsi to the left is probably about 20% (eyeballing), and to the right is 80%, which gives a 20% chance that O’Donnell has better predicted reality, and an 80% chance that Steig has better predicted reality.
(to take another artificial example: take a 3rd researcher, MMM, who claimed that the true rate is .23/decade, but with only a +/- 0.0001 range. Then, if reality is 0.23 exactly, the MMM pdf could be considered to be better, but if reality is more than 0.0001 less than or more than 0.23, Steig was better. And based on Orsi, the chances are very high than Steig is better than MMM, even though Steig, MMM, and Orsi all have identical means)
(okay, thinking about this more, my method can’t be right, in that I can construct a pdf which would beat an Orsi clone when comparing to the Orsi original… basically, something which is slightly more probably than Orsi over 51% of distribution, and slightly less for the other 49%)
I find your statement , how shall I put it politely, outrageously over the top. To believe that a single borehole is capable of providing an super-accurate estimate of the temperature trend for a large region is stunning. If I were to take the data collected from a single weather station (with actual thermometers!) and make the identical claim, I suspect that you would probably find some objections. I will assume that I am being had.
I have not read the paper by Orsi, so I will not comment on that. However, I have reservations about many of the assumptions necessary for Bayesian methodology which I assume that they would have used in formulating such results.
Finally, with regard to the differences in the results between your original paper and that of O’Donnell et al., since the same data was basically used, the differences are pretty much all due to the methodologies used. I personally am not a fan of RegEm combined with an EIV-type component, because the latter does not really take account the individual uncertainties that it is supposed to.
Maybe. How about a way to calculate the “SVD” of a matrix with missing values without prior infilling. ;)
Your words Eric?: “in my view O’Donnell et al. is a perfectly acceptable addition to the literature. O’Donnell et al. suggest several improvements to the methodology we used, most of which I agree with in principle”
[Response:Indeed, yes. I also pointed out that I thought that their trend estimate was low, and I gave my reasons, and they chose not to address this.–eric]
225
Jim Larsen says:
25 May 2012 at 10:52 PM
Steve’s work consumes more external resources than the total benefit resulting from his efforts
=======
Quality is one of the most expensive attributes of any product to provide. Testing is a necessary part of any methodology if you wish to be sure of the quality of the end product.
While there are many different approaches to testing, there is a large body of evidence that shows the most successful rely on two factors:
1. The tester must be independent of the developer.
2. The tester must be motivated to find defects.
Testing by its nature is the search for defects. Most developers don’t like having the defects in their work pointed out and thus don’t like testers.
However, without testers the world would be awash in faulty product. Without testers, the consumer pays the hidden cost of defects, while the developer gets the rewards.
Indianapolis 500 records
Highest Race Temperatures
Races with air temperatures equaling or surpassing 90°F (32°C)
Year Degrees Race Winner Notes
°F °C
1937 92° 33° United States Wilbur Shaw
1919 91° 33° United States Howdy Wilcox
1953 91° 33° United States Bill Vukovich
With anecdotal, “unofficial” testimony placing air temperature at the track during the race near or surpassing 100°F / 38°C, potentially the hottest race in history, with at least one fatality, United States Carl Scarborough, due to heat exhaustion
1977 90° 32° United States A.J. Foyt
1978 90° 32° United States Al Unser
Note 96°F / 35°C, claimed for the start of the 2010 race, but subsequent data reviews indicate an inaccurate reporting
Coldest Temperature at Start of Race:
51°F / 11°C, 1992
References
^ National Weather Service archives for Indianapolis, up to 26 May 2012.
How naive are each of these 3X3 attempts at “communication”…..
I did so much better when I was 25 and armed only with degrees from Stnaford and Harvard…..
Sic transit gloria universities……
Wow! This website is harder to enter than doing the Austrian drunk test in “The Man with Two Brains!”
The 3X3 atempts at “communication” are similarly pitifully naive. I could have done so much better back in the days when my Stanford and Harvard degrees were freshly minted and I was doing energy demand modelling when science inthese areas was refreshingly apolitical.
“Support for climate science doesn’t increase with science literacy, a survey suggests. Rather, people with technical backgrounds just dig in harder on their views about global warming, finds the study in the Nature Climate Change journal.
“The study sought to test two explanations for the split, said Yale’s Dan Kahan, who led the study, in a statement: “The first attributes political controversy over climate change to the public’s limited ability to comprehend science, and the second, to opposing sets of cultural values.”
“The first notion doesn’t wash, says the study, finding a small increase in the odds of folks seeing global warming as not too serious in the most science literate people in the survey.”
MapleLeaf, do you and SKS realy have a clue?
This month, WRI, supported by google.org, launched a pilot project to further build the capacity of the scientific community to more effectively relay their recent scientific findings.
Video is just a medium; if the message isn’t convincing, the medium will make little difference. The WRI pilot project may have little chance of success, according to a recently published study:
“Support for climate science doesn’t increase with science literacy, a survey suggests. Rather, people with technical backgrounds just dig in harder on their views about global warming, finds the study in the Nature Climate Change journal.
“The study sought to test two explanations for the split, said Yale’s Dan Kahan, who led the study, in a statement: “The first attributes political controversy over climate change to the public’s limited ability to comprehend science, and the second, to opposing sets of cultural values.”
“The first notion doesn’t wash, says the study, finding a small increase in the odds of folks seeing global warming as not too serious in the most science literate people in the survey.”
If this is the best you can do, please bring back Al Gore (insert unhappy face here)……. [editor: ok, this stuff is getting even too pathetic for the “Borehole”. This is the last one that even gets that status.]
Is this MapleLeaf-guy what Real Climate has become?
Ray Ladbury says:
“John West, the fact that you seem to think that reality is subjective speaks volumes. Good luck with that. Let us know if you want to refult the laws of graviation and we’ll film it for Fail Blog.”
Your apparent lack of understanding that reality changes as technology changes and our perception of reality changes as our understanding changes also speaks volumes.
Example 1)
Reality in 1800: It takes months to go from NY to LA.
Reality in 2000: It takes hours to go from NY to LA.
Example 2)
Perception of reality in 1900: Time is constant.
Perception of reality in 2000: Time is relative.
More context from Howat — NSF press release (May 4): “This study provides more evidence that the rate at which these glaciers can dump ice into the ocean is indeed limited,” said Ian Howat, assistant professor of Earth sciences and member of the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, a co-author on the paper. “What remains to be seen is how long the acceleration will continue — but it appears that our worst-case scenarios aren’t likely.” Relatively good news over all, it would appear.
I found this comment particularly interesting “Are the new numbers realistic? I and many colleagues I spoke to have serious doubts. It is a model result which is in stark contradiction to data-based estimates.” Surely models are the fundamental building blocks of the science which this blog so wholeheartedly supports
flxible –
In a similar fashion to Susan Anderson, you’ve made a false assumption. And guessed motive (incorrectly). Further you’ve made a false accusation of cherry-picking [see above, the prediction was for 15 years of cooling in the spring]
What seems a clearer case of cherry-picking is to choose a nearby 15 year period, but only one that suits a your pre-defined belief about the “real world’s warming trend”
Did you try a 15 year period from February or March and reject them because they failed to produce a warming trend with either data set? Any reason for choosing January?
As I explained in my previous comment I have no partisan dog in this fight, but to accuse me of being for the ‘denialators’ gives me pause to ponder your own objectivity.
Steve Fish –
You have a point.
I posted here because Louise comments here, and she ‘appeared’ on two sites to ridicule me for there apparently being ‘no data sets showing 15 years of cooling’, arriving with a ‘Paging Anteros’ which I followed here.
However – and I’m humbled by the apology Susan – there was quite a lot of knee-jerk assumption here about motive and intentionality. Perhaps that’s the nature of the ‘debate’ these days.
Also, I’ve now clearly explained the context and yet Hank Roberts can still say
Well, I’m clearly not – I’m not interpreting what’s available at all, let alone incorrectly. I’m merely showing a graph that fits the prediction I made 7 months ago when asked to by a commenter at this blog.
I should repeat in case it wasn’t clear enough – I make no assessment of the meaning or significance of those graphs at all, and I’m still somewhat surprised by the near universal assumption of what that assessment would have been had I made it [wrongly – I see no cessation of warming at all]
Finally (accepting your point @67 Steve) now that the context is clearer, accusations of cherry-picking (eg by Ray Ladbury @65) can be seen to be not true. Unless of course my wondering in November last year what Louise would say to there being two data sets showing 15 years of cooling this spring was itself cherry-picking rather than a reasonable expectation.
I could indeed have provided more context at the outset – I apologise for that. I do think the assumptions made about the showing of a ‘cooling’ graph are inastructive – for us all.
This was not published so I don’t expect it will be published today or any other day. It may raise matters with which the scientists that run this blog might prefer to remain obscured. This comment on the groundwater paper astounded me. The comment is ” I and many colleagues I spoke to have serious doubts. It is a model result which is in stark contradiction to data-based estimates.”
Given that much of the basis of the science underpinning concepts of current climate change is entirely from models how can this criticism of the Pokhrel et al. 2012 possibly be warranted?
J. Bowers,
Yes, as the chosen start and end dates go further back in time, the slope rises. Compare your dates with Anteros’ and another from three years further back. The rate drops from 0.22 C/decade in the 15 years starting with 1993 to 0.08 C/decade in your graph starting in 1996 to -0.05 C/decade in Anteros graph for the most recent 15 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1993/to:2012.25/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/to:2011/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997.5/to:2012.5/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1993/to:2008/trend
Susan Anderson –
Where did you get the idea that I am
What premise have I demonstrated?
Contrary to almost all the assumptions made above I don’t believe the ’15 years of cooling’ demonstrate anything but noise. As should be clear by now, I showed the graphs because I was asked to (and had predicted them some 7 months ago)
I’m a little confused as to the relevance of your comments about violence and exploiting fear and rage – was that in response to something I wrote?
As I have tried to do before (but the comment was deleted) I do apologise for not giving more context in my original comment. Had I done so, it would have been clearer that I was not indulging in any cherry-picking, and there would have been less cause to make assumptions about motive.
I really didn’t expect that posting the two graphs would get me labelled as being for ‘the denialators’. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Civil? You want people to be civil? Take a look at some of the comments here! While it’s true that this does not – and should not be taken to – reflect the attitudes of the blog authors, the same applies at CA. IMO, SM has always been unfailingly polite and even generous in his interpretations. I chalange you to provide an example where SM has been uncivil in one of these “arguements” – just one! You will struggle to find it, methinks.
“There is a difference between an error being reported at Climate Audit and being discovered by Climate Audit. It appears that the Journal was aware of the problem before McIntyre posted about it.”
What’s the fuzz? What a childish debate among grown-ups and alleged scientists at that.
The fact is that within a short time after the publication of a peer-reviewed paper, outsiders raised some skepticism. Further investigations on both sides of the “fence” have confirmed that there is indeed a problem.
Had skepticism about the method of the study not been raised by outsiders, the error would have gone unnoticed for ever!
#54 Unsettled Scientist(9 Jun 2012 at 8:44 AM)
“I’ll definitely give credit to the journal and the authors for being good scientists, acknowledging the problems in their own work, and moving forward to address them”. Hasn’t altogether happened yet. Not will but would.
http://cooley.libarts.wsu.edu/schwartj/pdf/Geddes1.pdf
This paper provides a good explanation of the “selecting on the dependent variable” problem inherent in selecting trees that appear well correlated with temperature as a basis for doing temperature studies.
If you only select trees that appear correlated with temperature, you are ignoring the large body of trees that are telling you that trees are not a good proxy for temperature.
For example, say we selected companies that were highly profitable to study why they were profitable. We found that factor X was common to all successful companies. This might lead us to conclude that factor X causes companies to be profitable.
However, by not studying unprofitable companies, we overlooked the fact that factor X was common to unprofitable companies as well, and thus had little or no influence on profitability.
The same situation with trees. The assumption is that temperature (factor X) determines tree growth (profitability). By only studying trees that correlate with temperature, climate science has ignored the large body of trees telling us that temperature (factor X) is also common to trees that show no growth (low profitability) and thus had little or no influence on tree growth (profitability).
Re: Response to #114
My ‘analysis’ based on the start point in 1945 and change in the Arctic’s magnetic field since gives approximately 3C for doubling of CO2
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/00f.htm
as Albert Einstein would say:
“Interesting, and by no means absurd”
#65 Ray Ladbury says: Dudes, do you think the level of emphasis for the scientific position versus the “skeptic” position even remotely approaches the 97% level of the actual scientific consensus?
The “97% consensus” claim was winnowed out of a poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago. Of 10,257 earth scientists polled, 3,146 responded. The pollsters then sliced and diced the responses, finally focusing on 79 carefully selected climatologists. 76 out of the 79 believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels – not surprising, as the climate is climbing out of the Little Ice Age. And 75 of 77 believed that human activity is “a significant factor” in changing mean global temperatures – without defining what “significant” means. On that basis, the pollsters accomplished their “97% consensus.” Pretty thin statistical soup.
The process if ice retreat has been going on since the last ice age. Taking a layman’s approach I’m guessing this process of methane release has been going on for a few thousand years. Have we learnt anything from studying the actual history of this process?
We are now enjoying a much improved climate for our existence so I guess we should be thankful.
Ron,
Lovelock hase been pro-nuclear for almost a decade now. This position has not changed during his conversion from self-proclaimed alarmist to someone more skeptical (his only admission, is that he is not a “denier”). His pro-fracking stance is new, but may be more based on financial concerns than environmental. However, he has not wavered on his Gaia theory.
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change
Ray,
I agree with your earlier post (#173), that truth doesn’t lie in the middle, but is where the evidence points. However, I have a difficult time with the assessment that climate sensitivity is most likely 3, because it lies in the middle of a mulititude of research. The truth could very well lie at the extreme – either end.
Gavin,
If you are saying that the paper is in error, then that is one thing. But to make several erroneous assumptions in one long paragraph is something else altogether. The quote in question comes from the original paper cited by Andy above, and references the Karlen paper cited above. These are real papers referenced by the author, not some “googled around” source.
The statements is supported by the reference provided, whether you are getting any enjoyment out of your little game above, I cannot say.
[Response:Uh, no. I’m very familiar with those papers and they support Gavin’s point, not yours.–eric]
So Eric,
Are you disagreeing with the statements in these paper?
“The major difference between the new record and the earlier summer temperature reconstructions is the timing of the coldest and the warmest century timescale periods in the last 1,500 years: The earlier reconstructions have minimum temperatures around AD 1600 while the coldest period in new reconstruction is centred on AD 1900. This ‘‘late’’ cold period coincides with historical and proxy evidence of maximum Holocene glacier expansion in northern Sweden (Svenonius 1910; Enquist 1918; Karle´n 1988) and marks the culmination of the ‘‘Little Ice Age’’ (Grove 1988). A late ‘‘Little Ice Age’’ period is seen also in pollen and diatom proxy records from northern Fennoscandia (Korhola et al. 2000; Weckstro¨m et al. 2006) although it is less precisely dated. The differences between the new reconstruction and Briffa et al. (1992) are especially significant in the 200-year warm period centred on AD 1000 which coincides with the so called ‘‘Medieval Warm Period’’ (Lamb 1966). A warm period around AD1000 is in line with evidence from other proxy indicators from northern Fennoscandia: Pine tree-limit (Shemesh et al. 2001; Helama et al. 2004b; Kulti et al. 2006), pollen and diatoms (Korhola et al. 2000; Seppa¨ and Birks 2002; Bigler et al. 2006) show indisputable evidence of a ‘‘Medieval Warm Period’’ that was warmer than the twentieth century climate.”
http://people.su.se/~hgrud/documents/Grudd%202008.pdf
“The climatic deterioration in the twelfth century can be regarded as the starting point of a prolonged cold period that continued to the first decade of the twentieth century.”
http://people.su.se/~hgrud/documents/Grudd%20et%20al%202002.pdf
These statements were taken directly from the cited literature, and supported with references (as per Gavin’s request) that support the previous statements, although he appears deny that in his previous response. Is this enough to not get “binned?”
Additionally, 1904 is one of the coldest years in the CRU dataset, and JJA temperatures were colder than any except 2003 and 2011. Thus, while temperatures rose from the mid 19th century until about 1880, they fell to a bottom around 1910, before beginning their 20th century rise.
Gavin,
Just as I suspected. Your comments were just a smokescreen. At least be honest and say that you bore hole any argument which does not fit your own ideology, instead of yuor poor excuse written above. We both know that the statements have been properly cited. Your lame attempt may appeal to the ignorant or the blind, but anyone checking the references will find your rants ring rather hollow.
A visit to the PCMDI [CMIP5 data source] home page contains some odd language:
The need for innovative analysis of GCM climate simulations is apparent, as increasingly more complex models are developed, while the disagreements among these simulations and relative to climate observations remain significant and poorly understood. The nature and causes of these disagreements must be accounted for in a systematic fashion in order to confidently use GCMs for simulation of putative global climate change.
“Putative global climate change”? Really? I thought we were past that.
Thomas, et. al.,
At least if conclusions can be supported by peer-reviewed literature, they have a sense of legitimacy (even though peer-reviewed literature if often supplanted by updated results). When conclusions are based on grey literature alone, it had better be fully treated as a special case, to be integrated with greater caution (as per dbostrom above), especially when it contradicts other research. I do not think anyone can deny that the major embarassments (or nutty pronouncements, even after the errors have been pointed out as per Thomas) from AR4 were conclusions based on grey literature, which contradicted other sources. Oftentimes, different research does contradict each other. Ignoring one, in favor of the other, seems to be popular among politicians, but such be avoided by scientists.
Since one of my lighthearted ‘CO2’ graphics was posted elsewhere, it has become part of Gavin’s practice to demote my posts to the ‘bore hole’, so I expect this one
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSO.htm
to end up there, but I don’t expect accompanying comment. On the other hand some of the best stuff can be found in the ‘bore hole’.
#288 Susan Anderson says: 23 Jun 2012 at 10:42 AM
When we think we are too smart to have to pay attention, we are in real trouble.
Absolutely, as it is graphically shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NH-SH.htm
The article says “Of course, global sea-level rise has already accelerated in the course of global warming”
Actual recorded observations puts sea level rise at a fairly consistent rate of 0-4mm/yr since records began. Recently falling to 0. Just do a Google search to verify.
Towns and cities have always moved inland where ocean erosion is taking place. In Norfolk UK there are many signposts pointing to towns several miles away where the sea is only 1-2 miles. Where did they go? And Southwold (also on that coast) is now a peninsula as the sea defenses have been built up to preserve the town.
In summary: Global sea level rise has declined in recent years and temperatures have been flat. No problem to worry about other than business as usual.
This is why science has lost the argument.
“Truth needs no defense.” – Ray Ladbury
Kudos to NC20. Why? Because if the opposite had occurred, there would be policy restrictions on property development, and real estate would be devalued.
Then after a decade, there is a shift in politics (no!!), the law is binned. Why? Because hardly anything at the beach and surrounding areas has changed, except for the newly constructed, republican endorsed concrete fortified Wally’s World built on land bought at a fraction of its original value.
What is it with scientists whose work always has to interfere with peoples lives? If thousands of idiots want to live ridiculously close to the waters edge then let them. I’m sure it all part of the excitement. Tsunamis can strike anywhere, might as well apply the same restrictions to new york city…oh wait….that’s where Gavin is!!!
lol
Radge,
Let’s stipulate for the sake of argument that I don’t understand the history of science, as you note. Let’s add to the assumptions that my urge to read broadly on the topic of climate change, a topic in which I have no practical expertise, is only to hear a squabble, as you put it.
But surgeons? Really? Surely not the analogy you wanted. Have you ever met one? Talked to one? The analogy actually illustrates why climate scientists should be taken seriously, to be sure, and quite skeptically. Any surgeon worth her stitches will tell you today’s operation is the best we have this year, possibly effective if all goes well, and she will go on to express her frustration that if only we knew more, if only the tools were more precise, if only the patient hadn’t presented with all those other variables… And fifty years from now, we can picture surgeons at a conference, joking with each other: “Honest to God, I’m not even making this up — they used to cut into their patients’ flesh with knives! ‘Scalpulls’ I think they were called. But first, they’d ‘put them to sleep’. No, I’m serious!”
I admit I enjoyed your cartoon of surgeon-skeptics as dead chicken wavers, but I would offer that an attempt to reduce those with whom you disagree to a slapstick O.R. scene is as unhelpful as an over-generalized platitude.
Tide gauges along the Atlantic Coast show significant sea level rise, but satellite measurements in that same region don’t. The only rational explanation is that the land is subsiding.