A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.
Reader Interactions
2040 Responses to "The Bore Hole"
indigosays
#35 Tom Scharf says:
I think you’ve been ignored. That’s what happens if you ask difficult which don’t fit the storyboard.
Dan H.says
Russell,
Yes, using an artificially low point to make a comparison is highly biased, similar to plotting global temperatures starting in 1979. Since Arctic sea ice has shown a much wider divergence in summer rather than winter, it is to no surprise that more winter growth was witnessed this year. A better graphic is to compare the current winter sea ice with past years.
As you can see, 2013 is currently 7th lowest of the past 10 years, and still climbing. By the time the melt season starts next month (or the following, if it stays cold longer), this years sea ice area may surpass te other three years. It will be interesting though to see how this one-year ice survives the summer. The one thing his posts does show is the large expanse of new ice.
Dan H.says
Kevin,
One could certainty say that also. However, until ice levels reach those of three decades ago, it seems less relevant a comparison that to the most recent decade’s change. It is still possible not to surpass last year’s ice growth sprint. The current growth rate is higher than last year’s March growth rate, so why do you not see 2013 surpassing 2012? Not that it is extremely revelant. Last year was higher than most years this century, and look what ensued. What I find most interesting in this issue is the large amount of first year sea ice.
Using the satellite data since 1979 is the best measure we have of Arctic sea ice. However, that does not mean that 1979 wasdid not experience higher sea ice extent than previous decades.
Jim,
The urban warming is real. Subtracting it out may be a mistake when calculating temperature rises. Keeping the temperature as measuredm abd then attributing that portion to urbanization may be the better approach.
Dan H.says
Sometimes I get the feeling that the moderators here are attempting to hide the truth, and would prefer to keep their readers in the dark. This is becoming much more political and less scientific (if it ever was) all the time. This side is becoming similar to WUWT. So sad.
Killiansays
SA said Arguing about whether the technologies that we have in hand NOW, which are clearly capable of helping us achieve that result in the urgently short time-frame required, are “sustainable” over periods of centuries or millennia, is simply irrelevant.
The difference between available natural, sustainable solutions and available unsustainable solutions should be obvious. Giving the former preference over the latter is has obvious benefits in terms of costs, use of resources and unintended consequences. Pretending I have made any statement that precludes the use of “renewables” is dishonest. This has been covered repeatedly. It is a straw man argument. This, too, has been pointed out repeatedly.
James Hansen: Reforestation can balance a huge portion of emissions. Disagree? Take it up with him.
Rodale: Regenerative farming can draw down 40% of current emissions yearly. Disagree? Take it up with them.
Regenerative gardening? An additional, non-trivial percentage of yearly CO2. LAwns = 3x current corn acreage in U.S. Check out Food not Lawns.
These three alone equal or exceed 100% of current emissions. With no additional “renewable” energy built out.
Add in intentional reductions in consumption, large moves to rapid transit, continued build-out of renewables and we easily are going backward with total atmospheric GHGs in a very short period of time.
We do not need, and should not pursue, a goal of meeting 100% of current consumption with renewables because it equates to remaining in overshoot. This is obvious, non-controversial.
If you do not understand energy, climate, economics, collapse and overshoot, these things may not be clear to you.
And you are correct: I should stop feeding this little cadre. This is beyond repetitive.
mike worstsays
In the meantime with no temperature rise and nations going bankrupt because of ill thought out renewable policies, a world that is ill prepared to shoulder the costs of playstation fantacies you lot just carry on with no sign of doubt in your illusions of man made catastrophe. It is you lot that are causing the problem and you know it but will not capitulate until your own credibility is in tatters. Be honest and admit the doubt and reservations that I know you have.
Dan Wangsays
I am a little confused. From about 1970 to 1998 was there not supposed to be a steep rise in temperature: hence the famous “hockey stick”? How come this does not show up in any of the models or actual data now? [I’m afraid you are not just “a little” confused]
Dan H.says
Ray,
I disagree. Those claiming that CO2 is the major cause of the 20th century warming do present valid scientific arguments. Therefore, both sides could be classified as scientific positions.
Titussays
As I said, I’m no scientist. I can only point you to looking at the actual data and you will see no increase in sea level rise or temperature rise in recent years. Here’s a good resource for some basic data:
It obvious that temperatures have indeed risen since the mid 19th century (thank goodness). So wouldn’t it be obvious and totally expected that recent years would be the hottest?
And surely you do not need me to spell out all the alarming claims of global warming. Only a few years ago Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” gave us the gist of it and it started way before that.
Titussays
My apology for a correction to previous post:
‘no increase in sea level rise’ should read “no increase in RATE of sea level rise”
Dan H.says
Kevin,
Interesting that you said that science has avoided policy recommendations, and mention two political institutions. Both of these claim to be science-based, but are highly biased politically.
SLR did accelerated, but has recently decelerated. It all depends on your time frame. The most recent decade is similar to the century-long average.
Ray,
I think we all agree that the 2000s were the warmest. However, that does not mean that the globe is still warming. IF it were, why then are so many scientists looking for the cause of the recent pause in warming – and coming to so many different possibilities. Look at the overall graph, rather than a snapshot of decadal averages. This is only a positive trend if you cherry-pick the dates. Yes, 1998 was a strong El Nino, and using its peak as a starting point is biased, but accusing others of cherry-picking, does your argument no justice, when several other trends are similar.
Magnus,
Thanks for the link. Ocean circulation always seems to be diminished when it comes to climate. Its large role should not be overlooked.
Dan H.says
Kevin,
Interesting that you said that science has avoided policy recommendations, and mention two political institutions. Both of these claim to be science-based, but are highly biased politically.
SLR did accelerated, but has recently decelerated. It all depends on your time frame. The most recent decade is similar to the century-long average.
Ray,
I think we all agree that the 2000s were the warmest. However, that does not mean that the globe is still warming. IF it were, why then are so many scientists looking for the cause of the recent pause in warming – and coming to so many different possibilities. Look at the overall graph, rather than a snapshot of decadal averages. This is only a positive trend if you cherry-pick the dates. Yes, 1998 was a strong El Nino, and using its peak as a starting point is biased, but accusing others of cherry-picking, does your argument no justice, when several other trends are similar.
Titus,
Yes, the rate of SLR slowing coincides with the temperature pause.
Titussays
As I said, I’m no scientist. I can only point you to looking at the actual data and you will see no increase in rate of sea level rise or temperature rise in recent years. Here’s a good resource for some basic data:
It’s obvious that temperatures have indeed risen since the mid 19th century (thank goodness). So wouldn’t it be obvious and totally expected that recent years would be the hottest?
And surely you do not need me to spell out all the alarming claims of global warming. Only a few years ago Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” gave us the gist of it and it started way before that.
Titussays
Philip Machanick @82:
Not arguing. Just making some observations and suggestions from my educated, professional, life experienced, Joe public viewpoint. Take it or leave it.
You know, you will not get anywhere unless you can show some humility. Indeed, as I’m recently noticing your getting the exact opposite to the adoption you seek.
Dan H.says
Very Nice. Hopefully, the episodes will follow reality, as entitled. Many of these issues have always had devastating effects for people and societies. What changes may ensue has important consequences for the those people living around their occurances.
Dan H.says
Ken,
Actually, no. In order to test ones hypothesis, a null scenario must be established. The null hypothesis is always that no change is occurring. The test is then to prove that a change has occurred.
John Bentonsays
This article is simply embarassing to science. As a systems engineer I am well used to the level of empirical evidence required to support any theory. Model output, particularly where those models have consistently been wrong in the past, comes nowhere near the level of accuracy suggested by this article
Edimsays
“They’re simply denying AGW, for whatever reasons they may have. These might range from commercial sponsorship (either direct or indirect) to sheer bloody-mindedness, as in the case of a person (I am outside the US) I know personally who refuses to accept the objectivity of the scientists because he himself spent decades in a government job in an area where everybody brought a political agenda to EVERY issue.”
I ‘deny’ AGW for the same reason (among many) like [edit]
“Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.”
How can anyone disagree with this?
Salamanosays
Is there value in trying to understand why these various extreme weather events have instead not followed according to expectations?
It seems like there are infinitely more efforts going on out there under the impression that we simply haven’t found the right combination to unlock the statistical keys to demonstrate/validate what ‘should’ be the case under our current modeling/understanding.
With wording like “haven’t yet disproved” or whatever it’s like there is no conclusion that will be acceptable unless/until they show what some/many scientists expect to happen. Even pointing to the conclusions in the IPCC SREX there’s a lot of groaning and disdain among scientists– moreso a desire to ‘improve’ them, if not refute them outright, rather than to figure out ‘why’.
Dan H.says
John,
Yes, the accuracy is much lower than suggested, and below the levels required to support the theory. Unfortunately, too many are willing to toss this type of requirement out the window. Doing so, only diminishes support for their stance, as people see it as less robust. Hopefully, true science will prevail in the end.
T Marvellsays
#21 – The analogy is not that far off. There are trillons of events at CERN and in the weather. There are hundreds of noticable “events of interest,” gamma ray decay patterns or extreme weather events, and there is a large chance that any one of these “events of interest” is only a random occurance. With lots of research studies looking for significant results in climate science, a 3s result may be as insubstantial as a 3s result at CERN.
The real issue is what standard should be met before trumpeting results to the public. CERN set 5s for the Higgs. Scientists know how uncertain any one research result might be, and are not too concerned when better research comes out with a different result. But changes like that can lessen public trust in climate research generally.
normalnewsays
Funny. Lorenz also said the climate system is so complex that it would be impossible to fully be handle by computer models. Something we have seeen the last 16 years.
normalnewsays
We have a situation where good people are held hostage to very bad ideas, and I for one think we should honor the goodness in man and let actions be questions for the law. Where everyone else is let free. Manipulation can happen to us all.
please respond Gavin. I know you love science!
Dan H.says
Andrew,
What is controversal is the predicted climate change associated with the given amounts of GHGs already emitted. Whether one is a contrarian, alarmist, or middle grounder will not matter in the future, as the climate will do what is dictated by the given forces. Unfortunately, we cannot say what that will be yet, so appropriate action is not so clear-cut.
Whether someone has a more pessimistic, optimistic, or realikstic outlook determines what type of action they are likely to support. In the long run, the action taken needs to balance the threat, in such a way as to not create a threat of its own.
Ed Groomesays
“Linking global warming to some of these extreme weather and climate phenomena has been tricky in the past… However, there has been substantial progress over the recent years.”
I’m a bit confused here. When you assume there is a link, by searching for it and feeling that progress has been made in finding it, isn’t there some danger that you’ll end up finding the answer you want rather than the answer itself? Not those two can’t be the same, of course, but what is the actual current state of understanding of tornadoes and the like. If it’s not that robust, why pay any attention at all to what Matt Damon has to say or has been told to say?
Ed Groomesays
Ah, dear moderator, the penny drops! I had assumed I did not hit Send correctly or some such, but now I surmise the comment offered was not welcome. No worries — I will take the matter up with Ray L. off-line as I sometimes do when skins grow thin here — he is always reasonable with me when I raise questions such as I just tried to pose. No need to reply.
Dan H.says
Ed,
You are correct to surmise that skins grow rather thin here. You will only get posted, if you toe the line and do not ruffle any feathers. Forget about being a good scientist. [you were warned about using sock-puppets/aliases once, and you chose not to ignore. That earns a permanent spot in the borehole -moderator]
John Eggertsays
It seems to me that anthropogenic climate change is providing excellent cover to governments for poor choices. Bloomberg for instance can use his newspapers to claim “this is what global warming looks like”. Rather than “this is what poor planning for a predictable storm surge looks like”. Chris Christy has done the same. Given that most of the contributors to RealClimate work for, or are paid by, the government, I can see why you need to defend the science. Regarding extreme events, what would have happened had Sandy been as strong as Hazel with the blocking high caused by cold arctic air being as far south as it was for Sandy? Hmmmmm. Sandy: Blocked by colder air than Hazel farther south than Hazel and a weaker storm than Hazel. Suuuure. I can see how warming would cause this. Cross posted to What’s Up With That, to determine when or if you will reply.
Charlessays
Secular,
Those are all very good indicators. But the only one that we are seeing currently, is the Arctic melting. The remaining indicators listed have not displayed an abrupt change. Once they do, then you have the answer to Chuck’s question.
Titussays
Chuck Hughes @227.
I’m an average Joe like you and just did the usual science at school. However I’m one of the Joe’s that is skeptical. As far as the claims are concerned I can only point you to looking at the actual data and you will see, for example, that there is no increase in rate of sea level rise or temperature rise in recent years. Here’s a good resource for some basic data:
It’s obvious that temperatures have indeed risen since the mid 19th century (thank goodness). So wouldn’t it be obvious and totally expected that recent years would be the hottest?
And surely you do not need me to spell out all the alarming claims of global warming that are clearly not happening (Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” gave us the gist of it and it started way before that). So I think with a little research of your own you will think yourself safe to relax on the matter.
tomveesays
Haven’t global temps stalled for the past decade or so? Why would there be more extreme weather events?
suesays
Re 238, Right, cause it’s so darn busy here…
Normansays
In the OP there is a line “The climate models manage to reproduce the Hadley cell, El Nino Southern Oscillation, the Jet streams, the Trades, and the westerlies, but not tornadoes, derechoes, and thunderstorms.”
My question is do the climate models reproduce atmospheric blocking patterns. The single most likely cause of heat waves, droughts and colder than normal weather are these blocking events. Sometimes they are short lived, other times they persist for long periods of time. If climate models can reproduce these and give some idea of duration then they may well be able to determine if a warming globe will lead to more severe weather events such as heat waves, droughts and even flooding (a blocking pattern will allow storms to track over the same location saturating the soil and leading to flood potential in affected areas).
Currently large parts of the US are below normal temps. Last year they were much above normal. A blocking high over Greenland explains the colder air this year and explained all the heat waves that have taken place recently.
If +0.9°C was the Scenario B prediction (relative to 1988), and the actual is +0.22°C…
…Then why couldn’t a lame forecast of “no change” be considered more accurate? I thought the rub was that Hansen’s prediction, though off, was at least better than a hand-waved no-change forecast. If it’s not, then isn’t that a serious red flag for skillfulness?
Quercetumsays
Ray Ladbury said ” However, data clearly show increased drought, increasing heat waves and, with less certainty, increased impulsive precipitation events”
May I quote IPCC SREX report 2012?
“There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense,
or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia.”
“In many (but not all) regions over the globe with sufficient data, there is medium confidence that the length or number of warm spells or heat waves has increased.”
They don’t mention “impulsive precipitation”, but I assume that would be associated with floods and heavy precipitation. Thus:
“There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are
limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore, there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes.”
“There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in some regions. It is likely that more of these regions have experienced increases than decreases, although there are strong regional and subregional variations in these trends.”
Thus, the IPCC’s most recent view from one year ago, based on the order of 40 years of data does not align with your statement.
Salamanosays
I’ve been monitoring RC, curious about the questions I had posted– as they certainly have been “Frequently Asked” when it comes to Marcott et al.
Instead, they have been deleted entirely after initially being posted; I don’t even see them in the borehole. I did not post offensively, flippantly, or nefariously. Admittedly, staff at RC certainly don’t have to answer everyone’s questions, nor accept everyone’s posts.
Normally when a FAQ is designed by a group, it’s supposed to address whatever’s of concern in the way it’s voiced by those concerned– starting with the most frequently asked. True frequent questions that don’t get answered just keep getting asked. There’s probably some other philosophical somethinerother about frequently asked questions that are self-justified as not worth addressing becoming a growing weed allowed to spread by scoffing.
Nevertheless, I will continue to use RealClimate as a great source for this sort of climate science information and connection to the scientists that publish it.
William Holdersays
The general public isn’t aware that there have been over 15 years with no significant warming. Pachauri and others have suggested this could last another 20 or 30 years. You guys better hope we get some heat before then and before this information makes it out to the folks who just read the headlines. It’s not going to mean very much to tell them the heat is hiding in the ocean or masked by emissions from China and India or volcanoes. It’s either warming or it’s not. Coastal areas are being submerged or not. We either have 10’s of millions of climate refugees or we don’t. There is either less snow or there isn’t. There’s a “hotspot” or there isn’t. After telling us weather isn’t climate – now we’re told after the warming never materialized, that the weather is in fact the climate.
However there is nothing unprecedented about the number or severity of storms or any other type events. Each headline that comes out is more shrill than the last, yet each headline is shown to be exaggerated or just false as time passes and more information becomes available.
Are we having some impact on the climate – maybe. Are we having some impact on the rest of our environment – definitely. We lose a lot of forest and natural habitat every year, We lose any number of smaller species every year. We have lost many large species since this warm period began and many large species are on the verge of being lost as I type this – none of this has anything to do with 1C of warming over the last 150 years. It’s just the spill of human population. Just look around you and you can see many very real and immediate environmental needs – we don’t have to make them up and we don’t have to exaggerate them.Over the last 150 years as we have grown by 4 to 5 billion people we’ve developed much of the more easily habitable land. Everything you’ve ever seen from the window of your car, from a plane, on tv, in a magazine or on your computer was built during this period. No one denies we will add another 4 or 5 billion people – CO2 should be the least of our worries.
Ed Barbarsays
Perhaps I’m being obtuse, but I don’t see how a better understanding of global temperature history forces either the NYT or you to spend any money on anything
Do you think publishing claims that aren’t supported by the data increases the clarity of the all important current climate?
If so, no need to discuss more. If not, you ought to make certain the claims are stated as not supported to policy influencing powerhouses like the NYT.
Freddyvsays
As a believer in AGW but a skeptical scientific thinker I am becoming very skeptical in the ability of science to be objective when I see seriously flawed studies like this. I choose not to point out specifics because Steve McIntyre raises the same issues I have…and more, and he is well known and respected. Can you please answer HIS questions instead of ignoring them and answering questions that were never asked? Admit you’re wrong or answer the questions, sirs, or accept the fact that you are hurting the cause of climate science.
RyanSsays
The second paragraph – and first discussion of results – of the press release which Gavin linked to:
The analysis reveals that the planet today is warmer than it’s been during 70 to 80 percent of the last 11,300 years.
That observation hails from the non-robust uptick i.e. the uptick finishes 70-80 percent towards the top of the vertical range. Much further discussion follows e.g. “The last century stands out as the anomaly in this record…” – just one example.
News headlines around the world focussed on this non-robust uptick, some quoting the 70-80 percent figure.
I believe Shakaun is on camera also talking about the 20th century implications, of their analysis, without a grafted instrument record.
Now we get told they explained their uptick was non-robust and it’s the skeptics who have misplaced their focus.
William Holdersays
Nothing particularly novel in this study including the alarmist way it was put together and a similar treatment by the media. Pity the tacked on temperature record doesn’t offer enough resolution to show that there has been no warming since ’97.
simon abingdonsays
@Kevin McKinney #181
“Nancy’s point boils down to: ‘It is happening now, therefore it probably happened before.’” Not quite. Nancy is saying ‘if we were able to peer more and more closely into the past we would find that it looked more and more like the recent present’…
…”Except [you say] that we know quite why it is happening now–it is because humanity has increased atmospheric CO2 by ~40% since the 19th century”.
Kevin, everyone now knows that such an assertion is no more than mere hypothesising, flagrantly and unashamedly begging the question. Just watch while the tenuous link between increasing atmospheric CO2 and global surface temperature grows ever weaker, almost by the month.
Ready yourself Kevin, for the inevitable humiliating rethink. Soon you will be faced with a veritable avalanche of searching questions. Good luck.
Mike Sigmansays
Re post #99: I agree… this “I suppose what they meant” stuff doesn’t work very well as science. There are some valid questions about the actual science, as published and purportedly peer-reviewed (I hope the reviewers are not on this forum frolicking about and pretending they’re disinterested commenters). If there are scientifically solid addenda going under the label as a “FAQ”, but which substantively affect the findings of the study, let’s encourage the authors to rigorously append their notes to the original study via a formal process and not so much through what appears to be a friendly portal on Real Climate, please.
simon abingdonsays
@Ray #111 CO2 emissions are increasing and temperatures are not rising as expected. In the kaleidoscope of physical effects unsuspected compensating mechanisms are at work. The theory is incomplete.
simon abingdonsays
@Susan Anderson #121
Susan, I believe that you and I believe in the utility and efficacy of Occam’s razor. Let us start then with that apparent agreement.
You observe the world and you become interested in a certain behaviour that you would like to understand.
You find that x continues to increase while y exhibits periods of decrease, stasis and increase.
You formulate two competing theories.
(1) x and y are quite independent of each other
(2) y will be found to correlate with x when the complex behaviours of u,v,w and z eventually yield to explanations resulting from insights yet to be vouchsafed.
With Occam as your guide which theory do you prefer?
DABbiosays
C Reid @ #101. I hope that your well-formulated questions receive a reply, because as a relatively well-read layman who can also do my sums, I have the same questions, and I think that they are spot on.
The key issue uncovered during this whole Marcott et al. kerfluffle, whether or NOT it was an essential aspect of their paper and their research interests, is that the recent century’s (or centuries’ if one insists) uptick in global temperature has to be examined in relation to the variance inherent in the Holocene-aged proxies in order to determine if it is anomalous. The other factors like core top dating and particularities of statistical smoothing of the underlying MEAN temperatures are becoming of peripheral interest, because the key tenet of the global warming hypothesis is that the recent uptick is the result of CO2 “forcing” that PROBABLY was not present in previous eras. OK, so you need to see if there were previous upticks; it’s that simple. Only it is apparently not simple for these to be displayed, although a couple of the so-called denialist blogs are starting to display some proxies AND their variances. That should all shake out in the next few days, and then I think we will have a more clear view as to whether that aspect of the paper will survive.
Gavin, here, and others here and elsewhere, you often bring up this issue as to what could possibly cause an uptick in the past, were one to be found, which is a legitimate question. But our lack of ability to understand a reason for such a fluctuation cannot really be used to deny the conclusion that something else is doing the forcing if the past data DO, reliably, show an uptick, or upticks, can it? I mean, isn’t the way that we want to see science done to be to pose a hypothesis, see if the data validates the hypothesis, and if it doesn’t, then come up with another hypothesis? Our failure to do come up with an alternative explanation or hypothesis cannot be the reason for denying the data, can it? Or is the “fact” of CO2 forcing so compelling to you that we reject any finding that is contradictory? That would be entirely circular, it seems to me.
The original narrative implicit in the Marcott paper was that the Hockey Stick had been vindicated by Marcott’s uptick and that today’s temperature increases are unprecedented since the last Ice Age. Perhaps this may be true, but we still need hard scientific evidence to support it.
The Marcott uptick has now essentially disappeared. This means that the narrative now relies on the instrument data. This is also fine by me provided we can be sure the two “anomalies” actually line up properly? This then depends on re-normalizing average temperature from 5000 years ago to the instrument anomalies normalized to 1961-1990. In my case I just simply added 0.3 C to the proxies to normalise them to Hadcrut4, but I have seen no convincing evidence to support why this should be the case. I interpreted the paper this way but perhaps someone can enlighten me on the evidence for this.
The second key assumption of the proposal that today’s temperature rise is unprecedented, is the necessity to demonstrate that something similar didn’t happen in the past. Hence the importance to provide evidence that Marcott would have detected such changes had they happened.
So I think it is still important to determine the sensitivity of the proxies to short to medium term climate excursions. I think it is important to show that the raw measurements would be able to detect such changes, rather than Monte-Carlo interpolations based on those measurements.
How come my comment old #136 has now been deleted from this site after being published on it for over 14 hours?
I was just trying to make two points concerning “unprecedented 20th century warming”.
1) There remains in my mind an uncertainty about the scale normalization of Marcott temperature anomalies (calculated initially relative to 5500 – 4500 YBP) to those of Hadcrut4 (calculated relative to 1961-1990), Was a simple linear increase across the board of ~0.3C used? If so how sure can we be of this offset value ?
2) To justify a statement that 20th century warming is unprecedented since the last Ice Age we must be able to demonstrate that a similar climate excursion of such magnitude would have been observed in Marcott’s data. Hence the importance of Tamino’s work. My study concludes that it would not be possible to detect any such ~1C excursion lasting less than ~400years because of proxy timing uncertainty. Is Tamino correct or am I correct ?
#35 Tom Scharf says:
I think you’ve been ignored. That’s what happens if you ask difficult which don’t fit the storyboard.
Russell,
Yes, using an artificially low point to make a comparison is highly biased, similar to plotting global temperatures starting in 1979. Since Arctic sea ice has shown a much wider divergence in summer rather than winter, it is to no surprise that more winter growth was witnessed this year. A better graphic is to compare the current winter sea ice with past years.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
As you can see, 2013 is currently 7th lowest of the past 10 years, and still climbing. By the time the melt season starts next month (or the following, if it stays cold longer), this years sea ice area may surpass te other three years. It will be interesting though to see how this one-year ice survives the summer. The one thing his posts does show is the large expanse of new ice.
Kevin,
One could certainty say that also. However, until ice levels reach those of three decades ago, it seems less relevant a comparison that to the most recent decade’s change. It is still possible not to surpass last year’s ice growth sprint. The current growth rate is higher than last year’s March growth rate, so why do you not see 2013 surpassing 2012? Not that it is extremely revelant. Last year was higher than most years this century, and look what ensued. What I find most interesting in this issue is the large amount of first year sea ice.
Using the satellite data since 1979 is the best measure we have of Arctic sea ice. However, that does not mean that 1979 wasdid not experience higher sea ice extent than previous decades.
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/jbg/Pubs/Polyak%20etal%20seaice%20QSR10%20inpress.pdf
Jim,
The urban warming is real. Subtracting it out may be a mistake when calculating temperature rises. Keeping the temperature as measuredm abd then attributing that portion to urbanization may be the better approach.
Sometimes I get the feeling that the moderators here are attempting to hide the truth, and would prefer to keep their readers in the dark. This is becoming much more political and less scientific (if it ever was) all the time. This side is becoming similar to WUWT. So sad.
SA said Arguing about whether the technologies that we have in hand NOW, which are clearly capable of helping us achieve that result in the urgently short time-frame required, are “sustainable” over periods of centuries or millennia, is simply irrelevant.
The difference between available natural, sustainable solutions and available unsustainable solutions should be obvious. Giving the former preference over the latter is has obvious benefits in terms of costs, use of resources and unintended consequences. Pretending I have made any statement that precludes the use of “renewables” is dishonest. This has been covered repeatedly. It is a straw man argument. This, too, has been pointed out repeatedly.
James Hansen: Reforestation can balance a huge portion of emissions. Disagree? Take it up with him.
Rodale: Regenerative farming can draw down 40% of current emissions yearly. Disagree? Take it up with them.
Regenerative gardening? An additional, non-trivial percentage of yearly CO2. LAwns = 3x current corn acreage in U.S. Check out Food not Lawns.
These three alone equal or exceed 100% of current emissions. With no additional “renewable” energy built out.
Add in intentional reductions in consumption, large moves to rapid transit, continued build-out of renewables and we easily are going backward with total atmospheric GHGs in a very short period of time.
We do not need, and should not pursue, a goal of meeting 100% of current consumption with renewables because it equates to remaining in overshoot. This is obvious, non-controversial.
If you do not understand energy, climate, economics, collapse and overshoot, these things may not be clear to you.
And you are correct: I should stop feeding this little cadre. This is beyond repetitive.
In the meantime with no temperature rise and nations going bankrupt because of ill thought out renewable policies, a world that is ill prepared to shoulder the costs of playstation fantacies you lot just carry on with no sign of doubt in your illusions of man made catastrophe. It is you lot that are causing the problem and you know it but will not capitulate until your own credibility is in tatters. Be honest and admit the doubt and reservations that I know you have.
I am a little confused. From about 1970 to 1998 was there not supposed to be a steep rise in temperature: hence the famous “hockey stick”? How come this does not show up in any of the models or actual data now? [I’m afraid you are not just “a little” confused]
Ray,
I disagree. Those claiming that CO2 is the major cause of the 20th century warming do present valid scientific arguments. Therefore, both sides could be classified as scientific positions.
As I said, I’m no scientist. I can only point you to looking at the actual data and you will see no increase in sea level rise or temperature rise in recent years. Here’s a good resource for some basic data:
http://climate4you.com/
It obvious that temperatures have indeed risen since the mid 19th century (thank goodness). So wouldn’t it be obvious and totally expected that recent years would be the hottest?
And surely you do not need me to spell out all the alarming claims of global warming. Only a few years ago Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” gave us the gist of it and it started way before that.
My apology for a correction to previous post:
‘no increase in sea level rise’ should read “no increase in RATE of sea level rise”
Kevin,
Interesting that you said that science has avoided policy recommendations, and mention two political institutions. Both of these claim to be science-based, but are highly biased politically.
SLR did accelerated, but has recently decelerated. It all depends on your time frame. The most recent decade is similar to the century-long average.
Ray,
I think we all agree that the 2000s were the warmest. However, that does not mean that the globe is still warming. IF it were, why then are so many scientists looking for the cause of the recent pause in warming – and coming to so many different possibilities. Look at the overall graph, rather than a snapshot of decadal averages. This is only a positive trend if you cherry-pick the dates. Yes, 1998 was a strong El Nino, and using its peak as a starting point is biased, but accusing others of cherry-picking, does your argument no justice, when several other trends are similar.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20AndCO2.gif
Magnus,
Thanks for the link. Ocean circulation always seems to be diminished when it comes to climate. Its large role should not be overlooked.
Kevin,
Interesting that you said that science has avoided policy recommendations, and mention two political institutions. Both of these claim to be science-based, but are highly biased politically.
SLR did accelerated, but has recently decelerated. It all depends on your time frame. The most recent decade is similar to the century-long average.
Ray,
I think we all agree that the 2000s were the warmest. However, that does not mean that the globe is still warming. IF it were, why then are so many scientists looking for the cause of the recent pause in warming – and coming to so many different possibilities. Look at the overall graph, rather than a snapshot of decadal averages. This is only a positive trend if you cherry-pick the dates. Yes, 1998 was a strong El Nino, and using its peak as a starting point is biased, but accusing others of cherry-picking, does your argument no justice, when several other trends are similar.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20AndCO2.gif
Titus,
Yes, the rate of SLR slowing coincides with the temperature pause.
As I said, I’m no scientist. I can only point you to looking at the actual data and you will see no increase in rate of sea level rise or temperature rise in recent years. Here’s a good resource for some basic data:
http://climate4you.com/
It’s obvious that temperatures have indeed risen since the mid 19th century (thank goodness). So wouldn’t it be obvious and totally expected that recent years would be the hottest?
And surely you do not need me to spell out all the alarming claims of global warming. Only a few years ago Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” gave us the gist of it and it started way before that.
Philip Machanick @82:
Not arguing. Just making some observations and suggestions from my educated, professional, life experienced, Joe public viewpoint. Take it or leave it.
You know, you will not get anywhere unless you can show some humility. Indeed, as I’m recently noticing your getting the exact opposite to the adoption you seek.
Very Nice. Hopefully, the episodes will follow reality, as entitled. Many of these issues have always had devastating effects for people and societies. What changes may ensue has important consequences for the those people living around their occurances.
Ken,
Actually, no. In order to test ones hypothesis, a null scenario must be established. The null hypothesis is always that no change is occurring. The test is then to prove that a change has occurred.
This article is simply embarassing to science. As a systems engineer I am well used to the level of empirical evidence required to support any theory. Model output, particularly where those models have consistently been wrong in the past, comes nowhere near the level of accuracy suggested by this article
“They’re simply denying AGW, for whatever reasons they may have. These might range from commercial sponsorship (either direct or indirect) to sheer bloody-mindedness, as in the case of a person (I am outside the US) I know personally who refuses to accept the objectivity of the scientists because he himself spent decades in a government job in an area where everybody brought a political agenda to EVERY issue.”
I ‘deny’ AGW for the same reason (among many) like [edit]
“Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.”
How can anyone disagree with this?
Is there value in trying to understand why these various extreme weather events have instead not followed according to expectations?
It seems like there are infinitely more efforts going on out there under the impression that we simply haven’t found the right combination to unlock the statistical keys to demonstrate/validate what ‘should’ be the case under our current modeling/understanding.
With wording like “haven’t yet disproved” or whatever it’s like there is no conclusion that will be acceptable unless/until they show what some/many scientists expect to happen. Even pointing to the conclusions in the IPCC SREX there’s a lot of groaning and disdain among scientists– moreso a desire to ‘improve’ them, if not refute them outright, rather than to figure out ‘why’.
John,
Yes, the accuracy is much lower than suggested, and below the levels required to support the theory. Unfortunately, too many are willing to toss this type of requirement out the window. Doing so, only diminishes support for their stance, as people see it as less robust. Hopefully, true science will prevail in the end.
#21 – The analogy is not that far off. There are trillons of events at CERN and in the weather. There are hundreds of noticable “events of interest,” gamma ray decay patterns or extreme weather events, and there is a large chance that any one of these “events of interest” is only a random occurance. With lots of research studies looking for significant results in climate science, a 3s result may be as insubstantial as a 3s result at CERN.
The real issue is what standard should be met before trumpeting results to the public. CERN set 5s for the Higgs. Scientists know how uncertain any one research result might be, and are not too concerned when better research comes out with a different result. But changes like that can lessen public trust in climate research generally.
Funny. Lorenz also said the climate system is so complex that it would be impossible to fully be handle by computer models. Something we have seeen the last 16 years.
We have a situation where good people are held hostage to very bad ideas, and I for one think we should honor the goodness in man and let actions be questions for the law. Where everyone else is let free. Manipulation can happen to us all.
please respond Gavin. I know you love science!
Andrew,
What is controversal is the predicted climate change associated with the given amounts of GHGs already emitted. Whether one is a contrarian, alarmist, or middle grounder will not matter in the future, as the climate will do what is dictated by the given forces. Unfortunately, we cannot say what that will be yet, so appropriate action is not so clear-cut.
Whether someone has a more pessimistic, optimistic, or realikstic outlook determines what type of action they are likely to support. In the long run, the action taken needs to balance the threat, in such a way as to not create a threat of its own.
“Linking global warming to some of these extreme weather and climate phenomena has been tricky in the past… However, there has been substantial progress over the recent years.”
I’m a bit confused here. When you assume there is a link, by searching for it and feeling that progress has been made in finding it, isn’t there some danger that you’ll end up finding the answer you want rather than the answer itself? Not those two can’t be the same, of course, but what is the actual current state of understanding of tornadoes and the like. If it’s not that robust, why pay any attention at all to what Matt Damon has to say or has been told to say?
Ah, dear moderator, the penny drops! I had assumed I did not hit Send correctly or some such, but now I surmise the comment offered was not welcome. No worries — I will take the matter up with Ray L. off-line as I sometimes do when skins grow thin here — he is always reasonable with me when I raise questions such as I just tried to pose. No need to reply.
Ed,
You are correct to surmise that skins grow rather thin here. You will only get posted, if you toe the line and do not ruffle any feathers. Forget about being a good scientist. [you were warned about using sock-puppets/aliases once, and you chose not to ignore. That earns a permanent spot in the borehole -moderator]
It seems to me that anthropogenic climate change is providing excellent cover to governments for poor choices. Bloomberg for instance can use his newspapers to claim “this is what global warming looks like”. Rather than “this is what poor planning for a predictable storm surge looks like”. Chris Christy has done the same. Given that most of the contributors to RealClimate work for, or are paid by, the government, I can see why you need to defend the science. Regarding extreme events, what would have happened had Sandy been as strong as Hazel with the blocking high caused by cold arctic air being as far south as it was for Sandy? Hmmmmm. Sandy: Blocked by colder air than Hazel farther south than Hazel and a weaker storm than Hazel. Suuuure. I can see how warming would cause this. Cross posted to What’s Up With That, to determine when or if you will reply.
Secular,
Those are all very good indicators. But the only one that we are seeing currently, is the Arctic melting. The remaining indicators listed have not displayed an abrupt change. Once they do, then you have the answer to Chuck’s question.
Chuck Hughes @227.
I’m an average Joe like you and just did the usual science at school. However I’m one of the Joe’s that is skeptical. As far as the claims are concerned I can only point you to looking at the actual data and you will see, for example, that there is no increase in rate of sea level rise or temperature rise in recent years. Here’s a good resource for some basic data:
http://climate4you.com/
It’s obvious that temperatures have indeed risen since the mid 19th century (thank goodness). So wouldn’t it be obvious and totally expected that recent years would be the hottest?
And surely you do not need me to spell out all the alarming claims of global warming that are clearly not happening (Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” gave us the gist of it and it started way before that). So I think with a little research of your own you will think yourself safe to relax on the matter.
Haven’t global temps stalled for the past decade or so? Why would there be more extreme weather events?
Re 238, Right, cause it’s so darn busy here…
In the OP there is a line “The climate models manage to reproduce the Hadley cell, El Nino Southern Oscillation, the Jet streams, the Trades, and the westerlies, but not tornadoes, derechoes, and thunderstorms.”
My question is do the climate models reproduce atmospheric blocking patterns. The single most likely cause of heat waves, droughts and colder than normal weather are these blocking events. Sometimes they are short lived, other times they persist for long periods of time. If climate models can reproduce these and give some idea of duration then they may well be able to determine if a warming globe will lead to more severe weather events such as heat waves, droughts and even flooding (a blocking pattern will allow storms to track over the same location saturating the soil and leading to flood potential in affected areas).
Currently large parts of the US are below normal temps. Last year they were much above normal. A blocking high over Greenland explains the colder air this year and explained all the heat waves that have taken place recently.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/midwest-east-more-snow-more-cold-into/8372208
@238…
Hold on a second…
If +0.9°C was the Scenario B prediction (relative to 1988), and the actual is +0.22°C…
…Then why couldn’t a lame forecast of “no change” be considered more accurate? I thought the rub was that Hansen’s prediction, though off, was at least better than a hand-waved no-change forecast. If it’s not, then isn’t that a serious red flag for skillfulness?
Ray Ladbury said ” However, data clearly show increased drought, increasing heat waves and, with less certainty, increased impulsive precipitation events”
May I quote IPCC SREX report 2012?
“There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense,
or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia.”
“In many (but not all) regions over the globe with sufficient data, there is medium confidence that the length or number of warm spells or heat waves has increased.”
They don’t mention “impulsive precipitation”, but I assume that would be associated with floods and heavy precipitation. Thus:
“There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are
limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore, there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes.”
“There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in some regions. It is likely that more of these regions have experienced increases than decreases, although there are strong regional and subregional variations in these trends.”
Thus, the IPCC’s most recent view from one year ago, based on the order of 40 years of data does not align with your statement.
I’ve been monitoring RC, curious about the questions I had posted– as they certainly have been “Frequently Asked” when it comes to Marcott et al.
Instead, they have been deleted entirely after initially being posted; I don’t even see them in the borehole. I did not post offensively, flippantly, or nefariously. Admittedly, staff at RC certainly don’t have to answer everyone’s questions, nor accept everyone’s posts.
Normally when a FAQ is designed by a group, it’s supposed to address whatever’s of concern in the way it’s voiced by those concerned– starting with the most frequently asked. True frequent questions that don’t get answered just keep getting asked. There’s probably some other philosophical somethinerother about frequently asked questions that are self-justified as not worth addressing becoming a growing weed allowed to spread by scoffing.
Nevertheless, I will continue to use RealClimate as a great source for this sort of climate science information and connection to the scientists that publish it.
The general public isn’t aware that there have been over 15 years with no significant warming. Pachauri and others have suggested this could last another 20 or 30 years. You guys better hope we get some heat before then and before this information makes it out to the folks who just read the headlines. It’s not going to mean very much to tell them the heat is hiding in the ocean or masked by emissions from China and India or volcanoes. It’s either warming or it’s not. Coastal areas are being submerged or not. We either have 10’s of millions of climate refugees or we don’t. There is either less snow or there isn’t. There’s a “hotspot” or there isn’t. After telling us weather isn’t climate – now we’re told after the warming never materialized, that the weather is in fact the climate.
However there is nothing unprecedented about the number or severity of storms or any other type events. Each headline that comes out is more shrill than the last, yet each headline is shown to be exaggerated or just false as time passes and more information becomes available.
Are we having some impact on the climate – maybe. Are we having some impact on the rest of our environment – definitely. We lose a lot of forest and natural habitat every year, We lose any number of smaller species every year. We have lost many large species since this warm period began and many large species are on the verge of being lost as I type this – none of this has anything to do with 1C of warming over the last 150 years. It’s just the spill of human population. Just look around you and you can see many very real and immediate environmental needs – we don’t have to make them up and we don’t have to exaggerate them.Over the last 150 years as we have grown by 4 to 5 billion people we’ve developed much of the more easily habitable land. Everything you’ve ever seen from the window of your car, from a plane, on tv, in a magazine or on your computer was built during this period. No one denies we will add another 4 or 5 billion people – CO2 should be the least of our worries.
Perhaps I’m being obtuse, but I don’t see how a better understanding of global temperature history forces either the NYT or you to spend any money on anything
Do you think publishing claims that aren’t supported by the data increases the clarity of the all important current climate?
If so, no need to discuss more. If not, you ought to make certain the claims are stated as not supported to policy influencing powerhouses like the NYT.
As a believer in AGW but a skeptical scientific thinker I am becoming very skeptical in the ability of science to be objective when I see seriously flawed studies like this. I choose not to point out specifics because Steve McIntyre raises the same issues I have…and more, and he is well known and respected. Can you please answer HIS questions instead of ignoring them and answering questions that were never asked? Admit you’re wrong or answer the questions, sirs, or accept the fact that you are hurting the cause of climate science.
The second paragraph – and first discussion of results – of the press release which Gavin linked to:
That observation hails from the non-robust uptick i.e. the uptick finishes 70-80 percent towards the top of the vertical range. Much further discussion follows e.g. “The last century stands out as the anomaly in this record…” – just one example.
News headlines around the world focussed on this non-robust uptick, some quoting the 70-80 percent figure.
I believe Shakaun is on camera also talking about the 20th century implications, of their analysis, without a grafted instrument record.
Now we get told they explained their uptick was non-robust and it’s the skeptics who have misplaced their focus.
Nothing particularly novel in this study including the alarmist way it was put together and a similar treatment by the media. Pity the tacked on temperature record doesn’t offer enough resolution to show that there has been no warming since ’97.
@Kevin McKinney #181
“Nancy’s point boils down to: ‘It is happening now, therefore it probably happened before.’” Not quite. Nancy is saying ‘if we were able to peer more and more closely into the past we would find that it looked more and more like the recent present’…
…”Except [you say] that we know quite why it is happening now–it is because humanity has increased atmospheric CO2 by ~40% since the 19th century”.
Kevin, everyone now knows that such an assertion is no more than mere hypothesising, flagrantly and unashamedly begging the question. Just watch while the tenuous link between increasing atmospheric CO2 and global surface temperature grows ever weaker, almost by the month.
Ready yourself Kevin, for the inevitable humiliating rethink. Soon you will be faced with a veritable avalanche of searching questions. Good luck.
Re post #99: I agree… this “I suppose what they meant” stuff doesn’t work very well as science. There are some valid questions about the actual science, as published and purportedly peer-reviewed (I hope the reviewers are not on this forum frolicking about and pretending they’re disinterested commenters). If there are scientifically solid addenda going under the label as a “FAQ”, but which substantively affect the findings of the study, let’s encourage the authors to rigorously append their notes to the original study via a formal process and not so much through what appears to be a friendly portal on Real Climate, please.
@Ray #111 CO2 emissions are increasing and temperatures are not rising as expected. In the kaleidoscope of physical effects unsuspected compensating mechanisms are at work. The theory is incomplete.
@Susan Anderson #121
Susan, I believe that you and I believe in the utility and efficacy of Occam’s razor. Let us start then with that apparent agreement.
You observe the world and you become interested in a certain behaviour that you would like to understand.
You find that x continues to increase while y exhibits periods of decrease, stasis and increase.
You formulate two competing theories.
(1) x and y are quite independent of each other
(2) y will be found to correlate with x when the complex behaviours of u,v,w and z eventually yield to explanations resulting from insights yet to be vouchsafed.
With Occam as your guide which theory do you prefer?
C Reid @ #101. I hope that your well-formulated questions receive a reply, because as a relatively well-read layman who can also do my sums, I have the same questions, and I think that they are spot on.
The key issue uncovered during this whole Marcott et al. kerfluffle, whether or NOT it was an essential aspect of their paper and their research interests, is that the recent century’s (or centuries’ if one insists) uptick in global temperature has to be examined in relation to the variance inherent in the Holocene-aged proxies in order to determine if it is anomalous. The other factors like core top dating and particularities of statistical smoothing of the underlying MEAN temperatures are becoming of peripheral interest, because the key tenet of the global warming hypothesis is that the recent uptick is the result of CO2 “forcing” that PROBABLY was not present in previous eras. OK, so you need to see if there were previous upticks; it’s that simple. Only it is apparently not simple for these to be displayed, although a couple of the so-called denialist blogs are starting to display some proxies AND their variances. That should all shake out in the next few days, and then I think we will have a more clear view as to whether that aspect of the paper will survive.
Gavin, here, and others here and elsewhere, you often bring up this issue as to what could possibly cause an uptick in the past, were one to be found, which is a legitimate question. But our lack of ability to understand a reason for such a fluctuation cannot really be used to deny the conclusion that something else is doing the forcing if the past data DO, reliably, show an uptick, or upticks, can it? I mean, isn’t the way that we want to see science done to be to pose a hypothesis, see if the data validates the hypothesis, and if it doesn’t, then come up with another hypothesis? Our failure to do come up with an alternative explanation or hypothesis cannot be the reason for denying the data, can it? Or is the “fact” of CO2 forcing so compelling to you that we reject any finding that is contradictory? That would be entirely circular, it seems to me.
@KR #132
With respect I think you are missing the point.
The original narrative implicit in the Marcott paper was that the Hockey Stick had been vindicated by Marcott’s uptick and that today’s temperature increases are unprecedented since the last Ice Age. Perhaps this may be true, but we still need hard scientific evidence to support it.
The Marcott uptick has now essentially disappeared. This means that the narrative now relies on the instrument data. This is also fine by me provided we can be sure the two “anomalies” actually line up properly? This then depends on re-normalizing average temperature from 5000 years ago to the instrument anomalies normalized to 1961-1990. In my case I just simply added 0.3 C to the proxies to normalise them to Hadcrut4, but I have seen no convincing evidence to support why this should be the case. I interpreted the paper this way but perhaps someone can enlighten me on the evidence for this.
The second key assumption of the proposal that today’s temperature rise is unprecedented, is the necessity to demonstrate that something similar didn’t happen in the past. Hence the importance to provide evidence that Marcott would have detected such changes had they happened.
So I think it is still important to determine the sensitivity of the proxies to short to medium term climate excursions. I think it is important to show that the raw measurements would be able to detect such changes, rather than Monte-Carlo interpolations based on those measurements.
How come my comment old #136 has now been deleted from this site after being published on it for over 14 hours?
I was just trying to make two points concerning “unprecedented 20th century warming”.
1) There remains in my mind an uncertainty about the scale normalization of Marcott temperature anomalies (calculated initially relative to 5500 – 4500 YBP) to those of Hadcrut4 (calculated relative to 1961-1990), Was a simple linear increase across the board of ~0.3C used? If so how sure can we be of this offset value ?
2) To justify a statement that 20th century warming is unprecedented since the last Ice Age we must be able to demonstrate that a similar climate excursion of such magnitude would have been observed in Marcott’s data. Hence the importance of Tamino’s work. My study concludes that it would not be possible to detect any such ~1C excursion lasting less than ~400years because of proxy timing uncertainty. Is Tamino correct or am I correct ?