A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.
Reader Interactions
2040 Responses to "The Bore Hole"
Isotopioussays
72
You’re a bit of an alarmist with what you are implying, I’m afraid. Using your logic (if you could call it that), every new day is unprecedented given the increases in population density.. We often hear claims that it’s the “worst ever”. This may be true in terms of cost to human life, however, such claims fly in the face of meteorological definitions.
And even if it does set a new record, it is absurd to link it to human induced climate change. As K. Emanual stated: “it would be absurd to attribute the Katrina disaster to global warming”.
Just perfect!says
Well!
Interesting logic and moral here.I note that the underlying consensus within the “climate science” is that open code and data is seen as a problem and hiding it a benefit.
By accusing other sceptic scientists for not releasing code and data you take that as an exquse not to reveal yours.Well from my taxpayers point of wiev I think you should really wonder how I react when your work is funded by my money and used as advice to decions for billions of dollars.
Your arrogance is monumental and two wrongs doesnt make one right.When it comes to P Corbyn he`s an entrepeneur and is not a taxconsumer he has to take responsability for his product and he delivers to his customers and clients.I havent read your blog before but I couldnt be more surprised how XXXX up your moral is.Why dont you see open data and code as an obvious reliability and quality factor? How to EARN confidence?? Have you ever asked yourselves that question?
Jsays
Brian: A lot better and simpler correlations than in the article. Depends on what’s going on under the surface nd nothing I’ve read here so far even takes them into account.
A lot better – not to mention simpler and direct – correlation than in the article. There’s lots of heat there and under the surface. I haven’t seen anything here that even takes it into account.
Max volcano activity on the peninsula; max warming delta on the peninsula:
Doesn’t matter. Use the map in this article, same correlation of max volcanoes and max warming on peninsula.
I’m not interested in where you ski, but that it seems you’re saying volcanic activity and hot material reaching the earth’s crust have no effect on temperature or climate.
Jsays
“Scientists have discovered a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards in Antarctica, evidence of an old eruption by a still active volcano that researchers believe may be contributing to the thinning of Antarctic glacial ice.
Hugh F.J. Corr and David G. Vaughan, two scientists with the British Antarctic Survey, recently published their discovery of the volcanic layer in the journal Nature Geoscience. The discovery is unique according to Dr. Vaughan. He said “This is the first time we have seen a volcano beneath the ice sheet punch a hole through the ice sheet.”
The volcano’s heat could possibly be melting and thinning the ice and raising the speed of the Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica…
“The spatial patterns of annual trends, and how they evolve through time, is similar in both papers”
Unless by “similar”, you mean “different”?
[Response: You probably don’t get real far if you stop reading every time you don’t grasp something–Jim]
Jeff Idsays
Eric,
Some of the differences are real and correct. You took the example of a single station in your article. This is what I was referring to, you can’t really look at that small of a scale with 7 pc’s and expect a perfect match. The stations information may very easily be shifted nearby the point being examined and can also be reasonably well weighted. The number of PC’s determines the resolution.
On larger regions the patterns will average out if the math is correct but an arbitrary boundary may or may not have perfect representation. I believe that the Ross issue is something that Ryan and Nic would have more expertise with than myself but again if you look at the area weighted and our reconstruction, the similarities are quite evident. We aren’t far off from the actual station data (I have confirmed this with several methods), but IMHO the station position is a more reliable indicator of where the information should be than correlation with noisy and highly spatially correlated sat data. Again, the simple methods are also is difficult to disagree with and if you check them out they may make your case better than you think.
If you take a look at the area weighted link, you can see that some of the trends are more muted, but represent a very similar pattern to what our paper revealed – and IMO a very different one from your original. Just be careful when looking at a truncated least squares method when analysing patterns, especially when the sampling is not spatially even. [edit -keep on trying to sneak in off-topic snark like this, and all of your stuff will go straight to the borehole from now on–understood?]
steven moshersays
what do comments about curry have to do with this article?
borehole the OT crap. it distracts from a quality discussion
Jeff Idsays
Did my reply disappear or was it moderated? Can’t ever really tell here.
Jeff Idsays
For the second AND LAST time I ask if my comment was cut or if there was some other problem.
This may not be the right site, but what I’m interested in are the effects of the warming. I have no major doubts that the planet is warming as is so well explained on this site, but is it yet as warm as it was ten thousand years ago at the end of the last ice age? and even if it is or will be does it mater much? I know there are books out there, just not a lot of info on the main climate sites, or maybe I havent looked hard enough. Thanks
I know conspiracy theorists will have a field day with what I’m about to say. So, here goes. Tree rings measurements correlating to temperature changes, and thus supporting the argument for global warming, has just been shown to be untrue. What actually causes tree ring differences is sun spot activity. There’s loads of new peer-reviewed evidence to support this. Believe me when I say that the implications are huge. If you want to read what I read, you can at http://www.blindedbyscience.co.uk
Jeff Idsays
[edit -keep on trying to sneak in off-topic snark like this, and all of your stuff will go straight to the borehole from now on–understood?]
The ‘snark’ is hardly off topic and only 1 in 3 of my comments makes moderation anyway so it isn’t much of a threat.
If you can’t handle reasoned criticism, you aren’t much of a scientist – whomever you are. Eric wouldn’t have written this.
Elliotsays
“If you are suggesting that scenario C will continue to be a better fit, I think this is highly unlikely. – gavin”
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
The last line of the article says “So to conclude, global warming continues. Did you really think it wouldn’t?” My point is yes global warming has contiued but only a rate similar to what was predicted based on zero new emissions (the absolute best case scenario). Now you can say whatever you want but the reality there hasn’t been as much global warming as was predicted and it is the amount of warming we are worried about not whether or not it is getting warmer.
TheGoodLocustsays
“There is more work to be done, clearly.–eric]”
Yes, clearly you and the rest of the Real Climate team need more grant money. After all, the science is settled! Oh wait, I mean, yes the science is settled, but we still have bills to pay! Damn…that still didn’t come out right!
Oh well, I give up, if only I was sociopathic enough to constantly lie to myself and others with a straight face.
Harold Pierce Jrsays
Eric at 36 says, \CO2 is globally quite well mixed,…\
As a matter of fact, it isn’t. For dry cold polar air at -60 deg C and 1 atm pressure, the concentration of CO2 is about 390 ppmv, and there is 22.3 mmoles per cubic meter. For dry hot desert air at +45 deg C and 1 atm pressure, the concentraion of CO2 is still about 390 ppmv but there is only 14.9 mmoles of CO2 per cubic meter.
As I have said many times here and elsewhere, in real air there is no uniform distribution of the mass of the atmosphere as shown by weather maps. High pressure cells have more regional mass than do low pressure cells and these are always on the move somtimes quite rapidly.
Presence of water vapor lowers the density of dry air and hence the amount of CO2 in that air.
Clouds contain dissolved atmospheric gases and can alter the local concentation of CO2 as they move about. Rain can transport CO2 out of the air to the surface. Satellite images show there is no uniform distribution
of clouds.
Atmospheric tides will alter the mass distribution of the atmosphere as the earth rotates and as the moon orbits the earth.
Based upon the results of climate model calculations of a virtual atmophere and earth, I now pay a carbon tax of ca $1 per gigajoule of nat gas which costs ca $5 per gigajoule in BC. And I don’t like it.
TimTheToolMansays
Hank writes : “Or you could say “the pre-satellite data taken at Byrd Station was confirmed when the satellite data extended its measurements adding a large area.””
Why do you conclude that measurements taken afterwards confirm measurements taken before?
The trend from 1970 onwards is a cooling trend. It’s only a warming trend when the pre-satellite data is included. So one dataset hardly “confirms” the other!
Richard Palmsays
In a Physics Today essay linked in the Wikipedia entry on Judith Curry, she states that Steve McIntyre was unable to post on Real Climate when he was trying to defend his critiques of the hockey stick. I was wondering if this is true, and if so what the rationale was.
Gillessays
May I give my personal opinion about Judith Curry : from my point of view, the way she expresses her concerns about climate science is very close to the ideal scientific attitude, trying to be balanced and free from ideological a priori (this doesn’t mean of course that she is always right, although I did not notice anything wrong in what she said). This is not the case for many posters on this blog.
Harold Pierce Jrsays
Hello Eric!
It appears my recent comment was not dispalyed. So I’ll try again.
Eric at 36 says, “CO2 is globally quite well mixed,…”
As a matter of fact, it isn’t. For dry cold polar air at -60 deg C and 1 atm pressure, the concentration of CO2 is about 390 ppmv, and there is 22.3 mmoles per cubic meter. For dry hot desert air at +45 deg C and 1 atm pressure, the concentraion of CO2 is still about 390 ppmv but there is only 14.9 mmoles of CO2 per cubic meter.
As I have said many times here and elsewhere, in real air there is no uniform distribution of the mass of the atmosphere as shown by weather maps. High pressure cells have more regional mass than do low pressure cells and these are always on the move somtimes quite rapidly.
Presence of water vapor lowers the density of dry air and hence the amount of CO2 in that air.
Clouds contain dissolved atmospheric gases and can alter the local concentation of CO2 as they move about. Rain can transport CO2 out of the air to the surface.
Satellite images show there is no uniform distribution of clouds.
Atmospheric tides will alter the mass distribution of the atmosphere as the earth rotates and as the moon orbits the earth.
Based upon the results of climate model calculations of a virtual atmophere and earth, I now pay a carbon tax of ca $1 per gigajoule of nat gas which costs ca $5 per gigajoule in BC. And I don’t like it.
Both terms, down welling and back radiation, seem less than appropriate to me. Retarded up welling or outgoing radiation is more descriptive. The loss of heat is just slowed, its direction of flow in not reversed.
Latent heat at phase change is interesting, but by my back of the envelop calculations it is small relative to albedo. Latent heat of vaporization/condensation is larger than heat of fusion and the annual heat loss to condensation is on the order of 1 ZetaJoule while reflected radiation by cloud cover is about 30 times that (my rough calculations). Considering both, precipitation proxies should give a fair indication of past climate change. I know someone has done that, I just haven’t stumbled upon a good study yet. Yes, there are tons of hydrological reconstructions for various regions. And yes, there are plenty of reconstructions that lump a bunch of proxies together to estimate past temperatures. There are few that try to calibrate individual proxies to precipitation first then combine to estimate past global precipitation. I just have not found one that attempts to reconstruct global past precipitation and relate that to past global climate. Pay walls block a lot of interesting looking papers.
Mike Haselersays
Come you guys! Not only is the number of pro-warming articles falling through the floor, but there just aren’t enough people willing to speak up for the warmist view to go around. Every time I find a decent news article on global warming, I find a dozen or so people have already done over some poor lone global warmer. Come on you guys! Buck your ideas up – it is really getting boring for us sceptics outside in the real world.
TimTheToolMansays
I’m slowly going through your paper…I note the following in your recent paper
“Although it has been suggested that such interpolation is unreliable owing to the distances involved1, large spatial scales are not inherently problematic if there is high spatial coherence, as is the case in continental Antarctica4.”
The reference “4” lead me to your paper “RECENT CLIMATE VARIABILITY IN ANTARCTICA FROM SATELLITE-DERIVED TEMPERATURE DATA”
Where you have an earlier attempt at establishing Antarctic temperatures.
“We examine the relationship between surface temperature variability and atmospheric circulation through comparison of the empirical modes of the satellite data sets with NCEP-NCAR reanalysis geopotential height anomalies at the 500-hPa level. We show that, overall, the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) explains the greatest variance in Antarctic temperatures.”
And whilst the correlation between the SAM and your reconstructed temperature during the calibration period against the SAM is quite good, outside the calibration period it is remarkably bad.
Your Figure “6” in that paper claims a high correlation between the reconstructed temperature and the inverted SAM index
The text for that diagram reads..
“Smoothed versions (annual mean) of reconstructed temperature PC1 (solid blue line) and the inverted SAM index (dotted red line). Note that while the correlation between the two series is positive, the trends diverge.”
My understanding is that you shouldn’t be correlating smoothed curves. Perhaps you aren’t but that not what is implied. And even with the smoothed curve correlation, it only appears to be a strong correlation in the calibration period.
Now I accept that you look at several other influences apart from the SAM but you state
“However, we show that the second most important influence is not simply described by ENSO directly, but rather, reflects a combination of patterns previously referred to as the Pacific South American and wavenumber-3 patterns.”
If you’re putting the poor correlation down to increased influence from these, then how is it that these should be so much more important outside your calibration period?
So its not at all obvious your earlier paper exhibits high spacial coherence in continental Antarctica at all.
[Response: Tim, do you really think I have time to reply in detail about an old paper?–eric]
DominicRomsays
LOL LOL LOL
Harold Pierce Jrsays
Tamino at 216
I posted the comment about the Russians’ book 3 times on you blog and you whacked it. Ditto for Joe Romm’s blog. I have posted this comment on several other blogs I frequently visit (WUWT, Climate Etc, Sceptical Scienc, Deltoid, etc.) and it wasn’t whacked. I posted the comment on your blog because I thought you would be interested in the math of their stochastic model of climate fluctations in Chapter 7 and give an assesment of the their methodolgy. You didn’t do this. So what is your evaluation of the math of their model?
RE: More Info on Fish Cycles
You should check “Fish Cycle Page” in the post “FAO Smarter than IPCC” at Alan Cheetam’s website:
As I stated on JC’s “Climate Etc”: “This is _the_ “One stop, shop until you drop” store for global warming and climate change info.”
You claim the climate is still warming. I’m not convinced. In the last few years annual means temperatures at the remote Quatsino and Estevan, BC
have dropped back to the chilly level of the early 1900’s
Jim Steelesays
Re: #259 (Jim Steele) Gee, I thought you were serious about wanting to know so I actually answered your question. Now it seems you just don’t like the answer because it interferes with your intention to use the “dynamical changes” to jump on the “it’s all natural variations!” bandwagon. The “political noise” is coming from you.
I was very serious. I did not see your post when I submitted my post #260 (that you refer to as #259, probably due to another post getting interjected). Perhaps our messages were just 2 ships crossing in the night.
Tamino you stated: “There are lots of fluctuations and lots of dynamical processes, but over the entire globe and over long time spans it’s the changes in energy inputs that dominate the trend. This is clear from paleoclimate reconstructions of the last few thousand years, and from glacial cycles over the last several million years.”
I most definitely agree it is energy input that dominates over long time spans and have never argued otherwise. But how long? And to estimate temperature increases due to the energy input separate from temperature changes arising from other variability we need to understand the magnitude and frequency of those oscillations. Even Keeling as well as Wunsch suggested ~1300 lunar tidal cycles mixing cold arctic bottom water to describe the 10,000 year coolng trend. The PDO and NAO are 30-40+ year trends which have explained much of the recent warming See Hurrell. Part of the problem is we are arguing without defining the time scale. (How about deep ocean trends of thousands of years? Too much unkown there for me)
So by energy input, we need to determine how powerful is the energy input from CO2 changes versus solar and most of that is currently done by claiming what is left over from what is assumed to be perfect knowledge of all the other factors. CO2 without any negative or positive feedbacks can not describe the recent trends. Any CO2 argument depends on feedbacks and thus we are back to understanding confounding oscillations.
We often compare the 50 year Keeling curve to recent warming? But how much of the PDO and NAO effects are being claimed as CO2 input effects? So as you point out, I looked at longer paleoclimate data and I don’t always see the correlations you claim. Leaving lag effects observed in the glacial –interglacial records aside, explain how using GISP2 data we have a ~7-9000 year cooling trend with a 3 C drop, while using Epic CO2 data CO2 was increasing from 260-280? Putting aside any dynamical responses for the warming periods, rising CO2 was overwhelmed by solar or what” during that cooling period?
Bob (Sphaerica) says: #265 Re: 2) The fact that we can’t account for all heat is an excuse that deniers may not use for inaction or for arguing against a logical, reasoned and considered climate theory.
Bob, such circular reasoning is what invigorates skeptics like me that you like to denigrate as deniers. Science works because inconsistencies and confounding factors are challenged thus leading to a better understanding. There is no other way! You try to thwart that process by characterizing any challenge to an inconsistency as the obfuscation of deniers. I submit your protective circular reasoning is doing more to debase the scientific process than any skeptical arguments.
So maybe you too can explain how using GISP2 data the ~7-9000 year cooling trend with a 3 C drop, is driven by increasing CO2 from 260-280?
Ray #270 says “You are commiting a fundamental sin against the scientific method–you are trying to explian the unknown in terms of the unknown” Ray you always reach for some form of this characterization attack. I have done no such thing.
I am trying to better define the known by separating out any confounding factors. Separating confounding factors is what separates hunches from scientific analysis. I have attributed the recent 100 year rise in temps mostly to a combination of known solar increase modulated by ocean oscillations as best described to date. A simple numerical model using known sunspots and known PDO changes and a 22 year lag time produces the observed temperature trends since 1900.
I also have stated known CO2 correlations fail over the past 9000 year ice core record.
So using the known Ray, you too can explain how using GISP2 data the ~7-9000 year cooling trend with a 3 C drop, is driven by increasing CO2 from 260-280?
Marcus says #281 “One would expect oceanic cooling sustaining atmospheric warming. Instead we see warming of the oceans, for instance:”
I mostly agree and that’s why I think the next 20 years of ARGO data will be very telling. Right now ARGO suggests no warming of the oceans as one would expect with the down turn in solar activity. Also if you look at vertical cross sections of the western Pacifica Warm Pool you notice that there was a large heat anomaly that built up from 1960-1975,(solar input peaked during that time) and then right around the time of the PDO 1976 regime shift ,the warm anomaly cools, or should I say vented its heat. See Mehta’s presentation http://www.crces.org/presentations/dmv_ipwp/ (Just a few “knowns” for Ray) The reason I say mostly agree, is that most of the deep ocean and thus its heat content are not well characterized. The upper 3.5 meters of ocean alone contain the same heat as the total atmosphere. I am sure we still have much to learn from the oceans and surprises will still occur.
Jim Steelesays
Hank,
I am not sure of all the parameters used in Shindell and Gavin’s model, but I don’t think their study would apply to the question at hand which is specific to the southpole during the winter half year. They suggested that ozone and GHG’s were affecting the SAM. Regards seasonality ozone hole effects are greatest in the spring. Regards location while studies have shown a correlation with ozone and coastal temperatures, the correlation does not hold at the southpole and other interior sites. Finally their study suggests as ozone improves and GHG’s increase their should be a warming trend but since 2004 there is no detectable trend with 3 months averaging slightly warmer and 3 months slightly cooler, with maximum cooling July cooling by a full degree, and maximum warming in June by 0.5 degree.
Although I think the SAM index affects many processes in Antarctica the effects appear more distinct nearer the coast
S. Molnarsays
Speaking of theoreticians with no sense of practicality, it’s a little off to describe a work from the 1970s as a “20-year old book”. Well, there are three kinds of mathematician: those who can count and those who count.
cagw_skeptic99says
[Edit. Resorting to threats of personal intimidation against scientists eh? Was only a matter of time frankly. Thanks for including your name in your email address.–Jim]
Orsonsays
“…maybe Dyson has a thing or two to learn about the biodiversity of unmanaged ecosystems.”
This supposes two mistaken views of ecology and possibly one ethical proposition. First, that “unmanaged” ecosystems are a viable option – which they are not; and second, that nature, sans humanity, would be in classical Clementsian balance. The mathematical approximations that “ecosystems” truly are far more variable, unstable, and evolving than the populist vision; this false idealization of nature “before the Fall” informs most environmental activists commitment to the cause, including combating man-made climate change.
Finally, there is the ethical view of eco-centrists that is straightforwardly religious: nature is best off unmolested by humanity. This view, while rarely shared explicitly, affects most public debates, including the one here.
Therefore there is another answer, given short-shrift here: that Dyson is not only pro-humanistic, but also understands ecology in its scientific sense as a limited field (for example, see R. H. Peters, “A Critique For Ecology”), and rejects its religious rationalizations. Hence, his skepticism of global warming alarm is consistent with these other scientifically informed views.
Mike Haselersays
Hi, I hear from WUWT that there’s a real cool party going on in the bore hole, can I join?
Wafflesays
Can you please put a link to the borehole thread on your homepage. Finally, the general public gets to read some genuine scientific discussion on this website.
Orsonsays
“…maybe Dyson has a thing or two to learn about the biodiversity of unmanaged ecosystems.” Douglas Watt’s comments that his and Ray Kurzweil’s positions “…all seems like desperate escapism.”
While the non-monocultural advantages are definitely real, this criticism of Dyson also pre-supposes two mistaken views of ecology – as well as one controversial ethical proposition.
First, that “unmanaged” ecosystems are a viable option – which they are not. And second, that nature, sans humanity, would be in classical Clementsian balance. The mathematical approximations that “ecosystems” truly constitute are far more variable, unstable, and evolving than the populist vision believes. This false idealization of nature “before the Fall” informs most environmental activists commitment to the cause, including combating man-made climate change.
Finally, there is the ethical view of eco-centrists that is straight-forwardly religious: nature is best off unmolested by humanity. Humanity is a plague upon “Gaia,” and vulnerable “space-ship earth” ought to be worshipped instead. This view, while rarely advanced explicitly, affects most public environmental debates, including the one here.
Therefore, there is a different and important answer to the issue raised here: that Dyson is not only pro-humanistic because people are part of nature, but that he also grasps that ecology is a field of scientific limitations (for example, see R. H. Peters, “A Critique For Ecology”), he rejects its religious rationalizations and rationalizers. Hence, Dyson’s skepticism of global warming alarm is consistent with these other scientifically informed views.
TO GAVIN OR OTHER MODERATORS: Checking back several hours later, I am unsurprised to find my “8:58” number “14” comment deleted (revised for clarity above). Inconvenient facts are stubborn things. I am “unsurprised” because among fellow environmental and earth scientists here in the Boulder, Colorado area, realclimate.org is well-known to be censorial, petty, and disengaged from the larger substantive issues faced in science and and by society.
I guess Gavin, et all, are still too spooked to engage with what Curry dubs “the uncertainty monster,” even when your blog posts invite its re-consideration. Well, “good to know!” as they say – I’ll be sure to spread the word (once more-again). Clearly, our web-site’s declining success in outreach is not in jeopardy.
Mike Haselersays
“As we did roughly a year ago (and as we will probably do every year around this time)”
At the rate global temperatures are going down do you seriously think you will be around this time next year?
Jim Steelesays
Hi Raymond, I have tried to reply to you a few times but for some reason the posts are deleted. Your typical response is to simply pronounce that my idea is “not science” without further substantiation. The thing is I also have a theory and it often explains things better than yours, and instead of just making this claim, I will provide 2 examples that we could debate. To be fair you too should choose 2 examples.
First explain how using GISP2 data we since ~9000 BP a cooling trend with a 3 C drop, while simultaneously, using Epic CO2 data CO2 was increasing from 260-280? Second why did the Arctic warm with a more rapid rate in the 30’s and 40s than in the present (see Bengstonn 2004).
Knute Rocknesays
HAHAHAH. Scientists 27, you self-serving douchnozzles 0. And the score just keeps piling up.
Brass Monkeysays
Can you please please setup another blog totally dedicated to the things you don’t like to discuss on this site. You could call it something like The Borehole.
Seems like everybody is talking about that in the real world – is it a ploy to improve your visitor numbers?
Keithsays
Did any of you commenters even read Dyson’s essay????
huntersays
So you are too cowardly to let my posts even stand?
And you wonder why your traffic volume is going down, and why people more and more see you for the coward you are?
What a self-parody this site has become.
Peter Foleysays
The mice are nibbling at the feet of a Giant. The CO2-AGW Dogma has that Western Culture must castrate itself, Why not a future that allows infinite growth instead, nearly infinite wealth available for Earth-bound and Space-dwelling descendants. A few Solar sails installed between the Sun and the Earth would cost a fraction of a silly carbon free future.
50 I don’t want a geriatric Physicist controlling my life, nor a few thousand deluded climate scientists that have yet too prove their belief in CO2 forced AGW.
Where did the CO2 go the last several times it has exceeded the present Ppm’s? The vast majority is tied up in limestone deposits, followed by biomass-coal. Hmmm The old doc isn’t completely nuts.
Fifty posts and NO SCIENCE FACTS OR THEORIES–just ad hominem attacks on a man that helped keep the West free and whose work has added billions of dollars of wealth through applications of his work.
Other then the Unicorn traders of Cap & Steal Carbon indulgences has the “science” of CO2 forced AGW produced any wealth or the pedaling fear mongering coming of the Climate Armageddon plup fiction?
Fred Staplessays
On the other hand (13) Freeman Dyson and your colleagues might be right.
Here are some temperature statistics you may have missed.
The Central England temperature record is the longest continuous record available, measured by thermometers. In 1659, the heart of the Little Ice Age, the annual average temperature was 8.83 degrees C.
The population then was about 5 million.
After 351 years, the (coal-fired) industrial revolution, almost total forest clearing, population growth to 60 millions, and vast urban development the average temperature in 2010 was 8.83 degrees C.
Yes, but, of course it is the trend that counts, not isolated years which are only weather.
The overall trend to date is just 0.25 degrees per century; per century, not per decade.
Yes but one small island may not be typical. The global temperatures show much more warming. Well, HardCru data goes back to 1850, 161 years. The warming trend overall is just 0.45 degrees C per century, with 95% confidence limits between 0.4 and 0.5 degrees C.
Most of that warming has appeared in the last 35 years (1.7 degrees per century). From 1850 to 1975 the trend was a very modest 0.25 degrees C per century, with 95% confidence limits between 0.19 and 0.3 degrees per century.
As for the fundamental Physics, we are often told to look at the cold, dry, upper atmosphere for the radiative TOA effects on which warming depends. The warming trend should be more obvious up there. Well, the UAH mid troposphere trend is 0.5 degrees per century; the lower troposphere trend is almost three times greater at 1.4 degrees C per century.
Yes, but, the upper troposphere warming is masked by the stratosphere cooling, which is the AGW footprint. Sadly, the HADAT radiosonde data shows no stratospheric cooling over the past 30 years.
Tomwhysays
I would take Dyson’s view over 100 self named climate scientists who seem only able to fiddle the figures.
He is a giant compared to the pygmies that run this censored site.
Also I notice that you are still using the term ‘denier’.
So much for that ‘new era of civility’, I suppose.
BBsays
Tis a good thing, what you’ve done here.
I found it also good that you have acknowledged that there is a creeping possibility of ‘bullying’ within the review process, one in which editors are counted on to separate, and/or give the authors the last word.
I would submit that “The fact that a number of my colleagues and many otherwise intelligent-seeming people still seem to treat these guys as legitimate, honest commenters, whose words have equal weight with, say, those of Susan Solomon or J. Michael Wallace, or, for that matter, Gavin Schmidt or Mike Mann or myself.” or other such statements would create an environment where editors (if they buy-in to the thinking), would have some element of bais that may result in ‘gate-keeping’.
If authors then decide in the face of this, as you suggest, to take their manuscript elsewhere…then now we have a new term for ‘gray literature’ that further disparages the work.
It is difficult to square the various statements encouraging this sort-of gauntlet run through peer-review that everyone must do, despite also admitting that you do not the science permitting potential publications to all approach the batter’s box equally.
But, it is a very good thing that all these statements are all together in one place.
GaryMsays
“First, I never suggested to the authors that they use ‘iridge’.”
The reviewer comment attributed to you, posted by O’Donnell:
“My recommendation is that the editor insist that results showing the ‘mostly likely’ West Antarctic trends be shown in place of Figure 3. [these were the ridge regression results] While the written text does acknowledge that the rate of warming in West Antarctica is probably greater than shown, it is the figures that provide the main visual ‘take home message’ that most readers will come away with. I am not suggesting here that kgnd = 5 will necessarily provide the best estimate, as I had thought was implied in the earlier version of the text. Perhaps, as the authors suggest, kgnd should not be used at all, but the results from the ‘iridge’ infilling should be used instead. . . . ”
The comment is not directed “to the authors,” but seems to be rather clearly a recommendation that the disputed procedure be included in the paper.
Was this initial comment made by another reviewer? Is the parenthetical inaccurate? Or is there another explanation for its meaning other than that a recommendation that the authors should include the iridge procedure in their paper, as O’Donnell claimed?
We finaly have a solution for the Team.NASA climate programs being eyed for the budget axe
Great news to the lay man. I have already written my rep’s to defund the alarmist at Giss, Real Climate and anything to do with CLIMATE !!
J. Bobsays
#365 Wayne, check out my comment on #323. Here’s the graph:
72
You’re a bit of an alarmist with what you are implying, I’m afraid. Using your logic (if you could call it that), every new day is unprecedented given the increases in population density.. We often hear claims that it’s the “worst ever”. This may be true in terms of cost to human life, however, such claims fly in the face of meteorological definitions.
And even if it does set a new record, it is absurd to link it to human induced climate change. As K. Emanual stated: “it would be absurd to attribute the Katrina disaster to global warming”.
Well!
Interesting logic and moral here.I note that the underlying consensus within the “climate science” is that open code and data is seen as a problem and hiding it a benefit.
By accusing other sceptic scientists for not releasing code and data you take that as an exquse not to reveal yours.Well from my taxpayers point of wiev I think you should really wonder how I react when your work is funded by my money and used as advice to decions for billions of dollars.
Your arrogance is monumental and two wrongs doesnt make one right.When it comes to P Corbyn he`s an entrepeneur and is not a taxconsumer he has to take responsability for his product and he delivers to his customers and clients.I havent read your blog before but I couldnt be more surprised how XXXX up your moral is.Why dont you see open data and code as an obvious reliability and quality factor? How to EARN confidence?? Have you ever asked yourselves that question?
Brian: A lot better and simpler correlations than in the article. Depends on what’s going on under the surface nd nothing I’ve read here so far even takes them into account.
Most volcanic activity is on the peninsula; most warming on the peninsula:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/Antarctica_temp_trends.jpg
A lot better – not to mention simpler and direct – correlation than in the article. There’s lots of heat there and under the surface. I haven’t seen anything here that even takes it into account.
Max volcano activity on the peninsula; max warming delta on the peninsula:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/Antarctica_temp_trends.jpg
Doesn’t matter. Use the map in this article, same correlation of max volcanoes and max warming on peninsula.
I’m not interested in where you ski, but that it seems you’re saying volcanic activity and hot material reaching the earth’s crust have no effect on temperature or climate.
“Scientists have discovered a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards in Antarctica, evidence of an old eruption by a still active volcano that researchers believe may be contributing to the thinning of Antarctic glacial ice.
Hugh F.J. Corr and David G. Vaughan, two scientists with the British Antarctic Survey, recently published their discovery of the volcanic layer in the journal Nature Geoscience. The discovery is unique according to Dr. Vaughan. He said “This is the first time we have seen a volcano beneath the ice sheet punch a hole through the ice sheet.”
The volcano’s heat could possibly be melting and thinning the ice and raising the speed of the Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica…
New York Times Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/world/21volcano.html?_r=2&ref=science&oref=slogin
I’m afraid I stopped reading when you said:
“The spatial patterns of annual trends, and how they evolve through time, is similar in both papers”
Unless by “similar”, you mean “different”?
[Response: You probably don’t get real far if you stop reading every time you don’t grasp something–Jim]
Eric,
Some of the differences are real and correct. You took the example of a single station in your article. This is what I was referring to, you can’t really look at that small of a scale with 7 pc’s and expect a perfect match. The stations information may very easily be shifted nearby the point being examined and can also be reasonably well weighted. The number of PC’s determines the resolution.
On larger regions the patterns will average out if the math is correct but an arbitrary boundary may or may not have perfect representation. I believe that the Ross issue is something that Ryan and Nic would have more expertise with than myself but again if you look at the area weighted and our reconstruction, the similarities are quite evident. We aren’t far off from the actual station data (I have confirmed this with several methods), but IMHO the station position is a more reliable indicator of where the information should be than correlation with noisy and highly spatially correlated sat data. Again, the simple methods are also is difficult to disagree with and if you check them out they may make your case better than you think.
If you take a look at the area weighted link, you can see that some of the trends are more muted, but represent a very similar pattern to what our paper revealed – and IMO a very different one from your original. Just be careful when looking at a truncated least squares method when analysing patterns, especially when the sampling is not spatially even. [edit -keep on trying to sneak in off-topic snark like this, and all of your stuff will go straight to the borehole from now on–understood?]
what do comments about curry have to do with this article?
borehole the OT crap. it distracts from a quality discussion
Did my reply disappear or was it moderated? Can’t ever really tell here.
For the second AND LAST time I ask if my comment was cut or if there was some other problem.
Why don’t you guys give it up!
Why don’t you guys give it a rest!
This may not be the right site, but what I’m interested in are the effects of the warming. I have no major doubts that the planet is warming as is so well explained on this site, but is it yet as warm as it was ten thousand years ago at the end of the last ice age? and even if it is or will be does it mater much? I know there are books out there, just not a lot of info on the main climate sites, or maybe I havent looked hard enough. Thanks
I know conspiracy theorists will have a field day with what I’m about to say. So, here goes. Tree rings measurements correlating to temperature changes, and thus supporting the argument for global warming, has just been shown to be untrue. What actually causes tree ring differences is sun spot activity. There’s loads of new peer-reviewed evidence to support this. Believe me when I say that the implications are huge. If you want to read what I read, you can at http://www.blindedbyscience.co.uk
[edit -keep on trying to sneak in off-topic snark like this, and all of your stuff will go straight to the borehole from now on–understood?]
The ‘snark’ is hardly off topic and only 1 in 3 of my comments makes moderation anyway so it isn’t much of a threat.
If you can’t handle reasoned criticism, you aren’t much of a scientist – whomever you are. Eric wouldn’t have written this.
“If you are suggesting that scenario C will continue to be a better fit, I think this is highly unlikely. – gavin”
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
The last line of the article says “So to conclude, global warming continues. Did you really think it wouldn’t?” My point is yes global warming has contiued but only a rate similar to what was predicted based on zero new emissions (the absolute best case scenario). Now you can say whatever you want but the reality there hasn’t been as much global warming as was predicted and it is the amount of warming we are worried about not whether or not it is getting warmer.
“There is more work to be done, clearly.–eric]”
Yes, clearly you and the rest of the Real Climate team need more grant money. After all, the science is settled! Oh wait, I mean, yes the science is settled, but we still have bills to pay! Damn…that still didn’t come out right!
Oh well, I give up, if only I was sociopathic enough to constantly lie to myself and others with a straight face.
Eric at 36 says, \CO2 is globally quite well mixed,…\
As a matter of fact, it isn’t. For dry cold polar air at -60 deg C and 1 atm pressure, the concentration of CO2 is about 390 ppmv, and there is 22.3 mmoles per cubic meter. For dry hot desert air at +45 deg C and 1 atm pressure, the concentraion of CO2 is still about 390 ppmv but there is only 14.9 mmoles of CO2 per cubic meter.
As I have said many times here and elsewhere, in real air there is no uniform distribution of the mass of the atmosphere as shown by weather maps. High pressure cells have more regional mass than do low pressure cells and these are always on the move somtimes quite rapidly.
Presence of water vapor lowers the density of dry air and hence the amount of CO2 in that air.
Clouds contain dissolved atmospheric gases and can alter the local concentation of CO2 as they move about. Rain can transport CO2 out of the air to the surface. Satellite images show there is no uniform distribution
of clouds.
Atmospheric tides will alter the mass distribution of the atmosphere as the earth rotates and as the moon orbits the earth.
Based upon the results of climate model calculations of a virtual atmophere and earth, I now pay a carbon tax of ca $1 per gigajoule of nat gas which costs ca $5 per gigajoule in BC. And I don’t like it.
Hank writes : “Or you could say “the pre-satellite data taken at Byrd Station was confirmed when the satellite data extended its measurements adding a large area.””
Why do you conclude that measurements taken afterwards confirm measurements taken before?
The trend from 1970 onwards is a cooling trend. It’s only a warming trend when the pre-satellite data is included. So one dataset hardly “confirms” the other!
In a Physics Today essay linked in the Wikipedia entry on Judith Curry, she states that Steve McIntyre was unable to post on Real Climate when he was trying to defend his critiques of the hockey stick. I was wondering if this is true, and if so what the rationale was.
May I give my personal opinion about Judith Curry : from my point of view, the way she expresses her concerns about climate science is very close to the ideal scientific attitude, trying to be balanced and free from ideological a priori (this doesn’t mean of course that she is always right, although I did not notice anything wrong in what she said). This is not the case for many posters on this blog.
Hello Eric!
It appears my recent comment was not dispalyed. So I’ll try again.
Eric at 36 says, “CO2 is globally quite well mixed,…”
As a matter of fact, it isn’t. For dry cold polar air at -60 deg C and 1 atm pressure, the concentration of CO2 is about 390 ppmv, and there is 22.3 mmoles per cubic meter. For dry hot desert air at +45 deg C and 1 atm pressure, the concentraion of CO2 is still about 390 ppmv but there is only 14.9 mmoles of CO2 per cubic meter.
As I have said many times here and elsewhere, in real air there is no uniform distribution of the mass of the atmosphere as shown by weather maps. High pressure cells have more regional mass than do low pressure cells and these are always on the move somtimes quite rapidly.
Presence of water vapor lowers the density of dry air and hence the amount of CO2 in that air.
Clouds contain dissolved atmospheric gases and can alter the local concentation of CO2 as they move about. Rain can transport CO2 out of the air to the surface.
Satellite images show there is no uniform distribution of clouds.
Atmospheric tides will alter the mass distribution of the atmosphere as the earth rotates and as the moon orbits the earth.
Based upon the results of climate model calculations of a virtual atmophere and earth, I now pay a carbon tax of ca $1 per gigajoule of nat gas which costs ca $5 per gigajoule in BC. And I don’t like it.
Both terms, down welling and back radiation, seem less than appropriate to me. Retarded up welling or outgoing radiation is more descriptive. The loss of heat is just slowed, its direction of flow in not reversed.
Latent heat at phase change is interesting, but by my back of the envelop calculations it is small relative to albedo. Latent heat of vaporization/condensation is larger than heat of fusion and the annual heat loss to condensation is on the order of 1 ZetaJoule while reflected radiation by cloud cover is about 30 times that (my rough calculations). Considering both, precipitation proxies should give a fair indication of past climate change. I know someone has done that, I just haven’t stumbled upon a good study yet. Yes, there are tons of hydrological reconstructions for various regions. And yes, there are plenty of reconstructions that lump a bunch of proxies together to estimate past temperatures. There are few that try to calibrate individual proxies to precipitation first then combine to estimate past global precipitation. I just have not found one that attempts to reconstruct global past precipitation and relate that to past global climate. Pay walls block a lot of interesting looking papers.
Come you guys! Not only is the number of pro-warming articles falling through the floor, but there just aren’t enough people willing to speak up for the warmist view to go around. Every time I find a decent news article on global warming, I find a dozen or so people have already done over some poor lone global warmer. Come on you guys! Buck your ideas up – it is really getting boring for us sceptics outside in the real world.
I’m slowly going through your paper…I note the following in your recent paper
“Although it has been suggested that such interpolation is unreliable owing to the distances involved1, large spatial scales are not inherently problematic if there is high spatial coherence, as is the case in continental Antarctica4.”
The reference “4” lead me to your paper “RECENT CLIMATE VARIABILITY IN ANTARCTICA FROM SATELLITE-DERIVED TEMPERATURE DATA”
Where you have an earlier attempt at establishing Antarctic temperatures.
“We examine the relationship between surface temperature variability and atmospheric circulation through comparison of the empirical modes of the satellite data sets with NCEP-NCAR reanalysis geopotential height anomalies at the 500-hPa level. We show that, overall, the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) explains the greatest variance in Antarctic temperatures.”
And whilst the correlation between the SAM and your reconstructed temperature during the calibration period against the SAM is quite good, outside the calibration period it is remarkably bad.
Your Figure “6” in that paper claims a high correlation between the reconstructed temperature and the inverted SAM index
The text for that diagram reads..
“Smoothed versions (annual mean) of reconstructed temperature PC1 (solid blue line) and the inverted SAM index (dotted red line). Note that while the correlation between the two series is positive, the trends diverge.”
My understanding is that you shouldn’t be correlating smoothed curves. Perhaps you aren’t but that not what is implied. And even with the smoothed curve correlation, it only appears to be a strong correlation in the calibration period.
Now I accept that you look at several other influences apart from the SAM but you state
“However, we show that the second most important influence is not simply described by ENSO directly, but rather, reflects a combination of patterns previously referred to as the Pacific South American and wavenumber-3 patterns.”
If you’re putting the poor correlation down to increased influence from these, then how is it that these should be so much more important outside your calibration period?
So its not at all obvious your earlier paper exhibits high spacial coherence in continental Antarctica at all.
[Response: Tim, do you really think I have time to reply in detail about an old paper?–eric]
LOL LOL LOL
Tamino at 216
I posted the comment about the Russians’ book 3 times on you blog and you whacked it. Ditto for Joe Romm’s blog. I have posted this comment on several other blogs I frequently visit (WUWT, Climate Etc, Sceptical Scienc, Deltoid, etc.) and it wasn’t whacked. I posted the comment on your blog because I thought you would be interested in the math of their stochastic model of climate fluctations in Chapter 7 and give an assesment of the their methodolgy. You didn’t do this. So what is your evaluation of the math of their model?
RE: More Info on Fish Cycles
You should check “Fish Cycle Page” in the post “FAO Smarter than IPCC” at Alan Cheetam’s website:
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/
As I stated on JC’s “Climate Etc”: “This is _the_ “One stop, shop until you drop” store for global warming and climate change info.”
You claim the climate is still warming. I’m not convinced. In the last few years annual means temperatures at the remote Quatsino and Estevan, BC
have dropped back to the chilly level of the early 1900’s
Re: #259 (Jim Steele) Gee, I thought you were serious about wanting to know so I actually answered your question. Now it seems you just don’t like the answer because it interferes with your intention to use the “dynamical changes” to jump on the “it’s all natural variations!” bandwagon. The “political noise” is coming from you.
I was very serious. I did not see your post when I submitted my post #260 (that you refer to as #259, probably due to another post getting interjected). Perhaps our messages were just 2 ships crossing in the night.
Tamino you stated: “There are lots of fluctuations and lots of dynamical processes, but over the entire globe and over long time spans it’s the changes in energy inputs that dominate the trend. This is clear from paleoclimate reconstructions of the last few thousand years, and from glacial cycles over the last several million years.”
I most definitely agree it is energy input that dominates over long time spans and have never argued otherwise. But how long? And to estimate temperature increases due to the energy input separate from temperature changes arising from other variability we need to understand the magnitude and frequency of those oscillations. Even Keeling as well as Wunsch suggested ~1300 lunar tidal cycles mixing cold arctic bottom water to describe the 10,000 year coolng trend. The PDO and NAO are 30-40+ year trends which have explained much of the recent warming See Hurrell. Part of the problem is we are arguing without defining the time scale. (How about deep ocean trends of thousands of years? Too much unkown there for me)
So by energy input, we need to determine how powerful is the energy input from CO2 changes versus solar and most of that is currently done by claiming what is left over from what is assumed to be perfect knowledge of all the other factors. CO2 without any negative or positive feedbacks can not describe the recent trends. Any CO2 argument depends on feedbacks and thus we are back to understanding confounding oscillations.
We often compare the 50 year Keeling curve to recent warming? But how much of the PDO and NAO effects are being claimed as CO2 input effects? So as you point out, I looked at longer paleoclimate data and I don’t always see the correlations you claim. Leaving lag effects observed in the glacial –interglacial records aside, explain how using GISP2 data we have a ~7-9000 year cooling trend with a 3 C drop, while using Epic CO2 data CO2 was increasing from 260-280? Putting aside any dynamical responses for the warming periods, rising CO2 was overwhelmed by solar or what” during that cooling period?
Bob (Sphaerica) says: #265 Re: 2) The fact that we can’t account for all heat is an excuse that deniers may not use for inaction or for arguing against a logical, reasoned and considered climate theory.
Bob, such circular reasoning is what invigorates skeptics like me that you like to denigrate as deniers. Science works because inconsistencies and confounding factors are challenged thus leading to a better understanding. There is no other way! You try to thwart that process by characterizing any challenge to an inconsistency as the obfuscation of deniers. I submit your protective circular reasoning is doing more to debase the scientific process than any skeptical arguments.
So maybe you too can explain how using GISP2 data the ~7-9000 year cooling trend with a 3 C drop, is driven by increasing CO2 from 260-280?
Ray #270 says “You are commiting a fundamental sin against the scientific method–you are trying to explian the unknown in terms of the unknown” Ray you always reach for some form of this characterization attack. I have done no such thing.
I am trying to better define the known by separating out any confounding factors. Separating confounding factors is what separates hunches from scientific analysis. I have attributed the recent 100 year rise in temps mostly to a combination of known solar increase modulated by ocean oscillations as best described to date. A simple numerical model using known sunspots and known PDO changes and a 22 year lag time produces the observed temperature trends since 1900.
I also have stated known CO2 correlations fail over the past 9000 year ice core record.
So using the known Ray, you too can explain how using GISP2 data the ~7-9000 year cooling trend with a 3 C drop, is driven by increasing CO2 from 260-280?
Marcus says #281 “One would expect oceanic cooling sustaining atmospheric warming. Instead we see warming of the oceans, for instance:”
I mostly agree and that’s why I think the next 20 years of ARGO data will be very telling. Right now ARGO suggests no warming of the oceans as one would expect with the down turn in solar activity. Also if you look at vertical cross sections of the western Pacifica Warm Pool you notice that there was a large heat anomaly that built up from 1960-1975,(solar input peaked during that time) and then right around the time of the PDO 1976 regime shift ,the warm anomaly cools, or should I say vented its heat. See Mehta’s presentation http://www.crces.org/presentations/dmv_ipwp/ (Just a few “knowns” for Ray) The reason I say mostly agree, is that most of the deep ocean and thus its heat content are not well characterized. The upper 3.5 meters of ocean alone contain the same heat as the total atmosphere. I am sure we still have much to learn from the oceans and surprises will still occur.
Hank,
I am not sure of all the parameters used in Shindell and Gavin’s model, but I don’t think their study would apply to the question at hand which is specific to the southpole during the winter half year. They suggested that ozone and GHG’s were affecting the SAM. Regards seasonality ozone hole effects are greatest in the spring. Regards location while studies have shown a correlation with ozone and coastal temperatures, the correlation does not hold at the southpole and other interior sites. Finally their study suggests as ozone improves and GHG’s increase their should be a warming trend but since 2004 there is no detectable trend with 3 months averaging slightly warmer and 3 months slightly cooler, with maximum cooling July cooling by a full degree, and maximum warming in June by 0.5 degree.
Although I think the SAM index affects many processes in Antarctica the effects appear more distinct nearer the coast
Speaking of theoreticians with no sense of practicality, it’s a little off to describe a work from the 1970s as a “20-year old book”. Well, there are three kinds of mathematician: those who can count and those who count.
[Edit. Resorting to threats of personal intimidation against scientists eh? Was only a matter of time frankly. Thanks for including your name in your email address.–Jim]
“…maybe Dyson has a thing or two to learn about the biodiversity of unmanaged ecosystems.”
This supposes two mistaken views of ecology and possibly one ethical proposition. First, that “unmanaged” ecosystems are a viable option – which they are not; and second, that nature, sans humanity, would be in classical Clementsian balance. The mathematical approximations that “ecosystems” truly are far more variable, unstable, and evolving than the populist vision; this false idealization of nature “before the Fall” informs most environmental activists commitment to the cause, including combating man-made climate change.
Finally, there is the ethical view of eco-centrists that is straightforwardly religious: nature is best off unmolested by humanity. This view, while rarely shared explicitly, affects most public debates, including the one here.
Therefore there is another answer, given short-shrift here: that Dyson is not only pro-humanistic, but also understands ecology in its scientific sense as a limited field (for example, see R. H. Peters, “A Critique For Ecology”), and rejects its religious rationalizations. Hence, his skepticism of global warming alarm is consistent with these other scientifically informed views.
Hi, I hear from WUWT that there’s a real cool party going on in the bore hole, can I join?
Can you please put a link to the borehole thread on your homepage. Finally, the general public gets to read some genuine scientific discussion on this website.
“…maybe Dyson has a thing or two to learn about the biodiversity of unmanaged ecosystems.” Douglas Watt’s comments that his and Ray Kurzweil’s positions “…all seems like desperate escapism.”
While the non-monocultural advantages are definitely real, this criticism of Dyson also pre-supposes two mistaken views of ecology – as well as one controversial ethical proposition.
First, that “unmanaged” ecosystems are a viable option – which they are not. And second, that nature, sans humanity, would be in classical Clementsian balance. The mathematical approximations that “ecosystems” truly constitute are far more variable, unstable, and evolving than the populist vision believes. This false idealization of nature “before the Fall” informs most environmental activists commitment to the cause, including combating man-made climate change.
Finally, there is the ethical view of eco-centrists that is straight-forwardly religious: nature is best off unmolested by humanity. Humanity is a plague upon “Gaia,” and vulnerable “space-ship earth” ought to be worshipped instead. This view, while rarely advanced explicitly, affects most public environmental debates, including the one here.
Therefore, there is a different and important answer to the issue raised here: that Dyson is not only pro-humanistic because people are part of nature, but that he also grasps that ecology is a field of scientific limitations (for example, see R. H. Peters, “A Critique For Ecology”), he rejects its religious rationalizations and rationalizers. Hence, Dyson’s skepticism of global warming alarm is consistent with these other scientifically informed views.
TO GAVIN OR OTHER MODERATORS: Checking back several hours later, I am unsurprised to find my “8:58” number “14” comment deleted (revised for clarity above). Inconvenient facts are stubborn things. I am “unsurprised” because among fellow environmental and earth scientists here in the Boulder, Colorado area, realclimate.org is well-known to be censorial, petty, and disengaged from the larger substantive issues faced in science and and by society.
I guess Gavin, et all, are still too spooked to engage with what Curry dubs “the uncertainty monster,” even when your blog posts invite its re-consideration. Well, “good to know!” as they say – I’ll be sure to spread the word (once more-again). Clearly, our web-site’s declining success in outreach is not in jeopardy.
“As we did roughly a year ago (and as we will probably do every year around this time)”
At the rate global temperatures are going down do you seriously think you will be around this time next year?
Hi Raymond, I have tried to reply to you a few times but for some reason the posts are deleted. Your typical response is to simply pronounce that my idea is “not science” without further substantiation. The thing is I also have a theory and it often explains things better than yours, and instead of just making this claim, I will provide 2 examples that we could debate. To be fair you too should choose 2 examples.
First explain how using GISP2 data we since ~9000 BP a cooling trend with a 3 C drop, while simultaneously, using Epic CO2 data CO2 was increasing from 260-280? Second why did the Arctic warm with a more rapid rate in the 30’s and 40s than in the present (see Bengstonn 2004).
HAHAHAH. Scientists 27, you self-serving douchnozzles 0. And the score just keeps piling up.
Can you please please setup another blog totally dedicated to the things you don’t like to discuss on this site. You could call it something like The Borehole.
Seems like everybody is talking about that in the real world – is it a ploy to improve your visitor numbers?
Did any of you commenters even read Dyson’s essay????
So you are too cowardly to let my posts even stand?
And you wonder why your traffic volume is going down, and why people more and more see you for the coward you are?
What a self-parody this site has become.
The mice are nibbling at the feet of a Giant. The CO2-AGW Dogma has that Western Culture must castrate itself, Why not a future that allows infinite growth instead, nearly infinite wealth available for Earth-bound and Space-dwelling descendants. A few Solar sails installed between the Sun and the Earth would cost a fraction of a silly carbon free future.
50 I don’t want a geriatric Physicist controlling my life, nor a few thousand deluded climate scientists that have yet too prove their belief in CO2 forced AGW.
Where did the CO2 go the last several times it has exceeded the present Ppm’s? The vast majority is tied up in limestone deposits, followed by biomass-coal. Hmmm The old doc isn’t completely nuts.
Fifty posts and NO SCIENCE FACTS OR THEORIES–just ad hominem attacks on a man that helped keep the West free and whose work has added billions of dollars of wealth through applications of his work.
Other then the Unicorn traders of Cap & Steal Carbon indulgences has the “science” of CO2 forced AGW produced any wealth or the pedaling fear mongering coming of the Climate Armageddon plup fiction?
On the other hand (13) Freeman Dyson and your colleagues might be right.
Here are some temperature statistics you may have missed.
The Central England temperature record is the longest continuous record available, measured by thermometers. In 1659, the heart of the Little Ice Age, the annual average temperature was 8.83 degrees C.
The population then was about 5 million.
After 351 years, the (coal-fired) industrial revolution, almost total forest clearing, population growth to 60 millions, and vast urban development the average temperature in 2010 was 8.83 degrees C.
Yes, but, of course it is the trend that counts, not isolated years which are only weather.
The overall trend to date is just 0.25 degrees per century; per century, not per decade.
Yes but one small island may not be typical. The global temperatures show much more warming. Well, HardCru data goes back to 1850, 161 years. The warming trend overall is just 0.45 degrees C per century, with 95% confidence limits between 0.4 and 0.5 degrees C.
Most of that warming has appeared in the last 35 years (1.7 degrees per century). From 1850 to 1975 the trend was a very modest 0.25 degrees C per century, with 95% confidence limits between 0.19 and 0.3 degrees per century.
As for the fundamental Physics, we are often told to look at the cold, dry, upper atmosphere for the radiative TOA effects on which warming depends. The warming trend should be more obvious up there. Well, the UAH mid troposphere trend is 0.5 degrees per century; the lower troposphere trend is almost three times greater at 1.4 degrees C per century.
Yes, but, the upper troposphere warming is masked by the stratosphere cooling, which is the AGW footprint. Sadly, the HADAT radiosonde data shows no stratospheric cooling over the past 30 years.
I would take Dyson’s view over 100 self named climate scientists who seem only able to fiddle the figures.
He is a giant compared to the pygmies that run this censored site.
Also I notice that you are still using the term ‘denier’.
So much for that ‘new era of civility’, I suppose.
Tis a good thing, what you’ve done here.
I found it also good that you have acknowledged that there is a creeping possibility of ‘bullying’ within the review process, one in which editors are counted on to separate, and/or give the authors the last word.
I would submit that “The fact that a number of my colleagues and many otherwise intelligent-seeming people still seem to treat these guys as legitimate, honest commenters, whose words have equal weight with, say, those of Susan Solomon or J. Michael Wallace, or, for that matter, Gavin Schmidt or Mike Mann or myself.” or other such statements would create an environment where editors (if they buy-in to the thinking), would have some element of bais that may result in ‘gate-keeping’.
If authors then decide in the face of this, as you suggest, to take their manuscript elsewhere…then now we have a new term for ‘gray literature’ that further disparages the work.
It is difficult to square the various statements encouraging this sort-of gauntlet run through peer-review that everyone must do, despite also admitting that you do not the science permitting potential publications to all approach the batter’s box equally.
But, it is a very good thing that all these statements are all together in one place.
“First, I never suggested to the authors that they use ‘iridge’.”
The reviewer comment attributed to you, posted by O’Donnell:
“My recommendation is that the editor insist that results showing the ‘mostly likely’ West Antarctic trends be shown in place of Figure 3. [these were the ridge regression results] While the written text does acknowledge that the rate of warming in West Antarctica is probably greater than shown, it is the figures that provide the main visual ‘take home message’ that most readers will come away with. I am not suggesting here that kgnd = 5 will necessarily provide the best estimate, as I had thought was implied in the earlier version of the text. Perhaps, as the authors suggest, kgnd should not be used at all, but the results from the ‘iridge’ infilling should be used instead. . . . ”
The comment is not directed “to the authors,” but seems to be rather clearly a recommendation that the disputed procedure be included in the paper.
Was this initial comment made by another reviewer? Is the parenthetical inaccurate? Or is there another explanation for its meaning other than that a recommendation that the authors should include the iridge procedure in their paper, as O’Donnell claimed?
We finaly have a solution for the Team.NASA climate programs being eyed for the budget axe
Great news to the lay man. I have already written my rep’s to defund the alarmist at Giss, Real Climate and anything to do with CLIMATE !!
#365 Wayne, check out my comment on #323. Here’s the graph:
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/filter_er_10yr-g6l8y.jpg
Maybe Joe (#366) can explain the apparent “flattening” over the last few years? With all the CO2, shouldn’t the temp be accelerating upward?