[Zelandakh]

Al_U_Card, on 2012-June-03, 09:45, said:

but I did catch on that methods etc. were critically dependent on not being subjected to selection criteria, if biased by response expectations rather than technical considerations.

A selection criteria is completely standard in PCA because the method is often sensitive to the effects of outliers. The difficulty is in selecting which data points represent outliers. Expectation bias can certainly have an effect here and therefore I personally think it is necessary for peer reviewers to have access to the (original) data sets to be able to do their job thoroughly. This is usually not the case at present.

Al_U_Card, on 2012-June-03, 09:45, said:

Are the current methods used by alarmistsscientists viable and valuable?
Should they be more rigorous given the stakes?

Yes and (imho) yes.

[PassedOut]

Human-induced global ocean warming on multidecadal timescales

Quote

Recent identification of systematic instrumental biases in expendable bathythermograph data has led to improved estimates of ocean temperature variability and trends and provide motivation to revisit earlier detection and attribution studies. We examine the causes of ocean warming using these improved observational estimates, together with results from a large multimodel archive of externally forced and unforced simulations. The time evolution of upper ocean temperature changes in the newer observational estimates is similar to that of the multimodel average of simulations that include the effects of volcanic eruptions. Our detection and attribution analysis systematically examines the sensitivity of results to a variety of model and data-processing choices. When global mean changes are included, we consistently obtain a positive identification (at the 1% significance level) of an anthropogenic fingerprint in observed upper-ocean temperature changes, thereby substantially strengthening existing detection and attribution evidence.

And in other news, cigarette smoking does cause cancer. And George Bush did not demolish the WTC.

[luke warm]

i believe some of you are gonna be still hollering about agw even in the midst of the coming ice age...

[Al_U_Card]

PassedOut, on 2012-June-12, 09:17, said:

Human-induced global ocean warming on multidecadal timescales


And in other news, cigarette smoking does cause cancer. And George Bush did not demolish the WTC.

From that same paper:


Although there are no significant differences between the ΔT trends (which range from 0.022 to 0.028 °C per decade) in the three improved observational data sets, Fig. 1a illustrates that substantial structural uncertainties remain.

Bob Tisdale has quite the body of work concerning ocean temps and the lack of "skill" that the various climate models have regarding this subject. Once again, most of the anthropogenic expectation is generated by:

together with results from a large multimodel archive of externally forced and unforced simulations. The time evolution of upper ocean temperature changes in the newer observational estimates is similar to that of the multimodel average of simulations that include the effects of volcanic eruptions.

With the latest hullaballoo concerning the Gergis paper about SHHS (Southern Hemisphere Hockey Sticks) being withdrawn for yet again using bogus statistical analysis to generate the desired conclusion, our climate science friends are just the gift that keeps on giving. The whole mess is nicely described at Climate Audit, WUWT, Bishop Hill and JoNova.

Statistical malfeasance, the climate crime of the century?

[Al_U_Card]

Along the same lines:

No anthropogenic fingerprint 1984-2006

The indirect inference is that diminished ocean cooling due to vertical ocean processes played an important role in sustaining the observed positive trend in global SST from 1984 through 2006, despite the decrease in global surface heat flux. A similar situation is found in the individual basins, though magnitudes differ. A conclusion is that natural variability, rather than long term climate change, dominates the SST and heat flux changes over this 23 year period. On shorter time scales the relationship between SST and heat flux exhibits a variety of behaviors.

Journal of Climate 2012 early online release


From Dr. Judith Curry's blog. Darn that settled science.

[PassedOut]

Obama accepts the science on climate change, but Romney is harder to read: Mitt Romney worked to combat climate change as governor

Quote

During his first 18 months as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney spent considerable time hammering out a sweeping climate change plan to reduce the state's greenhouse gas emissions.

As staff briefed him on possible measures and environmentalists pressed him to act, Romney frequently repeated a central thought, people at those meetings said: That climate change is occurring, that the United States has the resources to handle its vast impact but that low-lying poor countries like Bangladesh would suffer greatly.

"It was like a mantra with him," said a person who attended those meetings who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the topic. "His Cabinet members would look at him like, 'What?' He was the radical in the room."

Before doing an about-face toward the end of his term as he began to prepare for his first run for president, Romney pushed to close old coal-fired plants, encourage the development of renewable energy and contain sprawl — steps similar to some President Obama has taken.

Indeed, one of Romney's top environmental staffers, Gina McCarthy, now runs the air pollution unit of the Environmental Protection Agency under Obama. John Holdren, a scientist Romney turned to on at least one occasion to discuss climate change, is the White House senior advisor on science and technology issues.

Romney's gubernatorial record on energy and the environment has little in common with the positions he has staked out in the presidential race, those who knew him in Massachusetts say.

Perhaps if Romney wins the election he'll shake the etch-a-sketch again and regain his concern for our planet. We can hope...

[Al_U_Card]

And you may have noticed that CONEG (the North-Eastern Governors responsible for that legislation) have been dropping out of the carbon parts as they become aware of the farce that is CO2-based agenda-driven impoverishment of our society.

If there is hope for our planet, it is in real science and not the pseudo-science of crypto-phrenology known as climate "science". (As far as hockey stick generation is concerned.)

[Daniel1960]

Perhaps the politicians (i.e. Romney, et. al.) are simply following the trend set by some of the environmental scientists, such as James Lovelock.

http://www.guardian....iew-gaia-theory

[PassedOut]

US experts predict higher sea level rise: study

Quote

By 2100, the NRC estimates that global sea levels will rise between 20-55 inches (50 and 140 centimeters).

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's projection in 2007 had predicted a fraction of that, at seven to 23 inches (18-59 centimeters) worldwide.

Researchers said the wide range within each estimate is due to increasing uncertainty about sea level projections as they attempt to assess what may happen further and further into the future.

In the near term, the NRC predicted a global sea level rise of three to nine inches (eight to 23 centimeters) by 2030 (over the 2000 level) and seven to 19 inches (18 to 48 centimeters) by 2050.

...

The NRC study was jointly sponsored by the states of California, Washington and Oregon, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the US Geological Survey.

Polled individually, none of the authors blamed George Bush for the collapse of the WTC on 9/11. And none of them smoke cigarettes.

[Daniel1960]

Interesting, 9 inches by 2030 over 2000? Since 1993, the global trend has been ~3mm/yr, while that has tailed off to less than half that since 2003. Even at the highest rate, sea level rise by 2030 would only be 1.2 inches(30mm). In order to reach that projection, sea level would need to rise 175mm in the next 18 years, or an annual rate of ~10mm/yr. This appears unsustainable based on the data. Sea level would need to accelerate to even greater rates to reach some of the mroe extreme predicted levels of 3-5 feet.

http://pielkeclimate...l_ns_global.png

[Al_U_Card]

Daniel1960, on 2012-June-24, 09:08, said:

Interesting, 9 inches by 2030 over 2000? Since 1993, the global trend has been ~3mm/yr, while that has tailed off to less than half that since 2003. Even at the highest rate, sea level rise by 2030 would only be 1.2 inches(30mm). In order to reach that projection, sea level would need to rise 175mm in the next 18 years, or an annual rate of ~10mm/yr. This appears unsustainable based on the data. Sea level would need to accelerate to even greater rates to reach some of the mroe extreme predicted levels of 3-5 feet.

http://pielkeclimate...l_ns_global.png

Put another way:


If at first you don't succeed, lie, lie again.

When will they ever get tired of trotting out those climate-modeled projections with so much "uncertainty"? Oh, right, those ones ARE NOT CATASTROPHIC, just realistic.

[PassedOut]

Warmer seas rising faster on U.S. east coast than elsewhere

Quote

Sea levels are rising much faster along the U.S. east coast than they are around the globe, putting some of the world's most prized coastal properties in danger of flooding, government researchers report.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists call the 965-kilometre swath a "hot spot" for climbing sea levels caused by global warming.

Along the region, the Atlantic Ocean is rising at an annual rate three to four times faster than the global average since 1990, according to the study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

It's not just a faster rate, but at a faster pace, like a car on a highway "jamming on the accelerator," said the study's lead author, Asbury Sallenger Jr., an oceanographer at the agency. He looked at sea levels starting in 1950 and noticed a change beginning in 1990.

Since then, sea levels have gone up globally about 5 centimetres. But in Norfolk, Va., where officials are scrambling to fight more frequent flooding, the sea level has jumped a total of 12.19 centimetres, the research showed. For Philadelphia, levels went up 9.4 centimetres, and in New York City, it was 7.11 centimetres.

Climate change pushes up sea levels because it causes ice sheets in Greenland and west Antarctica to melt and because warmer water expands.

Computer models long have projected higher levels along parts of the U.S. east coast because of changes in ocean currents from global warming, but this is the first study to show that's already happened.

Real estate investors are taking note.

[Zelandakh]

Surprised noone has mentioned Lake El'gygytgyn yet. The new research seems to give grist for the mill of both sides. Are the ice sheets imminently about to collapse causing massive positive feedbacks or is the melting part of the natural (~400000 year) cycle and therefore completely normal and unrelated to AGW? I daresay we will be seeing this data used to produce some more concrete results in due course. It would certainly be interesting to see a graph using the latest data from both poles as proxies and comparing this with the tree ring proxy graphs.

[Al_U_Card]

Zelandakh, on 2012-June-26, 04:00, said:

Surprised noone has mentioned Lake El'gygytgyn yet. The new research seems to give grist for the mill of both sides. Are the ice sheets imminently about to collapse causing massive positive feedbacks or is the melting part of the natural (~400000 year) cycle and therefore completely normal and unrelated to AGW? I daresay we will be seeing this data used to produce some more concrete results in due course. It would certainly be interesting to see a graph using the latest data from both poles as proxies and comparing this with the tree ring proxy graphs.

At least the ice cores have a basis in fact (chemically and physically) from which temperature signals can be separated out with a modicum of math. The tree-rings....there is the rub. They are so subject to other factors that dubious statistical methods are required to generate signals whose noise is so high and whose response is so subject to method that they should not be compared to the cores.

Sea levels are interesting in their own right because of the isostatic adjustments needed to keep the rate rising at previous levels (so something has slowed...)but at least tide gauges and coastal subsidence can be checked and show that some predictions are less valid than others.

Speaking of methods, yet again, a seminal study on climate sensitivity by Forest et al 2006 (the famous 3 degrees of warming per doubling of [CO2]) is being checked for veracity and...wait for it...the author refused to show his work and has now lost the data! When this one goes down and CS turns out to be low enough to explain the "difference" between modeled scenarios and reality...we may finally be able to leave the [CO2] monster in peace and get back to the government wasting our money on valid environmental pursuits.

[Daniel1960]

Yes, tidal gauges are a good check on sea level predictions. Just as long as a representative sample is used, and not overrealiance on higher or lower values, not to mention other local factors which are completely independent of mean sea level rise. I do not know if the recent slowing of sea level rise is indicative of a larger decelleration, or simply a response to the cooling of late. There is always the recent Pokhrel paper claiming that the additional 1 mm/yr rise in mean sea level is due to groundwater use.

Nice graphic Al.

[Al_U_Card]

A most interesting comment concerning Dr. Paul Bain's paper in Nature.

rational vs. gullible

I gather you feel that evidence about “the science” is not the point because you are studying the social policy? To which I would ask: Can social policies change the climate, or does climate change our social policies? Is reality the tide gauge results, or the council zoning? Dare I suggest that the point of all the evidence you published rests entirely on the evidence for man-made global warming (that base assumption) that you have not investigated? If there is no empirical evidence for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, or if the formerly convincing evidence has changed* there is the mystery solved of the rise of the deniers, right then and there. Deniers are the ones following reality.


One group in our society thinks it can change the weather (you call these “believers”), the other half of the population are not convinced (you call these the “deniers”). The believers have not yet named any empirical evidence to back up their ambitious claims, yet expect the deniers to pay $1,000-$2,000 per household per annum in Australia. The believers want money from the deniers, while the “deniers” want evidence, data, logic and reason (and preferably a debate with good manners). Clearly these labels are inappropriate. Using standard English definitions, those who believe in phenomenon without evidence are gullible. Those who want evidence are rational.

[Al_U_Card]

Since all of the hullaballoo comes from modeled studies of climate effects, what does the peer-reviewed literature tell us about the consistency and accuracy of models and their ability to relate to non-instrumental periods of interest? (Granted, only past results are available for comparison but it is the other direction that creates all the fuss...)

Climate of the last millennium:ensemble consistency of simulations and reconstructions O. Bothe, J. H. Jungclaus, D. Zanchettin, and E. Zorita

From the abstract: (my bold)

The lack of consistency found in our analyses implies that, on the basis of the studied data sets, no status of truth can be assumed for climate evolutions on the considered spatial and temporal scales and, thus, assessing the accuracy of reconstructions and simulations is so far of limited feasibility in pre-instrumental periods.

So, send more money so that they can demand more money...right?

[Al_U_Card]

And in the meantime, what with all the data massaging going on, what were the BoM in Australia thinking? (Or on, for that matter.)

Going back in time to change results (for whatever reason) needs to be justified but also to be sensible. When you change sub-freezing temps to raise them a bit so that they are not so cold, better not forget to change the newspaper reports of the "third day of consecutive frosts" from back in the day. Warwick Smith is keeping an eye on them.

Frostgate

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2012-June-24, 16:42, said:

Put another way:


If at first you don't succeed, lie, lie again.

When will they ever get tired of trotting out those climate-modeled projections with so much "uncertainty"? Oh, right, those ones ARE NOT CATASTROPHIC, just realistic.

I'd like to use the following post as a useful example regarding why ad hominem attack is necessary on the internet.

Here, once again, we see an example where Al_U_Card is posting a badly flawed analysis, gussied up with a cute graphic.

It is well know that different locations in California experience changes in sea level very differently. In part this is due to the fact sea level change is impacted significantly by ocean currents. (This is why sea levels from the middle of North Carolina --> North are rising much more than other locations). California has another very important driver: All of the fault lines that cross that area. The primary reason that the sea level in San Francisco is not rising is that the land itself is buckling up at approximately the same rate that ocean levels are rising.

Lets turn to the chart that Al copies from "Watt's Up with That". This chart applies projections for sea level rise for the entire California Coast to one very specific region. I agree that the projections look fairly strange. However, the issue isn't with the underlying models, rather the results of the models are being deliberately misapplied in order to discredit the studies.

More simply put: This is yet another example where Al is deliberately posting a biased analysis to try to score cheap points.

This happens frequently enough that we can pretty much dismiss any / all posts by Al as a deliberate attempt to inject noise into the conversation.

Some people claim that its wrong to attack the source of information rather than the specifics. However, when the source is clearly biased and has a history of posting incorrect information, labeling the source as a ***** seems only right and proper.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2012-July-06, 06:24, said:

The primary reason that the sea level in San Francisco is not rising is that the land itself is buckling up at approximately the same rate that ocean levels are rising.

this is probably true... in any case, it rings true enough that i'm not going to bother checking it out... however, i don't see what it has to do w/ al's chart, unless the chart itself is fraudulent... the reddish line shows a sea level projection for san fran... do the people making this projection not know about the anomaly of which you speak? if so, why wouldn't they adjust their chart to take that into account?

now if the chart has been monkeyed with, that's a different story