Last Build Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:16:10 +0000
Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:16:10 +0000Oh my goodness. Quite a stir in the Force:) Firstly a search of 'historic global temperatures' reveals oodles of info showing an increase from the little ice age and middle ages warm period that precede it and we still have a way to go to get back to the warmer times. I choice an IPCC one as you might accept that: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf 7.2 Palaeo-Climatic Variations and Change: Figure 7.1. Also read the narrative which also supports. Secondly, let's not get off topic. My initial comment was to say that temperature rise is not the issue. As far as I know it never has been and was expected. The issue is around what I understand is called 'sensitivity', links to 'climate change', 'extreme events', 'ignoring the benefits' etc. I think focusing on those links would be good.
Wed, 18 Jan 2017 07:45:10 +0000Re #86 and #92. Thank you Tony. From https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt, the mean GISS anomoly from 1880 to 1920 was -0.2693 (and from 1951-1980 it was zero, as expected). So to convert GISS base 1951-1980 to base 1880-1920, add 0.27 degrees.
Wed, 18 Jan 2017 07:13:11 +0000Wonderful Mark. Thank you for taking the time to present this here. And for the commitment and hard work over years that led up to it. The biggest men and women with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest men and women with the smallest minds. Think big anyway. Give the world the best you have and you'll get kicked in the teeth. Give the world the best you have anyway. http://www.paradoxicalcommandments.com
Wed, 18 Jan 2017 01:36:46 +0000Keith @220: Now you're just making me laugh. You mentioned nyquist, first at #172. You then doubled down in #179, saying that "you need to sample that waveform twice". In #184, I pointed you to a source (Tamino) that showed that nyquist is not a limiting factor in all cases - it provides evidence that you can (in at least some cases) detect sub-nyquist cycles when doing a Fourier transform on randomly-spaced data. You then tripled-down in # 185 when you said "I know to do an FT or an FFT requires a constant sample rate, and therefore there is an implied strict Nyquist frequency.". In #194, I pointed out that FT does not require a constant sample rate, to which you replied in #199 that "I know you can transform with non-evenly spaced samples. ...and now in #220, you just dismiss the Tamino posts as "not very relevant" and create a strawman of what Tamino posts and try to dismiss it. It is easy to see that the one thing that is surely "not very relevant" is your posts.
Tue, 17 Jan 2017 23:29:41 +0000I really don’t care. I knew that already. But thanks anyway. :-)
Tue, 17 Jan 2017 23:27:47 +0000Arctic temps are still 10-14 degrees kelvin above 1958-2002 Mean this january graph http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1611.0;attach=40488 Meanwhile Pooling melt waters are increasing in antarctica regions (they say) eg images here http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1827.msg97381.html#msg97381
Tue, 17 Jan 2017 23:24:15 +0000fwiw very short video by Jennifer Francis about the New Arctic Feedback/s from AGU late 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_EzF4k9_QY and a reminder (as far as I am aware from reading Gavin et al here as one example) that in the IPCC reports/RCPs including 2013 AR5 no feedbacks of any kind are included in any future scenarios be it temps, ice extent, co2, ch4, water vapor etc. cheers
Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:51:52 +0000Is Titus just a copypaster, or is Titus able to identify the sources for what Titus believes? Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense - Scientific Americanhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/.../seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense/
Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:51:43 +0000Hi Stefan, In your item you say – ‘If you look at the black arrows, do you have the impression that the 0.71 ° C temperature difference is mainly due to data adjustments? Because the arrow on the right is three times longer than that on the left? Far from it – can you spot the trick? In the vertical axis, 0.3 ° C is missing in the middle!’ I’ve looked and I must admit that I’m having trouble seeing what you are referring to. What I see is that the January 1910 temperature has been cooled from the reported temperature of –0.26oC (2008) to –0.45oC (2016). At the same time the January 2000 temperature has been increased from 0.17C (2008) to 0.26C in 2016. So to me the graphic is correct i.e. Corrections applied by GISS have increased the difference between the January 1910 and January 2000 temperature from 0.43C in 2008 to 0.71C in 2016. I’m not sure what value including 0.3C in the vertical axis would have as it would only appear at the top of the axis on which the 2000 temperature is plotted - and not as you suggest in the middle (i.e. between the 1910 and 2000 plot). Is there really a trick here? If there is, then I have truly been duped! You go on to say “The January 1910 shown is the month with the second largest downward correction, obviously cherry-picked from the 1,643 months of the data series.” I’m not familiar with the GISS temperature series and the adjustments made. However, it is interesting to note that you indicate that the adjustments to the Jan 1910 temperature isn’t the greatest downward adjustment made. It raises the question as to how many records have been adjusted. Is the upward adjustment to the 2000 data typical of the scale of adjustments made or, as with the Jan 1910 data, are there data with even larger adjustments? It’s a naive question, and I’m asking from a position of ignorance, but is there no means of leaving the past fixed and adjusting only the most current record to account for time of recording, site change etc. etc.? In doing so you will avoid the claim (legitimate or otherwise) that you are creating an artificially steep warming trend by cooling the past and warming the present (most recent).
Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:45:34 +0000Titus #19: Check out Marcott &al. 2013 (Science 339(6124):1198-1201) on temperature records for the past 11,300 years. Current global temperatures are warmer than about 75% of temps over that period. Stefan had a post discussing this in September 2013. Recent anthropogenic warming has rocketed far above what might be expected from recovering from the Little Ice Age.