Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/wp-commentsrss2.php?p=420
Preview: Comments for RealClimate

Comments for RealClimate



Climate science from climate scientists...



Last Build Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:33:32 +0000

 



Comment on Judy Curry’s attribution non-argument by JCH

Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:33:32 +0000

I prefer my WfT versions of the PDO and the GMST. Because I was drawing them long before this paper came out: Impact of decadal cloud variations on the Earth’s energy budget From the abstract: ... Specifically, the decadal cloud feedback between the 1980s and 2000s is substantially more negative than the long-term cloud feedback. This is a result of cooling in tropical regions where air descends, relative to warming in tropical ascent regions, which strengthens low-level atmospheric stability. Under these conditions, low-level cloud cover and its reflection of solar radiation increase, despite an increase in global mean surface temperature. These results suggest that sea surface temperature pattern-induced low cloud anomalies could have contributed to the period of reduced warming between 1998 and 2013, and offer a physical explanation of why climate sensitivities estimated from recently observed trends are probably biased low 4. Seen this way, the PDO, whatever the heck it is, lines up quite well throughout.



Comment on Predictable and unpredictable behaviour by Barton Paul Levenson

Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:01:26 +0000

Mike, you haven't answered my question. Why is the Earth's surface not frozen over? Do you understand why I'm asking this?



Comment on Judy Curry’s attribution non-argument by Barton Paul Levenson

Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:58:24 +0000

KIA: There can be no quantitative argument proving that AGW exists or doesn’t exist. BPL: Sure there can. You just can't think of one. But your failure of imagination says nothing about what other people can come up with. KIA: we only know the “global” temperature to even a rough degree of certainty for perhaps the past 50 to “maybe” 100 years – an insignificant period in the climate of earth. BPL: Thermometer records go back to the 1600s. Enough for a good estimate of global temperature go back to 1850, which by my calculation is 167 years ago. And for before that, we have proxies. Google "paleoclimatology." KIA: Before that, we have scattered, sparse records using instruments of questionable accuracy BPL: Questionable in what way? KIA: and “stories” of past climate warming and cooling periods. BPL: Not "stories." Inductions based on evidence. You know, the whole "science" thing. KIA: So we can’t even say we have warming today, much less that it is caused by humans. BPL: We have warming today, and it is caused by humans.



Comment on Predictable and unpredictable behaviour by MA Rodger

Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:56:45 +0000

Mike Flynn @194, Rather than see your unconstrained trolling in this comment thread, can we see what happens when we try a sensible approach to your commenting? You ask us "Do you think I am being unreasonable in wishing to see some experimental support for the supposed GHE?" From past experience, the answer is probably "Yes. It is evident that you are 'being unreasonable'." But let us ignore the past and turn a new leaf. You continue " Nobody can even say why the effect doesn’t seem to work in the dark, indoors, when it’s very cold, or very hot (as in the hottest places on Earth – characterised by a lack of the supposed GHG H2O), or inside a CO2 cylinder, and so on." (My bold) Is what you say correct? Taking the first part of this statement first, why do you say the greenhouse effect "doesn’t seem to work in the dark"?



Comment on Judy Curry’s attribution non-argument by kym horsell

Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:19:26 +0000

@35 Apparently we need to check the "correlate high frequency components please" box. :) http://woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/mean:30/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/mean:30/detrend:0.86/normalise As they say, hypothesis and observation diverge after '85.



Comment on Judy Curry’s attribution non-argument by Mr. Know It All

Fri, 21 Apr 2017 06:47:37 +0000

That last sentence would be more accurately written: "Doesn’t mean AGW isn’t real; it’s just that you can’t quantify it compared to the distant past." No, ice records are not accurate "thermometers".



Comment on Judy Curry’s attribution non-argument by Mr. Know It All

Fri, 21 Apr 2017 06:44:16 +0000

There can be no quantitative argument proving that AGW exists or doesn't exist. This is because we only know the "global" temperature to even a rough degree of certainty for perhaps the past 50 to "maybe" 100 years - an insignificant period in the climate of earth. Before that, we have scattered, sparse records using instruments of questionable accuracy and "stories" of past climate warming and cooling periods. So we can't even say we have warming today, much less that it is caused by humans. Doesn't mean AGW isn't real; it's just that you can't quantify it.

[Response: Lol. - gavin]




Comment on Unforced variations: Apr 2017 by Piotr

Fri, 21 Apr 2017 03:39:42 +0000

Digby (109) "So how many kinds of denier do we have now? Psychopaths — who know climate change is real but wage war on the science because mitigating climate change would hurt their profits. Anarchists — who detest any form of government regulation and foresee such regulation as part of climate action. Hedonists — who fear that climate action will curtail their current unsustainable lifestyle. Any other?" I can think of at least 3 other kinds: - Universal Conspiracy Theorists = a. k.a. people with the urgent psychological need to feel better about themselves: look, everybody else may get fooled, but not me, not me! Which means I must be smarter than everybody else, right? Favourite phrase when thinking about themselves: "fiercely independent". - Republican/Tea Party/"Alt right" - conservation is somethings Commies/Liberals care about, so we will oppose it as matter of principle, particularly that this will benefit our natural constituency (fossil fuel industrial complex). Two birds with a single stone! Take that you tree-huggers! - Religious Believer- for instance: Rep. (R) John Shimkus, Illinois, the Chairman of the United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Environment:"I believe that is the infallible word of God, and that's the way it is going to be for his creation. The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood." and quotes his (peer-reviewed?) source ("the Book of Genesis, Chapter 8, Verse 22") "[The Subcommitee Rep. John Shimkus chairs is a part of] the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the oldest standing committees of the United States House of Representatives, established in 1795. It takes a central role in formulating U.S. policy on climate change and global warming."(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328366/John-Shimkus-Global-warming-wont-destroy-planet-God-promised-Noah.html) The right person in the right place ... ;-)



Comment on Judy Curry’s attribution non-argument by Hank Roberts

Fri, 21 Apr 2017 03:30:17 +0000

For Keith Woolard, who forgot to check two boxes in his Woodfortrees chart. You were relying on your eyeballs, weren't you? http://woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/scale:3/trend



Comment on Judy Curry’s attribution non-argument by Keith Woollard

Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:43:12 +0000

I think you all (Zebra, Kym and Eric)have completely missed the point of my comments. I am not defending Dr Curry, I am not claiming that the PDO "causes" climate change. There was a blatant error in Nigelj's comment. I simply pointed this out. Sure you can filter the time series and get a different result as both Kym and Zebra have done but there is a clear correlation in the medium and high frequencies. This is meant to be a science blog, let's call errors any time they occur, not just when "the red team" make them.