[hrothgar]

Daniel1960, on 2013-April-22, 12:15, said:

Obviously you are unaware to which you refer. You asked me to google deep ocean climate change, which I did. All the references were to ARGO data. Hence, my previous post stands as written. Perhaps, when it comes to your own references, you need to use less rhetoric, and "learn to read."

That applies to PassedOut also.

Here are the search results when you google deep ocean climate change

https://www.google.c...x-a&channel=rcs

The first page is: http://tcktcktck.org...elerating/49174

This page, in turn references the following article: http://onlinelibrary....50382/abstract

And here is the abstract for the article in question

[quote]The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean's role in the Earth's energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observational-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.[/quote]

While it is correct that the article references the Argo data set, they are also very careful to establish that results hold true when the Argo data set is excluded.
Do I need to repeat the exercise for other links?

If you don't like: "Learn to read", perhaps "Reading comprehension is not your strong suit" is more acceptable?

[Al_U_Card]

Once again, those KlimateKlowns at the sKeptiKalscience blog are busy changing the past...

Thankfully, records and facts DO exist

SkS quietly withdraws allegation

Last week I ribbed Dana Nuccitelli and Gavin Schmidt over the former's comparing the mean of the Aldrin paper to the mode of Lewis's.

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2013-April-21, 16:31, said:

Well, we can always go back to the "bucket adjustment" that stayed with the Hadley Centre sea-surface temperatures for 20 years and failed to account for the difference between over-the-side bucket samples versus engine inlet measurements...
Thousands of state-of-the-art ARGO probes taking millions of measurements...(and not just in shipping lanes etc.)



I wonder who is paying for all this "unreliable" errrrr data?

Another clear example that Al is too stupid to engage in these sorts of discussions.

The warnings about using the Argo data set are not based on the data being unreliable. Rather, the length of the sample is not long enough to be used to model long term trends. Simply put, there isn't enough data available for reliable inference. (As I recall, several posts earlier in this same thread noted the futility of modelling long term trends using short samples. I'm too lazy to go back and search for the precise length of the sample needed, but I seem to recall that it was 17 years or so.)

If we wait a few years, I expect that the Argo data set should become a valuable source of information.

BTW Al, I really miss the World Trade Center "truther" threads. Any chance that you can be convinced to explain once again how the government blew up the World Trade Center?

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2013-April-23, 06:24, said:

While it is correct that the article references the Argo data set, they are also very careful to establish that results hold true when the Argo data set is excluded.
Do I need to repeat the exercise for other links?

If you don't like: "Learn to read", perhaps "Reading comprehension is not your strong suit" is more acceptable?

First, I will not stoop to your level of insults. Secondly, one paper does not constitute acceptance within the scientific community.

The lack of warming observed recently (also referred to as a pause, plateau, hiatus, etc.) has been the subject of much debate and research. One of the possibilities is the absorption of the heat into the deep oceans. Should this be the case, then the release of that heat should result in rapid warming of the Earth's surface. Other possibilities would not require a similar outcome. I know many scientists are struggling to find this "missing heat" (to quote Trenberth), while others are scrambling to explain possible causes (Chinese aerosols - Hanson, Solar minimum - Lean, ENSO - Nielsen-Gammon, Water vapor - Solomon, Volcanoes - Neely). Regardless, it is generally accepted that the warming has not continued as predicted based on the 1979-1998 rates.

Let me state for the record that I am not rejecting the theory that the "missing heat" has been concentated in the deep ocean. Rather, I feel that it is one of the less likely explanations for the recently observed temperature trend.

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2013-April-23, 06:36, said:

Another clear example that Al is too stupid to engage in these sorts of discussions.

The warnings about using the Argo data set are not based on the data being unreliable. Rather, the length of the sample is not long enough to be used to model long term trends. Simply put, there isn't enough data available for reliable inference. (As I recall, several posts earlier in this same thread noted the futility of modelling long term trends using short samples. I'm too lazy to go back and search for the precise length of the sample needed, but I seem to recall that it was 17 years or so.)

If we wait a few years, I expect that the Argo data set should become a valuable source of information.

BTW Al, I really miss the World Trade Center "truther" threads. Any chance that you can be convinced to explain once again how the government blew up the World Trade Center?

The length of the sample needed is not fixed. Many people refer to a 17-year timeframe, but that was specific to the RSS temperature data. Extending that to another dataset would be inappropriate. Once the ARGO data has been sample for sufficient duration to enable scientifically significant trends to be calculated, then the data will likely received wide-spread acceptance. This would be similar to the UAH and RSS satellite temperature data, which required several years of data collection (and several satellite adjustments) prior to being accepted as global temperature measurements.

[Daniel1960]

The IPCC has released their analysis of why they maintain that cloud feedback is positive. This has potentially large implications has the effect from doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations is +4 W/m2, will the total cloud effect is -17 W/m2. Acknowledging large uncertainties, and that the results come mostly from modeled simulations, the IPCC has stated that the cloud feedback parameter comes predominatly from a reduction in low-level clouds (models show a near-cancellation of LW and SW effects fro mid- and high-level clouds). This modelled reduction would lead to an increase in downwelling radiation, resulting in increased temperatures. An additional slight positive feedback occurs due to a modelled pole-ward shift in circulation. Observational data is still lacking to confirm or refute these claims.


http://www.stopgreen...7_all_final.pdf

[Winstonm]

I found this quote amusing in a bittersweet way:

Quote

And of course, the usual suspects are already trying to decry this new study, but as they always do they have to resort to twisting reality into a Möbius strip. But this is nothing new when it comes to denier claims. Their methods are always the same: cherry-picking data that supports their argument but ignores huge amounts of evidence refuting them, displaying misleading graphs, and out-and-out witch hunts and attacks. If you can’t attack the science, don’t worry, just keep attacking anyway

Methinks they read the WC.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2013-May-03, 11:15, said:

I found this quote amusing in a bittersweet way:

And of course, the usual suspects are already trying to decry this new study, but as they always do they have to resort to twisting reality into a Möbius strip. But this is nothing new when it comes to denier claims. Their methods are always the same: cherry-picking data that supports their argument but ignores huge amounts of evidence refuting them, displaying misleading graphs, and out-and-out witch hunts and attacks. If you can’t attack the science, don’t worry, just keep attacking anyway



Methinks they read the WC.

Ah, that would be people that don't take things on faith or belief and question results?

A Mobius strip that is needed to follow the peregrinations of the alarmist claims?

Not new, because the CAGW meme just keeps repeating the same old crap.

Cherry-picking is necessary to make a cherry pie, according to D'Arrigo...

Huge amounts of... ah yes, cherry-picked data including lone trees in Yamal or bristlecone pines etc. etc. etc.

Witch hunts and attacks? Like wanting to dehumanize skeptics by using the pejorative term denier? Pot, meet kettle.

[Winstonm]

Al_U_Card, on 2013-May-04, 18:01, said:

Ah, that would be people that don't take things on faith or belief and question results?

A Mobius strip that is needed to follow the peregrinations of the alarmist claims?

Not new, because the CAGW meme just keeps repeating the same old crap.

Cherry-picking is necessary to make a cherry pie, according to D'Arrigo...

Huge amounts of... ah yes, cherry-picked data including lone trees in Yamal or bristlecone pines etc. etc. etc.

Witch hunts and attacks? Like wanting to dehumanize skeptics by using the pejorative term denier? Pot, meet kettle.

requote:

Quote

just keep attacking anyway

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2013-May-04, 18:01, said:

Ah, that would be people that don't take things on faith or belief and question results?

A Mobius strip that is needed to follow the peregrinations of the alarmist claims?

Not new, because the CAGW meme just keeps repeating the same old crap.

Cherry-picking is necessary to make a cherry pie, according to D'Arrigo...

Huge amounts of... ah yes, cherry-picked data including lone trees in Yamal or bristlecone pines etc. etc. etc.

Witch hunts and attacks? Like wanting to dehumanize skeptics by using the pejorative term denier? Pot, meet kettle.

Project much?

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2013-May-04, 18:01, said:

Witch hunts and attacks? Like wanting to dehumanize skeptics by using the pejorative term denier? Pot, meet kettle.

Does anyone else appreciate the irony in posting this line item on the same page that you post

Quote

Once again, those KlimateKlowns at the sKeptiKalscience blog are busy changing the past...

[mike777]

just read somewhere that c02 emissions down to a 20year low in usa

if true this seems to be a good first step.
granted it seems China is choking on basic air/water pollution...today.
---
I also read that solar panel companies are crashing in usa, china, etc....due to crash in pricing.

With all of that said I still predict next ten years will be considered the golden years when it comes to solar energy and innovation. Many will fail and that is ok, a few will become rich...very rich and that is ok. This will result in inequality.

My main wish is that those that take the risk to win or fail are those that gain the benefits. I hope gov't will not try and transfer risk onto others such as taxpayers in the name of equality so that a few others may gain the benefits.

[Daniel1960]

Winstonm, on 2013-May-04, 18:04, said:

requote:

Those quotes could be applied to either extreme in the climate debate. They both seem to cherrypick the data to suit their needs (one would think that the temperature record started in either 1979 or 1998), use misleading graphs (particularly those that use "corrections" to the data), and accuse their opponents of being "antiscience" or having a hidden agenda. Stick to reading the science, and read the politic claims with a grain of salt (or an entire shaker).

[Winstonm]

Daniel1960, on 2013-May-06, 05:51, said:

Those quotes could be applied to either extreme in the climate debate. They both seem to cherrypick the data to suit their needs (one would think that the temperature record started in either 1979 or 1998), use misleading graphs (particularly those that use "corrections" to the data), and accuse their opponents of being "antiscience" or having a hidden agenda. Stick to reading the science, and read the politic claims with a grain of salt (or an entire shaker).

Read the science? Like this?

Quote

"Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records...."

[Winstonm]

Study finds link between conspiracy ideation and science denial.

[Daniel1960]

Winstonm, on 2013-May-06, 07:10, said:

Read the science? Like this?

That was a classic cherry pick. That quote is not a reference to the data found in the paper, but a comment on other papers. The entire abstract of the Marcot paper to which you link states, "Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios."

The report references this paper, with similar results. Note particularly, "The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself. Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. ad 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology."

http://onlinelibrary...0399.x/abstract

The recent temperature spike is seen only in the instrument records. This is largely due to the nature of proxies. Large changes are smoothed over longer timeframes (typically decades). Both this papers show that the temperatures of the most recent decades were within 0.1C of the MWP.

My previous comment was related more to the instrument record than proxies. Depending on the start date select, one can come up with all sorts of misleading graphs. The GISS temperature from 1880 is ~0.6C/century. Those that wish to show the highest rise, typically start around 1979, when the rate is 1.6C/century, while those wishing to show the lowest pick 2002 or 1998, when the rate is -0.1C/century.

http://www.woodfortr...from:1880/trend

[Winstonm]

Daniel1960, on 2013-May-06, 09:27, said:

That was a classic cherry pick. That quote is not a reference to the data found in the paper, but a comment on other papers. The entire abstract of the Marcot paper to which you link states, "Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios."

The report references this paper, with similar results. Note particularly, "The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself. Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. ad 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology."

http://onlinelibrary...0399.x/abstract


The recent temperature spike is seen only in the instrument records. This is largely due to the nature of proxies. Large changes are smoothed over longer timeframes (typically decades). Both this papers show that the temperatures of the most recent decades were within 0.1C of the MWP.

My previous comment was related more to the instrument record than proxies. Depending on the start date select, one can come up with all sorts of misleading graphs. The GISS temperature from 1880 is ~0.6C/century. Those that wish to show the highest rise, typically start around 1979, when the rate is 1.6C/century, while those wishing to show the lowest pick 2002 or 1998, when the rate is -0.1C/century.

http://www.woodfortr...from:1880/trend

You seem not to understand the Marcott study. It expanded the history of temperatures to 11,300 years. What they found was that for the last 5000 years earth had been cooling, but the last 100 years shows an increase that is concentrated in areas of greatest populations. Sorry you could not access the Marcott data from the link. Here is another link that summarizes those findings: http://www.scienceda...30307145303.htm

[Daniel1960]

Winstonm, on 2013-May-06, 12:38, said:

You seem not to understand the Marcott study. It expanded the history of temperatures to 11,300 years. What they found was that for the last 5000 years earth had been cooling, but the last 100 years shows an increase that is concentrated in areas of greatest populations. Sorry you could not access the Marcott data from the link. Here is another link that summarizes those findings: http://www.scienceda...30307145303.htm

Winstonm,
I was able to access the study, and yes, I did understand it. The Marcott study expanded the timeframe, but in doing so, reduced the sensitivity, resulting in a broad, smooth temperature graph. Hence, sudden changes would be masked by the overall trend, and the most recent century would not stand out as well. See the following perspective.

http://www.realclima...-marcott-et-al/

[hrothgar]

Daniel1960, on 2013-May-06, 17:22, said:

Winstonm,
I was able to access the study, and yes, I did understand it. The Marcott study expanded the timeframe, but in doing so, reduced the sensitivity, resulting in a broad, smooth temperature graph. Hence, sudden changes would be masked by the overall trend, and the most recent century would not stand out as well. See the following perspective.

http://www.realclima...-marcott-et-al/

This would be the article where the author's specifically state:

Quote

Based on comparison of the instrumental record of global temperature change with the distribution of Holocene global average temperatures from our paleo-reconstruction, we find that the decade 2000-2009 has probably not exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene, but is warmer than ~75% of all temperatures during the Holocene. In contrast, the decade 1900-1909 was cooler than~95% of the Holocene. Therefore, we conclude that global temperature has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene in the past century.

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2013-May-06, 17:43, said:

This would be the article where the author's specifically state:

If you read the site to which I linked, you find Marcott's response to the following question: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.